• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • 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?

    • Are a religion’s beliefs protected even if they violate federal laws? The Court rejected the right of Mormons to legally practice polygamy. Wine is an integral part of the Catholic Church communion service, but I assume it was illegal to consume in church during Prohibition.

    • We are talking about two different things.

      Alcoholic beverages for medicinal and sacramental use were exempt under the Volstead Act. Catholic churches were allowed to use alcohol because of their religious beliefs during prohibtion.

      But I'm not talking about what a religion believes. I'm talking about whether a city, state, county, or national government is required to enter into a contract with an organization with which the government incumbents disagree. I don't think the city of Philadelphia should be required to enter into a contract with the agency that is suing it.

    • The Catholic adoption agency definitely has a right to only serve heterosexual couples if they want. But, if the government doesn’t agree with their stance, shouldn’t they also have a right to not help fund them? Now, if we’re talking about that lack of funding causing the adoption agency to shut down, then it’s a pretty thorny issue. This whole religious liberty thing is tricky.

    • I may be wrong, but I don't think that this was a case of "funding" the agency but rather of having a contractual working arrangement with them.

      But either way, I don't think that the government should be obligated to work with or fund any agency that they don't want to work with or fund.

      This isn't really a religious liberty issue. This is an issue that applies to any situation involving any governmental entity and any non-governmental agency.

      If a governmental entity wants to quit having a contractual working arrangement with Planned Parenthood (as an example of the other end of the political context) then that governmental entity should not be obligated and if another Governmental entity doesn't want to work with this adoption agency then that entity should have the freedom to not renew a contract.