Catholics Sue San Francisco for Violation of 1st Amendment

[lawrocket 3]

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=4731510

Last month, a Vatican Cardinal told the SF archdiocese that children up for adoption should not be placed with gay couples. The city’s 11 supervisors unanimously passed a resolution encouraging the local archbishop to “defy all discriminatory directives” from the Vatican, and calling statements that had been made by the cardinal and the Vatican “unacceptable to the citizenry of San Francisco,” as well as hateful, discriminatory, insulting, callous, insensitive, ignorant. etc.

So the Thomas More Law Center, along with a couple of private citizens, filed a lawsuit for San Francisco's official disapproval of a religion. I guess that they are asking for an injunction and one dollar. But, they are also asking for attorney fees and costs.

I think that they have a point - SF has made a governmental statement of policy that the church's teaching are unacceptable. There is a governmental body declaring a religion as illegitimate or wrong.

It'll be interesting to see how the city defends itself on this one...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It'll be interesting to see how the city defends itself on this one...

I believe by the fact that the local archdiocese has been ignoring the Vatican on this for quite some time. The Board has only said that they hope this will continue to be true. At no point did they say catholism is wrong.

[Andy9o8 3]

As you and I know, media reports of lawsuits are sometimes like whuffo media's reports of skydiving accidents - they're inartfully reported, so they may convey a wrong impression.
According to the article:

Quote

The group is suing the board for accusing the Vatican of interfering with city affairs by pressuring the local Archdiocese to stop placing children for adoption with gay couples.

If that's the case it doesn't seem like a First Amendment violation that would even get past the demurrer stage (translation: motion to dismiss on the face of the complaint).
But - I'd be interested to read the actual complaint itself. Nonetheless, my gut feeling is that the case will get blown out pretty quickly on pretrial motions. (On the other hand, it is California....)

[lawrocket 3]

I'd defend it on the basis that the vatican was a nation-state.

Quote

At no point did they say catholism is wrong.

No, but they DID resolve that the local archdiocese should ignore the Vatican.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 3]

Do you know if a copy of the complaint is obtainable online through any source?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The group is suing the board for accusing the Vatican of interfering with city affairs by pressuring the local Archdiocese to stop placing children for adoption with gay couples.

I think that's a different suit, Andy. Actually, I'm quite sure of it.

Frankly, this whole matter could just be resolved if the Pope pulled his head out of his ass. SF has long placed children with gay couples and if it stops doing that, the children will be the ones that suffer most. He knows this, the local officials know it, that's why they've been doing it all along. The hope had been there some lame sort of don't ask don't tell solution could allow the Vatican to keep talking its new hard line, and the Catholics here could keep doing God's work. But looks more likely that this bridge has been burned.

If the Church doesn't stop discriminating, it should lose its tax exempt status.

[stoneycase 0]

they've been doing this for years, and at many different levels. quite effectively i might add.

i used to work for an IT firm that had City of SF and the City of South SF as (my) clients. both cities, of course, have mandatory applications for all vendors, and additional documentation and such.

i can't remember the language exactly, though i'm sure it could be retrieved easily from the cities, but i definitely recall portions of the applications where the applicant had to agree they did not belong to, support, or provide funding to any organization or group that promoted discrimination. (and you can bet that the cities listed SEXUALITY as a basis of discrim, not just the std race, sex, origin, etc.) you also had to indicate whether or not your org/corp provided benefits to same-sex spouses of employees. better believe if you check that "no" box that there are NO requests coming your way. as a matter of fact, i know more than one large co that found that out the hard way. more than once, in my experiences, mfr's would partner with a vendor already "in" with SF or SSF to avoid the hassles of the application.

SF has made the point - they don't want to work with, provide support to, or be a part of any group that is involved in discrimination, especially when it's based on sexuality. more power to them. knowing SF, i wouldn't be surprised if they turned off trash/other city services to the churches ;) sounds fine to me.

you say you want to discriminate against same-sex couples, well you might want to think about that in SF, where a high % of the cities own workforce falls into that category. when they turn off your shit, why don't you go cry to the lord - i hear he made light in a day or something.

Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell