The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a case centering on

whether or not LGBT activists can force Christian organizations to violate their faith.

Catholic Social Services sued the city of Philadelphia for banning the religious agency from its foster program for refusing to place children with same-sex couples.

The clash erupted after the Supreme Court established a legal right to same-sex marriage in 2015. Many critics warned at the time that the rights of Christians to exercise their faith would be threatened, despite the Supreme Court's affirmation that the First Amendment protects the right object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

One year ago, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals endorsed the city's policy, and now Catholic Social Services has appealed to the Supreme Court.

TRENDING: Alan Dershowitz sues CNN to halt 'malicious' attacks on innocent people

"As the city of Philadelphia attempts to shamelessly score political points, dozens of beds remain empty and children are suffering the consequences," said Lori Windham, senior counsel for the non-profit Becket, which is defending Catholic Social Services.

"It's time for the Supreme Court to weigh in and allow faith-based agencies to continue doing what they do best: giving vulnerable children loving homes," she said.

The lawsuit is on behalf of foster mothers Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch, who say they are standing up for faith-based foster agencies and foster children in need of a home.

"Catholic Social Services has been serving the foster children of Philadelphia and their families since 1917, long before the city got involved," said Becket. "Ms. Fulton was a longtime foster parent who fostered more than 40 children with the help of Catholic Social Services, and Ms. Simms-Busch is a former social worker in the foster care system who recently decided to become a foster and adoptive parent herself."

Simms-Busch said that as a social worker, she evaluated the quality of care provided by the foster agencies in Philadelphia.

"When I decided to become a foster parent myself, I chose to go through the agency that I trusted the most," she said. "The consistency, integrity, and compassion of Catholic Social Services has made all the difference in my journey through the foster care process."

However, as WND reported, the city cut off the foster homes in the CSS program even while it was making an urgent call for 300 new foster parents for the more than 6,000 children in Philadelphia foster care.

The request to the high court for review states: "The city of Philadelphia chose to exclude a religious agency from the city's foster care system unless the agency agreed to act and speak in a manner inconsistent with its sincere religious beliefs about marriage."

The case centers on whether or not "a government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency's ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency's religious beliefs."

In a statement released Monday by Becket, Simms-Busch said: "CSS has been a godsend to my family and so many like ours. I don’t think I could have gone through this process without an agency that shares my core beliefs and cares for my children accordingly. We are so grateful that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case and sort out the mess that Philadelphia has created for so many vulnerable foster children."

Windham said: "I'm relieved to hear that the Supreme Court will weigh in on faith-based adoption and foster care," "Over the last few years, agencies have been closing their doors across the country, and all the while children are pouring into the system. We are confident that the Court will realize that the best solution is the one that has worked in Philadelphia for a century – all hands on deck for foster kids."

The city is accused of hostility toward Christianity, which is banned by the Constitution.

"The city has targeted Catholic Social Services because of its religious beliefs. City officials have been open about their disagreement with Catholic teaching on marriage and their personal animosity toward the archdiocese," the case files explain.