Federal Judge Says San Francisco's Labeling of Catholics as "Hateful" is Constitution

[Lance]

Just what I would expect of people who elected Nancy Pelosi.

 

[bones_IV]

Just what I would expect of people who elected Nancy Pelosi.

That old femi-nazi.

 

[Suat]

Here is the actual resolution (pdf) if you want to read it.

The resolution was in response to the following 2003 Vatican statement regarding allowing children to be adopted by persons in same-sex marriages:

Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children

Pretty much a tit for tat. The resolution is non-binding, so nothing will come out of it.

The question becomes: does the Archdiocese have a government contract that is partially funding its adoption services? If the answer is yes, then they are legally obligated not to discriminate anyway. If the answer is no, then they can discriminate away.

 

[Wolseley]

Frankly, I think we as Christians should be thanking the 9th Circuit Court for once again proving that Scripture is true, and the words of Jesus are indisputably accurate:

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, (but I chose you out of the world) because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master’; If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.” (John 15:18-20)

“Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.” (Matthew 24:9)

“Be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them.” (Mark 13:9)

:twocents:

Perhaps the Church should put the city on notice a la:

"The city government is free to rule as they please. But if it intends to persist in this hateful and intolerant course, the Church respectfully requests the city stop calling itself after the name of one of our most beloved Saints."



“Have fun changing all the maps, signage, stationery, et cetera”,
tee

I agree. Maybe they could change it “Roger Baldwin City”, or maybe “Ruddville”, “Gilberton”, or “Dohrnburg” (the city motto could be “Finest Weather in America!”). It would be more apropos and would amply demonstrate the complete de-Christianization of the municipality.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Does that mean the Catholic Church is now a “hate group” under the Constitution? This ruling is disgusting and needs to be overturned immediately. In addition, this judge must be removed from the bench by ANY LEGAL MEANS POSSIBLE.

In the mean time, any Catholic who comes in from of this judge must demand that she recuse herself from the case due to her bias.

+JMJ+

Why is it that the “Separation of Church and State” can be used by the government to exclude God from our lives, or to try and separate us from God but when it suit’s the government, the government can interject itself into the affairs of a “church” or religion and it can use a government building and tax payer dollars, to attack a church. In this case; the Roman Catholic Church? Where is the “Separation” in this case?

The Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and Her right to protect the Sacraments, including the Sacraments of Holy Matrimony and the Holy Eucharist is no business of the government!

These people are way out of line!

Where is the ACLU? Aren’t they the organization that routinely file law suits whenever there exist any apparent breach (in theirs minds) of the so-called “Separation of Church and State”?

Where is the Media?

I think an argument could be made in this case that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors violated the “Separation” clause and misappropriated city funds in doing so.

 

[LRThunder]

+JMJ+

Why is it that the “Separation of Church and State” can be used by the government to exclude God from our lives, or to try and separate us from God but when it suit’s the government, the government can interject itself into the affairs of a “church” or religion and it can use a government building and tax payer dollars, to attack a church. In this case; the Roman Catholic Church? Where is the “Separation” in this case?

The Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and Her right to protect the Sacraments, including the Sacraments of Holy Matrimony and the Holy Eucharist is no business of the government!

These people are way out of line!

Where is the ACLU? Aren’t they the organization that routinely file law suits whenever there exist any apparent breach (in theirs minds) of the so-called “Separation of Church and State”?

Where is the Media?

I think an argument could be made in this case that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors violated the “Separation” clause and misappropriated city funds in doing so.

Well said.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Where is the ACLU? Aren’t they the organization that routinely file law suits whenever there exist any apparent breach (in theirs minds) of the so-called “Separation of Church and State”?

Where is the Media?

The ACLU will not be seen unless they will be defending the city. Other than token cases, the ACLU has been opposing all christian groups.

As for the media, unless they can spin this against the Church and christian in general, they will be nowhere to be found

 

[didymus]

Thanks to those who posted the texts of the resolution and the judge’s ruling. At first I figured the resolution was just political BS but now I’ve got my Irish up. “A foreign country”? Do those good liberals realise they are taking a page from the Know-Nothing’s playbook?

