在一项一致的裁决中，最高法院周四在一份声明中支持宗教自由涉及冲突的案件费城的反同性恋歧视政策。
根据首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨的意见，统治在一起涉及寄养和同性夫妇的案件中为天主教社会服务部工作。
艾琳·斯科特/路透社，文件
2021年6月1日，华盛顿，太阳从美国最高法院后面升起。
争论的焦点是费城是否可以在儿童社会保障系统上实施一项针对性取向的非歧视政策。儿童社会保障系统是一家主要的基于信仰的儿童福利机构，不与同性养父母合作。
2018年，费城拒绝与CSS续签该市寄养计划的合同，因为该组织拒绝接受同性恋申请人。该机构和几名天主教养父母起诉了这座城市，声称它违反了第一修正案，将他们的宗教信仰作为目标。
“基督教团结会只寻求一种便利，使它能够以符合其宗教信仰的方式继续为费城的儿童服务;罗伯茨写道:“它并不想把这些信念强加给任何人。他说:“费城拒绝与CSS签订提供寄养服务的合同，除非它同意证明同性夫妇是养父母，这不能通过严格的审查，违反了第一修正案。”他指的是法院认为法律符合宪法的最高标准。
罗伯茨的观点是对宗教自由的重大肯定，也是对男女同性恋、双性恋和变性者平等运动的打击，该运动试图将拒绝男女同性恋的信仰团体排除在纳税人资助的倡议之外。
CSS辩称2018年被该市不公平地针对，仅仅是因为其宗教信仰;它在费城的寄养家庭工作了近200年，从未被同性伴侣接近或拒绝。该市辩称，其规定是中立的，通常适用于所有纳税人出资的承包商。
去年10月，代表富尔顿和天主教社会服务部的贝克特宗教自由基金的律师洛里·温德姆(Lori Windham)告诉美国广播公司新闻，“没有对天主教社会服务部的投诉”。“没有一对同性伴侣曾经接近过他们。但如果有人这样做了，他们会帮助他们找到一家能够为这个家庭服务的机构，并帮助他们踏上寄养之旅。”
联邦下级法院驳回了社会保障系统关于宗教歧视的指控，支持该市为所有涉及纳税人资金的合同设定中立条款的能力。
在费城寄养网络的24家私人机构中，天主教社会服务部是唯一一家出于信仰拒绝同性伴侣申请的机构。
罗伯茨写道，该市的政策侵犯了第一修正案的宗教权利，因为它不“普遍适用于”所有人，允许该市社会服务部专员酌情豁免。
“最大限度地增加寄养家庭的数量和最大限度地减少责任是重要的目标，但伦敦金融城未能表明，给予综援例外将使这些目标面临风险。他写道:“如果有什么变化的话，包括项目中的社会保障在内，可能会增加而不是减少可领养的父母数量。”。
罗伯茨继续承认肯定男女同性恋、双性恋和变性者的重要性，但他说，宗教信仰冲突的人也必须有空间。
“我们不怀疑这种兴趣是有分量的，因为“我们的社会已经认识到，同性恋者和同性恋夫妇不能被视为社会弃儿或在尊严和价值上低人一等，”他说。然而，就本案的事实而言，这种兴趣并不能成为拒绝基督教团结作为其宗教活动的例外的理由。根据合同建立的例外制度削弱了伦敦金融城的论点，即其非歧视政策不容偏离。"
天主教教义说婚姻是一男一女之间的事。教会不认为LGBT家庭在道德上是顺从的。
费城律师戴安娜·科尔特斯(Diana Cortes)称这一决定“对寄养青少年和寄养父母来说是一个困难和令人失望的挫折”。该市目前有4100多名儿童在资源之家，其中360名在集体之家，等待安置在一个家庭。
倡导者说，同性恋、双性恋和变性的年轻人在寄养系统中占很大比例，同性恋、双性恋和变性的养父母需求量很大。
科尔特斯在一份声明中写道:“法院今天的决定篡夺了纽约市的判决，即非歧视政策符合其照顾的儿童的最佳利益，并对其他政府项目和服务产生了令人不安的后果。”“与此同时，该市感到欣慰的是，最高法院没有像原告们寻求的那样，彻底改变现有的宪法法律，采用一种标准，迫使法院下令的宗教免除每个领域的公民义务。”
研究表明，女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋和变性的年轻人不成比例地需要寄养，许多被转移或逃离寄养的人是因为照料者对他们的性取向或性别认同有敌意。
Supreme Court rules for religious liberty in case involving foster care, same-sex couples
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court on Thursday sided with religious freedom in acase involving a clashover Philadelphia's anti-LGBT discrimination policy.
