High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#1 Post by BackInTex » Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:22 am

This wasn't a "you don't have standing" argument where they didn't make a decision on the merits. This was a unanimous decision on the merits.

Supreme Court sides with Catholic foster agency that excludes same-sex couples in 9-0 ruling
The Supreme Court sided unanimously with a Catholic foster agency in a dispute against the city of Philadelphia over whether it should be banned from participating in the city's foster program because it excludes same-sex couples.

The group, Catholic Social Services (CSS), claimed that "Philadelphia’s attempts to exclude the Catholic Church from foster care" violated the First Amendment. Lawyers for the city, meanwhile, said that CSS "lacks a constitutional right to demand that DHS offer it a contract that omits the same nondiscrimination requirement every other FFCA must follow when performing services for the City."

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices sided with Catholic Social Services.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#2 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:22 am
This wasn't a "you don't have standing" argument where they didn't make a decision on the merits. This was a unanimous decision on the merits.

Supreme Court sides with Catholic foster agency that excludes same-sex couples in 9-0 ruling
The Supreme Court sided unanimously with a Catholic foster agency in a dispute against the city of Philadelphia over whether it should be banned from participating in the city's foster program because it excludes same-sex couples.

The group, Catholic Social Services (CSS), claimed that "Philadelphia’s attempts to exclude the Catholic Church from foster care" violated the First Amendment. Lawyers for the city, meanwhile, said that CSS "lacks a constitutional right to demand that DHS offer it a contract that omits the same nondiscrimination requirement every other FFCA must follow when performing services for the City."

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices sided with Catholic Social Services.
Details matter. The Court held that governments can enforce non-discrimination laws if they do so uniformly, but that enforcement here wasn’t uniform. —Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23175
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#3 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Jun 17, 2021 1:45 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pm
Details matter. The Court held that governments can enforce non-discrimination laws if they do so uniformly, but that enforcement here wasn’t uniform. —Bob
The majority opinion was based on the city's classification of foster care agencies as a public accommodation, which, under a city ordinance, could not discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. The majority felt that was stretching the definition of "public accommodation" too far. Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch felt that the Court should have gone further and ruled on the validity of anti-gay-discrimination ordinances in general.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#4 Post by BackInTex » Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:43 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:22 am
This wasn't a "you don't have standing" argument where they didn't make a decision on the merits. This was a unanimous decision on the merits.

Supreme Court sides with Catholic foster agency that excludes same-sex couples in 9-0 ruling
The Supreme Court sided unanimously with a Catholic foster agency in a dispute against the city of Philadelphia over whether it should be banned from participating in the city's foster program because it excludes same-sex couples.

The group, Catholic Social Services (CSS), claimed that "Philadelphia’s attempts to exclude the Catholic Church from foster care" violated the First Amendment. Lawyers for the city, meanwhile, said that CSS "lacks a constitutional right to demand that DHS offer it a contract that omits the same nondiscrimination requirement every other FFCA must follow when performing services for the City."

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices sided with Catholic Social Services.
Details matter. The Court held that governments can enforce non-discrimination laws if they do so uniformly, but that enforcement here wasn’t uniform. —Bob
Non-discrimination laws, by definition, cannot be enforced uniformly, or equitably.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#5 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Jun 17, 2021 9:58 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:43 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:38 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:22 am
This wasn't a "you don't have standing" argument where they didn't make a decision on the merits. This was a unanimous decision on the merits.

Supreme Court sides with Catholic foster agency that excludes same-sex couples in 9-0 ruling
Details matter. The Court held that governments can enforce non-discrimination laws if they do so uniformly, but that enforcement here wasn’t uniform. —Bob
Non-discrimination laws, by definition, cannot be enforced uniformly, or equitably.
Of course they can. It happens all the time. The fatal flaw in the Philadelphia law was a provision allowing the Commissioner discretion to waive the non-discrimination requirement. If they eliminate the discretion and uniformly prevent all entities from discriminating against same-sex couples, the law will survive the analysis the Court employed. —Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Ritterskoop
Posts: 5717
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:16 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#6 Post by Ritterskoop » Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:29 am

I agree with this ruling. For me, stuff like this always comes down to private vs. public, in that the agency in question is a private entity. If they accept government/taxpayer money, that shifts it into a different category for me. I had the same position in the Hobby Lobby case a few years back: It is a private company, No one has to shop there and no one has to work there, so they can do what they want as far as health care coverage. If it had been any kind of public organization, that would be different. No one has to use this particular adoption agency (I am assuming there are alternatives available, which is not always true).