And as for His Honor calling preaching one’s faith a “provocation” res ipsit loquitur. Too bad bishops can’t issue fatwas. [that is sarcasm, people]

Here is the actual resolution (pdf) if you want to read it.

Pretty much a tit for tat. The resolution is non-binding, so nothing will come out of it.

The question becomes: does the Archdiocese have a government contract that is partially funding its adoption services? If the answer is yes, then they are legally obligated not to discriminate anyway. If the answer is no, then they can discriminate away.

Not necessarily. An anti-discrimination law is the law whether there is a contract or not.

+JMJ+

Where is the ACLU? Aren’t they the organization that routinely file law suits whenever there exist any apparent breach (in theirs minds) of the so-called “Separation of Church and State”?

Where is the Media?

I think an argument could be made in this case that the San Francisco Board of Supervisors violated the “Separation” clause and misappropriated city funds in doing so.

The ACLU is in sad shape, once upon a time it was truly libertarian. As late as the '60s they might have defended the Chuch in a case like this. Sice then they’ve mortgaged their soul to “ploitical correctness” and turned into a purely leftoid organisation.

People will learn when it is too late – “First they came for the Catholics and the pro-lifers, then they came for the Baptists . . .”

 

[vern_humphrey]

What legal force, if any, does this resolution have? If it is just the Board of Supervisors expressing its opinion (i.e., sucking up to their constituents) then I don’t see how it can be un-Constitutional.

First of all, this is an action not by an individual, or even a private organization, but by a government. Suppose the same governmental entity were to re-issue their resolution, but substitute “Jews,” or “Blacks” or “Gays” for Catholics. We could all see the impact that would have.

Aside from signaling that such people are not welcome in the city (and that** is** a violation of civil rights – we cannot be excluded from parts of our own country), it also signals to officials within the city government that they should treat the selected group differently – in terms of hiring, firing, promotions and so on.

If the resolution attacked any group but Catholics, it would clearly be unconstitutional.

 

[rr1213]

I don’t see a link to the actual opinion. I would hesitate commenting on the decision based on a news release by one, or both, of the litigants. More often than not when it comes to reporting on judicial opinions, the spin of litigants and/or the media is a caricature of the actual decision. Let’s see if we can get a link to the case decision itself.

 

[Atreyu]

I don’t see a link to the actual opinion. I would hesitate commenting on the decision based on a news release by one, or both, of the litigants. More often than not when it comes to reporting on judicial opinions, the spin of litigants and/or the media is a caricature of the actual decision. Let’s see if we can get a link to the case decision itself.

In case noone has linked to the resolution itself already, here is a link to that.

 

[Atreyu]

I don’t see a link to the actual opinion. I would hesitate commenting on the decision based on a news release by one, or both, of the litigants. More often than not when it comes to reporting on judicial opinions, the spin of litigants and/or the media is a caricature of the actual decision. Let’s see if we can get a link to the case decision itself.

And here’s a link to the actual ruling.

 

[milimac]

And here’s a link to the actual ruling.

Thanks for the links Atreyu. Here are some interesting excerpts:
ruling:

Accordingly, the primary message of Resolution 168-06 is neither an endorsement nor a disapproval of religion, but rather a promotion of adoption by same-sex couples and nondiscrimination against gays and lesbians.

It’s just a resolution promoting adoption by LGBT and non-discrimination, and there’s definitely no endorsement of religion. Disapproval of religion? Oh, of course not! Where would anyone get that idea?! (sarcasm)
ruling:

Kedroff held that internal church governance and membership must be administered by church officials free of government control. Id. 116–17. This case, too, is inapplicable. Resolution 168-06 is not an attempt to control church policy.

