LGBT – COOPER GENERAL NEWS

BRUSSELS – A culture war between Hungary and the European Union escalated on Wednesday after a senior bloc official said she would use all her resources to thwart a new Hungarian law that critics say will target the LGBT community.

The law banning the representation or promotion of homosexuality in persons under the age of 18, an addition to the laws against pedophiles, was passed by the Hungarian parliament but has yet to be approved by the country’s president.

The law was sharply criticized on Wednesday by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

“This Hungarian bill is a shame,” Ms. von der Leyen said in a statement. “This law clearly discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation. It contradicts the basic values of the European Union: human dignity, equality and respect for human rights. “

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who defended the law, will come under pressure to withdraw it at a meeting of EU leaders on Thursday and Friday. It is the most recent confrontation between the European Union and Mr Orban, who describes himself as an advocate of an “illiberal democracy” that can sometimes run counter to the democratic values of the bloc.

Ms von der Leyen described the European Union as a place “where you can be free who you are and love whoever you want” and added: “I will use all the powers of the Commission to protect the rights of all EU citizens are guaranteed. Whoever they are and wherever they live in the European Union. “

European ambassadors denounced the law on Wednesday in background information before the summit and said it violated the treaties of the European Union and crossed red lines. They expressed the hope that Mr Orban would withdraw from challenging Brussels in the way he has sometimes done in the past.

There is no quick fix if Hungary enforces the law, said the diplomats. But the Commission, which is officially the guardian of compliance with the Treaties, could refer Hungary to the European Court of Justice for a violation. The court could act relatively quickly if it wanted to, and Hungary has respected its decisions in the past.

The proposed law prohibits the distribution of homosexuality or gender affirmative surgery content to anyone under the age of 18 in school sex education programs, films, or advertisements. The government says it aims to protect children, but critics of the law say it combines homosexuality with pedophilia.

In a response on Wednesday, the Hungarian government issued a statement saying that Ms. von der Leyen’s statements were “based on false allegations” and reflected “a biased political opinion without a prior, impartial investigation”.

The statement continues: “The recently passed Hungarian law protects the rights of children, guarantees the rights of parents and does not apply to the rights of those over 18 with regard to sexual orientation, so it does not contain any discriminatory elements.”

Mr. Orban has portrayed himself as a defender of traditional Christian and national values which he believes are being undermined by new concepts of sexual identity and behavior. His government is also under pressure for its performance, particularly its response to the coronavirus. As a result, Mr Orban has used such cultural issues to strengthen his conservative base ahead of next year’s elections.

A European Union official said Ms. von der Leyen wanted to send a political message to Hungarians and planned to speak privately with Mr. Orban about the issue.

On Tuesday, when European ministers met in Luxembourg, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said the law is only aimed at pedophiles and does not restrict adult sexual freedom. “The law protects children in such a way that it is the exclusive right of parents to educate their children about sexual orientation up to the age of 18,” he said. “This law says nothing about the sexual orientation of adults.”

Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands issued a joint statement condemning the law as a violation of the right to freedom of expression and as a “blatant form of discrimination based on sexual orientation”.

Ireland’s European Minister Thomas Byrne said: “I am very concerned – it is wrong what happened there.” Mr Byrne called it “a very, very dangerous moment for Hungary and also for the EU”.

Germany’s European Minister Michael Roth spoke of concerns that both Hungary and Poland are violating the rule of law by restricting the freedoms of the courts, academics and the media, as well as the rights of women, migrants and minorities.

“The European Union is not primarily a single market or a monetary union,” said Roth. “We are a community of values, these values bind us all,” he said. “There must be no doubt that minorities, including sexual minorities, must be treated with respect.”

In an effort to get a public response, the city of Munich promised to light up its stadium in the rainbow colors of the Pride flag when Germany meets Hungary at the European Football Championship on Wednesday evening, but was refused by the game’s board. UEFA, who said the game must be kept free of politics.

The passionate soccer fan Orban has decided to cancel a visit to the Bavarian capital Munich for the game and instead to travel directly to Brussels, according to the German press agency dpa. The Hungarian government said it had never commented on Mr Orban’s “private program”.

Bavaria’s Prime Minister Markus Söder said Germans should “stand up against exclusion and discrimination,” while the Munich gay community said rainbow flags would be distributed to fans outside the stadium. A number of other stadiums in Germany should shine in rainbow colors.

Monika Pronzcuk contributed to the reporting.

