In March of 2018, the City of Philadelphia discovered that Catholic Social Services, also known as CSS, was guilty of preventing same-sex couples from becoming licensed foster parents due to the organization’s religious beliefs. Catholic Social Services is an agency hired by the city of Philadelphia to provide foster care services within the public child welfare system.
The city contacted Catholic Social Services soon after learning this information, reminding them of the city contracts that prohibit this blatant act of discrimination. However, when the organization still refused to comply after being informed by the city, Philadelphia consequently stopped referring children to the organization. In response, Catholic Social Services sued the city of Philadelphia, claiming that it is their Constitutional right under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, to freely practice and exercise their religion.
The district court denied CSS’s motion for a preliminary injunction in July of 2018. Later that month, CSS asked the Supreme Court of the United States to issue an emergency injunction that was denied by both the district court and court of appeals. The Third Circuit upheld the district court's in April 2019, ultimately denying CSS's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Catholic Social Services was essentially unsuccessful in proving that the city of Philadelphia personally prosecuted them for being a religious organization or for their specific religious beliefs. That is until February 24, 2020, when the Supreme Court granted review of the Circuit Court of Appeal’s previous decision. They agreed to take up and hear the case later this year.
A statement issued by Philadelphia solicitor Marcel S. Pratt on the Supreme Court’s decision to review the case read, “The City believes that the ruling from the Third Circuit affirming the City’s ability to uphold nondiscrimination policies was correct and will now prepare to demonstrate this to the U.S. Supreme Court. This case is ultimately about serving the youth in our care, and the best way to do that is by upholding our sincere commitment to the dignity of all people, including our LGBTQ community.”
The primary issue and question regarding Fulton v City of Philadelphia is if the government is violating the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment on behalf of the CSS by not allowing a religious agency participate in the foster care system due to their religious beliefs. This entire case is centered around whether or not Philadelphia is essentially impeding on CSS’s ability to exercise their religion through the actions taken within their own organization.
My personal opinion on this case and topic in general is very clear. In adhering to the non-discriminaion policies, I believe that the City of Philadelphia should win this particular case. According to the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, one has the right to practice their religion. However, this is true if the practice itself is not breaking an already established and reasonable law. The non discrimination policies that have been passed in Pennsylavnia protect members of the LGBTQ+ community from being discriminated against or denied service by employers, housing providers, businesses,etc. Catholic Social Services is visibly breaking the law by denying service to same-sex couples.
A similar issue is seen in the case Reynolds v United States. Although Reynolds claimed that it was legal for him to practice polygamy since he believed it was his religious right, he was still breaking an already established law. Catholic Social Services has been doing a similar thing with their process of allowing children to be taken into certain homes that only they deem fit, while excluding others solely due to their sexual orientation. CSS's way of practicing their religion is directly discriminating against a group of people that have the same goal as them; to put children in safe and loving homes. It is one thing to make a statement, but it is entirely another thing to act on these claims. Since the city of Philadelphia has implemented non-discrimination laws protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ citizens, CSS should abide by these states laws. Since CSS actively discriminates against this community of people, it does not matter if they are practicing their religion in this case.
A potential counter-argument or viewpoint in regards to this case, however, would focus on the foster parents that partner with Catholic Social Services who are forced to give up their involvement in foster care. Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simmsbusch are partners with Catholic Social Services, and have been foster parents for over 40 children. City officials have stated that there are children not being put into foster care due to this lawsuit and the city preventing it. This raises the difficult question of whether or not this is unfair to foster children who are still stuck in institutional homes instead of organizations like CSS that want to benefit their wellbeing.
A problem with this counter-argument, however, is that CSS is a program that was ultimately hired and implemented by the city of Philadelphia. It is a social service non-profit, not its own independent business. Therefore, it does have an obligation to follow and abide by the contract policies and laws of the city. This case, however, is still in process, and yet to be decided on by the Supreme Court. The oral argument for this case will take place on November 4th of this year.
