Faith, foster care and LGBT rights collide at Supreme Court - Philadelphia Excluded Catholic Foster Care

[gam197]

Faith, foster care and LGBT rights collide at Supreme Court - ABC News

The question is can Catholic Social Services be excluded because they do not allow gay couples to become foster parents in their foster service.

Philadelphia says they can no longer do foster care. This is important because many states like Massachusetts did not allow Catholic Social Service that choice so they stop doing foster care about 10 years ago.

 

[gam197]

Only a few days left. These kinds of stories are so important and I guess we will all individually have to keep a tab on the outcome.

Off topic,

I do want to thank you because you did teach me something very valuable which was that celebrities and all the people we give so much recognition to have little value to our lives.
Not that they are not good people but really they do not affect our lives.

 

[gam197]

Not sure, it depends on that court and we may find out that religious institutes still can have some say on things. The case will not be decided until June but so far the court as it stands is favoring the first amendment on religious freedoms.

I am sad to see the forums close, it has been interesting. I came into the forums thinking it would be an echo chamber but found out immediately that was not the case. I did learn things.

This is a little off----

I was surprised after all the battles over florists and cake bakers that took place over the years that the courts did allow them to refuse to bake cakes for weddings.

I think there is another case about wedding establishments also in the courts which really needs to be settled.

Federal judge: Kentucky photographer can continue to refuse same-sex weddings while she challenges city’s nondiscrimination law - BJC

 

[Trader]

It used to be that the primary interest for adoptions and foster care was the best interests of the child. No more, Children are now just pawns in culture wars.

On a personal basis, my niece and her husband have been approved to adopt a third child, while my next door neighbor, who has adopted three children, is telling me about the difficulties in a case where a woman gave birth in the hospital where she works, and just left saying that she did not want the baby. That baby could have been in a permanent home within a week, but red tape has a healthy baby in a small hospital nearly filled with Covid-19 patients. Does this make sense to anyone else?

 

[gam197]

On a personal basis, my niece and her husband have been approved to adopt a third child, while my next door neighbor, who has adopted three children, is telling me about the difficulties in a case where a woman gave birth in the hospital where she works, and just left saying that she did not want the baby. That baby could have been in a permanent home within a week, but red tape has a healthy baby in a small hospital nearly filled with Covid-19 patients. Does this make sense to anyone else?

No, it doesn’t and it never has. Unfortunately, children are kept in foster homes for many years until they can relinquish parental rights and I understand some delay.

This prevents many children from getting adopted and having a normal childhood.

It also brings in the prochoice abortion people who will tell you about the millions of children already in foster care.

It is politics. No Catholic wants anyone to suffer and these decisions finally after so many years give a clear picture as to what is allowed.

Do I have to bake a cake for a gay wedding or lose my business?
Do I have to partake in an abortion procedure or lose my job?

 

[Pattylt]

I have a strong opinion on adoption…perhaps because I am adopted?

I feel that if a Catholic charity does public adoptions and accepts government money, they need to follow government laws regarding the selection of parents. If they are fully funded by private donations, then they may be as selective as they want. I have no idea about the details of this SC case, I’ll need to look into it.

I feel the same about public facing businesses. If the serve the general public, they have no right to refuse service to anyone. They are also under no obligation to produce merchandise that they don’t want to, but, if they make wedding cakes for the public, they need to sell them to all the public. The case in Colorado fits my opinion as the baker was asked to manufacture something he didn’t normally make. The court agreed with him.

If someone wants to limit their definition of undesirables, it needs to be a private business. Even a Catholic hall rented to non Catholics becomes a public facing business and gay wedding should be allowed. If they only rent the hall to catholic ceremonies, they can exclude anyone outside their faith.

To me, this seems rather logical and mostly clear cut. I’m sure there will be gray areas that will need further definition from the courts. I trust our court system to iron out the wrinkles.

 

[gam197]

I feel the same about public facing businesses. If the serve the general public, they have no right to refuse service to anyone. They are also under no obligation to produce merchandise that they don’t want to, but, if they make wedding cakes for the public, they need to sell them to all the public. The case in Colorado fits my opinion as the baker was asked to manufacture something he didn’t normally make. The court agreed with him.

If someone wants to limit their definition of undesirables, it needs to be a private business. Even a Catholic hall rented to non Catholics becomes a public facing business and gay wedding should be allowed. If they only rent the hall to catholic ceremonies, they can exclude anyone outside their faith.

To me, this seems rather logical and mostly clear cut. I’m sure there will be gray areas that will need further definition from the courts. I trust our court system to iron out the wrinkles.

I think the case for Christian or Muslims who feel that they should not have to make that wedding cake is somewhat settled…

I am surprised you take this stand because when it came to abortion and a nurse being forced to partake, you stated it was wrong to force a nurse to partake in the procedure.

The idea of a gay wedding is similar, it is religious conviction and that is why the courts have allowed the Colorado baker to refrain.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I feel the same about public facing businesses.

They are not funded by government money as far as I know so they don’t seem to be the same.

