Supreme Court - Religious Organizations Don't Have to Fulfill Contract Requirements

[Zorba]

Apparently, if you get a government contract and then refuse to fulfill the terms of that contract while claiming "religious reasons" the government can not pull that contract from your organization. How is not getting a government contract you refuse to fulfill a violation of the free practice clause?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-philadelphia-foster-care-lgbtq/2021/06/17/3408a0c4-cf6f-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html

Supreme Court sides with Catholic group that turns away same-sex couples as foster parents

The decision could make it easier for religious organizations or individuals participating in government programs to refuse services to LGBTQ people or others.

www.politico.com

 

[BoomerD]

Wapo paywall

 

[woolfe9998]

There must be some reason all three of the liberal justices voted with the conservative wing.

 

[Zorba]

Wapo paywall

Added another link

Supreme Court sides with Catholic group that turns away same-sex couples as foster parents

The decision could make it easier for religious organizations or individuals participating in government programs to refuse services to LGBTQ people or others.

www.politico.com

 

[BoomerD]

Added another link

Supreme Court sides with Catholic group that turns away same-sex couples as foster parents

The decision could make it easier for religious organizations or individuals participating in government programs to refuse services to LGBTQ people or others.

www.politico.com

thanks.

 

[woolfe9998]

Never mind, after reading the bulk of the opinion, I can see why the libs on the court voted with Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Because their reasoning is limited to the particulars of the Philadelphia ordinance. That ordinance can be changed tomorrow and according to the majority reasoning, the result would be opposite. Had they dissented instead, the concurring opinion of Alito, Thomas and Gorsusch might have become the majority opinion, in which case the precedent would be awful.

 

[shortylickens]

There must be some reason all three of the liberal justices voted with the conservative wing.

Despite what the angry pundits want you to believe, a judges personal beliefs dont often affect their case rulings.


And I think this is a perfect example of why we need separation of church and state. when the state hands out taxpayer funded contracts to organizations that can literally do whatever they want, we're gonna have problems.

 

[ivwshane]

There must be some reason all three of the liberal justices voted with the conservative wing.

Did you see who dissented?


**just saw your new post

 

[fskimospy]

Never mind, after reading the bulk of the opinion, I can see why the libs on the court voted with Roberts, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Because their reasoning is limited to the particulars of the Philadelphia ordinance. That ordinance can be changed tomorrow and according to the majority reasoning, the result would be opposite. Had they dissented instead, the concurring opinion of Alito, Thomas and Gorsusch might have become the majority opinion, in which case the precedent would be awful.

That makes sense, but it's frightening that at least three justices now think that the ability of religious organizations to only follow the laws they feel like following would extend to religious organizations now being able to pick and choose what terms of contracts they willingly signed to follow.

 

[fskimospy]

Reading more about this, it appears that there is in fact a majority to overrule Smith and presumably establish nearly unlimited rights for religious people and groups to disregard any law they don't like.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1405538138995400714

 

[woolfe9998]

Reading more about this, it appears that there is in fact a majority to overrule Smith and presumably establish nearly unlimited rights for religious people and groups to disregard any law they don't like.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1405538138995400714

Yep, looks like we dodged a bullet with this case. As it stands, there is no new precedent for the time being.

 

[Zorba]

Reading more about this, it appears that there is in fact a majority to overrule Smith and presumably establish nearly unlimited rights for religious people and groups to disregard any law they don't like.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1405538138995400714

Unfortunately not at all surprising. They want a Christian country where Christians can do what ever they want.

 

[hal2kilo]

There must be some reason all three of the liberal justices voted with the conservative wing.

Catholic church silently rules this country through the SCOTUS for a $1000 Alec?

 

[Sunburn74]

Catholic church silently rules this country through the SCOTUS for a $1000 Alec?

I think that's an interesting point. I can't remember the last case the Catholic church lost at the SCOTUS.

 

[woolfe9998]

Catholic church silently rules this country through the SCOTUS for a $1000 Alec?

I doubt the Catholic church has strong influence over all 9 justices.

It isn't Catholicism per se anyway. It's Christianity. Conservative justices inevitably favor "free exercise" because it allows Christians to do whatever the hell they want, including treating other people badly.

 

[senseamp]

This SCOTUS acts more like Catholic clerics than Justices.

 

[ivwshane]

I doubt the Catholic church has strong influence over all 9 justices.

It isn't Catholicism per se anyway. It's Christianity. Conservative justices inevitably favor "free exercise" because it allows Christians to do whatever the hell they want, including treating other people badly.

Aren’t most of the justices Catholic? I know there are more Catholic judges, percentage wise, than the make up of US citizens.

I just looked it up, the Supreme Court has 7 of 9 justices that identify as Catholic, 23% of the US population identifies as Catholic.

 

[woolfe9998]

Aren’t most of the justices Catholic? I know there are more Catholic judges, percentage wise, than the make up of US citizens.

I just looked it up, the Supreme Court has 7 of 9 justices that identify as Catholic, 23% of the US population identifies as Catholic.

That may be, but the SCOTUS also ruled in favor of the Hobby Lobby owners and that baker, all evangelical protestants. I don't think it matters much if it's Catholic or protestant.

 

[Sunburn74]

That may be, but the SCOTUS also ruled in favor of the Hobby Lobby owners and that baker, all evangelical protestants. I don't think it matters much if it's Catholic or protestant.

Yeah but that ruling favored things the Catholic church wanted to do. I think with the hobby lobby ruling there was a nunnery that was included as a plaintiff (something or other sisters of mercy)

I mean from what I'm hearing it's almost like gorsuch and alito would support church members not paying taxes if it was against their beliefs.

 

[desy]

Time to stop tax exempt status from Religious organizations

 

[UNCjigga]

Why should any government award a taxpayer funded contract to non-taxpayers?

 

[Zorba]

Why should any government award a taxpayer funded contract to non-taxpayers?

Because the next supreme court rolling will be that you can't exclude religious organizations from contracts, even if they refuse execute the contract.