Court stays out of case on gay rights and foster care
WASHINGTON — T h e Supreme Court refused on Thursday to intercede in a dispute between Philadelphia and a Catholic foster care agency that does not work with same-sex couples.
The city imposed a freeze on placements with the age ncy, Catholic Social Services, after an article in March in The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on its policy against placing children with same-sex couples. The agency and several foster parents sued the city in May, saying the move had violated their First Amendment rights to religious freedom and free speech.
A federal judge ruled against the agency in July, and an appeals court refused to order that placements be resumed while the appeal moves forward.
In asking the Supreme Court to step in, the agency said it could face dire consequences. “Without intervention,” the agency’s emergency application said, “the city’s intake freeze will force Catholic’s foster care program to close.”
The Supreme Court’s brief order gave no reasons for denying the request. Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam- uel Alito Jr. and Neil Gorsuch said they would have granted it.
The agency said the dispute with the city was hypo- thetical, as it had not been approached by a same-sex couple seeking to be foster parents. Were that to happen, the agency said, it would refer the couple to one of many other foster care groups that work in Philadelphia.
“Whether or not Catholic’s program remai ns open,” the agency wrote,
In asking the Supreme Court to step in, the agency said it could face dire consequences.
“there will be the same number of agencies in Philadel- phia that serve LGBTQ indi- viduals.”
The case, the latest clash between anti-discrimination principles and claims of con- science, reached the jus- tices at a preliminary stage and may yet return to them.
The case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, No. 18A118, is broadly similar to that of a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
In Ju n e, t he Supre me Court refused to decide the central issue in that case: whether businesses may claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws on religious grounds. It ruled instead that the baker had been mistreated by mem- bers of t he state’s civil rights commission who had expressed hostility toward religion.
The foster care agency relied on the decision, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in arguing that it too had been subjected to hostility based on anti-religious prejudice. It added that its free-speech rights would be violated were it forced to certify that same-sex couples are fit to be foster parents.
The city responded that the agency was not entitled to rewrite government contracts to eliminate anti-discrimination clauses.
“The consequences of the legal ruling applicants seek are staggering,” the city’s brief said. “If a government-contracted agency’s religious beliefs give it the right to offer government services only to those who meet its religious criteria, that would apply equally to an agency whose religious beliefs prevent it from accepting women who work outside the home or members of different faiths.”