Posted on 06/23/2021 4:00:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Supreme Court's recent decision, Fulton v. Philadelphia, is justifiably getting mixed reviews.
Catholic Social Services sued the city of Philadelphia, through the Philadelphia Archdiocese, for canceling its 50-year contract with the Catholic social services agency because it refuses to certify same-sex couples as foster families for the purpose of foster care.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of CSS, finding that Philadelphia violated its First Amendment protections.
The criticism is that the decision was narrow and technical, skirting the core question of how we understand religious liberty today, when it is under assault almost everywhere.
According to existing precedent, First Amendment protections do not apply against measures that are "generally applicable" and not targeted specifically to religion. When some general measure incidentally impacts a particular religion or religious practice, religious protection can be impinged.
In the case of Philadelphia, the local law provides discretion to city officials to make exceptions to the nondiscrimination provisions of its law. The Court used this to argue that the law is not "generally applicable," and therefore First Amendment protection of CSS was violated.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing on his own behalf and on behalf of Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, although agreeing with the Court's decision that CSS First Amendment rights were violated, disagreed with the narrow interpretation.
As Alito pointed out, the city could remove the latitude for exceptions in its law, and suddenly Catholic Social Services' First Amendment protection is gone.
It is a tragedy that something so fundamental as religious freedom is now buried in the weeds of legal hair-splitting.
There could be no better example of what this is all about than Sharonell Fulton, who was the lead plaintiff in this case against Philadelphia.
Fulton is a Black foster mother, who has fostered over 40 children in her home over the last 30 years.
LGBTQ activists like to portray Christians as hateful and discriminatory. But listen to Fulton:
"Children need to be accepted and loved. They have to feel that somebody cares ... I've had gay couples stop me in the supermarket ... And I told them, 'Listen, this is not personal. I'm standing with the church because this is what I believe.'"
The Catholic Church has been reaching out to orphans in Philadelphia for over 200 years. This is motivated by one thing: love.
Why do we need Harvard-trained lawyers to justify something so obvious, that the essence of American religious freedom is Catholics raising children, or providing foster care, according to their biblical values?
They are not forcing their values, or asking government to force their values, on anyone.
The preamble of our Constitution explains that its mission is "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
When did this get lost?
Now that same-sex marriage is law of the land, the option of foster care in the home of same-sex couples should be examined.
But they should not be free to shut down organizations insisting on biblical values.
Now congressional Democrats are trying to pass the Equality Act that would do just that.
In 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed to restore some protections to religious freedom. If some government measure impinges on religious freedom, it must be demonstrably essential.
But the Equality Act would make the Religious Freedom Restoration Act null and void.
Lost would be the protections that saved Little Sisters of the Poor from being forced to provide abortifacients in their health care plan, as the Affordable Care Act required. Or protections from forcing a doctor or nurse to provide abortions services against their religious convictions. Or bakers, photographers or wedding planners forced to provides services for same-sex weddings against their religious convictions.
The Equality Act is not about equality. It is about forcing the LGBTQ agenda on all Americans.
America is supposed to be about freedom. Remember?
RTFM — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Res ipsa.
The author of this piece fails to see the implications of two important pieces of information she presents here:
1. The Catholic Church has been ministering to orphans and families in Philadelphia for more than 200 years.
2. CSS has been doing this under contract for the City of Philadelphia for 50 years.
I read these two statements and ask a question that seems obvious to me:
Why doesn’t the Catholic Church in Philadelphia just go back to what they were doing for the first 150 years, instead of demanding that the City government meet the church’s demands in a contractual relationship?
You're lucky that I know how to do a search.
Res Ispa is a Latin phrase meaning “the thing speaks for itself.”
Res Ipsa is an early tort doctrine, borrowed from English common law, used to describe certain events with regards to negligence.
In keeping with its name, Res Ipsa describes a situation where an accident could not have occurred without negligence. In these limited situations, the only possible explanation for how the accident could have happened was that someone was acted negligently.
Sorry, but I couldn't resist.
The intention IS to eliminate Christianity. Not the other big religion, you know, the one with beards and bombs.
You said it.