My second argument is that adoption is not a right, in the same way that voting should be. I am deeply sorry for people who struggle with adoption, and I wish the process was not so complex and expensive, but there is nothing guaranteed or constitutional about it, in my opinion.
If you fail to pilot your own ship, don't be surprised at what inappropriate port you find yourself docked. - Tom Robbins
--------
At the moment of commitment, the universe conspires to assist you. - attributed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 23175
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#7 Post by silverscreenselect » Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:17 am

Ritterskoop wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:29 am
For me, stuff like this always comes down to private vs. public, in that the agency in question is a private entity. If they accept government/taxpayer money, that shifts it into a different category for me. I had the same position in the Hobby Lobby case a few years back: It is a private company, No one has to shop there and no one has to work there, so they can do what they want as far as health care coverage.
That public vs. private argument was used 60 years ago in the civil rights era. No one had to eat at the Pickrick restaurant and no one had to stay at whites-only hotels and no one had to work for all the private companies that wouldn't hire blacks.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#8 Post by BackInTex » Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:57 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:17 am
Ritterskoop wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:29 am
For me, stuff like this always comes down to private vs. public, in that the agency in question is a private entity. If they accept government/taxpayer money, that shifts it into a different category for me. I had the same position in the Hobby Lobby case a few years back: It is a private company, No one has to shop there and no one has to work there, so they can do what they want as far as health care coverage.
That public vs. private argument was used 60 years ago in the civil rights era. No one had to eat at the Pickrick restaurant and no one had to stay at whites-only hotels and no one had to work for all the private companies that wouldn't hire blacks.
I will agree with you on this. However, separate but equal does not apply in this case.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Ritterskoop
Posts: 5717
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:16 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#9 Post by Ritterskoop » Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:21 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:17 am
Ritterskoop wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:29 am
For me, stuff like this always comes down to private vs. public, in that the agency in question is a private entity. If they accept government/taxpayer money, that shifts it into a different category for me. I had the same position in the Hobby Lobby case a few years back: It is a private company, No one has to shop there and no one has to work there, so they can do what they want as far as health care coverage.
That public vs. private argument was used 60 years ago in the civil rights era. No one had to eat at the Pickrick restaurant and no one had to stay at whites-only hotels and no one had to work for all the private companies that wouldn't hire blacks.
But now, if a company openly refuses to be good corporate citizens, a lot of people won't give them business.

Examples are Cracker Barrel, which lost business for ten years after we found out they were actively not hiring gay employees, and Chik-fil-A, where a lot of us still won't spend money because the owner spends his money trying to prevent gay marriage. That is entirely his right; I don't dispute that, and he is not militant about it, but I won't support that with my dollars. I don't want anyone to outlaw those choices by those businesses; I just want people who don't agree with them now to spend money there, and that is indeed happening.

I also don't spend money on Nike or at Wal-Mart, for what it's worth. We all have our lines we draw in the sand.
If you fail to pilot your own ship, don't be surprised at what inappropriate port you find yourself docked. - Tom Robbins
--------
At the moment of commitment, the universe conspires to assist you. - attributed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#10 Post by Bob78164 » Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:38 pm

Ritterskoop wrote:
Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:21 pm
silverscreenselect wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:17 am
Ritterskoop wrote:
Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:29 am
For me, stuff like this always comes down to private vs. public, in that the agency in question is a private entity. If they accept government/taxpayer money, that shifts it into a different category for me. I had the same position in the Hobby Lobby case a few years back: It is a private company, No one has to shop there and no one has to work there, so they can do what they want as far as health care coverage.
That public vs. private argument was used 60 years ago in the civil rights era. No one had to eat at the Pickrick restaurant and no one had to stay at whites-only hotels and no one had to work for all the private companies that wouldn't hire blacks.
But now, if a company openly refuses to be good corporate citizens, a lot of people won't give them business.

Examples are Cracker Barrel, which lost business for ten years after we found out they were actively not hiring gay employees, and Chik-fil-A, where a lot of us still won't spend money because the owner spends his money trying to prevent gay marriage. That is entirely his right; I don't dispute that, and he is not militant about it, but I won't support that with my dollars. I don't want anyone to outlaw those choices by those businesses; I just want people who don't agree with them now to spend money there, and that is indeed happening.

I also don't spend money on Nike or at Wal-Mart, for what it's worth. We all have our lines we draw in the sand.
But if enough of those private businesses make independent choices to exclude clientele for these reasons (perhaps because they believe their local customer base insists on it), those collective choices become a serious obstacle to the disfavored group.

To make this concrete, Black families who wanted to travel through the South in the 1960s (and even parts of the North) faced serious obstacles in doing so. It could be hard to find a hotel that would accept them or a restaurant that would serve them. We need laws like this to prevent local customer pressure from converting enclaves of the country into "no-go" zones for disfavored groups.

In short, I'm absolutely fine with laws that prevent people who want to participate in the national economy from discriminating on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, among other protected characteristics. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Beebs52
Queen of Wack
Posts: 14890
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Location.Location.Location

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#11 Post by Beebs52 » Wed Jun 23, 2021 2:17 pm

Skoop, you are always a reasoned and reasonable person.
Well, then

User avatar
Ritterskoop
Posts: 5717
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:16 pm
Location: Charlotte, NC

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#12 Post by Ritterskoop » Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:03 am

I have read more about this case, and now must withdraw my initial agreement with the court.

At issue is whether the Catholic Charities organization can receive city money, and that changes things for me. If a group is going to accept taxpayer money, they need to be more inclusive.

I do grant that they are interpreting God's will as they understand it, and not going out of their way to be mean.

