Newly appointed Supreme Court Justice and Christian fundamentalist Amy Coney Barrett will face her first major test on the bench this week. November 4 the Supreme Court will hear a case involving LGBTQ rights and protections involving adoption.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia “concerns a Roman Catholic adoption agency in Philadelphia that claims that it can’t match foster children with same-sex households without violating its religious beliefs,” reports CNBC. “After learning about the policy in 2018, Philadelphia refused to refer the group new foster children, citing a city law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The city added language to its 2019 contracts specifically prohibiting such discrimination against potential foster parents. The group, Catholic Social Services, is suing to defend its ability to refuse to work with same-sex households. In court papers, the group has argued that Philadelphia’s moves unlawfully targeted its right to exercise its religion, which is protected under the First Amendment.”
Related: Amy Coney Barrett served as a trustee for anti-gay private schools
The case could set far-reaching prescient with how the US government reconciles bigoted religious institutions with protections for LGBTQ people. The Trump administration filed a brief in the case this past June, arguing that religious institutions and businesses should have a right to refuse services to queer Americans.
As a devout Catholic herself, Amy Coney Barrett once served as a trustee to a religious school, Trinity Schools Inc., which bars employment of LGBTQ people, and refuses entry to openly gay students or the children of same-sex parents. Barrett also gave multiple lectures to Blackstone Legal Fellowship Program of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a hate group which advocates sterilization of queer people, conversion therapy and criminalization of consensual gay sex. Coney Barrett’s opinion and handling of the case will likely foreshadow her approach to other cases involving LGBTQ rights. Already two sitting Supreme Court justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, have openly criticized the court’s verdict in Obergefell v. Hodges, the case which opened the door to marriage equality nationwide.
Kangol2
Given how the conservative majority has ruled on this issue in recent years, it doesn’t look good for public policies that prevent “religious” organizations from discriminating against LGBTQ people (or really against anyone for any reason deemed “religious”).
Some people will say, Well, just choose another adoption agency. But what about if you live an area where there isn’t one? What about religious hospitals, where you might end up if there aren’t other options? What about businesses like Hobby Lobby that are not ostensibly religious but claim religious exemptions to discriminate, and what if they have a monopoly in a particular area or areas? Given how many smaller businesses have been wiped out over these past 9 months, this isn’t inconceivable. What are LGBTQ people or people who might also be discriminated against (wrong “religion,” atheist, etc.) to do then?
Tiny correction note: The article says, “The case could set far-reaching prescient with how the US government reconciles bigoted religious institutions with protections for LGBTQ people.”
I think that should read: “The case could set far-reaching precedents for how the US government reconciles bigoted religious institutions with protections for LGBTQ people.”
russellhm
And this marvelous comment treats the bases of what our Bill of Rights intended freedom of speech to mean and how it should be applied by our courts. And it’s the opposite of what the GOP Freedom Caucus, the McCarthy, Nunes, Jordan, Mulvaney phonies claim as freedom. They want freedom to be racist and bigoted without opposition and with ballot-box protection and that has now dissipated and is slowly disappearing. And Alito and Thomas are homophobic because of their own insecurities about their masculinity. And when Thomas humiliated a Black assistant in his law office, Anita Hill, making lewd and sexually threatening and suggestive comments—public hair on a Coca-Cola can?—he got lucky–thanks to Sen. Biden–but he married a white woman to prove his sexual prowess. Of course, she was not be barnstormed with suitors. And has become close to Trump and was in the front rows of the Rose Garden SuperSpreader for Barrett.
Mikki
Sure is funny how an organization that wants to exclude people for being gay is now suing because they were excluded for their backwards beliefs. The fact that they don’t see the irony and hypocrisy in their lawsuit is … well, I was going to say astounding, but then I realized it’s right on brand for a group like that.
GayEGO
This should be interesting, and with Trump losing the election, who knows, maybe Barrett will make the right decision and support the civil laws rather than the religious dark ages hoopla!
Catholicslutbox
Donald is not going to lose the election.
If they rule in favor of this then every religion should get a free pass.
Liquid Silver
Gee, I wonder how she’ll rule. /sarcasm
IndependentForever
Considering the bitches ( Barrett ) past affiliation with a religious school that discriminated against LGBTQ she should recuse herself from hearing this case. So, let us see if she does that ( doubt it ). When she doesn’t let us see how she votes. Remember, Dump is already disappointed in the LGBTQ decision over the summer and especially not happy with the decision regarding Pennsylvania ballot counting. All this coming from a SCOTUS right tilted AND with TWO Dump appointees ( Barrett did not participate in PA ruling ).
It is possible that the justices themselves can put blinders on when it comes to who appointed them and the appointers party affiliation. They are serving life terms after all and their decisions will live on well beyond them. They might look at their legacy and what history has to say about them more importantly than politics. At least we can only hope.
ShiningSex
She’s vile.
Hope she chokes on a sandwich or on Trump’s tiny c*ck.
dhmonarch89
What the hell are people doing letting Catholics- with their history, be around children in the first place?! I hope this is brought up at some point during the case- though, it would probably have a negative impact seeing as how 6 of the 9 Justices are Catholic. Can you imagine the outrage if 6/9 were Muslim or Atheist?
Dick Gozinia
City of Philadelphia works with 30 different agencies to certify applicants to be foster parents. Catholic Social Services is just one of them, so even if we lose this case there are still 29 other agencies to which LGBTQ can apply to for certification. This case is likened to the Colorado baker case and it’s expected that SCOTUS will make a very narrow ruling. Still, I wish SCOTUS would call out homophobia. It pisses me off when people use their Christian Evangelical ‘faith’ to deny services to LBGTQ but ignore ALL other things in the Bible that are inconsistent with their Evangelical views, like being divorced, having children out of wedlock, being Jewish etc etc.
CityguyUSA
They don’t have any problem working with them when they’re 10.