Supreme Court unanimously sides with Catholic adoption agency that turned away same-sex couples

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Thursday that the city of Philadelphia ran afoul of religious protections when it cut ties with a Catholic adoption agency over its refusal to place foster children with same-sex couples.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for six members of the court, said that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause by rebuffing the Catholic Social Services (CSS) agency.

“CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else," Roberts wrote. "The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment."

[juegomaestro]

I am glad to see the courts uphold this unanimously. People giving up their children to foster care facility is based on what they believe is best for the child. In return, the institution is expected to follow in good faith.

[michaele]

Glad to see the Supreme Court made the right decision on this one.

[firefly]

It's about time they got one right!

[johnnycanread]

It's good to see the Supreme Court recognising religious liberty.

[forrestercook]

Imagine if we didn’t have the courts?!

[millenniumman]

God is not mocked. God is not blocked.

[masmantour]

This video was just the title repeated in several different ways.

[AmandaFromWisconsin]

As progressive as Pope Francis is (compared to the rest of the church hierarchy), I won’t hold my breath when it comes to the Catholic Church changing with regards to its attitude towards LGBTQ people.

[bravecaucasian]

Good to know the SCOTUS still protects religious liberties.

[topendchuck]

About time the SC put on it's man pants!

[dinodogstar]

I thought i'd come to this news source's site since it's more to the right than the norm, but still a respectable and credible source, at least i think.

[johnbenson]

Now the religions need to rethink their discrimination and hatred based on their flawed theology.

[SonOfBmore]

I'm a conservative but I disagree with this

[davidswanson]

“Seeking exemptions from the law on religious grounds”.... that would be like saying that woman who wanted the right to vote in the 20th century sought exemptions from the law on equal rights grounds. The reality is that the 1st amendment describes rights that are inherent and when a state creates laws or punishments that violate those rights, the high court can help undo it.

[bobbyjoetrouble]

Aoc and her bunch ain't gonna be happy about this

[danporath]

It’s a narrow victory…Employment Division v Smith remains as precedent.

[springbloom]

Ahhh... the breathless panting of the triggered masses 🥰

[kjkitty]

Sad. It’s not “religious freedom” to discrimate.

[jojojiles]

This might be a good ruling if churches were taxed. As it stands they are exempt, so this is clearly incorrect from a constitutional perspective. You don't get to be the beneficiary of government largesse, but then claim you don't need to play by the rules and protections set out by that government. Literally NO other entity I can think of gets this treatment. The SCOTUS got this one wong, its not even really debatable.

[johnbenson]

The City still has the right to choose who they do business with. Or does discrimination only work one way?