Catholic Charities sues over LGBT families: Why they'll lose

[Wolfman1982]

http://open.salon.com/blog/lawless_...rities_sues_to_deny_services_to_lgbt_families

JUNE 8, 2011 9:07AM

Imagine this scenario: As a part of its efforts to fight hunger, the State of Illinois gives out a number of grant contracts to private agencies that run food bank programs. One of these grants goes to the Catholic Church's social services arm, Catholic Charities, which runs a number of food bank programs in several Illinois cities. Soon, state investigators discover that Catholic Charities has imposed a severe condition on its food bank program: They will not distribute the food to hungry families unless the recipients sign an affidavit stating that none of the family members are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Illinois then terminates its grant to Catholic Charities. The group immediately files suit claiming religious discrimination, and conservative legislators repeatedly introduce new legislation in an attempt to exempt all religious organizations from having to follow the state's human rights laws even when they are using state money to fund their programs.

Outrageous, you're thinking. This would never happen, you're thinking. Even if the Catholic Church were so brazen in its bigotry as to deny food to hungry LGBT people, they have to know that they can't use public funds to do so, right? Think again.

In the State of Illinois, a real battle is underway between Catholic Charities and the state's human rights laws. Specifically, Catholic Charities has suspended its publicly funded adoption and foster care services because they anticipate state sanctions if they were to continue refusing to serve LGBT families. They have now filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against the state from enforcing the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act, which went into effect on June 1. The Act gives same-sex and opposite-sex couples the right to enter civil unions, which are defined as the equivalent to marriage. Partners in a civil union are to be treated as spouses as the word is defined by Illinois law. If a group such as Catholic Charities discriminates against civil union spouses by denying them access to programs funded with public state dollars, they are now in violation of several Illinois anti-discrimination laws and in danger of losing their state grants.

In many cities around the country, adoption and foster care services are farmed out to private agencies, many of them religious, through lucrative state contracts. Adoption and foster care have long been big business for the Catholic Church, and up until the last few years they have always been happy to benefit from public dollars. But now that states have begun to recognize LGBT families as part of the public, as members of the community who deserve equal treatment, those state dollars come with a catch. Publicly funded programs can't deny services to members of the public whose rights are protected by anti-discrimination laws. That has now started to include every religious conservative's favorite punching bag: LGBT families. This is not the first time Catholic Charities has gone to bat against LGBT families in states that have recognized their equality. Catholic Charities of Boston and D.C. both shut down their publicly funded adoption and foster care services rather than comply with anti-discrimination laws in those cities. But the Church still wants to have its cake and eat it too, and isn't willing to give up on those state contracts so easily. In Illinois, they're fighting on both the judicial and legislative fronts. In addition to the civil lawsuit seeking an injunction, they've also been pushing hard on friendly legislators to amend the civil union law to exempt religious organizations from having to comply.


So far, the legislative efforts have failed several times in committee. The lawsuit should also be a no-brainer. Catholic Charities essentially argues that the new civil unions law prohibits them from functioning as a religious organization according to their own religious values. Same-sex couples can go elsewhere, they say, to become foster and adoptive parents, and therefore they are not being denied access to these public services. (Never mind that the unfortunate children assigned to Catholic Charities suffer when loving, qualified parents are turned away for being gay.) To no great surprise, they have failed to anticipate constitutional arguments. Their complaint also glosses over the very real problem that many anti-gay religious groups have when attempting to use state funds to enrich their own programs: Cherry picking. Not only does Catholic Charities want to cherry pick between the members of the public who benefit from public funds, but they want to do so in a way that would not be legally allowable for a public agency. Further, the Church cherry picks through its own religious values. They have no ban on atheist applicants or applicants who have previously been divorced; these types of discrimination would also be illegal under Illinois law. Catholic Charities has never been allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, and yet somehow have managed to operate according to their own religious doctrine for all these years as a state contractor. The court should have a difficult time buying that being heterosexual is more integral to the Catholic doctrine than a belief in Jesus. Finally, no one is forcing Catholic Charities to take public money. They can continue to run private adoption services in as discriminatory a fashion as they like, using the Church's own private funds.

There are some Illinois citizens who will buy the argument that the civil unions law forces Catholic Charities to compromise its religious values. For them, I included the fictitious food bank example at the beginning. Any decent person can see why the Catholic Church would be dead wrong to refuse to feed LGBT families and to call that an integral part of their religious doctrine. The controversy over civil unions is exactly the same. Catholic Charities wants to ignore the fact that LGBT kids exist, are assigned to their agency, and may benefit greatly from being placed in a home headed by a same-sex couple. They want to ignore the fact that same-sex couples often make wonderful parents, as good or even better than their straight counterparts, and that there is a dearth of eligible foster families for the number of kids who need homes. By refusing to serve LGBT families, Catholic Charities subsumes a huge quantity of state resources and reserves them for straight members of the public. Now that the state has recognized that this is illegal discrimination, it's time for them to either start serving the entire public or to give up the public funds.

