Interesting read regarding discrimination and law in Philadelphia in relation to religious freedom.

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

Interesting, so reading over Robert’s decision, this was all started by a “journalist “ at a paper stirring up $hit.

The Catholic organization would take applications from those who wanted to be considered as adoptive parents and would refer those who did meet their criteria to other agencies. Someone in the Philadelphia bureaucracy read the newspaper story and cut the Catholic organization off.

Damm!t Eegore, now I’m sucked in a reading this whole thing…..

Below is an interesting point by Alito with regards to a decision known as Smith.

There is no question that Smith’s interpretation can have startling consequences. Here are a few examples. Suppose that the Volstead Act, which implemented the Prohibition Amendment, had not contained an exception for sacramen- tal wine.

Or suppose that a jurisdiction in this country, following the recommendations of medical associations in Europe, banned the circumcision of infants.4 A San Fran- cisco ballot initiative in 2010 proposed just that.5 A cate- gorical ban would be allowed by Smith even though it would prohibit an ancient and important Jewish and Muslim prac- tice.

More evidence of leftist love which sounds amazingly similar to shutting down schools and destroying schools for no good reason.

“Recently, however, the City has barred Catholic Social Services (CSS) from continuing this work. Because the Catholic Church continues to believe that marriage is a bond between one man and one woman, CSS will not vet same-sex couples. As far as the record reflects, no same-sex couple has ever approached CSS, but if that were to occur, CSS would simply refer the couple to another agency that is happy to provide that service—and there are at least 27 such agencies in Philadelphia. App. 171; App. to Pet. for Cert. 137a; see also id., at 286a. Thus, not only is there no evidence that CSS’s policy has ever interfered in the slight- est with the efforts of a same-sex couple to care for a foster child, there is no reason to fear that it would ever have that effect.
None of that mattered to Philadelphia. When a newspa- per publicized CSS’s policy, the City barred CSS from con- tinuing its foster care work. Remarkably, the City took this step even though it threatens the welfare of children await- ing placement in foster homes. There is an acute shortage of foster parents, both in Philadelphia and in the country at large.18 By ousting CSS, the City eliminated one of its ma- jor sources of foster homes. And that’s not all. The City went so far as to prohibit the placement of any children in homes that CSS had previously vetted and approved. Ex- emplary foster parents like petitioners Sharonell Fulton and Toni Lynn Simms-Busch are blocked from providing loving homes for children they were eager to help.19 The City apparently prefers to risk leaving children without fos- ter parents than to allow CSS to follow its religiously dic- tated policy, which threatens no tangible harm.”