Knock us over with a feather, but is this a signal that the Free Exercise portion of the First Amendment may yet get off life-support?

The Supreme Court sided unanimously with a Catholic foster agency in a dispute against the city of Philadelphia over whether it should be banned from participating in the city’s foster program because it excludes same-sex couples.

The group, Catholic Social Services (CSS), claimed that “Philadelphia’s attempts to exclude the Catholic Church from foster care” violated the First Amendment. Lawyers for the city, meanwhile, said that CSS “lacks a constitutional right to demand that DHS offer it a contract that omits the same nondiscrimination requirement every other FFCA must follow when performing services for the City.”

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices sided with Catholic Social Services.

The full ruling is here.

Short summary of the case — Catholic Social Services (CSS) has long been one of many private foster family agencies that serve children in need in Philadelphia. One of its functions is to certify foster families. As a Christian faith-based agency, they hold that marriage is a sacrament between one man and one woman. Therefore, don’t certify non-married couples or same-sex couples. No where in the court records was there any evidence that any same-sex couple had presented themselves for certification from CSS. What happened was the someone in the city got their panties in a wad over 2018 newspaper article where the Archdiocese of Philadelphia stated the position of not considering same-sex couples as eligible for CSS certification. The usual Leftist calls for investigation Purging the Unpure …

via GIPHY

… ensued and an ultimatum was issued — either certify same-sex couples or forget helping the children.

IOW — CSS would have to bake the cake.

CSS position, and the opinion of SCOTUS is that

(1) the services provided by Catholic SS are not offered to the public-at-large. All foster agencies have strict requirements to qualify for certification and if the contract with the city has exemptions/accommodation for other agencies, then denying a religious based one fails strict scrutiny

(2) Catholic SS only sought an accommodation to continue to provide services consistent with their religious beliefs. At no time did CSS ever attempt, or would attempt, to impose those beliefs on others.

That second point is significant, especially considering the lawfare harassment of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Jack Phillips never sought to impose his beliefs on any one of his customers, he just wants to create limited, custom-ordered cakes consistent with his religious beliefs. In Justice Alito’s concurring opinion:

Philadelphia’s ouster of CSS from foster care work simply does not further any interest that can properly be protected in this case. As noted, CSS’s policy has not hindered any same-sex couples from becoming foster parents, and there is no threat that it will do so in the future.

CSS’s policy has only one effect: It expresses the idea that same-sex couples should not be foster parents because only a man and a woman should marry. Many people today find this idea not only objectionable but hurtful. Nevertheless, protecting against this form of harm is not an interest that can justify the abridgment of First Amendment rights.

We have covered this ground repeatedly in free speech cases. In an open, pluralistic, self-governing society, the expression of an idea cannot be suppressed simply because some find it offensive, insulting, or even wounding.

Indeed. Not being offended is not a right.

I imagine that doesn't bode well for the prospects of that Bake The Cake ruling. https://t.co/TMZxDClVMl

— Lake Bum (@dustopian) June 17, 2021

Now, if only so-called religious leaders would take a clue and stop rolling over for the Progressive agenda.

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers!

Featured image via MarkThomas on Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license