LGBT Being Legally Enforced

[Carborendum]

From Reason Magazine.

https://reason.com/2020/10/09/coupled-barred-from-fostering-their-1-year-old-great-granddaughter-because-of-their-opposition-to-homosexuality-and-gender-transitioning/

Summary:

• An Idaho state agency forbade great grandparents from adopting their 1-year old g-g-daughter because they were Christian (against enabling LGBTQ lifestyles).
• A federal court judge ruled against the agency and for the grandparents.

Now, usually, I agree with the legal analysis from Reason.  But here, I have to disagree with a certain point.  And it really speaks to the heart of the argument about religious liberty vs LGBTQ rights.

The court's position centered on this point.

Quote

Department regulations and policies appear neutral but in practice gerrymander to create unequal effect. As applied to the Blaises and others similarly situated, the regulations and policies disproportionately exclude persons who observe certain religious faiths from qualifying as foster parents based solely on speculative future conduct. In operation, Department regulations and policies eliminate a not insignificant cross-section of otherwise qualified persons from serving as potential caregivers based on their faith's stance on sexual orientation and gender identity and whether their religion supports certain issues LGBTQ+ youth might face.

The Court concludes Department regulations and policy operate as a religious gerrymander and are thus not neutral as applied to the Blaises and others similarly situated….

 -- Federal Court Opinion

And, remember, that Reason has had an accurate analsyis so far that I agreed with.  But here's the sticking point that they simply didn't get.

Quote

So far, I think the court's analysis is not correct: A law (whether an antidiscrimination law, a peyote ban, or one of a wide range of other laws) remains neutral and generally applicable even if it has "unequal effect" on certain religious believers, and "disproportionately exclude them from a certain benefit.

 -- Reason Magazine.

They did not get that bolded portion in the Court's position above. Yes, we understand that any law will tend to put an undue burden on people who disobey the law.  But when a law or policy seems specifically written to include or exclude a particular group who would otherwise be perfectly acceptable candidates for the role, it is gerrymandering.

Edited October 13, 2020 by Carborendum