A panel of Religious Left officials, legal experts, and LGBT advocates interpret the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling Fulton v. City of Philadelphia as a narrow loss that could have been much worse for progressives.

Moderated by the Very Rev. Kelly Brown Douglas, Dean of the Episcopal Divinity School at Union Theological Seminary, the June 23 panel included Collegiate Church Managing Director the Rev. Stan Sloan, Senior Staff Attorney at Children’s Rights Daniele Gerard, and St. Thomas Church Fifth Avenue theologian-in-residence the Rev. Patrick Cheng.

Douglas introduced how justices unanimously ruled that Catholic Social Services (CSS) could claim religious freedom protection in not accepting foster care placement applications from same-sex couples, “because of the way in which the city had written their contract.” That is, the city wrote their contract leaving room for exemptions and according to the Supreme Court, this was an exemption.

“At least for now, CSS can refuse to work with LGBTQ+ families who want to foster families,” Douglas noted. Yet many progressive groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), do not view the ruling as a complete loss.

Attorney Gerard claimed Fulton as a very narrow win for CSS, speculating that the ruling could have been much worse for progressives based upon concurring opinions from conservative justices. The narrow ruling’s application specifically to a social service contract in Philadelphia meant that the Court did not “create a broad license to discriminate based on religious beliefs, nor did they upend long standing First Amendment jurisprudence that requires faith-based entities to follow laws that are facially neutral and generally applicable.” So, while it may not be a total loss for those on the Left, Gerard assesses the ruling as just barely a win for CSS’ legal allies.

Sloan described the ruling as a “kicking of the can further down the road.” While the Collegiate Church Director admitted that it is yet to be seen what this Court will do, he argues that the future is frightening for “queer organizations.”

Sloan declared that he “finds it offensive that right wing conservatives consider this a victory.” Sloan cited this as further proof of the Roman Catholic Church falling on the wrong side of civil rights, especially in breaking the cardinal rule of doing what is in the best interest of the child. 

Sloan claimed that more than 63 percent of “young queer millennials” plan to form families, while yet other research indicates that practicing Christians continue to be (5%) more than twice as likely to adopt than the general population (2%); Catholics are three times as likely, and evangelicals are five times as likely to adopt as the average adult.

Furthermore, while “queer people exist in small towns and areas with no options to be referred,” in Philadelphia alone, there are more than 25 child welfare organizations that recruit and license foster and adoptive families. Nevertheless, to Sloan, “you end up with children with no homes and loving parents denied the ability to form families.”

Gerard claimed that many read this case as “religious believers vs. LGBTQ+ groups” when instead she framed the question of whether or not “agencies can take taxpayer funds and discriminate based on religious beliefs.” For Gerard, the latter remains the correct analysis because many “LGBTQ+ people are people of faith, and people of faith believe in LGBTQ+ equity.” Therefore, they cannot be simplistically pitted against one another as exclusive camps.

Cheng cited the more than 40 amicus briefs filed in support of the City of Philadelphia along with the comment that many religious groups “actually affirm the inherent goodness of LGBTQ+ people.” This is in contrast with the more than 30 amicus briefs filed in support of CSS from groups including the Anglican Church in North America, the National Association of Evangelicals, the General Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, and various Roman Catholic dioceses, among others.

“It seems like religious freedom arguments are being used to dilute equality rules and what we’re heading toward is this anti-religious bias being used by government to turn any claim of discrimination into an attack on Christianity,” Gerard claimed.

Sloan charged that “religious liberty is being used as a weapon.”

Panelists were adamant in claiming that passage of Equality Act legislation before Congress is crucial in a time and place in which those who identify as LGBTQ want visible support from Federal lawmakers. The Religious Left panelists also seek passage of the “Every Child Deserves a Family Act” which expressly prohibits religious-based discrimination. 

The panel closed with the statement that discrimination is wrong regardless of motivations, but particularly when publicly funded. They see this “narrow ruling in favor of Catholic Social Services” to be a dangerous indicator of potential future, publicly funded discrimination against LGBTQ+ communities and children. In the meantime, same-sex couples seeking foster care or adoption placement are being referred to different agencies.