Skip to main content
Monday, June 30, 2025
Home
Omaha Daily Record
  • Login
  • Home
  • Subscribe
  • Calendar
    • Real Estate
    • Small Business
    • Non-Profit
    • Political
    • Legal
  • Podcasts
    • Real Estate
    • Small Business
    • Non-Profit
    • Political
    • Legal
  • Profiles
    • Real Estate
    • Small Business
    • Non-Profit
    • Political
    • Legal
  • E-Edition
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
  • Real Estate News
    • Market Trends
  • Business News
  • Non-Profit News
  • Political News
  • Legal News
  • Editorial
    • Empower You
    • The Serial Entrepreneur
    • Tom Becka
  • Other News
  • Public Records
    • Wreck Permits
    • Building Permits
    • Electrical Permits
    • Mechanical Permits
    • Plumbing Permits
  • Real Estate Leads
    • Notice of Default
    • Active Property Sales
    • Active Probates
    • Deeds
  • Public Notices
    • State of Nebraska
    • City of Bennington
    • City of Gretna
    • City of Valley
    • Douglas County West Community Schools
    • Gretna Public Schools
    • Omaha Airport Authority
    • Omaha Housing Authority
    • Plattsmouth Community Schools
    • City of Omaha
    • Douglas County
      • Tax Delinqueny 2025
    • City/County Notice of Bids
    • City of Ralston
    • Omaha Public Schools
    • Millard Public Schools
    • Ralston Public Schools
    • Westside Community Schools
    • Bennington Public Schools
    • Learning Community
    • MAPA
    • MECA
    • Omaha Airport Authority
    • Village of Boys Town
    • Village of Waterloo
    • Sarpy County
      • Tax Delinquency 2025
    • City of Bellevue
  • Advertise
    • Place a Legal Notice
    • Place a Print Ad
    • Place a Classified Ad
    • Place an Online Ad
    • Place Sponsored Content
  • Available For Hire
    • Real Estate
      • Contractors
      • Clerical
    • Legal
      • Paralegal
      • Clerical
  • About
    • Our History
    • Our Office
    • Our Staff
    • Contact Us

You are here

Home » Court: If Bias Rules Have Exceptions, Faith Groups Qualify

Court: If Bias Rules Have Exceptions, Faith Groups Qualify

Published by Derek Noehren on Tue, 06/22/2021 - 12:00am
By 
Peter Smith
The Associated Press

Justice Samuel Alito called it a “wisp” of a decision — a Supreme Court ruling last Thursday that favored Catholic Social Services in Philadelphia but was far from the constitutional gale wind that would have reshaped how courts interpret religious liberty under the First Amendment.

Still, there was a shift.

Governmental entities are now on notice that if they want to ban discrimination against LGBTQ persons or anyone else, they must not allow for any exceptions, or else religious groups will have the right to ask for them and they’ll have a strong case for getting them.

The high court’s ruling involved Philadelphia’s decision to stop referring children for foster placement to Catholic Social Services after learning in 2018 that the local agency wouldn’t certify same-sex couples as foster parents. The city said the agency violated its requirement that contractors not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Catholic Social Services had unsuccessfully argued in lower courts that it should be exempted under its religious belief that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. Also, it noted there were more than 20 other agencies that would work with same-sex couples.

A decades-old Supreme Court precedent says that if a government policy applies to everybody, religious groups can’t claim an exemption even if it conflicts with their beliefs.

But in last Thursday’s majority opinion, the court noted that Philadelphia’s contract with foster agencies allowed the human services commissioner to make exceptions to its non-discrimination law.

“Where such a system of individual exemptions exists, the government may not refuse to extend that system to cases of religious hardship without a compelling reason,” the court said, adding that the city doesn’t have a compelling reason to deny the Catholic agency an exception.

University of Louisville law professor Samuel Marcosson, who focuses on constitutional law and LGBTQ rights, said the ruling will put governments in “what may sometimes be a difficult decision whether to make their policies absolute.”

Their dilemma will be whether to “sacrifice the flexibility to make exceptions that make sense to achieve important policy goals, or allow those exceptions to become much broader in practice than the government would like since religious groups would be able to take advantage of them,” Marcosson said.

While all nine justices agreed with the decision, Alito and two others wanted to go further. They urged the court to reconsider the 1990 precedent it’s based on: Employment Division v. Smith, which held that Oregon’s drug prohibitions applied to everybody, even those using them for religious ceremonies.

Alito was not alone in predicting that if Philadelphia removes its no-exceptions stance, that won’t resolve things. The case, or a similar one, could come before the court again soon.

“It’s not going to work if Philadelphia tries to come within the ruling by taking away all their discretion granting exemptions,” said Bruce Ledewitz, a law professor at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh and specialist in constitutional law.

He said that under Chief Justice John Roberts, the court’s direction is so predictable that if it takes such a case, the religious party will win. If a religious party would likely lose, the court wouldn’t take the case in the first place, he said.

“What you have is a historical moment in the court’s history,” he said. “The majority feels for whatever reason that religious liberty is threatened, and they’re going to uphold religious liberty.”

Indeed, a recent study tracking cases before the Supreme Court found that it has overwhelmingly sided with religious petitions, and that whereas past cases often focused on the rights of religious minorities, recent decisions have favored mainstream Christian groups.

Last Thursday’s decision shows the “court’s extraordinary support for religion,” said Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and co-author of the study.

Mary Catherine Roper, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, which represented two organizations that intervened in the case to seek equitable treatment for LGBTQ families in Philadelphia’s foster system, said the ruling has a silver lining: The majority opinion does not question Philadelphia’s right to ban discrimination in its foster care system.

“We’re disappointed for the families and children of Philadelphia,” Roper said, but glad that the court didn’t allow Catholic Social Services “to remake the foster care system under their own beliefs.”

Roman Catholic Archbishop Nelson Perez of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, which is affiliated with Catholic Social Services, applauded the ruling, saying it “makes it abundantly clear that religious ministries cannot be forced to abandon their beliefs as the price for ministering to those in need,” he said.

But not all religious voices were supportive.

“The Catholic hierarchy may think that they have achieved a stunning victory,” said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, which advocates for LGBTQ Catholics. “In fact it is a crushing defeat for the Catholic values of equality, respect and human dignity of all people.”

M. Currey Cook of Lambda Legal, which advocates for LGBTQ rights, said the case would look different if there were evidence of the Catholic agency’s policies’ impact on LGBTQ couples or children.

“When confronted with such facts in a future case,” Cook said, “the court will have to grapple for the first time with the ways such discrimination harms the foster children whose needs and best interests must always be paramount in child welfare cases.”

User login

  • Request new password

            

Latest Podcasts

  • Real Estate
  • Political
  • Political
  • Real Estate

Nebraska Landlord

Betches Sup - A Liberal News Commentary

Ruthless - A Conservative News Commentary

REIA Radio Show

Omaha Daily Record

The Daily Record
222 South 72nd Street, Suite 302
Omaha, Nebraska
68114
United States

Tele (402) 345-1303
Fax (402) 345-2351
 

The Daily Record
222 South 72nd Street, Suite 302 | Omaha, Nebraska 68114 | United States | Tele (402) 345-1303 | Fax (402) 345-2351 | Sitemap
Site Design, Programming & Development by Surf New Media