Sunday, February 6, 2022

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?

6 comments:

  1. Based off of the Rutan-Ram case as well as a similar case analysis, I believe that the Holston United Methodist Home for Children did, in fact, impede of the Rutan-Ram's freedom of religion. I believe this is the case because the Rutan-Ram family had no bad intent of working with Holston United Methodist Home for Children and only got turned away because of the fact that they were Jewish. The fact here is that the Rutan-Ram's were not able to adopt a child because of there religion, therefore Holston United Methodist Home for Children looked at no other factor, and turned them away in an illegal and unconstitutional manner. Since Holston United Methodist Home for Children is a state-funded institution, that means they are obligated by the state of Tennessee to follow constitutional rights which in this case, they did not.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that you do a good job of pointing out where this case becomes a violation of the Rutan-Ram family because of the source of the Holston United Methodist Home for Children funding. This has been a common theme in cases that involve funding for religious schools. These cases are often very controversial. In this case, since the Holston United Methodist Home for Children receives government funding they are required to not discriminate based on religion. I think this case will be very important in setting precedence for future cases regarding discrimination involving organizations that receive government funding.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with your opinion that the Holston United Methodist Home for Children is infringing on the Rutan-Rams freedom of religion. Since this institution receives state funding, it is a representative of Florida. Hence, it must follow the state statutes and federal regulations just as any public institution. Furthermore, in denying the family services based upon their religion, (more importantly, Judaism--a minority religion) Holston United Methodist Home for Children is unconstitutionally discriminating on the grounds of religion. So long as the religion does not physically endanger the child (rendering the family unfit for adoption), I believe that the Rutan-Rams are entitled to services.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The clarity of the difference in state affiliation made the case extremely convincing and easy to follow. I also believe that the Rutan-Rams's freedom of religion is being impeded on by the unconstitutional law of Tennessee and the Holston United Methodist Home for Children. This is not a question if the state should fund the Home for Children, but since they clearly do and continue to, the Home must follow the Constitutional laws under the state to avoid potentially more muddledness of state funding with religious affairs and provoke the Establishment Clause further. It is unconstitutional (under state and federal guidelines) to turn away individuals solely on religious grounds, so I agree that the Rutan-Rams are having their religious freedoms impeded on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This was a great breakdown of the case. I love that you pointed out the fact that you brought to light, the most important fact, that the Holston United Methodist Home for Children accepts funding from the state. Due to this reliance on the government, I would also have to a free that there is no reason that this home should be allowed to discriminate against people for their religion. The contrast you brought up about discrimination from a private entity is important in that you state that there is a clear difference. It is apparent that if this Methodist Home did not accept state funding that they could act in their own will. This is an important case and lays the grounds for what is allowed and what is not for future instances. Therefore, I agree that the Holston United Methodist Home for Children is infringing on the religious freedoms of the Rutan-Rams.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think you did a really great job at breaking down this case. Your point that the United Methodist Home for Children is state-affiliated and does accept funding from the government is really important because it strengthens the point that they should not discriminate against children based on any religious belief or protected class. This clear difference between public and private is a great way to show why some would be allowed to act of their free will and some would be required to abide by public guidelines. I agree with your points that the Holston United Methodist Home for Children is infringing on the Rutan-Rams' religious freedom.

    ReplyDelete