US Supreme Court will decide if a Catholic foster care agency can use public funds AND still turn away same-sex couples
- Philadelphia’s Department of Human Services partially froze funding to Catholic Social Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia for foster care services
- The city’s move came after it learned in March 2018 that the Catholic agency had a policy of refusing to place foster children with same-sex couples
- When the city continued funding the agency for other social services, the archdiocese responded with a lawsuit
- After an appeals court ruled in the city’s favor, the agency took its case to the US Supreme Court, claiming its First Amendment rights were violated
- If the court rules in favor of the archdiocese, the decision could create a way for religious groups that rely on public money to discriminate against LGBTQ people
The US Supreme Court will decide if Catholic Social Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia can continue to operate as a foster care provider, and receive public funding.
The city had partially blocked its funding to the religious, social service contractor after learning in 2018 that it had a policy of turning away same-sex couples who wanted to foster children.
When the city continued funding the agency for other social services, the archdiocese filed a lawsuit, claiming its First Amendment rights were violated.
Catholic Social Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia (pictured) has asked the US Supreme Court to decide if it can continue a policy of refusing same-sex couples who want to foster children, and receive public funding as a contractor for the city
The city of Philadelphia partially blocked its funding to the religious, social service contractor after learning in 2018 that it had a policy of turning away same-sex couples who wanted to foster children. Pictured, Philadlephia’s City Hall as it is viewed from Market Street
Now, after losing its case on appeal, the agency has taken its argument to the higher court.
If the court rules in its favor, the decision could create a way for religious groups to discriminate against LGBTQ people who are seeking to legally adopt children, BuzzFeed reports.
The dispute between the city and religious contractor began in 2018, when a Phildelphia Inquirer story mentioned the agency had a policy that allowed it to refuse service to same-sex couples who wanted to be foster parents.
The city’s response was to cut some of its funding to the contractor, but to continue providing money for other services, including group homes.
The agency lawsuit that followed suit claimed its First Amendement rights to free exercise were violated and that the nondiscrimination rule had been unfairly applied by the city.
The archdiocese’s petition to the higher court argued that the agency ‘cannot provide written endorsements for same-sex couples which contradict its religious teachings on marriage.’
The agency charged it was being targeted by Philadelphia’s mayor, its city council, the Department of Human Services, and other local officials in an attempt to ‘coerce it into changing its religious practices.’
If the higher court rules in favor of the Catholic Social Service of the Archdiocese of Philaldelphia, the decision could create a way for religious groups relying on public funds to discriminate against LGBTQ people
A federal district court and federal appeals court disagreed, ruling that the city’s contract banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was legal and was applicable.
The rules, for example, are the same for both religious and secular contractors, BuzzFeed reports.
A filing made in October by the city says that it has enforced a ban on sexual discrimination for years.
‘The city has never allowed contractors to turn away potential foster parents based on a protected characteristic,’ says the filing.
‘Although this longstanding policy applies to all city contractors — and although the city has long contracted with Catholic Social Services, and continues to do so for a range of other child-welfare services — (the agency) contends that the city’s decision to enforce this policy against it reflects religious hostility.’
The Third Circuit of Appeals said the agency ‘ failed to make a persuasive showing that the city targeted it for its religious beliefs, or is motivated by ill will against its religion, rather than sincere opposition to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.’