I understand why people and groups go to court when they think they are being coerced to do something which interferes with their religious convictions.
When a law tries to drive a small business owner out of business or if a law tries to prevent a person from holding a job which they have held for years because of a religious belief, I can understand why they would think that their first amendment rights are being violated.
But I don't understand why an adoption agency feels that they are entitled to have a contract renewed with a governmental entity when those who are in office have a disagreement with one of the agency's policies.
I try to see subjects from as many angles as I can regardless of the fact that I might disgree with a viewpoint.
But I cannot see how it can be argued that a city must enter into a contract with any organization.
Let's flip this situation around the other way. If conservatives were in office, would they want to be required to enter into a contract with an organization which had policies which the conservative administration disliked?