 

[Etoile]

I seem to recall a Catholic group here in the DC area that decided it would cancel all programs to help needy people, rather than be required to also help GAY needy people.

 

[Wolfman1982]

So much for "good" Christianity. So my words in the case is probably as usual. Fuck the catholic church, but not the people who are Catholics and or for that matter "normal" Christians, who are totally against LGBT phobia.

 

[Wolfman1982]

Catholic Church Urges HUD On LGBT Americans: “Let Them Go Homeless.”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...HUD-On LGBT Americans:-“Let-Them-Go-Homeless”

Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 01:39 PM PDT

The Obama administration delivered a significant advance in the promise America would be more equal and just place for LGBT citizens when it tasked the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with addressing the problem of LGBT-discriminatory housing practices.

On January 24, 2011 HUD announced the proposed new regulations, 76 Federal Register 15, with HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan saying:

“We have a responsibility to make certain that public programs are open to all Americans. With this proposed rule, we will make clear that a person’s eligibility for federal housing programs is, and should be, based on their need and not on their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

"Not so fast!" says the Catholic Church.

Once again, they are desperately afraid that they won't be able to participate in public programs and practice their private discrimination. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Press Release reads:

The USCCB Urges HUD Not to Include Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Among Protected Categories

We write on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in opposition to a proposed regulation that would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the list of protected categories for which discrimination in HUD programs is prohibited.

The full statement (PDF) is here. They have two points to make:

1. The Proposed Regulation Lacks Any Statutory Basis and Undermines the Policy of a Statute in Full Force, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Ah yes, the US Government has never passed any LGBT-affirmative legislation before, and ever it shall remain. Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has this to say on the long-standing discriminatory practices in the public and private sectors:

“LGBT people remain particularly vulnerable in seeking or retaining housing due to widespread bias, discrimination and a lack of housing protections,” said Carey. “Explicitly including LGBT people and our families in housing policies in order to better protect them and ensure fairness marks a proper governmental response and step toward rectifying a long-standing inequity.”

The second point the USCCB has to make is:

2. The Proposed Regulation May Infringe Upon the Rights of Faith-Based Organizations Not to Facilitate Shared Housing Arrangements That Violate the Organization’s Religious Beliefs.

God told us to turn away gays, lesbians and trans people, and you can't tell us otherwise.

In fact, this was a very welcome step in our Government assuming responsibility that taxpayer-supported programs would be made available to all taxpayers. And the issue of housing discrimination is a very serious problem that needs addressing.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force released a study just months ago on the state of discrimination in the trans community. It's bad. Among their issues with housing:

19% reported having been refused a home or apartment and 11% reported being evicted because of their gender identity/expression.
One-fifth (19%) reported experiencing homelessness at some point in their lives because they were transgender or gender non-conforming; the majority of those trying to access a homeless shelter were harassed by shelter staff or residents (55%), 29% were turned away altogether, an Respondents reported various forms of direct housing discrimination — 19% reported having been refused a home or apartment and 11% reported being evicted because of their gender identity/expression.
One-fifth (19%) reported experiencing homelessness at some point in their lives because they were transgender or gender non-conforming; the majority of those trying to access a homeless shelter were harassed by shelter staff or residents (55%), 29% were turned away altogether, and 22% were sexually assaulted by residents or staff.
Almost 2% of respondents were currently homeless, which is almost twice the rate of the general population (1%)
Respondents reported less than half the national rate of home ownership: 32% reported owning their home compared to 67% of the general population.
Respondents who have experienced homelessness were highly vulnerable to mistreatment in public settings, police abuse and negative health outcomes.

Additionally, other studies have found and epidemic of homeless LGBT youth:

Of the estimated 1.6 million homeless American youth, between 20 and 40 percent identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT).

Much more than these regulations needs to be done to address these problems. But, any movement that provides easier access to shelter and housing is a welcome step and likely to have a ripple effect. The Government can—and has a responsibility—to set the standards, and this HUD decision is a great incremental step in the right direction.

We've seen the Catholic Church pull these bullying tactic many times before. If the Church isn't down with providing services equitably, they're free to get out of the business, as they did Massachusetts, and they threatened to in Washington, DC. And here it is again. Asserting their religious freedom to collect tax-payer money and practice discriminatory policies at the same time.

It seems to me if the Church is going to involve itself in the public business of helping the less fortunate, it might contemplate whether it's appropriate to be sorting their charity cases into piles labeled "worthy" and "unworthy."

They might consult the Constitution for some relevant thoughts.

They might consult their Bible as well.

Leviticus 25:35-36 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. 36 Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you.

The public commenting period on this regulation expired on March 25th.

Frankly, I rather resent being scolded on my morality by a organization that just paid out $250,000,000 to settle 700 cases of abusing and raping children, cases that will never be prosecuted. Bishops? Heal thy own soul please. Think of the children.