Shutterstock
The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case that involves the intersection of religious rights and anti-discrimination practices. The case is the first major test of newly-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the controversial replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Barrett, who was heavily scrutinized before her confirmation for her fundamental religious views, will be hearing a case directly relating to religious freedoms.
The case is between the city of Philadelphia and a Catholic foster agency. In 2018, it came to the attention of the city of Philadelphia that the foster agency was screening potential applicants and choosing to deny applications from any people in same-sex relationships.
According to the foster agency, same-sex relationships run counter to their religious beliefs. As such, they could not give their encouragement or blessing to such relationships by way of allowing them to adopt children.
The city of Philadelphia responded by refusing to allow that agency to take in any more foster children. The city cited its anti-discrimination policy, and updated the wording of local laws to reflect that foster agencies could not discriminate against potential foster parents based on their sexuality. The foster agency then sued, alleging that their religious freedoms were being trampled by the local government.
The clash between the Catholic agency and the city of Philadelphia is a classic legal conundrum. Where does one person’s right to religious freedom end? Some would argue that it ends where another person’s right to not be discriminated against based on their sexuality.
Others would argue that religious individuals shouldn’t be compelled to condone relationships they find blasphemous to their religion.
The Supreme Court is leaning in favor of the Catholic agency at the time of this writing. The six-to-three conservative majority on the bench makes it much more likely that the court will rule in favor of religious institutions currently.
However, there is a possibility that any ruling the court reaches could have massive reverberations if they rule in favor of the adoption agency.
If the court sets a precedent that private businesses can refuse service to people on religious grounds, that opens up a new can of worms. Contractors could refuse to work on peoples’ homes based on their religious views. Wedding venues could refuse to host same-sex weddings.
The knock-on effects of such a ruling would be felt for decades after the case. Of course, the protection of religious freedoms is paramount to the court, so it is likely they will rule in favor of the adoption agency.
