Supreme Court, in 9-0 Ruling, Says City Can't Force Catholic Foster Agency to Work with LGBT Couples

[TurtleSox]

June 17, 2021
Supreme Court, in 9-0 Ruling, Says City Can't Force Catholic Foster Agency to Work with LGBT Couples

As bad as SCOTUS has been in the past, this right decision is pleasantly surprising.

 

[just-want-peace]

June 17, 2021
Supreme Court, in 9-0 Ruling, Says City Can't Force Catholic Foster Agency to Work with LGBT Couples

As bad as SCOTUS has been in the past, this right decision is pleasantly surprising.

9-0, a miracle in itself!!!!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Though not mentioned in the article, significantly both Kavanaugh and Barrett, who wrote their concurring opinion, saw no need or good way to overturn Smith. Breyer also joined her in that opinion.

 

[Reynolds]

9-0, a miracle in itself!!!!

Yeah. Makes me wonder what I am missing.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Yeah. Makes me wonder what I am missing.

Yes, this 9-0 may not quite be the victory sought.

Since Smith was not addressed here, except to say that it may be hard to overrule—and this by two key Trump appointees, despite the extensively stated contrary opinions of Alito and Gorsuch, who along with Thomas significantly joined each other’s—this still leaves much to be desired. Had Kavanaugh and Barrett been of the same opinion as the latter three, Smith could have suffered a real setback if not gutted entirely.

 

[Scott Downey]

Notice you never see the democrat liberal or progressives here agreeing or liking these kinds of posts.

 

[atpollard]

Not a moral victory, just a clear point of contract law. You cannot create a contract that allows for exceptions and then refuse to grant exceptions based on "religious beliefs". As soon as the city changes the language in the next contract, it will be back to the courts that ducked the REAL issue.

 

[atpollard]

Notice you never see the democrat liberal or progressives here agreeing or liking these kinds of posts.

THIS fight was just postponed until another round. There are more court cases coming down the pike.

 

[Yeshua1]

THIS fight was just postponed until another round. There are more court cases coming down the pike.

Still waiting upon that landmark case to come

 

[Van]

Back in the day, the countries of Europe thought they could appease Mr. Hitler, but appeasement never works. The Conservative Supremes are trying to appease the Left so the Left will not Pack the Court. Wait and See folks,

 

[atpollard]

Back in the day, the countries of Europe thought they could appease Mr. Hitler, but appeasement never works. The Conservative Supremes are trying to appease the Left so the Left will not Pack the Court. Wait and See folks,

Packing the court will backfire.
Sooner or later the other side will control the process and your 20 Justices will just become 40 Justices.
That is a Genie that cannot be put back in the bottle.
Like the legislation by "Executive Order" that has become the norm of the last few presidencies.

 

[Van]

Packing the court will backfire.
Sooner or later the other side will control the process and your 20 Justices will just become 40 Justices.
That is a Genie that cannot be put back in the bottle.
Like the legislation by "Executive Order" that has become the norm of the last few presidencies.

Yes the effort might set us adrift on the old Bob Mitchum movie, The River of No Return.

 

[TurtleSox]

Though not mentioned in the article, significantly both Kavanaugh and Barrett, who wrote their concurring opinion, saw no need or good way to overturn Smith. Breyer also joined her in that opinion.

Without a reference link it is hard to follow what you're talking about.

 

[TurtleSox]

Notice you never see the democrat liberal or progressives here agreeing or liking these kinds of posts.

Hard to imagine Christians who choose to be Democrats.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Without a reference link it is hard to follow what you're talking about.

Nyah, it just seems that way. The reference was to the SCOTUS decision itself. There were three concurring opinions, the first of which was penned by Barrett and joined by Kavanaugh and Breyer. It's rather brief. Here's an explicit link:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf

Note that the link is from the OP article—yep, yours —specifically from this paragraph:

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the court, which was joined by five other justices. Three members of the court's conservative bloc filed concurring opinions, agreeing with the judgment but saying they would have gone even further in protecting the religious liberty rights of the agency. There were no dissenting opinions.
​

The article, including that paragraph, rather misrepresents that first opinion, whose first paragraph was hers alone. They may not agree with Smith, but neither are they inclined to tackle it, perhaps ever.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Hard to imagine Christians who choose to be Democrats.

I can assure you that it doesn’t get better when you are face-to-face with the reality.


I’m not so bothered that they are so registered; it’s their willfully voting and advocating Democrat that so disturbs. “The Dark Side clouds everything.”

 

[TurtleSox]

Nyah, it just seems that way. The reference was to the SCOTUS decision itself. There were three concurring opinions, the first of which was penned by Barrett and joined by Kavanaugh and Breyer. It's rather brief. Here's an explicit link:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf

Note that the link is from the OP article—yep, yours —specifically from this paragraph:

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the court, which was joined by five other justices. Three members of the court's conservative bloc filed concurring opinions, agreeing with the judgment but saying they would have gone even further in protecting the religious liberty rights of the agency. There were no dissenting opinions.
​

The article, including that paragraph, rather misrepresents that first opinion, whose first paragraph was hers alone. They may not agree with Smith, but neither are they inclined to tackle it, perhaps ever.

No, it didn't seem that way. You yourself prove it was that way. Referring to something linked in the article without the link to that other resource or opinion isn't fair to full disclosure of relatedmaterials. Especially when there are multiple links in said original article.