Current Events > Jewish couple's discrimination lawsuit dismissed after rejection from...

(+) Yeah! (+)

...Christian foster home:

https://mobile.twitter.com/MaricopaAAPI/status/1544822892717715456

A Tennessee court has rejected a lawsuit by a Jewish couple suing the state government after being told that they couldn't undergo foster parent training through a publicly-supported Christian charity due to religious differences.

In a decision released June 27, a three-judge panel of the Chancery Court in Davidson County ruled 2-1 to grant a motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Elizabeth and Gabriel Rutan-Ram against the Tennessee Department of Children's Services and DCS Commissioner Jenifer Nichols.

The court rejected claims of discrimination.

The Rutan-Rams argued in a January lawsuit that they were denied access to foster training programs through the state-supported Holston United Methodist Home for Children because they were not Christian. The organization only offers foster training programs to couples who uphold Christian beliefs.

The majority concluded that the couple's legal claims were moot, as they were able to complete the programs and receive certification through DCS months after being rejected by Holston.

"Because the Couple has received the very services they claim they were previously denied, the Panel Majority adopts the Defendants' analysis and concludes that any issue related to denial of services is not capable of the prospective relief the Plaintiffs seek and is now moot," read the panel majority opinion.

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.

The secular legal group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which represents the couple, intends to appeal the panel decision.

Holston, founded in 1895 and has reportedly helped over 8,000 children, receives reimbursement via the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Title IV-E.

Holston CEO Bradley Williams sent The Christian Post a statement in January saying that "the caregivers we partner with [are] extensions of our ministry team serving children."

"So from the very beginning, we seek to find alignment with them, and if we cannot do so, we try to help them find an agency that may be a better fit," he stated.

"Finding other agencies is not hard to do. In Tennessee, for example, there are six other agencies for each one faith-based provider."

Williams told CP he believes "forcing Holston Home to violate our beliefs and place children in homes that do not share our faith is wrong and contrary to a free society."

well this is a shit show.
i mean,of course a Christian foster house would only let the children adopted by christians. adoption is not the same with ordering a cake

but on the other side, those kids need parents so would being adopted by non christians is worse than being an orphan?

on another side, let's see who lost their shit if Muslims started adopting children from Christian foster house.

I was expecting it to be cake shop.

We going straight back to separate but equal

We talked about this at work, an absolutely wild case. Christo fascists realized a few years ago that they couldn't get anywhere by calling other religions and sexualities/gender identities demon spawn in courts or in public opinion. It was too hateful and mask off.

So now they argue to repeal basic civil rights and constitutional protections with the strongest sword available "religious rights"

Now they can make blatantly bigoted arguments and win because not letting them discriminate is anti religion now.

It's happening everywhere and the courts are gleefully facilitating it. It's disgusting and will set our society back decades, if not a century.

I could see this being OK if the Christian place is like the one place that gives that special Christian twist on it and that's why anyone picks them. I have a feeling the mere fact the Jewish couple applied here means that's not the case. I think the bar should be higher than Jews having just one option they can access. The bar should probably be tied to capacity/acceptance rates at the regional centers

Imagine having your brain be so poisoned by religion that the religion of the people adopting the kids is more important than having them be adopted.

ScazarMeltex posted...

Imagine having your brain be so poisoned by religion that the religion of the people adopting the kids is more important than having them be adopted.

This

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.

Christians: "Please don't abort, put them up for adoption!"
Also Christians: "NO ADOPTIONS!"

Ruvan22 posted...

"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.

Stop throwing public money at private agencies, and this won't be an issue.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Stop throwing public money at private agencies, and this won't be an issue.

Quiet the people going into rage at "expanding the government" and doing that won't be an issue

Ruvan22 posted...

Quiet the people going into rage at "expanding the government" and doing that won't be an issue

"Entitlement reform!! ...except, you know, my entitlements"

Questionmarktarius posted...

"Entitlement reform!! ...except, you know, my entitlements"

I... are you contradicting yourself?

You state that if we stop giving public money to private groups, instances like this won't happen. I point out that is not realistic, given the steadfastness of some parties. Are you agreeing that it won't happen?

I love how people claim to have "Good Christian Values" when this is literally what Christian values are these days. Just hate, hate, and more fucking hate.

Ruvan22 posted...

I... are you contradicting yourself?

self-deprecating, maybe.

You state that if we stop giving public money to private groups, instances like this won't happen. I point out that is not realistic, given the steadfastness of some parties. Are you agreeing that it won't happen?

Either cut off the money-teat, or be damn stringent about the strings. Either way will involve complaints and lobbying otherwise.

Questionmarktarius posted...

self-deprecating, maybe.

Ahh see now THAT context helps...

Either cut off the money-teat, or be damn stringent about the strings. Either way will involve complaints and lobbying otherwise.

Agreed, but sadly the needle has moved towards the "given private religious agencies public money for public funds" side of the scale...

This is fucking outrageous. I wish it were fake.