St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy The U.S. Supreme Court has now stepped into St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, agreeing to decide whether Colorado can exclude Catholic preschools from its “universal” preschool program because of their traditional beliefs on sexuality. The parish refuses to accept the children of same-sex and/or transgender parents. Because families that enroll are participating in the parish community, the parish wants participant families to hold beliefs in line with Catholic teachings. However you feel about that, this case is a telling example of Colorado’s disregard for the First Amendment’s protection of religious expression. What the Court Just Did Last week, the Court granted certiorari, setting the stage for arguments in its upcoming term. At issue is Colorado’s requirement that participating preschools comply with nondiscrimination mandates tied to sexual orientation and gender identity. On paper, that may sound neutral. In practice, it forces religious schools into an untenable choice: abandon core teachings or be shut out of a public benefit open to others. Catholic preschools argue that this is precisely what the Constitution forbids – conditioning participation in a public program on surrendering religious identity. Lower courts nevertheless sided with Colorado, accepting the state’s claim that the policy is “neutral and generally applicable.” The Supreme Court will now decide whether that label reflects reality – or masks discrimination. The Court will need to make a keen evaluation. The Archdiocese of Denver does not wish to allow same-sex couples to join their congregation. Colorado does not like that. Many of us feel the same. But traditional marriage – whatever you think of that as a standard – is a central tenant of the Catholic faith. Why It Matters Protect The 1st stands firmly against discrimination in all its forms. We see no contradiction in upholding the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges acceptance of same-sex marriage and supporting the Roman Catholic Church’s right to define its constitutionally protected beliefs. When this case was before the Tenth Circuit, PT1st told that court: “ … Colorado has violated Plaintiffs’ expressive association rights … Whatever one may think about same-sex relationships or gender transitions – and PT1st does not oppose them – a religious institution has a constitutional right to decide whom to admit into its communities, and cannot be excluded from a publicly available benefit program for making those religion-based choices.” In a pluralistic society, these Catholic preschools serve a vital need and deserve equal access to public support. Eighty-five percent of the congregation in one parish school in Denver qualifies for free and reduced-price school meals program. For the Catholic Church, this case goes to the heart of a vital First Amendment principle: the government cannot condition benefits on narrowing the freedom of religious exercise. Colorado’s program is billed as “universal.” But a program is not universal if it excludes participants the moment they act like the religious institutions they are. That is not neutrality. It is exclusion dressed up as policy. That tension is not new. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that religious institutions cannot be treated as second-class participants in public life. This case will test whether states can evade that rule by redefining exclusion as compliance. The Road Ahead The Court’s decision to hear the case signals that at least four justices see serious constitutional concerns. A ruling is expected by mid-2027. The stakes are clear. If Colorado prevails, “universal” programs across the country could become vehicles for sidelining religious providers. If the Court holds the line, it will reaffirm a foundational rule: government benefits cannot be conditioned on the abandonment of faith. The First Amendment demands nothing less. Comments are closed.
|
Archives
May 2026
Categories
All
|
ABOUT |
ISSUES |
TAKE ACTION |
RSS Feed