Illinois Judge rules in support of LGBT equality

[OSBF]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 7624.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dbackjon]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 7624.story

Great news!!

A Sangamon County judge ruled Thursday that the state can decline to renew its contracts with Catholic Charities in Illinois to provide publicly funded foster care and adoption services, meaning the process of transferring children to other social service agencies can proceed.

In a packed courtroom just one day earlier, lawyers for Catholic Charities urged Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt to prevent the state from suddenly severing a partnership that has funded foster care and adoption services in Illinois for four decades.

But Schmidt wrote in his ruling released Thursday that the longevity of the relationship between the state and Catholic Charities in Joliet, Peoria, Springfield and Belleville did not entitle them to automatic renewal of their contracts.

[OSBF]

I really don't get this. Why is THIS the issue where the line in the sand gets drawn? Why this one?

You can (at least in Illinois) go to a catholic hospital/clinic/pharmacy and get voluntary sterilization procedures, birth control, and even pregnancy termination. They decided to cave in on these issues so as not to lose state and federal insurance/health care contracts. In Central IL OSF and their HMO are one of the largest provider of health insurance and health care services to state and federal civilian employees, and to the poor with state medicade "blue" cards.

Why cave in on birth control and abortion, but not on allowing a gay couple to provide foster care or to adopt?

I really don't understand the decision here.

[JoltinJoe]

This is actually a ridiculous and indefensible court decision.

While a private agency may not have a "right" to a state contract, the state may not itself choose or not to choose to license or contract on an impermissible basis. Here, the state has burdened and punished religious expression, which is a fundamental right, and improperly declined to contract on that basis.

Quite plainly an LGBT couple has alternatives other than Catholic Charities if the couple wishes to adopt. As such, their adoption right is not burdened by the state contract with Catholic Charities. On the other hand, Catholic Charities' right to religious expression -- note again a fundamental right -- has been significantly burdened.

This decision is flawed, inconsistent with existing precedent, and will not survive an appeal.

[travelinman67]

While a private agency may not have a "right" to a state contract, the state may not itself choose or not to choose to license or contract on an impermissible basis. Here, the state has burdened and punished religious expression, which is a fundamental right, and improperly declined to contract on that basis.

Spot on, Joe.

Jon, THIS is the reason I cannot support many of the "equality" laws being passed.

It's no longer about "equality", it has become about "punishing" those who don't agree/support LGBT...

...ESPECIALLY on religious grounds.

This conversation goes back to the beginning. Any law crafted for the purpose of "punishing" someone solely because they abide by an established religious tenet is unconstitutional.

What's next? Banning Catholics from roadways? Public schools?

Extremely poor decision that won't stand.

[JoltinJoe]

While a private agency may not have a "right" to a state contract, the state may not itself choose or not to choose to license or contract on an impermissible basis. Here, the state has burdened and punished religious expression, which is a fundamental right, and improperly declined to contract on that basis.

Spot on, Joe.

Jon, THIS is the reason I cannot support many of the "equality" laws being passed.

It's no longer about "equality", it has become about "punishing" those who don't agree/support LGBT...

...ESPECIALLY on religious grounds.

This conversation goes back to the beginning. Any law crafted for the purpose of "punishing" someone solely because they abide by an established religious tenet is unconstitutional.

What's next? Banning Catholics from roadways? Public schools?

Extremely poor decision that won't stand.

I agree. This is a very dangerous decision, although coming from a lower Illinois state court, it won't hold much weight.

Keep in mind there are 26 million Catholics in this country who attend Mass every Sunday -- and another 52 million or so, about 40% of which go to Mass at least once a month. So that makes about 45 million regular Church-going Catholics in the United States.

Catholics in general have been supportive of LGBT civil rights, so long as those authorizing those rights do not conflict with religious expression. That could change dramatically if decisions like this are allowed to stand.

Again, LGBT couples have other adoption options, so they are not burdened by Catholic Charities' actions in referring them to other agencies. But there is a significant religious intrusion here.

Personally I have never felt any need to tell the state who can be married under civil law, or who may it permit to adopt, as the state's decisions have no impact on religious expression. But if the state starts telling religious groups that they are no longer licensed to handle adoptions, it's not that big of a step to telling the churches that they are no longer licensed to perform marriages.

I think the LGBT community needs to think if it really wants to go down that route.

[JoltinJoe]

The Supreme Court precedent I'm thinking of is Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 268-69 (1981). There, the Court held even when a party does not have a right to a privilege made available by the state, when the state does make a privilege available, the states assumes "an obligation to justify its discriminations and exclusions under applicable norms” and this remains true even if the state “was not required to create” the privilege in the first place.

In Widmar, a school extended a privilege to student groups to use school classrooms for their meetings, but barred a religiously-based student group from that privilege based on the assertion that the school could not endorse, and must maintain separateness, from religion. The Supreme Court held that the school (the state) acted unconstitutionally because, having made this privilege available, the state had improperly discriminated against the religious group and burdened their fundamental right of religious expression by refusing them the same privilege given to non-religious groups.

[OSBF]

So why is this issue so important?

Catholic health care providers are handing out birth control pills, morning after pills, IUD's etc etc etc.

Catholic health care providers are offering voluntary sterilization and pregnancy termination services.

I don't remember anybody going to court over providing these services, they just did it in order to keep the insurance and health care contracts in place.

But be damned if a gay couple can serve as foster parents.

WOW.

[OSBF]

But if the state starts telling religious groups that they are no longer licensed to handle adoptions, it's not that big of a step to telling the churches that they are no longer licensed to perform marriages.

They are not telling them that they can't offer addoption services.

They just aren't going to get a State Contract for foster care and adoption services. If they want to continue with the state contract, real simple, just play by the rules as set forth in the state contracting procedures that everybody else has to play by.

They can still be in the adoption business, it just will not be on the taxpayer's dime.

[JoltinJoe]

But if the state starts telling religious groups that they are no longer licensed to handle adoptions, it's not that big of a step to telling the churches that they are no longer licensed to perform marriages.

They are not telling them that they can't offer addoption services.

They just aren't going to get a State Contract for foster care and adoption services. If they want to continue with the state contract, real simple, just play by the rules as set forth in the state contracting procedures that everybody else has to play by.

They can still be in the adoption business, it just will not be on the taxpayer's dime.

They are not going to get a state contract because of religious expression. Read Widmar and explain to me how that decision can be constitutionally defended.

[Gil Dobie]

The biggest glitch in our attempt to be foster parents, was the fact that both of us worked. They have a rule that you can not use daycare for foster children in Minnesota, at least according to the rules they gave us at a state sponsored event.

[OSBF]

They are not telling them that they can't offer addoption services.

They just aren't going to get a State Contract for foster care and adoption services. If they want to continue with the state contract, real simple, just play by the rules as set forth in the state contracting procedures that everybody else has to play by.

They can still be in the adoption business, it just will not be on the taxpayer's dime.

They are not going to get a state contract because of religious expression. Read Widmar and explain to me how that decision can be constitutionally defended.

"not going to get a state contract", as you say now

is substantially different from,

"not going to get a state license", as you said first.

No-one is telling them they can no longer their adoption services to anyone that wants them.

They simply will not have a state contract, unless they follow the rules as set forth by the state.

If the state said that foster care placements under a state contract could only be done on Thursday afternoons and the prospective foster parents must be wearing plaid golf pants, it's their right to do so.

They run the program, the tax payer pays for the program, they get to make the rules.

[JoltinJoe]

They are not going to get a state contract because of religious expression. Read Widmar and explain to me how that decision can be constitutionally defended.

"not going to get a state contract", as you say now

is substantially different from,

"not going to get a state license", as you said first.

No-one is telling them they can no longer their adoption services to anyone that wants them.

They simply will not have a state contract, unless they follow the rules as set forth by the state.

If the state said that foster care placements under a state contract could only be done on Thursday afternoons and the prospective foster parents must be wearing plaid golf pants, it's their right to do so.

They run the program, the tax payer pays for the program, they get to make the rules.

No ...

I never said that the decision de-licensed Catholic Charities. What I said was, in a post several times removed from my original post, was that the decision is moving down a road from taking away a contract based on religious expression, to then arguing that the churches should be licensed to carry out adoptions, and then perhaps to the state should not license churches to conduct marriages, and I questioned whether the LGBT community really wanted to start down that road.

In my original post I questioned the constitutionality of the decision based on the premise that the state can decided whether " to license or contract" based on religious discrimination.

In any event, rather than just shoot from the hip, why don't you read Widmar and explain to me how this decision to deny a contract based on religious expression is constitutional.

[JoltinJoe]

For the record, here is my original post:

This is actually a ridiculous and indefensible court decision.

While a private agency may not have a "right" to a state contract, the state may not itself choose or not to choose to license or contract on an impermissible basis. Here, the state has burdened and punished religious expression, which is a fundamental right, and improperly declined to contract on that basis.

Quite plainly an LGBT couple has alternatives other than Catholic Charities if the couple wishes to adopt. As such, their adoption right is not burdened by the state contract with Catholic Charities. On the other hand, Catholic Charities' right to religious expression -- note again a fundamental right -- has been significantly burdened.

This decision is flawed, inconsistent with existing precedent, and will not survive an appeal.

[OSBF]

"not going to get a state contract", as you say now

is substantially different from,

"not going to get a state license", as you said first.

No-one is telling them they can no longer their adoption services to anyone that wants them.

They simply will not have a state contract, unless they follow the rules as set forth by the state.

If the state said that foster care placements under a state contract could only be done on Thursday afternoons and the prospective foster parents must be wearing plaid golf pants, it's their right to do so.

They run the program, the tax payer pays for the program, they get to make the rules.

No ...

I never said that the decision de-licensed Catholic Charities. What I said was, in a post several times removed from my original post, was that the decision is moving down a road from taking away a contract based on religious expression, to then arguing that the churches should be licensed to carry out adoptions, and then perhaps to the state should not license churches to conduct marriages, and I questioned whether the LGBT community really wanted to start down that road.

In my original post I questioned the constitutionality of the decision based on the premise that the state can decided whether " to license or contract" based on religious discrimination.

In any event, rather than just shoot from the hip, why don't you read Widmar and explain to me how this decision to deny a contract based on religious expression is constitutional.

Yes, you did say exactly that and I quoted you saying it. They are not being denied anything based on "religious expression". The state sets the rules for obtaining a contract with/doing business with the State. Those rules apply to all, doesn't matter if you're Islamic, Methodist, Catholic, or if you choose to worship gerbil piss. If you want to do business with the state, you follow the rules just like everybody else has to. Since the taxpayer is footing the bill, they get to make the rules. Want the civil rights rules to be different than they are? Move your happy ass to Illinois and start a campaign to overturn civil rights legislation, then it will be perfectly legal again to do business like a homophobic assclown and get state contracts.

Where's your outrage with the catholic hospitals handing out birth control pills and offering pregnancy termination services in order to keep state and federal contracts? Must be more money in the insurance and health care biz than in the foster care and adoption biz, so they're willing to sell out on doing the scrape and suk to an un-born child, but let a gay couple serve as foster parents? HELL NO, we just can't let that shit happen.

[JoltinJoe]

Reading is fundamental. Again, my first post:

Here, the state has burdened and punished religious expression, which is a fundamental right, and improperly declined to contract on that basis.

This is a pointless discussion. You quite obviously don't understand what I have said, and you refuse to read the case I cited.

[89Hen]

Where's your outrage with the catholic hospitals handing out birth control pills and offering pregnancy termination services in order to keep state and federal contracts?

You've said this twice now and you may want to read this...

http://www.usccb.org/upload/Ethical-Rel ... n-2009.pdf

And this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 06219.html

The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday asked federal health officials to ensure that Catholic hospitals provide emergency reproductive care to pregnant women, saying the refusal by religiously affiliated hospitals to provide abortion and other services was becoming an increasing problem.

and this...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/11/ch ... z1VxJfFEP4

A Chicago medical center has found itself in a controversial position, as the first Roman Catholic hospital in the country to help women halt an abortion midway through the process.

Resurrection Medical Center began the new practice after pro-life activists started bringing in women who, in the second trimester of their pregnancy, had gone to a clinic for an abortion and then changed their minds. The process used by the clinic for a second trimester pregnancy takes 2-3 days to complete, so by stopping the process early on, Resurrection doctors are hoping to preserve the pregnancy.

Some states are trying to FORCE Catholic hospitals to do things they don't want to do, but it won't happen without a fight from the Church.

[AZGrizFan]

What's your big concern here, Mensatard? Wouldn't you just rather that child was aborted anyways?

[HI54UNI]

What's your big concern here, Mensatard? Wouldn't you just rather that child was aborted anyways?

He just hates catholics because a bishop told his niece that marrying an Illinois State fan is a sin and prohibited by the church.