"freeze Catholics out of contracts to aid sex-trafficking victims,"

Ok you lost me there, and I am a Catholic. This one is about getting our tax dollars to resettle refugees in the US on questionable grounds. This seems to be a cottage industry for many denominations looking for grants and converts. I recommend the site Resettlement Watch for keeping up on this scam.

External Link 

You always leave out the part where the Catholic Church can do whatever the heck it wants - just not with money it accepts from the government for providing services to the broader community.

If the Church is going to provide secular services and get paid in taxpayer dollars then they need to follow the secular rules.

They can descriminate any way they want if they are funded 100% by their parishoners.

It is not always about funding. It is about licensing. You need to be licensed to provide adoptions, for example.

Both of your statements are from the Gospel.

The second statement explains why liberalism is so profoundly hostile to existing religions. Any new faith must drive out the existing religion. Just as christianity drove out pagan faiths, so the new religion of the state must drive out the old religion of that quaint concept of, you know, um, like God and all.

Respectfully, I don't find your argument very persuasive. No one is "being excluded based on religious beliefs".
Rather, it is the way some church-related entities are choosing to implement their beliefs that is problematic, such as in activities out in the wider world such as adoption services.
It is not merely "the state deciding it knows best"; it is an increasing share of our population which has become comfortable with gay people raising children, and therefore unwilling to support continued discrimination against gay couples wishing to adopt.

It may well be the case that this particular church activity predates the formation of our country, but that is not license to continue such activity forever as social standards change. Would it be acceptable for this charity to use federal funds while refusing to place children with racially-mixed couples? Nearly all of us would say no, I suspect.

Having said all that, it is my hope that Catholic Charities can find ways to continue their good and Godly work in a way that conforms with both their conscience and our social contract, of which groundless discrimination should never be a part.

David- on the one hand you say you want smaller government on the other hand you want a bigger goverment (by definition) that gives out more contracts to religious goups.

But a bigger question is why should US taxpayer money be given to the Catholic church at all given thatthe church is one of the richest inistitutions in the world?

We're not Catholic, but let me take a stab at responding to your points just on general principles:

--- (1) Including the Catholic church as a service provider does not require bigger government; whether government should be providing such a vast array of programs and benes that reach so deeply into our lives is a separate question from who provides the services. I would view it as improper to exclude a church from eligibility to provide services, as establishing a religious test to be a provider of services to all taxpayers.

--- (2) Your question appears to assume that the Catholic church is being supported by the taxpayer if the church is a service provider to eligible recipients. Instead the church is being hired to perform a service to all who qualify, not only to Catholics who qualify. To discriminate against a church as a provider of secular services would appear to be improper. Whether the church is 'one of the richest institutions in the world' is irrelevant.

Same-sex couples are not providing for the child's best interest.

Being raised by a mother and father is better than being raised by two fathers.

There is every reason to believe that it is harmful to a child to be forced into pretending that having two fathers is just as good as having a mother and a father. No child should be forced into lies like that.

It is not "discrimination" to expect couples to put the well-being of the child first and foremost. The agency with custody of the child is acting as the child's temporary guardian, and therefore its responsibility is toward the child.

It is a sign of immaturity to think that because you don't need or desire a woman, your child shouldn't either. Would-be parents should grow up before bringing children into their home, instead of trying to make children adapt to their parents' immaturity and emotional neediness. The point of adoption is not about finding good children for needy parents, but vice versa.

I think the two issues are being confused. The Church does not require access to government contracts in order to provide adoption services (for instance), so they should be able to adopt to whomever they choose. They are, however, frequently required to follow government regulations, which could requre access to government contracts. In our city, the main "soup kitchen" facility is owned and run by the Catholic Church. They have to follow all government regulations regarding food service. It's entirely possible that those regulations will require some access to government contracts. In that case, it's not a paradox between limited government and access to contracts. It's more about being able to fulfill the mission within existing constraints.