Wait, you mean there was another important religion story during the traffic jam of stories about the right vs. further right showdown at the Southern Baptist Convention and America’s Catholic bishops arguing about Holy Communion, the Catechism and liberal Catholic politicos?
Obviously, I noticed headlines such as this one in the Washington Post: “Supreme Court unanimously rules for Catholic group in Philadelphia foster-care dispute.”
The word “unanimous” is certainly important, in the fractured age in which we live. But look for the other crucial word in the overture on that story:
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously … that Philadelphia was wrong to end a Catholic group’s contract to provide foster-care services because the organization refused to work with same-sex couples.
It was the latest victory for religious organizations at the increasingly conservative court, and the second time it has ruled against governments trying to enforce an anti-discrimination law protecting LGBTQ rights against those claiming religious liberty.
But the opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was narrow enough to draw the support of the court’s three liberals — and the consternation of its three most conservative members for not going further.
Obviously, the crucial word is “but.” This ruling encouraged some church-state conservatives, but also provided some hope for those who believe that the Sexual Revolution will, more often than not, trump the free exercise of religion.
So, it’s time for two think pieces that explore the degree to which this ruling was a win for religious liberty.
No surprise here: Religious liberty pro David French, of The Dispatch, was encouraged: “Four Things You Need to Know After a Huge Day at SCOTUS — ‘Good night, Employment Division v. Smith. Good work. Sleep well. I’ll most likely kill you in the morning.’ “ Here is his reaction, at the level of SCOTUS personalities:
