The weekend commentary articles under "Fostering Discrimination?" dealing with the Supreme Court case Fulton v. City of Philadelphia underscores the Democratic Party's intolerance of organized religion and its unwillingness to respect beliefs that they do not share.

The City of Philadelphia and other Democratic controlled cities, e.g. Chicago, etc. have refused to allow Catholic Social Services (CSS) to continue to be involved in foster care placements, because CSS refuses to deal with same sex couples due to its religious belief that marriage is between a man and a women. If CSS is approached by a same sex couple who wants to become foster care parents, it would refer them to the other 29 agencies that do work with them in Philadelphia. It should be noted that not one same sex couple has approached CSS for placement certification or complained about CSS relative to this case.

These prohibitions come at a time when foster parent placement needs (250 children in Philadelphia and 424,000 nationwide) are high due to the opioid epidemic, and when there are fewer available foster parents due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Cutting off their noses to spite their faces seems to be the methodology of these Democratically controlled cities. They care more about attacking a belief system than the vulnerable children they are supposed to be protecting.

The second article by the head of one of the agencies that does support LGBTQ couples is a myopic self serving response to the issue. This agency has joined the City in the lawsuit. I appreciate what the LGBTQ community has had to overcome, but Article I of the Bill of Rights states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... It is unfortunate that the City of Philadelphia and others do not respect this fundamental constitutional requirement and the faith-based people who are protected by it. Just another reason, the Democratic Party did not see a "Blue Wave" in the election.

(44) comments

Gee Scott

Organized religion is the root of all evil. Good on Philadelphia for trying to stamp out bigotry


So if someone wanted to take money to help poor people but told you that they refuse to help black people because their religion thinks blacks are inferior, you'd be okay with that? I mean, they'd be helping some people so wouldn't that be okay? According to your logic that would be just fine. According to how our country works, it would not be.


So this is the whole intolerance of intolerance argument?

You would think that people would realize what a loser side that is.


I mean, refusing to admit a loss is kinda on-brand right now.



Good point!


Being steeped in religious dogma does not flow with the "free will" arguments. There's no half ways when it comes to evangelicals, you either is or you ain't...


Allowing LBGT to adopt should be law, along with State marriage to protect their legal rights. However, no religious organization should be forced to marry any except a man and a woman, as long as it can be shown to be part of their religion.



I agree, but my concern is always that separate, but equal almost never ends up that way.

That said, union the rights conveyed with it should be a legal procedure as well as the split of said union.

The ceremony itself can be a religious one. That way you keep church and state separate. You have a state-representative at each ceremony to certify and the justice of the peace at city hall is a state-representative. Bing-bang-boom, done.


Dick, No American government has ever attempted to force a religious organization to marry folk of the same sex. Just like no one has ever attempted to force the RCC to marry someone who was divorced.


No religious organization is required to marry two individuals they don't want to, but if they are to participate in American democracy - not to mention get tax exempt status - they must obey American law.



I tip toe lightly in this section but you touched on the heart of the issue that is dividing this country. The law. Does the Supreme Court make the law? And how will this Court treat situations like Fulton that come into tension with Obergefell i suggest the opening two paragraphs of Chief Justice Robert: dissent to Obergefell may shed some ight.:

" Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

 Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.

 But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered)."


Did you read the article I suggested?

Greg F

Col. JS KLINK.....don't forget that your bible is based on MYTH that has gone 2000+ years with zero evidence any of it is real. The abuses and murders in the name of Jesus and others is real. That your and other religions have escaped taxation based on mythical belief is absurd. When those religions decide they want to put their fantasies into part of US Law, well, there's the beef. We don't use taxpayer money to glorify unicorns and unproven bunk that is about as valid as throwing dung on a wall to see how many centuries it sticks. Religions have done that and continue to try...but you fail as the others do, to realize that you haven't spent the tax dollars that would give you a more valid voice in the argument...not that it's valid in any regard as none of it is provable. Laws are drawn not based upon myth, but on how a society should interact and deal with interactions among its people of ALL religions, ethnicities, backgrounds and more. Yours just wants to be non-inclusive. Sorry...that's not gonna happen on my taxpayer dime.



And that's how we do the separation of church and state!



Why sort of religion discriminates against same sex couples and why? There is no good reason, and it should be against the law.



Why is a very interesting question and maybe one that should be analyzed more vigorously as it is an issue that is dividing our country.. This is certainly not a new issue. It has a recorded history well beyond 5000 years ago.

In religious terms, The God of the fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob outright condemned homosexuality as an abomination through the laws given by Moses. This is the same God that is worshipped by billions in this world today.

Homosexualty was rampant during Jesus times when he said marriage is between on man and one woman. A religious doctrine that has been followed for 2000 years by the billions of Christians throughout the history of the Christian Church.

So why is it discrimination for Churches to follow the teachings of their God?


They are willful misinterpretations; God and Jesus never said those things.

Greg F

God and Jesus never existed.



Just one example of numerous: Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.? Willful misrepresentation?

Unfortunately this comment section is not the best forum for exchange of ideas. One is certainly needed. What is just as pertinent to this discussion is an understanding of the why concerning the two prongs of the religious section of the First Amendment. And its wisdom.


jsk, I urge you to read the scholarly article at the link below, It addresses context.

“Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality”


threecents, I attended a High Holy day service some years ago at Kol Ami where the rabbi sermonized on same sex marriage. I remember his addressing some of the willful misinterpretations, including ignoring Canaanite cultic prostitution.


jsk - who actually wrote the Bible? Was it man ( who could impart his own bias ) or was it somehow mystically written by God ( and which Christian god or ??? ) And please don't confuse this question with a repudiation of the overall teachings of the Bible but it is full of contradictions, no?


Leviticus says all sorts of things that are routinely ignored by Christians. Find something in the New Testament, please.


Those very same religious laws (which were effectively abolished by the Covenant in the New Testament, but whatever) also considered eating shrimp and abomination, and wearing clothing of two different fibers. The fact that homosexuality is the only one which is being cherry-picked to be enforced here is...somewhat telling.


[thumbup]Pub, Shiftless and Ms Dipity[thumbup]

Greg F

Republicans can’t tolerate truth and honesty. Trumps lawyers should be disbarred for their actions and trump should be brought on charges of subversion.


order if the author knows that the majority of Democrats belong to Christian religions.


I wonder if....

Auto-bananas strikes again.

Greg F

When the church pays taxes then you may assert your voice. Contrary to popular opinion the US was not founded on religious principals. When your actions affect others, then expect time pushback in that. We need freedom from religion and you can practice what you want at home or your church. Keep it out of public policy.

Greg F

...and the right doesn’t tolerate anyone not lily white.

PurplePickles aka L&M

So Harry is upset because he is intolerant of democratic party's intolerance of CSS's intolerance?

Did Harry think things through before he submitted his LTE?


Oh man I went to sleep in Frederick and woke up in Philadelphia again?


We value religious freedom even here in Frederick.

Greg F

Many value freedom from religion.


You cannot have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.


Famous quote from W.C. Fields

First prize is one week in Philadelphia

Second prize is two weeks in Philadelphia


No private company is entitled to a government contract. THe Catholic Church will just have to get over it. And spend their free time and money making up for generations of sexual abuse.


And yet the Roman Catholic Church, right up to Pope John as has been revealed recently, supports and covers up rampant same-sex sexual abuse and pedophilia as we speak. There seems to be a terrible mixed message occurring there. LGBTQ people are born the way they come into this World, they have no choice. They are exactly the same people as every other human being, and deserve exactly the same Rights and Privileges to love and marry without artificial restrictions conjured up by ignorant people. Judge not, lest you be Judged.


[thumbup][thumbup] phy


Let us suppose that a social services agency refuses to work with people who attend religious services regularly. If approached by someone who does, this agency will refer that person to the other 29 agencies.

I’m sure we all agree that this agency is protected by the 1st Amendment. But is it entitled to a government contract? I hope we would all say no.

Now let’s suppose an agency won’t work with interracial couples based on its sincerely held religious beliefs about that sort of thing. Is that agency entitled to government money?

How about an agency that refuses to work with a couple of mixed religions?

I fully support CSS’s right to not work with same sex couples. On their own dime.


[thumbup][thumbup] public


I would not accept discrimination against same sex couples, even if there were real religious reasons - no more than I would accept discrimination based on skin color for religious reasons. Or whether someone eats pork or shellfish and so on for fans of Leviticus.


“Fans of Leviticus”

Dibs on band name.

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages granted in other states. Starting in 2018, in accordance with that ruling, Philly Foster Care Services barred contractors who didn’t recognized same sex married couples from placing children. The ‘Fulton verses Philadelphia’ appeal court oral arguments were heard on Nov 4th, 2020, a day after the national elections . To suggest that’s why there wasn’t a blue wave is a bit of a stretch.

Philadelphia continues to contract with CSS for other foster care services, including case management services and operating group homes, where CSS is willing to comply with all contract requirements.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Already a member?

Login Now
Click Here!

Currently a News-Post subscriber?

Activate your membership at no additional charge.
Click Here!

Need more information?

Learn about the benefits of membership.
Click Here!

Ready to join?

Choose the membership plan that fits your needs.
Click Here!