LogFAQs > #966429011

So the majority seems to be arguing that A) the couple got the services they wanted and B) they weren't using the services for foster children in TN. Neither seem (to me) very legally sound, though the second may be more technically applicable. Still, public funds being given for this program really changes how much religious discrimination is "allowed".. iirc, churches/religious groups offering free meals/food can have a prayer but can't require people to join in

The majority ruled that the couple's complaint about the Holston Home for Children was inapplicable because they originally planned to foster a child in Florida, while Holston only handles in-state arrangements.

"The contract the Department has with Holston provides funds only for services for children' in the custody of the State of Tennessee.' Thus the services the Couple sought from Holston are not funded by the Department and therefore lack a causal connection to the alleged injury," continued the majority.

The panel majority also ruled that "the Plaintiffs have not shown that the Defendants would not contract with a Jewish agency similarly situated to Holston; therefore the Act does not single out people of the Jewish faith as a disfavored, innately inferior group."

Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle offered a partial dissent to the panel opinion's claim that the couple lacked "constitutional standing."

"The foregoing law makes clear that the allegations in the Amended Complaint, such as the barriers the Couple faces now as foster parents and continue to face in obtaining the efficiencies and other benefits and advantages of working with private agencies, are sufficient to establish standing," reads the dissent.