Major blow dealt to Catholic Charities in Illinois over homosexual adoption

[_Abyssinia]

An Illinois judge has ruled that the state of Illinois may legally refuse to renew its foster care and adoption contacts with Catholic Charities adoption agency over the agency’s refusal to place children with homosexual couples.

Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt on August 18th found that since Catholic Charities are not “required” by the state to perform the services of foster care and adoption, they have no “legally recognized property right to renew their contracts.”

This is the latest ruling against Catholic Charities affiliates that have refused to bow to state pressure and allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples.
Bishop Daniel Jenky says that sections of the Illinois political establishment “are now basically at war with the Catholic community.”

While the case was handled by the judge as a matter concerning “legally recognized protected property interest,” Tom Brejcha, the lawyer for Catholic Charities, argues that the real issue is being ignored: religious liberty.

“There’s a lot to argue about here,” Brejcha said, according to the Chicago Tribune. “The exercise of religion cannot be substantially burdened. That alone could carry the case for Catholic Charities. A lot of these people involved feel they are compelled by their faith. The burden is pretty substantial.”

lifesitenews.com/news/major-blow-dealt-to-catholic-charities-in-illinois-over-homosexual-adoption

 

[irishpatrick]

I live in Illinois–this stuff always makes me want to move away, yet I feel the Lord wants us to remain right in the midst of the world in order help bring it to Him.

 

[Dale_M]

It would be a major blow only if the case is not appealed. The judge did not rule on the religious liberty argument, but on the property rights argument. I think the consensus of CAF members who discussed this ruling last week agreed that the property rights argument was very weak. Simply because in the past a contract has been routinely renewed every year doesn’t create a right that the contract be automatically renewed every year in the future.

I am not a lawyer, so I don’t understand why the property rights argument was even presented. I think the issue religious liberty is the heart of the case.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

It would be a major blow only if the case is not appealed. The judge did not rule on the religious liberty argument, but on the property rights argument. I think the consensus of CAF members who discussed this ruling last week agreed that the property rights argument was very weak. Simply because in the past a contract has been routinely renewed every year doesn’t create a right that the contract be automatically renewed every year in the future.

I am not a lawyer, so I don’t understand why the property rights argument was even presented. I think the issue religious liberty is the heart of the case.

From what I’ve read about this case, they are both very weak arguments. And the religious freedom argument is probably even weaker than the property argument. One must remember that at its heart, this is a dispute over a government contract.

Even without the sexual-orientation discrimination law, the government could have said that, as a matter of discretion, it won’t entertain contract bids from organizations that won’t consider adoption applications from citizens who are otherwise 100% legally eligible to adopt under state law. From the state’s point of view aren’t the primary goals (1) to care for children in temporary need, and (2) place them with a suitable family - as defined by state law?

If the answer is Yes (and it is) the government has a large measure of discretion in determining where to spend its money - on other words, to get the most benefit toward those dual goals for each taxpayer dollar spent.

This is only a “major blow” to the Church in that she will now get out of the public orphanage/foster/adoption business, and a less socially conservitive (secular or not) organization will take her place.

As I can see it, there isn’t a very strong religous-freedom argument in this case, which - incidentally - is probably why the judge didn’t rule on it. On appeal, the best that the Church can hope for is (1) a reversal on the property-rights claim (unlikely), or (2) a remand from the appellate court back to the trial court with a direction to consider the religious-freedom argument (unlikely the appeallate court will rule on an issue not ruled upon below, even a de novo issue). And even if #2 happens, there is no guarantee that the Church will win the religious-freedom argument. A loss on remand could signal another appeal, followed by a petition to the State Supreme Court, etc.

I wouldn’t expect a change in this case.

Pax,
OA

 

[SamDash]

This is only a “major blow” to the Church in that she will now get out of the public orphanage/foster/adoption business, and a less socially conservitive (secular or not) organization will take her place.

No, in fact no one “will take her place,” which is the problem. The government has put political correctness over the interest of children.

As for the “religious freedom argument,” everybody is missing the point. The court is holding that since you don’t have a right to a government contract, the reason why you are denied the contract is immaterial. So there is no occasion to entertain the argument.

I am not familiar with Illinois law, and Catholic Charities seems to only make state, not federal arguments, but the first step in a government discrimination claim, that the government is denying you “due process” is to show that it is denying you a “life, liberty or property” interest. If you can’t show that the government is denying you one of those, then the “why” is irrelevant.

It seems to me, under this reasoning, the government could deny a contract to someone because he is a Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, black, white, etc.

 

[Dale_M]

No, in fact no one “will take her place,” which is the problem.

Why do you think this would be so? A few years ago Chicago’s Catholic Charities dropped its foster care and adoption programs after they lost their liability insurance. I’m not aware that any difficulties developed with placing the children in programs run by other organizations,

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

If the government is truly more willing to bow to the gay lobby over the consideration of orphaned children then let the suffering that may occur be on their filth riddened hands.

After all there are plenty of secular adoption agencies that would accept homosexual couples despite it being an abomination; yet their goal is to make sure no one that doesn’t agree with their plans is allowed any part of their new society.

For the sake of children I hope the government does have a system to replace the ostracized Church-run organizations, however if suddenly as expected they’re overwhelmed by a sea of abandoned orphans then they have no one to point fingers to but themselves and their new gay lobby masters.