In the fall of 2018, a private New York based adoption agency called New Hope Family Services was given an ultimatum by the Office of Children and Family Services: either reform its adoption program or face a mandated phase-out of the program. The controversy at hand was the adoption agency’s commitment to placing children in homes with a mother and a father while at the same time refusing to place children with same-sex couples. The adoption agency, located in Syracuse, New York fired back, filing a lawsuit in December of 2018 claiming that the Office of Children and Family Services was violating its religious freedom.
The arguments set forth by New Hope Family Services are expansive. First, the service emphasized its commitment and success in placing children into long-term homes, having done this over 1,000 times since its doors opened. Second, the service is happy to refer same-sex couples to other adoption providers. New Hope Family Services has emphasized that there are over 130 licensed adoption providers in New York State, the vast majority of which will place children into families with same-sex couples. Third, the service says that “adoption providers exist to help children, not to affirm the desires of adults.” It’s important to consider how a phase-out could impact the lives of many children. Lastly, citing recent New York State legislation, the lawsuit says that when the legislature first authorized same-sex couples to adopt in 2010, Governor David Patterson made it clear in his approval statement that “the statute is permissive” rather than mandatory, and thus “would allow for such adoptions without compelling any agency to alter its present policies.” In general, New Hope Family Services is arguing that it is unconstitutional to force them to either violate their religious convictions or shut their doors.
On May 16 of this year, the US District Court in Albany dismissed the lawsuit, saying that the Office of Children and Family Services holds firmly that adoption agencies such as New Hope must comply with anti-discriminatory policies. However, a US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit issued an emergency order on November 4th that temporarily prohibits New York officials from targeting a faith-based adoption provider due to its religious beliefs and pursuing a shut down on that basis. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys representing New Hope Family Services asked the court to stop state officials from interrupting current adoption placements or mandating the phase-out of its adoption program. Last week’s order enforces the stoppage of this phase-out plan at least until the court has a chance to consider whether to reverse the May decision to dismiss New Hope’s lawsuit sometime after oral arguments are held on November 13th (two days after the writing of this blog post).
The main issue at stake here is: is it unconstitutional, based on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, to force the adoption agency to place children with same-sex parents if that goes against its religious beliefs? In my opinion, yes. While this case is yet to be decided, and it still has the potential to continue through the court system, I hold that private businesses are allowed to cite their Free Exercise rights if the requested services violate their religious beliefs. It’s significant to note that the intentions of the service do not seem hostile, as emphasized by ADF attorney Robert Brooks: “New Hope’s faith-based services do nothing to interfere with other adoption providers, but banishing it means fewer kids will find permanent homes, fewer adoptive parents will ever welcome their new child, and fewer birth parents will enjoy the exceptional support that New Hope has offered for decades.” While expressing its views against having adopted children go to same-sex couple families, New Hope has expressed willingness to provide references without shaming these other services.
The “substantial burden” of a complete shutdown of the operation is evident. The agency, at its core, is trying to place children with families that they believe can make both children and parents involved happy. A shutdown, on the contrary, would lead to lost jobs, more children without families, and a concerning precedent that goes against the religious freedom the agency is entitled to have. Rather than phase-out the program, the Office of Children and Family Services should instead require the agency to provide a list of adoption agency references to each family which it refuses. To me, the Office of Children and Family Services is enforcing a targeted attack against a sincerely held religious belief. This is unconstitutional considering that no harm is being done and the agency has expressed its willingness to provide other references. A shutdown could lead to financial distress for the employees and emotional distress for the children.
We reference this case often, but the precedent set in Masterpiece Cakeshop has a clear overlap here. Both involve a private business refusing to accommodate same-sex couples due to their Free Exercise rights. Neither business is harming anyone in its decision. Neither business is hostile in its rationale. In Masterpiece Cakeshop and New Hope Family Services, other products were offered, and references to other adoption agencies were provided, respectively. Both cases involve the protection of religious liberty that should stand due to no harm being involved and the business's willingness to cooperate with LGBTQ members in other aspects.
My final point is that this is about protecting and assisting kids. The goal of the adoption agency is to place children in homes which they see as a good fit. Threatening to shut down the agency, more than anything, impacts these children’s chances to find a supportive, loving environment for them.
Overall, I support the emergency order given last week and believe that the adoption agency should be allowed to refuse services to same-sex couples due to the constitutional protections outlined in the Free Exercise Clause. I’m very interested to see where this case heads after oral arguments are made on Wednesday.
