This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.
It wasn’t a dramatic expansion of religious rights – not yet. But the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of a Catholic adoption agency that had been excluded from Philadelphia’s foster programs for refusing to work with same-sex couples will be consequential. It suggests that when the broader question of whether religious groups have the right to discriminate does come before the justices, they will likely uphold religious liberty over gay rights.
I’m fine with anything that makes Catholics look like bigots. They are bigots.
But the real question here is how can an organization that enshrines misogyny and paternalism in its Doctrine and presents a history of overlooking child abuse have anything to do whatsoever with family adoption?
And so SCOTUS happily moves on to making religious laws. At some point the religious are going to miss the good thing they had with separation of church and state.
Kind of thinking that I’ll start a religion and call it the Nopublicans. Adherent business owners such as restaurants, gas stations, and grocery stores may thus deny services to election deniers, assault gun owners, and any registered Republicans. Since there are other businesses that can provide for them, my people don’t have to, right?
Good luck keeping your businesses when all the assault weapons owners know, thanks to your new religion and its rules, which places are unarmed resource centers during the zombie apocalypse.
It’s after moments like this that the shrills start screaming “Cancel culture! Cancel culture!” Perhaps they just haven’t heard about the ruling yet. Yes, I know that chant is usually directed at corporations. Still, the “sisters” are “canceling” because they disagree with the gender orientation. No doubt this SC decision is a fundraising bonanza for them. More money not a bad thing in general, when topic is placing children into families, except that it rewrites modern interpretation of the Constitution and full citizenship.
“No same-sex couple has ever sought certification from CSS. If one did, CSS would direct the couple to one of the more than 20 other agencies in the City, all of which currently certify same-sex couples.”
No n(clang) couple has ever sought accommodations at Heart of Atlanta Motel. If one did, Heart of Atlanta would direct the couple to one of the more than 20 other motels in the City, all of which currently accommodate n(clangs).
So when my sincerely held religious beliefs teach that black skin is the result of the Curse of Cain or the Curse of Ham, that black individual’s pre-existence spirits were not as virtuous as white pre-existence spirits, that those people who were not made in the image of the blond hair, blue eyes, English speaking son are innately inferior, can I send them elsewhere with the blessing of the Holy Six on the Court?
[quote=“coimmigrant, post:14, topic:209465”]
So when my sincerely held religious beliefs teach that black skin is the result of the Curse of Cain or the Curse of Ham
[/quote/]
IMHO that’s the correct comparison. Prohibited discrimination is prohibited in the public space, period. Good luck trying to convince a religious zealot that discrimination based on genetics is wrong. In their mind it is a choice, instead of who one is.
It looks—to this non-lawyer rational observer—like the Court decided against the city of Philadelphia rather than in favor of Catholic Social Services.
To extrapolate that this is a signal that the LGBT community (of which I am a charter member) is going to lose rights because of this is a ridiculous conclusion based on no evidence.
Philly fucked up in its regulation.
CSS is a religious institution that got fouled up in rules that did not apply equally to secular and religious organizations.
That’s why the decision was unanimous—it had fuck-all to do with future decisions.