 

[Balto1]

I think the case for Christian or Muslims who feel that they should not have to make that wedding cake is somewhat settled…

That’s news to me. When and how was it settled?

 

[gam197]

gam197:

think the case for Christian or Muslims who feel that they should not have to make that wedding cake is somewhat settled…

That’s news to me. When and how was it settled?

I thought it was more or less settled when the Colorado case allowed the baker his freedom to not bake the cake.

No one else seems to have prosecuted since then. Prior to that, there were probably ten cases of individuals that I read about who had lawsuits against them but nothing ever came of the cases and everything seems to have gone away.

DENVER — A Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on religious grounds — a stance partially upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court — and state officials said Tuesday that they would end a separate legal fight over his refusal to bake a cake celebrating a gender transition.

Colorado baker Jack Phillips, state end legal fight over transgender woman's cake

 

[Pattylt]

The idea of a gay wedding is similar, it is religious conviction and that is why the courts have allowed the Colorado baker to refrain.

The Colorado case was the baker being required to do a cake he doesn’t make. If he refused to sell a cake he does make, I think the outcome would have been different. I don’t think one has the right to insist a Jewish deli has to provide a ham sandwich but the deli should be required to sell a kosher pastrami to everyone. Does that make sense to you? It does in my little brain.

True, businesses are not the government but they are operating in the public sphere. Selling what ever your merchandise is to the public means you should sell to all the public. It’s just as wrong to deny LBGTQ’s as it is to deny blacks or Jews or Christians. I know people disagree with me, I just don’t understand why. The business may be privately owned but they are offering their stuff to the public. The public is part of the business and we’ve already settled they can’t deny blacks, Asians, etc…

To be perfectly clear…I do not think a cake maker must make an LGBTQ designed cake if they don’t make those cakes. They should make a standard wedding cake for anyone that wants one if that’s what they normally make. If the customer is gay, they can put whatever wedding toppers they desire on top or write whatever they wish after purchase. This shouldn’t be a requirement of the cake maker unless he specifies that he will do custom cakes for the public…now, he’s defined his business as making custom cakes and should make whatever the public wants…even if he’s Jewish and someone wants a Nazi theme. Don’t offer customizations and you’re good to draw the lines on custom cakes. I understand this is limiting what the business can do but we already limit businesses on what they’re allowed and not allowed to do.

 

[Pattylt]

I am surprised you take this stand because when it came to abortion and a nurse being forced to partake, you stated it was wrong to force a nurse to partake in the procedure.

I hope my previous post helped clear up my position. The case of the nurse is that she made an agreement with the hospital to be excused from abortion. The hospital reneged on the deal, not her. If the nurse had participated in abortions previously with no contract then suddenly said, I can’t do this! …I don’t think she’d have a leg to stand on. She should renegotiate her position first so it’s clear…and she was clear in not participating in abortions! Absolutely, I support her!

 

[Balto1]

I thought it was more or less settled when the Colorado case allowed the baker his freedom to not bake the cake.

The Masterpiece decision did nothing to settle the matter, which is why there was further action against the baker for more alleged violations of anti-discrimination laws. All the SCOTUS decision did was say he couldn’t be fined in that specific case because there was evidence of potential anti-Christian bias by the CO civil rights commission. It did nothing to address the actual question of whether religious beliefs allow discrimination in the context of a licensed, open-to-the-public business.

Basically that evidence of religious bias gave the Court an out from actually making an actual decision and they just punted. The conservatives on the Court are in a bind; they like gay people being discriminated against, but if they were actually to rule that religious beliefs trump anti-discrimination laws they’d be in effect invalidating every anti-discrimination law in the country and people would be free to open whites-only or Christian-only or whatever establishments. There are people who think this situation is desirable (including people who have posted such on this forum) but most people understand how damaging that would be to the country.

 

[Pattylt]

All the SCOTUS decision did was say he couldn’t be fined in that specific case because there was evidence of potential anti-Christian bias by the CO civil rights commission. It did nothing to address the actual question of whether religious beliefs allow discrimination in the context of a licensed, open-to-the-public business.

Thanks…I have forgotten what the decision meant…I knew it didn’t address the actual issue.

Was there another case that determined in favor of a baker because he was being requested to do something he didn’t normally do for anyone? Now I’m not sure…

At some point, and hopefully soon, the SC will give definitions on what does constitute discrimination and what doesn’t. Please, let’s not go backwards in time to allowing whites only type situations.

Many times…not ALL… the discrimination for deeply held religious beliefs are actually deeply held prejudicial beliefs. The problem is that there are prejudices that have been tied into religious beliefs and, like it or not, these need to be faced and dealt with. I don’t care if your pastor said to shun the gays, Jesus didn’t. A person’s discomfort with interacting with a gay has no bearing on someone’s treatment in a public business…and the law needs to make it clear…whether the SC wants to or not. It’s their job!

 

[gam197]

The Colorado case was the baker being required to do a cake he doesn’t make. If he refused to sell a cake he does make, I think the outcome would have been different. I don’t think one has the right to insist a Jewish deli has to provide a ham sandwich but the deli should be required to sell a kosher pastrami to everyone.