But things change. Those rules were written centuries ago, and now, it's worth pondering whether two people with the same plumbing can be just as good parents as people with mismatched plumbing.
If you fail to pilot your own ship, don't be surprised at what inappropriate port you find yourself docked. - Tom Robbins
--------
At the moment of commitment, the universe conspires to assist you. - attributed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#13 Post by BackInTex » Sun Jun 27, 2021 3:42 pm

Ritterskoop wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:03 am
I have read more about this case, and now must withdraw my initial agreement with the court.

At issue is whether the Catholic Charities organization can receive city money, and that changes things for me. If a group is going to accept taxpayer money, they need to be more inclusive.

I do grant that they are interpreting God's will as they understand it, and not going out of their way to be mean.

But things change. Those rules were written centuries ago, and now, it's worth pondering whether two people with the same plumbing can be just as good parents as people with mismatched plumbing.
What you are not considering is the money is being used to find families for the children. Denying city funds for one group hurts the children the group is helping, not the group itself (which seems to be the intent "We'll teach them a lesson"). The only lesson being taught is "It's not really about the kids."
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 21626
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#14 Post by Bob78164 » Sun Jun 27, 2021 5:41 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 3:42 pm
Ritterskoop wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:03 am
I have read more about this case, and now must withdraw my initial agreement with the court.

At issue is whether the Catholic Charities organization can receive city money, and that changes things for me. If a group is going to accept taxpayer money, they need to be more inclusive.

I do grant that they are interpreting God's will as they understand it, and not going out of their way to be mean.

But things change. Those rules were written centuries ago, and now, it's worth pondering whether two people with the same plumbing can be just as good parents as people with mismatched plumbing.
What you are not considering is the money is being used to find families for the children. Denying city funds for one group hurts the children the group is helping, not the group itself (which seems to be the intent "We'll teach them a lesson"). The only lesson being taught is "It's not really about the kids."
It's very much about the kids. What lesson does it teach to gay kids when they're told that gay couples won't even be considered as their foster parents? --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 12780
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#15 Post by BackInTex » Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:29 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 5:41 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 3:42 pm
Ritterskoop wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:03 am
I have read more about this case, and now must withdraw my initial agreement with the court.

At issue is whether the Catholic Charities organization can receive city money, and that changes things for me. If a group is going to accept taxpayer money, they need to be more inclusive.

I do grant that they are interpreting God's will as they understand it, and not going out of their way to be mean.

But things change. Those rules were written centuries ago, and now, it's worth pondering whether two people with the same plumbing can be just as good parents as people with mismatched plumbing.
What you are not considering is the money is being used to find families for the children. Denying city funds for one group hurts the children the group is helping, not the group itself (which seems to be the intent "We'll teach them a lesson"). The only lesson being taught is "It's not really about the kids."
It's very much about the kids. What lesson does it teach to gay kids when they're told that gay couples won't even be considered as their foster parents? --Bob
Several good ones

1) Not everyone has the same set of values
2) In this country people can still live their lives by their own values, not having a government dictate them. So as gay kid, you won't end up in a prison or executed by the government because your gay.
3) Some people are good and have your best interest in mind, but not everyone makes the same decisions about what is best.
4) Because we're a free country, folks get to make choices that others don't agree with.
..what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.
~~ Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
earendel
Posts: 13588
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:25 am
Location: mired in the bureaucracy

Re: High Court Unanimously Rules For Catholic Charity

#16 Post by earendel » Mon Jun 28, 2021 9:24 am

BackInTex wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:29 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 5:41 pm
BackInTex wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 3:42 pm
What you are not considering is the money is being used to find families for the children. Denying city funds for one group hurts the children the group is helping, not the group itself (which seems to be the intent "We'll teach them a lesson"). The only lesson being taught is "It's not really about the kids."
It's very much about the kids. What lesson does it teach to gay kids when they're told that gay couples won't even be considered as their foster parents? --Bob
Several good ones

1) Not everyone has the same set of values
2) In this country people can still live their lives by their own values, not having a government dictate them. So as gay kid, you won't end up in a prison or executed by the government because your gay.
3) Some people are good and have your best interest in mind, but not everyone makes the same decisions about what is best.
4) Because we're a free country, folks get to make choices that others don't agree with.
The same issue has happened here in Kentucky, where a Baptist agency (Sunrise Children's Services) has been told that their contract with the Commonwealth of Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services won't be renewed because Sunrise doesn't allow gay couples to adopt children in Sunrise's care. My view is that if a religious organization is going to accept government money, then they should have to abide by the government's rules. There is no requirement that Catholic Charities or Sunrise accept the government's money; if they don't then there's no issue and they can do as they please, following the dictates of their religious beliefs.

To put it another way, if a hospital run by Jehovah's Witnesses refused to administer treatment to a patient because it required a blood transfusion (which JWs oppose), but they accepted government funds, would it be OK for them to do so?

This is the fundamental problem with entangling church and state. "When you take the king's shilling..."
"Elen sila lumenn omentielvo...A star shines on the hour of our meeting."

Post Reply