I think the resolution itself addresses that point fairly clearly:
resolution:

RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors urges Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith [sic] at the Vatican (formerly known as Holy Office of the Inquisition), **to **withdraw his discriminatory and defamatory directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households.

ruling:

Accepting plaintiffs’ position would mean that any
religiously-initiated debate even on a political issue could not be joined by a publicly-elected body’s response without resulting in excessive entanglement.

Let’s look at the converse:
Accepting defendents’ position would mean that any politically-initiated debate even on a religious issue could not be joined by a religious body’s response without resulting in excessive entanglement.

Now we know the converse is widely considered to be an infraction against the magical “wall of seperation”. So here we see yet another example where the first amendment, which was originally designed to protect religions from state influence, has now been turned on its head so that it now allows state influence, and not only that, but prevents religious influence of the state. Incredible!

 

[rpp]

Where is the ACLU? Aren’t they the organization that routinely file law suits whenever there exist any apparent breach (in theirs minds) of the so-called “Separation of Church and State”?

Where is the Media?

These are rhetorical questions, right? The ACLU is decidedly anti-Christian. They are the one s that lead the charge to suppress the Christian Church and promote atheism, which they alternately argue is and is not a religion.

I would describe the ACLU as an amoral organization. Here is an example: freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16119

The media? Hmph. Yeah. Right.

 

[Digitonomy]

The only consolation is the majority of their [9th Circuit] decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court

I don’t believe this is true - can you provide a cite?

 

[Digitonomy]

Yes and no.

I agree, as follows:

LRThunder:

While the opinion might not have any legal teeth to it

Yes

LRThunder:

If their resolution is allowed to stand, they can start discriminating against Catholics or anybody that doesn’t bow down to pro-abortion and pro-gay agendas.

No.

 

[rpp]

I don’t believe this is true - can you provide a cite?

I do not know if the “majority” of their decisions are overturned, but theirs is highest rate of overturned decisions.

 

[Digitonomy]

I do not know if the “majority” of their decisions are overturned, but theirs is highest rate of overturned decisions.

This is much more believable than WanderAimlessly’s claim, but I’d still like to see the data.

 

[Kendy]

Frankly, I think we as Christians should be thanking the 9th Circuit Court for once again proving that Scripture is true, and the words of Jesus are indisputably accurate:

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, (but I chose you out of the world) because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master’; If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.” (John 15:18-20)

“Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.” (Matthew 24:9)

“Be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them.” (Mark 13:9)

I agree. Maybe they could change it “Roger Baldwin City”, or maybe “Ruddville”, “Gilberton”, or “Dohrnburg” (the city motto could be “Finest Weather in America!”). It would be more apropos and would amply demonstrate the complete de-Christianization of the municipality.

Great point. But let us not claim innocence here. Many of these people, like Nancy Pelosi, came from our flock. Our church failed to properly train them. (I just attended a parish last Sunday, where they have no schedule confessions and have turned the confessionals into storage room.) The most liberal cities in our counrty were the most catholic---- New York, Chicago. This is PARTLY a consequence of our own lack of faithfulness, and this coming persecution can only purify us.

Kendy

 

[Kendy]

Frankly, I think we as Christians should be thanking the 9th Circuit Court for once again proving that Scripture is true, and the words of Jesus are indisputably accurate:

“If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, (but I chose you out of the world) because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master’; If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.” (John 15:18-20)

“Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.” (Matthew 24:9)

“Be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them.” (Mark 13:9)

I agree. Maybe they could change it “Roger Baldwin City”, or maybe “Ruddville”, “Gilberton”, or “Dohrnburg” (the city motto could be “Finest Weather in America!”). It would be more apropos and would amply demonstrate the complete de-Christianization of the municipality.

Great point. But let us not claim innocence here. Many of these people, like Nancy Pelosi, came from our flock. Our church failed to properly train them. (I just attended a parish last Sunday, where they have no schedule confessions and have turned the confessionals into storage room.) The most liberal cities in our counrty were the most catholic---- New York, Chicago. This is PARTLY a consequence of our own lack of faithfulness, and this coming persecution can only purify us.

Kendy