(UnitedVoice.com) – For nearly a decade, it’s become a common theme to attack religious organizations and business owners for living out their faith in public. Perhaps you remember the case in Colorado involving a baker and a gay couple who sued because the business refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding? In 2020, the baker won in the Supreme Court on religious grounds. Now, he has to fight again because a Colorado judge said he discriminated by not baking a transgender transition cake. Then there’s the story of the Catholic group Little Sisters of the Poor, who won in the Supreme Court in 2020 after a decade-long fight over being forced by the government to provide contraceptives against their beliefs.
One would think the Supreme Court made itself clear that attacking religion is off-limits thanks to the First Amendment. Apparently, the Left isn’t getting the message. In November, the court heard a case involving the City of Philadelphia in its suit against Catholic Social Services (CSS). The city contracted with the Catholic adoption agency. The rub is the agency does not work with same-sex foster parents or allow same-sex couples to adopt children. To force it to do so, Philadelphia took the adoption agency to court, and once again, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously for freedom of religious rights.
What the Court Said and Did Not Say
Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said that Philadelphia unambiguously violated the adoption agency’s First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Roberts wrote, in essence, that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment is inviolable, and the city, in fact, violated it. The city of Philadelphia was in the wrong for trying to make CSS choose either its mission or “approving relationships inconsistent with its beliefs.”
The Chief Justice added that the city didn’t convince the court of its position. The reason: It didn’t have a compelling reason to refuse to give Catholic Social Services an exemption from its nondiscrimination policy based on religious grounds.
However, the court didn’t say it’s legal for non-religious entities to discriminate against same-sex couple foster care or adoption because they don’t agree with or like homosexuality. Roberts added that the issue is emotionally heavy and that society recognizes gay people “cannot be treated as social outcasts or inferior in dignity and worth.”
Alito Issues Warning
Justice Samuel Alito issued a stern warning and suggested the ruling did not resolve the case. He said the ruling might as well be “written on the dissolving paper sold in magic shops.” Because the city fought with such determination to force Catholic Social Services to violate its beliefs, the Justice said the city could easily get around the ruling if it wanted to do so by “eliminating the never-used exemption power.”
The court’s newest member, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, seemed to disagree with Alito. She said that all nine justices agreed that Philadelphia “cannot satisfy strict scrutiny.” Translation — the First Amendment speaks for itself, and there is no excuse for the city’s actions that violated it.
Liberals Claim This Is About LGBTQ Discrimination. Hint: It’s Not!
Over the coming years, expect many more cases involving religious discrimination to come before the Supreme Court. It makes one wonder if extreme advocacy groups and individuals are purposely targeting religious groups and business owners?
For those claiming the court is about discrimination against LGBTQ… that couldn’t be more wrong.
So, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer are discriminating against LGBTQ+ families now? No.
It is about religious freedom.
Once again, the court is the defender of the Constitution!
Don Purdum, Independent Political Analyst
Copyright 2021, UnitedVoice.com