 There were a couple of decisions handed down by the Supreme Court this morning and I want to kind of go over these Because these are are pretty big. Well, this one in particular. It doesn't have Like the weight that I Suspected it would and many people thought that it would it's kind of a smaller decision, but overall it's still Rubs me the wrong way. We're also going to talk about the Affordable Care Act Which survived another challenge now with the 6-3 majority if Trump was still president and had Twitter he'd be screaming at the justices who were conservative that favored The ACA Let's look at this here. So this is from Ian Millheiser So he writes Fulton the city of Philadelphia a case involving a Catholic group that objects to placing foster children with same-sex couples Was widely expected to be a sweeping victory for the religious right and a correspondingly significant defeat for LGBTQ rights Instead the court's opinion dodges nearly all of the important issues raised by the case right here. I want to stop and Just you know dissect this a little bit. I think that the court dodged all of the really big questions because They know that by now the ship on gay rights and equality it's sailed So if you undo LGBTQ plus rights, that's going to be incredibly unpopular So they're just kind of like side stepping it. They're pivoting so that way, you know, they're not very Controversial there's not much precedent that they're setting here. They're just trying to like swap this away And it's good in the sense that they didn't do the wrong thing But it is it's cowardly if you follow the Constitution and precedent That's been set by previous cases. I Mean, it's these questions aren't very difficult. It's not So it's still a small win for religious conservatives and a similarly small loss for the LGBTQ plus community in Philadelphia But the court's decision is unlikely to have many implications outside of the city And it hits pause on a fight to overrule a landmark Supreme Court decision from over three decades ago Most likely because as justice Amy Coney Barrett notes in a concurring opinion Several of the justices aren't sure what to do next if that decision is overruled Fulton involves Philadelphia's process for assigning children to foster homes the state contracts with more than 20 private groups to identify Suitable foster parents for these children until fairly recently one of these groups was Catholic social services in 2018 however the Philadelphia Inquirer revealed that CSS refuses to place foster children with same-sex couples After conducting an investigation the city decided to not renew its contract with CSS Claiming that the organization violated both the city ordinance banning discrimination and the terms of the contract itself Now this right here the city made the right decision because they are specifically Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation now discrimination just generally speaking in the process of child care in the process of adoption It's not Uncommon like you're going to discriminate you want people who are Qualified to take care of children you want people who have the income needed to take care and support a child But when it comes to sexual orientation, that's not a factor, right? so The fact that the city saw this as discrimination and ended the contract with CSS, that's the right decision But the court says actually no, that's not the right decision So they struck down the city's or you know a decision right here while Upholding, you know the ability of cities to actually not contract with bigoted organizations Okay, so moving on CSS sued claiming that it has a constitutional right to receive this government contract and To refuse to place children with same-sex couples. In other words, they want to be able to discriminate Because that refusal is rooted in CSS as religious beliefs religion is not a justification legal or morally to be discriminatory Fulton in other words teed up a similar issue to the one that the court largely avoided three years ago In masterpiece cake shop the Colorado Civil Rights Commission Whether individuals or organizations with religious objections to homosexuality have a constitutional right to discriminate against gay lesbian or bisexual Individuals just like look at the wording here whether or not You have a constitutional right to discriminate. I mean just this wording here This isn't a diss to the author, but like It's absurd that this is what was sought They wanted the right to discriminate No, we don't have to tolerate intolerance and Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal It violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because you can't discriminate against people Who are similarly similarly situated on the basis of an arbitrary characteristic? So you can discriminate against me if I choose to come into your establishment Without a shirt on you could say no no shoes. No shirt. No service. That's fine But if you're discriminating against me on the basis of an immutable characteristic if you're discriminating against me because I am gay That is a different thing than saying you can't come in here if you're not wearing shoes. That's basically what it is so Yeah freedom of religion assumes freedom from religion as well, right? That's that's exactly it So the plaintiffs in Fulton moreover also asked the Supreme Court to overrule its seminal decision in Employment Division V Smith which held that religious objectors must follow neutral laws of general applicability Under Smith a religious objector typically is bound by state or local long Local laws so long as it applies with equal force to non-religious actors So if secular organizations are forbidden from discriminating the same rule will generally generally apply to religious Organizations, but neither of these important questions was resolved in Fulton while Justice Samuel Alito Alito penned a lengthy opinion Calling for Smith to be overruled that opinion was joined by only justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch both conservative justices the remainder of the court joined a much narrower opinion majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts Which rules in favor of CSS but on grounds that are unlikely to have many implications for future cases So very very narrow. It's essentially a cop-out But at the same time I'm a little bit relieved that it is only a cop-out and they're not striking down more LGBTQ plus rights So Robert's majority opinion is exceedingly narrow Philadelphia cited two reasons for ending its relationship with CSS it claimed one that CSS violated both an anti-discrimination Ordinance and a provision of CSS contract with the city Roberts disposes of the first of these two reasons by denying that the anti-discrimination ordinance applies to this case at all That ordinance forbids denying or interfering with the public accommodations Opportunities of an individual or otherwise discriminating against that individual because of a variety of characteristics including sexual orientation Yet Roberts opinion argues that the words public accommodations do not include foster care Certification as a foster parent is not really readily accessible to the public He argues and it involves a customized and selective assessment that bears little resemblance to staying in a hotel eating at a restaurant or riding a bus again What they're basing their discrimination on It's immutable characteristics sexual orientation. This is an arbitrary characteristic They're not discriminating against individuals who have a low income They don't meet this income threshold to sufficiently support a child. They're not saying, you know what? You don't have a big enough House your housing situation isn't enough in our opinion to adequately raise a child They're basing it explicitly solely on sexual orientation, which is textbook discrimination if you if you change that right if you say We're not gonna, you know, allow Couples who are interracial to adopt children It gets really clear, right? And I believe that this decision here was 9-0. I want to say This is the actual PDF of the file. See this is why we read summaries kids because if you if you read all of this I mean, this is a short book, right? But really the core here is the The majority opinion here. Yeah, we're not we're not gonna read this. I believe it was 9-0. I could be wrong about that But either way, um, it's deeply deeply Discriminatory and unconstitutional. Yeah, it was 9-0. Seabass confirms that. Yeah, so even the liberal justices on this Yeah, they sided with Discrimination although like the the precedent here is very narrow