CTH: Philadelphia city leadership had previously changed policies forbidding foster-care referrals to faith-based worship groups. The far-left Philadelphia government officials had expressed their ‘woke’ advocacy by blocking Catholic Social Services (CSS), an organization associated with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and foster parents from providing services due to their outlook on traditional marriage. more
3 Comments on Supreme Court Upholds Religious Freedom in Foster Parent Case – Fulton v Philadelphia
Comments are closed.
maybe, when it comes to raising children, homosexuals should be told they have no standing. After all, They could create their own kids if they would stop banging against the wrong genitals
Pervs.
So many fundamental anti-American/anti-Constitution aspects to this banning. How do they get away with it?
This is a dangerous decision. Nothing here by the government requires an act by the church. (Catholic Social Services, like other corrupt NGOs also gets mega taxpayer bucks doing refugee resettlement.)
All of which begs the question as to why the government, whose laws supposedly are agreed to by the people (supposed to be, anyway) is contracting out any government functions — with taxpayer money — to private organizations that discriminate, or don’t follow the law, or just subvert the law. Gee that should make it real easy for government officials to do the same, just do it “indirectly”.
What OTHER government functions can just be contracted out to private organizations who will act, not as an arm of the government, but contrary to the law.
Whether you like the law or not, or the church’s choices or not, is not the issue.
Political beliefs also are covered by the First Amendment. So… the government can circumvent the law simply by contracting with a private organization who has deep “convictions” of some other sort? How about against “white supremacists”? Or just Trump supporters? Or for critical race theory? So now we have to monitor every agency and start calculating whether the discrimination is “fairly divided” among different ideological or religious groups?
What the hell is this. And side issue… if the government wants to contract with your taxpayer dollars to have some private organization apply its agenda to what should be an impartial government function and it happens to discriminate against YOU in the future… that’s going to be okay because, after all, there’s this precedent?
It is dangerously short-sighted to get on board with a bad decision and mistake it for a “religious freedom” issue — because it is NOT that. No one forces the church to perform this function for the government.
If you doubt me, a gigantic clue is that the libs were on board with it. No doubt they have ulterior consequences in mind. Those could be future decisions or just snowing conservatives, like throwing a bone. Or both. Don’t be a credulous patsy.
Another clue is that the Court expressly said this case didn’t override the anti-peyote religious freedom decision. It’s not about religion, but political ideology.
WTH is going on with the Supreme Court.