On December 13, 2019, Becket Law filed a suit against the Ingham County Board of Commissioners on behalf of St. Vincent Catholic Charities.
St. Vincent runs a program that helps refugees relocate, find medical care, and acquire jobs. They are the only refugee resettlement site in Lansing Michigan and are federally recognized for being a priority resettlement site for LGBTQ refugees. These are individuals fleeing their country after being persecuted for their gender and sexual identities. The lawsuit was initially filed when St. Vincent was excluded from the Community Agency Grant which is described on the county website as “financial support to various non-profit community organizations that provide a broad range of services for the purpose of advancing the County's adopted long-range objectives." St. Vincent was denied this grant on account of its stance on LGBTQ marriage. Like many Catholic organizations, they do not approve of same-sex marriage. This is relevant to this case because earlier in 2019 the ACLU took St. Vincents to court over their denial to provide their adoption services to a same-sex couple in
the case Buck v. Gordon. The ACLU believed that they should not receive state funding while they discriminated against the LGBTQ community. St. Vincenent's won the case and continued to receive government aid for their adoption services. Becket Law's position is that the county is essentially holding a grudge against St. Vincents for Buck v. Gordon and that it is unreasonable to deny them this grant because of that.
the case Buck v. Gordon. The ACLU believed that they should not receive state funding while they discriminated against the LGBTQ community. St. Vincenent's won the case and continued to receive government aid for their adoption services. Becket Law's position is that the county is essentially holding a grudge against St. Vincents for Buck v. Gordon and that it is unreasonable to deny them this grant because of that.
The constitutional question at play here is, can the Ingham County Board of Commissioners deny St. Vincent Catholic Charities a grant to conduct refugee relocation services on account of their religiously held beliefs regarding same-sex marriage and their practice of that belief through the denial of adoption services to same-sex couples.
The County Board of Commissioners felt that the idea of offering St. Vincents the Community Agency Grant meant they had to decide "between offering refugee services and treatment of the LGBT community." This isn't actually fair to say, however, on account of St. Vincent providing refugee services to LGBTQ Individuals. According to the case summary St. Vincent's has “welcomed twenty-four LGBTQ refugees from seven countries” over the years. The Board of Commissioners' response to St. Vincent reminds me of Bob Jones University v. United States, They believe that the state's interest in not funding organizations that discriminate against minority groups outweighs their right to free exercise. While there is a compelling state interest in not funding discrimination of any kind I think this case is more nuanced.
The key thing to understand in this case is the precedent for St. Vincent's discriminatory policy. not only did they win Buck v. Gordan and continue to receive state funding but if we look to Fulton v. Philadelphia we find that the supreme court found it unconstitutional to deny a religious organization state funding for charitable work on account of their religiously-based discrimination. Additionally, we need to look at the grant in regards to the work St. Vincent is doing. The grant is offered to non-profit organizations that promote the goals of the county. They are the only refugee resettlement organization in the area, and most importantly, they don't discriminate against the LGBTQ community in their refugee services. St. Vincent only objects to same-sex marriage, not the life or safety of people who engage in it. To deny them this grant and limit their ability to reach and aid refugees could actually harm LGBTQ individuals who seek asylum through St. Vincents. If the county still takes issue with St. Vincent's adoption policies they should address those directly and not try and limit the organization as a whole.
It seems to me that the County Board of Commissioners wanted to deny them this grant on principle more than anything else and the people that it will hurt the most are those in need of refugee services. I don't believe the county to have a very strong case here, between the precedent for St. Vincent's discrimination via the free exercise clause, and the important service that they provide they should be allowed this grant.
6 comments:
I agree with you that the county should not withhold aid in this instance. If they are truly not discriminating regarding refugees, which the grant is for, they should receive the aid. Additionally, if there is an issue with a prior case they are involved in, that case should be challenged, not their current issue. I think it is bad on the state to attempt to mix a current and past situation. Additionally, I find your point compelling that it will hurt the LGBTQ+ community by denning the funding.
I agree that this case presents a particular issue. I think that the belief of St. Vincent's on same-sex marriage is not relevant to the work they do with refugees. In the precedent of Bob Jones University, their discriminatory policy directly resulted in the exclusion of LGBTQ individuals from their program. However, St. Vincent's ideals about same-sex marriage do not infringe upon the program which is under investigation. The aid that will be provided to encourage refugee salvation will not be connected to discrimination. The institution's discriminatory policy regarding adoption is a wholly different issue as funding to this program would directly aid discrimination of same-sex couples. To me, St. Vincent's mission to aid refugees demonstrates a valid public interest that should be protected by the state. Furthermore, considering the scarcity of organizations involved in such specific refugee work, I see a compelling state interest to continue grants.
The previous court cases you outlined inform why the court should supply aid to St. Vincent's refugee program. If the state is truly committed to protecting personal convictions against official imposition, they should view and treat St. Vincent's program in a similar manner. As Davis noted, the court was faced with ruling between two culturally embedded ideologies: LGBTQ+ rights and refugee rights. For the court to uphold their standard from previous cases, continuing to fund St. Vincent would not discriminate against convictions and is constitutional.
As the granting of funds and support requires a group to meet Government criteria and policy goals, I believe that the state has a compelling interest in its denial of St. Vincent's application due to their intention to create a priority settlement for those who are amongst the LGBT community. They are fully within their rights to look towards their interests in refugee grant and settlement policy. However, to penalize them for internal discriminatory policies—such as not having female pastors—would be an encroachment on their religious freedom due to there being some difference in neutral charitable work and internal religious doctrine.
I agree that the state should not deny St. Vincent aid for their refugee program. The court cases you highlighted above that state they cannot withhold state funding for charitable work on account of religiously based discrimination are essential to this case. St. Vincent's is federally recognized for their resettlement of LGTBQ+ refugees and should not be penalized based on religious beliefs that seem irrelevant to the issue at hand.
This case is very complex, and I think your explanation and argument are well-written. I appreciate the way that you considered the potential consequences of withholding state funds from charitable work that benefits the county. At the most basic level, the state's most compelling interest should be to benefit as many people as possible. If that means approaching the programs separately, as Davis did, then each program should be evaluated on its own with the criteria for each respective program. As we have discussed, everyone discriminates in some way or another and the negative association with the word does not necessarily reflect reality. Religious discrimination against same-sex marriage in the adoption program is separate from discrimination against members of the LGBTQ+ community. A religious organization that does not support same-sex marriage, as many do, does not mean they should be barred from helping individuals, including members of the LGBTQ+ community, from seeking refuge from those who prosecuted them and resettling.
Post a Comment