You ever notice how the Amish never seem to show up as plaintiffs in these “religious freedom” cases? That’s because they’re so serious about their Christianity that they’d never even dream of practicing their faith through government contracts the way these faux-Christian groups like Catholic Social Services do.
LOL. FWIW, you left off the loquitur, as is “res ipsa loquitur,” the full phrase.
The phrase is often shortened in use.
I’m surprised you didn’t bust me for me tagline, which is also in Latin.
Res ipsa is another way of stating “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” The current irony is that about 244 years ago we fought a war against a government that did not see them as self-evident.
Just noticed my tagline is not there. Please permit me to re-enter it!
Trans: to not carry is to choose to be defenseless
Commies don’t care about Constitutions.
Yes you would think “Res ipsa” and their should not have any exceptions to it.
But in our age, the whole thing of “non-discrimination” as government policy, and the government mandate to “not discriminate” has morphed from the government “not discriminating” into the point of turning every enterprise and every individual into agents of government “non-discriminating” policy.
That legal slippery slope should not have been crossed. It denies the separation of the actions of government, which has the legal power of enforcement with it, and the actions of the enterprise and the individual, which are actions of free association (Liberty) and can only be enforced by the terms of that association. The government yes cannot be allowed to “discriminate” BECAUSE it must represent everyone because it is everyone’s government. But such a blanket non-discrimination stance cannot, and generally is not, the rule in our free associations, as they ARE DETERMINED BY OUR VALUES WHICH WE HAVE LIBERTY TO SHAPE AND LIVE BY.
When government “non-discrimination” policy is forced on the free associations of enterprises and individuals it denies every aspect of all our supposed freedoms in the Bill of Rights. It says we have no rights in such cases, we are no longer free individuals, no longer agents with Liberty but are mere agents of the government.
I believe the founders believed our greatest achievements in every sphere, including the most effective social changes, would be made through our Liberty, our FREE society, and not as the accomplishments of government.
Doesn't the Church have First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion? Why should the Church yield to the State? History shows this usually doesn't turn out well.
To wit - the “congressional black caucus” actively and shamelessly discriminates against and excludes other blacks in Congress.
But that’s OK, because, ‘racism’ or something.
“To wit - the “congressional black caucus” actively and shamelessly discriminates against and excludes other blacks in Congress.......”But that’s OK, because, ‘racism’ or something.”
Yes, even in law Congress makes laws that apply to everyone in the U.S., except Congress.
All the City of Philadelphia is saying is that the Church can't participate in a City program where the Church would be PAID for their placement services.
That's why the Amish never show up as plaintiffs in these cases anymore. They mind their own business and carry on their affairs as their church demands ... and they don't expect the government to pay them for it.
Which case sounds more like a REAL religious practice to you: the Amish or Catholic Social Services?
Human Rights Campaign is anti-Christian.
They are not about protecting human rights.
They are about advancing homofascism and smashing organized religion.
You ever notice how the Amish never seem to show up as plaintiffs in these “religious freedom” cases? That’s because they’re so serious about their Christianity that they’d never even dream of practicing their faith through government contracts the way these faux-Christian groups like Catholic Social Services do.
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
I’ve said it before on F.R. and here it is again:
Illinois Baptist Children’s Home adopts children only to Christian married couples (man and woman) and places foster children with the same, with the stipulation that foster parents not accept government assistance from any government. The IBCH itself provides assistance when needed through the generous donations of Christian churches and individuals
Adoption expenses are based on a sliding scale based on household income. Not every state has a Baptist Children’s Home but some do. The one in Illinois is a fairly small organization and like some others they don’t get a lot of babies but older children need love too.
I read recently that for every adoptable baby (nationwide) there are 23 couples waiting in line to adopt one. Planned Parenthood, heathen democrat politicians and yes, some “religions” have created a shortage in the adoptable God’s children market.
Just noticed my tagline is not there. Please permit me to re-enter it!
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Thanks for the fairly quick explanation. I was beginning to think I had gone blind in my dotage.
“Beards and Bombs” LOL! Perfect description. BTW, when was the last time a Islamic bakery was asked to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple?
Also, why does the State have the right to discriminate when as a private business I would be unable to do so? They seem to be working under a different set of rules.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.