The justices, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts,ruledfor Catholic Social Services in a case involving foster care and same-sex couples.
The dispute was over whether the city of Philadelphia can enforce a non-discrimination policy for sexual orientation on CSS, a leading faith-based child welfare agency that does not work with same-sex foster parents.
Philadelphia refused to renew its contract with CSS for the city's foster care program in 2018 because of the group's refusal to accept gay or lesbian applicants. The agency and several Catholic foster parents sued the city, alleging it targeted their religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment.
"CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else," Roberts wrote."The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless it agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents cannot survive strict scrutiny, and violates the First Amendment," he said, referring to the highest standard the court has for finding laws constitutional.
Roberts' opinion is a significant affirmation of religious liberty and blow to the LGBT equality movement which has sought to sideline faith-based groups that refuse gays and lesbians from taxpayer-funded initiatives.
CSS argued that it was unfairly targeted by the city in 2018 simply because of its religious beliefs; it's been working in foster care for nearly 200 years in Philly and never been approached by or turned away a same-sex couple. The city argued that its rules were neutral and generally applied on all taxpayer-funded contractors.
"There had been no complaints against Catholic Social Services," said Lori Windham, an attorney with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Fulton and Catholic Social Services, told ABC News last October. "No same-sex couple had ever approached them. But if one did, they would help them to find an agency that could serve that family and help them on their foster care journey."
Lower federal courts had rejected CSS claims of religious discrimination, upholding the city's ability to set neutral terms for all contracts involving taxpayer funds.
Of the 24 private agencies in Philadelphia's foster care network, Catholic Social Services is the only one that would deny applications from same-sex couples as a matter of faith.
Roberts wrote that the city's policy infringes on First Amendment religious rights because it is not "generally applicable" across the board, by allowing for exemptions at the discretion of a the city's Commissioner of the Department of Social Services.
"Maximizing the number of foster families and minimizing liability are important goals, but the City fails to show that granting CSS an exception will put those goals at risk. If anything, including CSS in the program seems likely to increase, not reduce, the number of available foster parents," he wrote.
Roberts goes on to acknowledge the importance of affirming LGBT people but says there must also be room for people with conflicting religious beliefs.
"We do not doubt that this interest is a weighty one, for “[o]ur society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," he said. "On the facts of this case, however, this interest cannot justify denying CSS an exception for its religious exercise. The creation of a system of exceptions under the contract undermines the City’s contention that its nondiscrimination policies can brook no departures."
Catholic teaching says that marriage is between one man and one woman. The church does not consider LGBT families morally compliant.
Philadelphia Solicitor Diana Cortes called the decision "a difficult and disappointing setback for foster care youth and the foster parents." The city has more than 4,100 kids in resource homes currently, including 360 in group homes awaiting placement with a family.
Advocates say LGBT young people make up a high share of those in the foster care system and that LGBT foster parents are in high demand.
"With today’s decision, the Court has usurped the City’s judgment that a non-discrimination policy is in the best interests of the children in its care, with disturbing consequences for other government programs and services," Cortes wrote in a statement. "At the same time, the city is gratified that the Supreme Court did not, as the plaintiffs sought, radically change existing constitutional law to adopt a standard that would force court-ordered religious exemptions from civic obligations in every arena. "
Studies show LGBT young people are disproportionately in need of foster care and that many who were removed or ran away from foster placements did so because of a caregiver's hostility toward their sexual orientation or gender identity.
