Methodist or Motherhood: Can a state-funded organization deny services on the basis of religion?

           

        Who has the right to determine the fitness of a parent? Who has the right to adopt a child? Who has the right to assistance in adopting a child? Imagine that you are at a point in your life in which you are ready to adopt a child, and welcome another member into your family. You inquire and wait, testing your patience and your hope as time passes on. Eventually, a little boy is in need of a home, and you rush for aid in adopting him. However, when you finally find an out-of-state adoption agency in your area, you are denied the right to assistance because of your religious affiliation. This is the case of the Rutan-Ram family.

        In January 2021, Gabe and Liz Rutan-Ram, of Tennessee, began their journey to adopt a child. Eager to adopt a young boy from Florida, the Rutan-Ram family sought out the help of Holston United Methodist Home for Children, a state-funded organization. While the Rutan-Rams looked for other adoption agencies in the area, the United Methodist Home for Children was the only adoption agency that supported prospective parents with out-of-state adoptions. Since the Rutan-Rams were interested in adopting a boy from Florida, this seemed like the perfect organization to aid them in their process to become adoptive parents. However, the Rutan-Rams quickly learned that the Holston United Methodist Home for Children would not be able to assist them with the adoption process because they are Jewish. In the State of Tennessee, the Holston United Methodist Home for Children was legally allowed to turn away the Rutan-Ram family. In January of 2020, the Governor of Tennessee signed the HB0836 bill into effect, allowing privately licensed child-placement organizations to turn away their services to anyone whose belief systems contradicted or did not align with those of their organization.

(The Holston United Methodist Home for Children)

Thus, in this case, the constitutional question at hand is: Is the state of Tennessee impeding on the Rutan-Ram family's freedom of religion by denying them child placement services based on their Jewish faith? To answer this question, we will consult a similar case and ruling to examine the constitutional implications of the Rutan-Ram adoption. 

In the United States, there is much debate and contention surrounding the adoption process and parents' fitness. According to a study by UCLA, 10% of adopted children are raised by LGBTQ parents. As a result, many religious adoption agencies pressured their Congressional representatives to create legislation allowing them to only work with couples who align with their interests. However, for this case, we will only focus on the religious aspect and the impact that this has on one's freedom of religion. The case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, presents similar constitutional debates on religious freedom when the City of Philadelphia canceled their contract with a religious agency, Catholic Social Services, that refused to work with same-sex couples. In response, Catholic Social Services sued the city of Philadelphia for violating the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. After a highly political and controversial trial, the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Philadelphia did, in fact, violate the Free Exercise of the Catholic Social Services. However, I believe that the constitutional difference between these cases lies in their affiliation with the state.

(A protest concerning Fulton v. City of PhiladelphiaI)

In the Rutan-Ram case, the Holston United Methodist Home for Children is a state-funded organization. In contrast, in the Fulton case, the Catholic Social Services was an independent organization that contracted with the state. Because the Holston United Methodist Home for Children is directly state-funded, I believe that it violates the Rutan-Ram family's freedom of religion. According to the constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (USA Constitution). This case discriminates against the Rutan-Rams as people and as parents. Due to the circumstances of this case, the Rutan-Rams were not able to adopt the young boy they hoped to adopt from Florida solely due to their religious beliefs. However, to be thorough and fair in my analysis, it is essential to consider both sides of the argument. The other constitutional question relating to this case is: would the state violate the Holston United Methodist Home for Children's freedom of religion by forcing them to work with people who have differing or contradicting belief systems from their organization? To answer this question, I must again return to the idea of affiliation with the state. Since the Holston United Methodist Home for Children receives government funding, it is thus a representative of the state. I do not believe that the state would be violating the Holston United Methodist Home for Children's freedom of religion. If the Holston United Methodist Home for Children were an independent and privately funded organization, I would feel differently. Still, due to their status and source of funding, I firmly believe that the State of Tennessee and the Holston United Method Home for Children prohibited the freedom of religion of the Rutan-Ram family. 

With the facts established, a similar case explored, and perspectives shared, what do you think? Did the Holston United Methodist Home for Children impede on the religious freedom of the Rutan-Ram family by choosing not to assist them with their adoption process due to their religious beliefs?