The Supreme Court favors the Catholic reception agency

The Supreme Court said Thursday that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by freezing the contract of a Catholic foster agency that refused to work as a parent to adopt same-sex couples, the agency believes the marriage should be between a man and a woman. . The conflict arose because Catholic Social Services (which received taxpayer funds) did not want to work with LGBTQ couples as foster parents because of religious impediments to same-sex marriage. The policy came to the attention of the city in 2018, following consultations by a local newspaper, and soon after the government froze the contract. The group, led by long-time foster parents Sharonell Fulton, has boasted more than 40 children for more than 25 years. The question before the court was whether Philadelphia could ask the reception agencies to comply with its non-discriminatory law. READ: Supreme Court opinion in case of same-sex couple reception agency. READ: Supreme Court opinion in case of same-sex couple reception agency. Chief Justice John Roberts has written the majority opinion for six of the nine judges. Judges Thomas, Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined in with the result, but did not agree with the majority’s reasoning – and were disappointed with the result. “The court has shed light on the decision to leave religious freedom in a confusing and vulnerable state,” Alito wrote. “Those who advocate this amendment for the first time have the right to be disappointed, just like me.” Alito would go much further beyond the decades-long precedent and make it much more difficult for the government to enforce laws that burden the religious beliefs of some individuals. They said the 1990 case would be overturned if the legal requirement applied equally to all, even if it charged religious practice, it was constitutional, while the government had a rational basis for the law. “Today’s decision is another victory for religious groups, but it’s not the main one they sought,” said CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck and a professor at the University of Texas Law School. “The three most conservative judges in the court wanted to overturn the three-decade precedent and subject almost all government rules that affect religious practices to the most rigorous judicial scrutiny. to make that move – based on narrower reasons, ”he added. “This will explain why none of these three progressive justices will be disbanded – if they do not push the three justices in the middle to become larger.” #JessciaSchneider #CNN #New.

source