Protesters at the rally against the transgender bathroom ban in Philadelphia, PA, on February 25, 2017.

There’s nothing less Christian than hate. Yet conservatives have been pushing the idea that the Constitution protects their right to discriminate against others as long as it’s on the basis of religion. They’re inching closer and closer to embedding that made-up claim in federal law, even concocting test cases to push their perverse agenda. Fortunately, a few judges are still hewing to constitutional law as we know it—the kind that protects people from discrimination and doesn’t license it.

Philadelphia has a non-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, its Fair Practices Ordinance. That’s one reason why Megan Paszko and her wife were shocked when, in the process of exploring fostering and adoption, one agency turned them away.

“The trainer approached us, and she was really nice, but she told us, ‘I just want to be upfront. This organization has never placed a child with a same-sex couple,’” Paszko told the Philadelphia Inquirer this March. “She told us she didn’t want to waste two hours of our time.” The higher-ups at Bethany Christian Services confirmed their policy: They wouldn’t work with LGBTQ parents because of their religious beliefs.

After the agencies’ discriminatory policies came to light, Philadelphia ended foster-care referrals to both Bethany and Catholic Social Services. Bethany has since capitulated, but Catholic Social Services took Philadelphia to court to fight for its right to discriminate. Joined by long-term CSS foster parents, they claimed that forcing the agency to place children with LGBTQ people violated their religious and free speech rights; they shouldn’t have to act against religious beliefs to take care of children in need, they argued. Philadelphia was more than ready to take CSS on, as was the ACLU of Pennsylvania, which filed a brief in support of the city.

Among other charming arguments offered by CSS in court, the head of its foster care program explained that they couldn’t certify same-sex households because that would be “a validation of the relationships in that home.”

The judge didn’t think much of CSS’s argument. Judge Petrese Tucker found that the city’s Department of Human Services had a legitimate interest in creating a diverse pool of foster parents that had nothing to do with religion. (That’s just one of six valid reasons for enforcing CSS’s compliance that the judge cited, by the way.) She dispensed with the free speech argument quickly: No, CSS, your certification process doesn’t constitute speech. Nor is there evidence that Philadelphia was retaliating against CSS for its views.