Monday, November 11, 2019
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I completely agree with the author. First and foremost, this is a private business and therefore should be able to mandate how they run operations. Additionally, although not in their own beliefs, the business recognized the need for children to be adopted and was more than willing to provide a list of other agencies that do welcome/encourage same-sex couples to adopt. If the government were to intervene in this business, then there would essentially be no point in having private businesses/institutions. If this was a public adoption agency, then they would have to adhere to the anti-discrimination policy, but since it is a private business, their free exercise rights should take precedence.
I agree with Jacob and Jala that the business should be allowed to make this decision at their own digression because they are a private entity. I understand the want for Office of Children and Family Services to take a stand against this discriminatory practice, but, unfortunately think the precedent set from Masterpiece Cake Shop allows private businesses to act on their religious beliefs regarding LGBTQ services at this moment in time. I am very curious to see how this case pans out.
I agree with the author and 2 preceding comments regarding private businesses being free to do as they please. Though someone may argue there is a compelling state interest in not permitting discrimination (though the adoption center did refer same sex couples to other adoption centers), surely there must be an even greater state interest in keeping adoption centers open.
I agree with the author and the previous comments that this adoption agency should be allowed to reject same-sex couples if that goes against their religious beliefs. Since this adoption agency is a private business, I believe that they should be able to make their own decisions regarding this issue, especially since the agency’s religious beliefs outweigh the compelling state interest. In addition to this, this case rests on much precedence such as Masterpiece Cakeshop so therefore I believe this business can refuse these services.
I think that there is a vested state interest to prevent discrimination based on gender, gender identity and sexuality. However the state also has a vested interest in not inhibiting the First Amendment rights of its citizens. In some situations I would argue that the former interest should supersede the latter, but in this case I do not think this is the case. While I agree with the sentiment against discrimination, I do not think that the state has the right to control the opinions of individuals and institutions in the private sphere. This private institution has every right to not serve anybody for whatever reason and refer them, as they did, to somebody who will.
I also agree with the author that this adoption agency has the right to reject the same sex couples due to their religious beliefs and bearing on the fact that they are a private company and their free exercise beliefs stands. If this company was a public company, this would be illegal due to discrimination laws.
I also agree with the opinion of the author and the majority of the comments here. I previously wrote about a similar situation, in which a foster care agency denied volunteers who were not Protestant Christians. In that case, the agency was the state's largest taxpayer-funded foster care agency, which contrasts with this situation, in which we are dealing with a private agency. While I shut down free exercise in that case, I think it should be protected for New Hope Family Services because they are a private entity, relating back to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. I strongly agree with the author that this is all about the kids. In saying this, I am not implying that same-sex couples are not suitable adoption candidates, but instead that we need adoption agencies to stay open, and this is accomplished through allowing free exercise of religion.
I also agree with the author and all the prior comments. I agree that the adoption agency has the right to turn down who they choose. Since the ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was in favor of the store owners, I believe this case has to be decided in the same way. Since turning down certain couples is not hurting anyone, and they are just looking out for the kids, it is okay for them to turn down a certain couple because of their religious views. I do not think same-sex couples are not able to adopt children, but I do think that a private shop has the constitutional right to deny whoever they choose to.
I agree with the author and the general opinion voiced above: this adoption agency is a private business, supported by private funds. Therefore, the adoption agency is within its right to refer same-sex couples to other adoption agencies. It is unconstitutional to limit the free exercise of those at the adoption agency, especially because it is supported by private funds. If this adoption agency was supported by public funds, this would be a separate issue.
I'll also add that in 2010, it was made legal and not mandatory for agencies to allow same-sex couples to adopt. This statute would force this private agency to change its policy.
I agree with the author that it seems like this adoption agency is having their free exercise rights violated. The adoption agency is a private business that is not funded by government and are allowed to hold their own religious views. The main thing that stuck out to me is their intention was not hostile in any way towards same-sex couples. They clearly stated their religious views and said they would not give service to same-sex couples based on their faith, but they referred these couples to other agencies that would. I believe the intention here is good and they are within their legal right to hold the position they hold.
Personal feelings aside, I agree with the case that the New Hope Family Services. It is a private institution that uses their Christian beliefs to place children in a safe home. If they believe that a heterosexual couples are the best/right fit for the children based on their religious beliefs then that it their First Amendment right to freedom of exercise.
Post a Comment