No, I think that is different. Should a Jewish photographer be required to take pictures of a gay wedding if he feels it creates a moral dilemma for him.

Should he be required to take a photo of one person who comes into his shop, sure because he provides photos for everyone. It only gets troublesome when marriage and photos are requested.

True, businesses are not the government but they are operating in the public sphere. Selling what ever your merchandise is to the public means you should sell to all the public. It’s just as wrong to deny LBGTQ’s as it is to deny blacks or Jews or Christians

They are operating in the public sphere but then most businesses and people, in general, operate in the public sphere. For the religious, it becomes an issue only when it comes to certain things.

Sure you sell your product whether if it’s flowers, photos, food or cakes, etc. for weddings but for a man/woman wedding. When other weddings take place, it can cause religious people to question their involvement.

now, he’s defined his business as making custom cakes and should make whatever the public wants…even if he’s Jewish and someone wants a Nazi theme. Don’t offer customizations and you’re good to draw the lines on custom cakes.

Custome cake making is how most private bakers make a living. I would disagree and think that if this posed a problem, he could refuse and refer to another bakers or simply refuse.

 

[gam197]

. All the SCOTUS decision did was say he couldn’t be fined in that specific case because there was evidence of potential anti-Christian bias by the CO civil rights commission. It did nothing to address the actual question of whether religious beliefs allow discrimination in the context of a licensed, open-to-the-public business.

Basically that evidence of religious bias gave the Court an out from actually making an actual decision and they just punted.

They did punt but that punt rang loud and clear. Remember it was not only the couple themselves who would sue but it was the state who would file a case. States have not been filing cases .Also a second case was brought asking for a transgender cake against this same baker after the initial ruling and that was dropped. I posted the article.

DENVER — A Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on religious grounds — a stance partially upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court — and state officials said Tuesday that they would end a separate legal fight over his refusal to bake a cake celebrating a gender transition.

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and attorneys representing Jack Phillips said they mutually agreed to end two legal actions, including a federal lawsuit Phillips filed accusing the state of waging a “crusade to crush” him by pursuing a civil rights complaint over the gender transition cake.

Colorado baker Jack Phillips, state end legal fight over transgender woman's cake

The federal judges have been dismissing cases so it also tells the story.

Kentucky article.

Federal judge: Kentucky photographer can continue to refuse same-sex weddings while she challenges city’s nondiscrimination law

Wedding photographer Chelsey Nelson objects to making her service available to same-sex couples. Because her religious refusal runs afoul of Louisville‘s Fairness Ordinance, which prohibits businesses that are open to the public from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, she is seeking an injunction barring the city from enforcing it against her. She is also asking a federal court for a declaration that enforcement would violate her rights under the state law and the First Amendment. In a ruling issued last month, the court granted her injunction while allowing her First Amendment claims to proceed.

In a similar case, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled last year that the city of Phoenix is barred from enforcing a nondiscrimination law against business owners who refused to create custom wedding invitations for same-sex wedding ceremonies. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals similarly held that wedding videos are a protected form of speech, and allowed a lawsuit brought by videographers in Minnesota to proceed.

Freedom of Religion is still the law.

 

[Pattylt]

Custome cake making is how most private bakers make a living. I would disagree and think that if this posed a problem, he could refuse and refer to another bakers or simply refuse.

I wonder how this will finally be decided. I personally think that any business that has a religious problem with specific situations should have to publicly advertise as such. Then the rest of the public can decide to support or avoid such businesses. I have a feeling that we’re going to start seeing advertisements that say, “We serve everyone” or “We reserve the right to refuse same sex marriage cakes”. I’m not sure if this would make bakers happy or furious but we have a right to know if a business will accept our dollars or not.

My hope is that this would never be necessary. Making a gay cake for sale says nothing about accepting gay marriage but I realize I’m in the minority. I’d be personally opposed to some couple under the age of 21 getting married…it’s way too young and against my personal beliefs. But, I’d never refuse to honor a customer that wants to give me business. If any Supreme Court is going to find in favor of deeply held religious beliefs, this current one will, so you have a hope that I don’t.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

Custome cake making is how most private bakers make a living. I would disagree and think that if this posed a problem, he could refuse and refer to another bakers or simply refuse.

I wonder how this will finally be decided. I personally think that any business that has a religious problem with specific situations should have to publicly advertise as such. Then the rest of the public can decide to support or avoid such businesses. I have a feeling that we’re going to start seeing advertisements that say, “We serve everyone” or “We reserve the right to refuse same sex marriage cakes”. I’m not sure if this would make bakers happy or furious but we have a right to know if a business will accept our dollars or not.

There is a fine line between refusing a person and refusing to create a gay wedding cake. The Courts have spoken on both. For years businesses have advertised through posting a gay flag outside and I do not see that increasing or going away. There are signs that say we serve everyone.

I think it has already been decided. People may not like the decision from the court but there are no new cases being brought forth on the issue so that is telling.