Joe.My.God. LGBT News
The Washington Post reports:
The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear a dispute over a Philadelphia Catholic agency that won’t place foster children with same-sex couples.
The justices will review an appeals court ruling that upheld the city’s decision to stop placing children with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s agency because it would not permit same-sex couples to serve as foster parents.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled the city did not target the agency because of its religious beliefs but acted only to enforce its own nondiscrimination policy in the face of what seemed to be a clear violation.
UPDATE: From the ACLU.
The Supreme Court today agreed to hear Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a case about whether or not taxpayer-funded foster care agencies have a constitutional right to discriminate based on the agency’s religious requirements.
Catholic Social Services (CSS) sued Philadelphia for the right to discriminate against prospective foster families headed by same-sex couples. The Support Center for Child Advocates and Philadelphia Family Pride, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Pennsylvania, intervened in the lawsuit.
Both the district court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected CSS’ claims, saying instead that Philadelphia can require agencies that accept tax dollars to provide foster care services for children to accept all qualified families.
Taxpayer-funded foster care agencies in a number of states, such as South Carolina, have asserted a religious objection to accepting families of different faiths, families that do not attend church, same-sex couples, or unmarried people.
BIG: #SCOTUS grants one new case, over whether Philadelphia can bar agencies from foster care program if the agency bars same-sex couples from participating.
Full orders: https://t.co/7IneCI6zhf
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) February 24, 2020
Note that the case includes, in its questions presented, asking the court whether Employment Division v. Smith should be “revisited,” which could make this an even bigger case. pic.twitter.com/1I6BrQOxQM
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) February 24, 2020