Legal battle ‘brewing’ over adoption agencies being forced to give kids to gay couples

Will this be the next same-sex 'marriage' related issue the Supreme Court considers?
Featured Image
Claire Chretien By Claire Chretien

Claire Chretien By Claire Chretien

June 7, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – For now, Christian bakers have received a reprieve from being forced to participate in same-sex “weddings,” but it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will force religious adoption agencies to place children with gay couples.

Nine states have laws protecting the rights of religious adoption agencies, the New York Times reports, but a legal fight is “already brewing” in some of those states. Nine other states “have laws that specifically prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in adoption or foster care or both.”

“Legal challenges to those laws, some pending in lower courts, eventually could come to the Supreme Court,” the Times predicted. “The high court's ruling on narrow grounds in favor of baker Jack Phillips did not spell out the circumstances under which religious objections to discrimination claims would have legal merit.”

Some of the laws protecting religious adoption agencies from being forced to let same-sex couples adopt kids were passed after the Supreme Court imposed its redefinition of marriage onto the country. For example, the governor of South Dakota signed one in 2017, as did the governor of Alabama. Kansas and Oklahoma passed pro-conscience laws this year.

Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C. have already been forced to end adoption programs because of same-sex “marriage.” The city of Philadelphia recently cut ties with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia’s Catholic Social Services (CSS) because the archdiocese won’t give foster kids to same-sex couples.

Pro-LGBT law firm Lambda Legal called the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop this week a “deeply disappointing day in American jurisprudence.”

“We will fiercely resist the coming effort that will seek to turn this ruling into a broad license to discriminate,” Lambda Legal CEO Rachel B. Tiven said. The left has tried to suggest freedom of conscience for bakers, florists, and other professionals is a “license to discriminate.”

“The Supreme Court’s ruling in Jack’s case makes it clear that hostility towards religious beliefs – like what the State of Colorado did to Jack – is unconstitutional,” President and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom Michael Farris wrote to supporters in an email today. “However, the decision left many crucial questions on the table, such as whether the government can compel create floral art that celebrates same-sex marriage.”

Also left unanswered is whether the government can compel faith-based adoption agencies to place children in homes where they are denied their fundamental right to a mother and father.

Finished reading? Want to make a difference?

You depend on our news reporting. We depend on you. Make an impact today.

Share this article