Women pose for a photo outside the U.S. Supreme Court building after the court ruled in favor of a Catholic agency sued after Philadelphia refused to foster children for applying to same-sex couples to become denied foster parents. in Washington, USA, June 17, 2021.

Jonathan Ernst | Reuters

The Supreme Court on Thursday inflicted a unanimous defeat on LGBT couples in a high-profile case because Philadelphia may refuse to enter into a contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says their religious beliefs prevent them from working with same-sex foster parents.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a statement for a majority in the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to enter into a contract with Catholic Social Services after learning that the organization was not up for adoption would certify.

“The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which is applicable to states under the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that ‘Congress must not make any law … prohibiting the free exercise of religion,'” wrote Roberts.

“First of all, it is clear that the city’s actions have weighed on the religious practice of CSS by giving them the choice of curtailing their mission or allowing relationships that are incompatible with their beliefs,” he added.

According to long-standing precedents of the Supreme Court, religiously neutral and generally applicable laws can be compatible with the constitution, even if they incriminate religion. However, Roberts said the city’s non-discrimination policy is not generally applicable, citing Philadelphia’s ability to allow exceptions to it.

“Regardless of the level of deference we show to the city, the inclusion of a formal system of fully discretionary exceptions” in their standard care contracts “makes the contractual non-discrimination requirement not generally applicable,” wrote Roberts.

The Chief Justice wrote that Philadelphia had not shown it had an overriding interest in denying Catholic social services an exception to its non-discrimination policy.

“Once the interests of the city are properly narrowed down, they are no longer sufficient,” wrote the George W. Bush-appointed employee.

Roberts admitted that the city had an interest in “equal treatment of prospective foster parents and foster children”.

“We don’t doubt that this interest is a weighty one, because[o]Our society has recognized that gay individuals and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth, ”wrote Roberts, citing the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission case.

“Based on the facts of this case, however, this interest cannot justify denying the CSS an exception for its religious practice,” he wrote.

Remarkably, Roberts’ opinion was closer than conservative activists had hoped. LGBT rights supporters feared the Supreme Court would use the case to set its 1990 precedent known as Employment Division v. Smith, which protects neutral and generally applicable laws that incriminate religion. This precedent gives states and cities leeway to prohibit discrimination in different contexts.

Roberts’ opinion was endorsed by Judges Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch agreed with the outcome of the case but did not sign Roberts’ reasoning.

Alito, along with Thomas and Gorsuch, represented the majority decision not to question the Employment Division’s case. Alito wrote that Roberts’ narrow reasoning will make the court’s action temporary at best.

“That decision might as well be on paper sold in magic shops,” wrote Alito. “The city has persistently put CSS under pressure to give in, and if the city wants to bypass today’s decision, it can simply remove the never-used exemption authorization.”

Alito wrote that the Labor Department court “abruptly pushed aside nearly 40 years of precedent and found that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment tolerates any rule that categorically prohibits or orders certain conduct as long as it does not target religious practice.”

“Even if a rule does not serve an important purpose and has a devastating effect on religious freedom, Smith says the constitution does not offer protection. This strict stance is ripe for re-examination,” added Alito.

CNBC policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

Employment Division was drafted by the late Conservative Judge Antonin Scalia.

Barrett, in agreement with Kavanaugh and in part von Breyer, said she found the arguments for overturning Smith persuasive, but added that “there would be a number of problems to be solved if Smith were overridden.”

“We don’t have to grapple with these questions in this case, however, because regardless of whether Smith stays or leaves, the same standard applies,” wrote Barrett.

Barrett said laws that weighed down religious practice must stand a rigorous scrutiny – a legal threshold – before Smith if they give government officials the discretion to make individual exceptions.

“And all nine judges agree that the city cannot stand up to a severe test. So I see no reason in this case to decide whether Smith should be repealed, let alone what should replace him, ”wrote Barrett.

The Court’s decision in the Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case, nos. 19-123, reverses the opinion of the 3rd Court of Appeals, which sided with Philadelphia.

In a statement, Philadelphia City attorney Diana Cortes called the Supreme Court move “a difficult and disappointing setback for the foster youth and foster parents who work so hard to support them.”

“In today’s ruling, the court has usurped the city’s ruling that non-discrimination policies are in the best interests of the children in their care, with worrying consequences for other government programs and services,” she said.

“At the same time, the city is pleased that the Supreme Court has not radically changed existing constitutional law, as requested by plaintiffs, to adopt a standard that would enforce court-ordered religious exemptions from civil duties in any area,” added Cortes.