I agree with Alyssa’s stance on this case and it raises the same question that was raised last week on whether the non-discrimination laws trump the first amendment or vice versa. Although I am not familiar with how court cases have ruled in the past, I believe religion can be freely exercised as long as it is not discriminating against others, which in this case, that is clearly happening. I am also not very familiar with how foster care organizations work and how they receive their funding, but it at least seems like the state is giving aid to this organization to be run and therefore, reminds me of the Everson v Board of education case where the court decided the funding towards religious schools for transportation was a secular matter. A parallel could be made to this case in that the aid is supporting children going to foster homes and not necessarily the religion itself, but for me at least, it seems to be teetering on the wall between separation of church and state along with the nondiscrimination laws being of greater importance.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alyssa’s argument regarding this case. I do not think that the government is violating the Free Exercise Clause on behalf of the CSS because there were already non-discriminations policies established before this dilemma. Alyssa brought up a good point of the CSS being able to believe and think freely about discrimination against marginalized groups, but acting on these beliefs makes thing a bit more complicated. The most important factor in this case are the children so if the CSS is preventing children from being sent to loving homes solely due to sexual orientation of the partners, the children’s well-being are being put at risk because of the CSS’s religious beliefs against same-sex partners. Their religious beliefs specifically affect the lives of these children in need of homes, which is why I think the State of Philadelphia is not violating the Free Exercise Clause.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Alyssa. I think her inclusion of CSS being a non-profit and ultimately run by the city is absolutely crucial in this case. If Philadelphia had supported CSS's attempt to prohibit LGBTQI+ people from adopting children, this would then be the State siding with religion at the expense of private, secular citizens. This ban displays no neutrality whatsoever and puts religion over secular ideals, which would be a violation of the First Amendment in not allowing people the freedom to not exercise religion. We have also discussed in class that the Supreme Court often takes the wellbeing of children into consideration when making decisions, but this ban, although CSS claims will save children from being in households they deem unfit, will just deprive them of the opportunity to get out of the foster system, which is yet another reason the Supreme Court should rule in favor of the city of Philadelphia.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alyssa. The distinction between the CSS’ beliefs and actions surrounding placing children with same-sex couples is an important one, as their religious practices actively discriminates against individuals. Alyssa mentioned Reynolds v. United States as a precedent for secular law overriding a religious group’s claim to free exercise, but this case even goes beyond that precedent: the law in question in the Reynolds case was not a neutral law, and rather it targeted Mormon religious practices. In this case Philadelphia’s laws regarding discrimination truly are neutral towards Catholicism and therefore do not violate the First Amendment rights of the CSS.
ReplyDeleteThere's not much to say about this case that hasn't been said by others, I absolutely agree with Alyssa. The Supreme Court has already established in federal law that same-sex marriage is constitutional, and it is not within the rights afforded to religious organizations to act contrary to the law. Discrimination is not within the realm of valid exceptions for religious organizations. There's a slippery slope here; if a religious organization claims that they should be allowed to turn away non-white people from their churches, would that be considered valid in their religious beliefs? Being discriminatory may be a personal belief a bigot may hold that they deem as religious, but that doesn't give them the right to supersede established federal law.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely that CSS should not have been allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples adopting children. Since CSS was directly hired by the city of Philadelphia, they had a responsibility to follow the local laws. Discriminating against LGBTQ+ couples acted against the overall well-being of society and the kids who need to be placed in a home. As CSS is directly implemented by the local government, it is necessary that they follow the laws of the city. If they were an independent organization, it would be different but they rely on the city to give referrals. The discrimination laws are not infringing on their right to freely exercise because CSS itself is not an independent religious service. CSS only has the power to exercise under the city of Philadelphia's laws and it cannot put its religious ideals over the societal requirements. The City of Philadelphia did not have to submit to their religious desires (doing so would be a violation of church and state) and chose to stop referring children to the organization. Allowing CSS to deny LGBTQ+ couples adoption would require the city to submit to those religious practices when giving referrals. It is also critical to note that the anti-discrimination policies that CSS were violating were not targeted at restricting Catholic free exercise of religion. The policy was neutral regardless of religion.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Alyssa. Because there was already a law in place that prevented discrimination, it doesn't matter what opinions the CSS has, if it is discriminatory, then it is breaking the law. It should not be up to a religious group to decide who gets to parent a child. I feel as though religion and parenthood are unrelated. Same sex marriage does not interfere with child upbringings. If the state were to leave adoptions in the hands of the CSS, it sets a dangerous precedent to what they will give them power to next. It would also show favoritism toward one religion over others and neutrality is non existent. I side with the city of Philadelphia.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Alyssa’s argument that the city of Philadelphia should win the case. However, I am concerned that some Supreme Court Justices will apply Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) as precedent. This landmark case allowed the national craft supply chain to opt out of providing their employees with contraceptive health care, because the owners operate their business on Biblical principles and believe birth control is immoral. If the Justices consider this case as precedent, they may reason that the CSS should be able to operate their foster system in accordance with their religious convictions. Although I do not agree with the outcome of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, I believe the Court could use this case as one instance of precedent to Fulton v. The City of Philadelphia.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Alyssa’s argument in this case as I believe that the City of Philadelphia has not impeded on the Catholic Social Services First Amendment right. This is clear since the CSS had knowingly violated a neutral and reasonable law. I really liked how she mentioned Reynolds v. The United States and it was one that came to my mind when reading the information about this case. It is clear that Catholic Social Services had knowingly broken the law, just as Reynolds did when he illegally entered into a polygamous marriage knowing that he was breaking the law. Even though the First Amendment states that citizens have the right to practice their own religion, it is clear in this case that Catholic Social Services’ actions had broken a law by discriminating against a particular group of people. Their actions are not covered by the First Amendment in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alyssa's argument that the city of Philadelphia should win this case. Based on the arguments presented in this summary and from my personal knowledge of the case Philadelphia's argument is strong in that their own laws preventing discrimination on the basis of sexuality or sexual orientation. I believe this interest in ensuring that all members of Philadelphia's are protected from discrimination is stronger than that of allowing CSS to discriminate under the guise of free exercise. I also think that CSS could make a compelling argument in saying that the supreme state interest, in this case, should be making sure that there are as little children as possible in the foster care system which would mean allowing as many agencies as possible to engage in the foster care system.
ReplyDelete