Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 2
Philadelphia wanted to toss CSS from its adoption system because it refused to follow the program guidelines regarding LGBTQ families. CSS has now won in the Supreme Court, with Roberts writing:

"CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else," Roberts wrote.

Let me paraphrase that as: "CSS has the right to harm children by refusing to let them be adopted into legally qualified homes."

This is but another case study showing the problems associated with privatizing work government work to religious organizations.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else," Roberts wrote.

You lie!

CSS is imposing their beliefs on children--who will presumably either wait longer for a suitable home, or lose out on a potentially great home in favor of a potentially not-so-great one. And LGBT adoptive parents, who will either wait longer to adopt or get shut out entirely.

PS--Since plenty of religious people--including religious Catholics--do not discriminate against LGBT, such discriminstion is personal, not religious. Roberts...you stupid.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Attitudes that costed 2016 election.....

Results keep piling up.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I think it's important to note that this was a unanimous decision, although three justices (Thomas and Gorsuch, joining with Alito's writing) chose to issue a concurring opinion rather than sign on to the majority opinion.

I'm no legal expert, but a unanimous decision tells me there's something there that clearly requires the court to find in favor of the church. What that is would take more time than I have to devote to the task at the moment. I suspect that this isn't a momentous decision, but one hinging on some technicalities that might not be too hard for the city to overcome. I don't think this is a long-term blow to civil rights.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My suspicion is that the judges reasoned that the City could redirect the prospective parents to another agency which would accommodate their beliefs. Doing so would allow CSS to maintain its bigoted beliefs without affecting the overall adoption process.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Aside from there being a whole bunch of providers other than the Catholic group, there was some precedent for Philly allowing some rules to be waived in other cases, so there is precedent as well.

Not a ruling on the merits of religious freedom, really. More about harm, and redirecting to other providers.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
there was some precedent for Philly allowing some rules to be waived in other cases, so there is precedent as well.
I believe this is the detail that allowed the ruling.
Print the post Back To Top