Posted on 07/25/2025 10:16:13 AM PDT by aimhigh
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a split decision Thursday rejected an Oregon administrative rule that barred a woman from becoming a foster parent because she said wouldn’t respect the sexual orientation of an LGBTQ+ child.
Jessica Bates, of Vale in Malheur County, had sued the state, alleging its policy violated her rights to free speech and religious freedom. Bates, a widowed mother of five, said on her application to become a foster parent that her religious beliefs prevented her from following a rule requiring her to “respect, accept and support” the sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression of LGBTQ+ children if she were asked to foster them.
“It is not narrowly tailored to impose on Bates an extreme and blanket rule that she may adopt no child at all based on her religious faith, for fear of hypothetical harms to a hypothetical child,” Bress wrote for the majority. “We hold that Oregon’s policy violates the First Amendment as applied to Bates.”
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
Beautiful!! There is no actual aggrieved, wronged, or harmed plaintiff.
Homos want everything their way.
Clifton, the Smirking Chimp stooge, is apparently in favor of grooming, like any good RINO appointed by Bush.
The majority ordered U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson [Biden stooge] to enter a preliminary injunction to bar the Human Services Department from using the rule to determine Bates’ eligibility to become a foster parent.
ping to you
Thanks for the ping!
Just think of all the recent good news! This is a great one!
Speaking of good news, the D.C. Circuit Court has rules against the organizations that sued Trump due to the dismantling of USAID.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277213/gov.uscourts.dcd.277213.91.0.pdf
“...the Court will deny the AFSA plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, AFSA, ECF No. 51, and will grant the government’s motion to dismiss, AFSA, ECF No. 70. The Court will deny the PSCA’s motion for a preliminary injunction, PSCA, ECF No. 39. Orders in both cases will accompany this Opinion.”
“The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a split decision...”
Anyone else find it concerning that this was a split decision?
In a way I almost wish it had been denied so it could make its way to the Supreme Court and have policies and laws like this smacked down on First Amendment grounds.
YThe potential of real likely harm was to the woman who was denied being a foster mom. That was a concrete harm the harm imagined by Oregon was the hypothetical one. The court gets to consider likely harm to a real person not hypothetical ones.
Very good point. I had not considered the very real harm suffered by the people who wanted to be foster parents.
This was a three judge decision. I expect Oregon to appeal to the full 9th Circuit panel. So it could still go to the Supreme Court.
(Speaking of good news, the D.C. Circuit Court has ruled against the organizations that sued Trump due to the dismantling of USAID.)
Excellent
Nice
Those views are incompatible with *any* access to children. Not just adoption. Period.
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.