According to this bill signed by Tennesee Governor Bill Lee in January of 2020, they can.
Gabe and Liz Rutan-Ram are a Jewish couple from Knoxville Tennessee. They were unaware of the existence of this bill when they attempted to adopt a child. They wanted to adopt out of state and were pointed to the Holston United Methodist Home for Children as the only agency that could accommodate their preferences. Except they couldn't. They were denied based on the agency's policy of only providing adoption services to those that share their "Christian belief system." Americans United filed a case on the couple's behalf citing a violation of articles I and XI of the Tenessee constitution which promises all citizens religious freedom and equal protection. According to the bill signed in 2020, it is legal for a state-funded organization to deny adoption on the basis of religion. This is the crux of the problem. I would like to make the argument that this bill is unconstitutional, that it violates the "no establishment" and "free exercise" clauses.
First I would like to direct your attention to a supreme court case decided on in June of 2021. Fulton v. City of Philidelphia is a near-identical case to the one I bring up in this blog. The only difference is that rather than being denied based on their religion, this couple was denied for being the same sex. The Supreme Court found that denying state contracts with adoption agencies that discriminate based on their Christian beliefs is not a violation of free exercise. This sets some pretty significant precedent for our case in Tennessee. The supreme court has essentially ruled that the state does not need to fund an organization that discriminates even if it is founded on religious values. This begs the question, why would the state of Tennessee fund religious discrimination if according to the supreme court they are under no obligation to and have religious freedom clearly stated in their state constitution.
All that being said the Rutan-Ram v. Tennessee is even more clear-cut than Fulton v. Phillidelphia was given that the discrimination is on the basis of religion. The Rutan-Ram family are citizens of Tenessee and thus should be afforded the same access to social programs as everyone else. If the state allows for them to be discriminated against, it is a clear violation of no establishment. Governor Bill Lee claimed that he signed the discrimination bill in order to protect religious freedom, but what about that of the Rutan-Ram family. They are supposed to be afforded the same religious freedom as everyone else and yet are being denied a state program as a result of their religious practice. The reality is that this bill allows the Tennessee government to form an establishment of religion by placing the values of the methodist church above that of any citizen who practices another religion. Simultaneously violating the free exercise of those non-christian citizens by denying them access to government-funded programs.
Another facet of this case is that it presents a unique challenge for the state of Tennessee. Both potential rulings are a violation of free exercise. This makes it impossible for the state to be neutral, which should be their goal. Unless of course, they cut funding to Holston United Methodist Home for Children. If the agency wanted to continue to discriminate being a privately owned business that would be a whole other case, but what we are talking about here is government-funded religious discrimination. Some might suggest that cutting funding to an organization because of its religious values is a violation of free exercise, but we know that is not the case. Due to supreme court precedent in the form of the Fulton V. Phillidelpia decision, it would not be a violation of the organization's free exercise to end their state contract, specifically in the case of discrimination.
Due to the unconstitutional nature of the bill allowing for the Rutan-Ram family to be discriminated against, I believe the court should rule in their favor and require that the agency provide them adoption services. If they are to comply with that request then they can continue to receive state funding. If, however, they would like to continue discriminating on the basis of religion then the state is well within the bounds of the constitution to discontinue funding.
I agree with Davis on his position regarding this case. The agency should receive funding if they comply, but the funding should be stopped if they continue this bias and prejudice. Bringing up the case Fulton v. City of Philadelphia was an effective point because it involves the free exercise clause and a similar backstory. It helped me better understand the case and its multiple perspectives. Additionally, we do need to keep in mind that this is a government-funded religious discrimination.
ReplyDeleteDavis brings up many compelling arguments and I agree that the agency should not receive funding if they continue to discriminate based on religion. The Fulton v. City of Philadelphia successfully proves this precedent. Furthermore, it is important to consider the best interest of the children involved. If safe and loving parents are willing to provide a home through adoption for a child, they should be granted the opportunity. Considering the additional barriers children face living in a group home during their essential developmental years, it would be beneficial for them to have a stable environment and family to grow up in.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to consider is the right of the adoption agency to exercise their own religious freedom. It is their religious belief that the children adopted from the agency should be raised with Christian values. However, I still agree with Davis and his argument. The agency is receiving tax-payer funding, so even though they are entitled to their own beliefs, they should not be able to discriminate against other religions. Because it is government funded, this can be seen as an act of government establishment of religion, as it denies other religions equal rights.
ReplyDeleteDavis brings the main dilemma of this case at the end. He states that a ruling in favor of either party would be a violation of the others right to free exercise. I believe that what Davis proposed at the end would be the best and only option that the Supreme Court can take if it wants to uphold the US government as a neutral party when it comes to religious establishments. The only fair ruling here would be to pull funding from the agency, and allow the decision to be made privately.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with the idea that this organization should not be allowed to deny service to the Rutan-Ram family based on their religious convictions. As soon as the organization accepts funding from the government, they are bound by the 1st Amendment, and are therefore disallowed from certain practices that are prohibited under the Amendment. Any denial based upon the family's Jewish heritage would be the government recognizing an established religion over another, and cannot be allowed.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your choice of the case here Davis. As you mentioned in your post, there is a big dilemma over the fact that no matter which side is chosen you could argue that it is in violation of the free exercise clause. Thus, making for an extremely hard decision to make. However, I do believe you broke it down to exactly the right point. The fact that the agency uses government funding is the main issue of the case. In my opinion, this questions the neutrality of our government. As you proposed, I think that in this case, funding should be pulled from the program. Otherwise, discrimination based on religion should not be allowed by anything supported by the government in order to keep things neutral.
ReplyDeleteThat you brought in a previous case to compare the Rutan-Ram case and inform the readers of precedent regarding the issue. In my belief this case is pretty cut and dry, given its a publicly funded organization, the 14th is obviously applied to states, and that Fulton applies similar restraints for this type of case. All in all, this was well written and aligns well with the topic/intent of the blog.
ReplyDelete