USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 It is the policy of the United States, apparently, to compel faith-based foster-care and, presumably, adoption agencies to place children in same-sex homes in violation of the agencies' and, presumably, the agencies' sponsoring faiths' religious principles. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/30/politics/supreme-court-catholic-foster-care/index.html
Popular Post RevTestament Posted August 31, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 31, 2018 1 hour ago, USU78 said: It is the policy of the United States, apparently, to compel faith-based foster-care and, presumably, adoption agencies to place children in same-sex homes in violation of the agencies' and, presumably, the agencies' sponsoring faiths' religious principles. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/30/politics/supreme-court-catholic-foster-care/index.html Yep. Anything that is government-funded has to abide by government rules. From your link: "The group receives city funds when it places a child in foster care" 6
rockpond Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, USU78 said: It is the policy of the United States, apparently, to compel faith-based foster-care and, presumably, adoption agencies to place children in same-sex homes in violation of the agencies' and, presumably, the agencies' sponsoring faiths' religious principles. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/08/30/politics/supreme-court-catholic-foster-care/index.html You should edit your OP for clarity. The Supreme Court decision is such that agencies receiving government funding must obey local anti-discrimination laws. From the article: "The group receives city funds when it places a child in foster care, but it will not comply with Philadelphia's anti-discrimination ordinance that the city says requires all groups that certify prospective parents to do so regardless of the applicants' religion, race, marital status or sexual orientation." Edited August 31, 2018 by rockpond 2
mfbukowski Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: You should edit your OP for clarity. The Supreme Court decision is such that agencies receiving government funding must obey local anti-discrimination laws. From the article: "The group receives city funds when it places a child in foster care, but it will not comply with Philadelphia's anti-discrimination ordinance that the city says requires all groups that certify prospective parents to do so regardless of the applicants' religion, race, marital status or sexual orientation." Sounds the same to me. 1
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Sounds the same to me. Tomato/tomato. 1
rockpond Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Sounds the same to me. 14 minutes ago, USU78 said: Tomato/tomato. There is a significant difference between compelling them to do something and telling them that, as long as you are receiving taxpayer funding, you must obey the law. 3
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: There is a significant difference between compelling them to do something and telling them that, as long as you are receiving taxpayer funding, you must obey the law. Are you seriously arguing that the outcome would be different absent the tax dollars? Why do you think the LDS Church [sic] shut down its adoption agencies? https://www.lds.org/church/news/lds-family-services-no-longer-operating-as-adoption-agency?lang=eng The reason seems pretty plain to me: compulsory observance of state-sponsored antireligionist ideology. Do it our way, or else. 2
Popular Post The Nehor Posted August 31, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 31, 2018 Organizations that apply for public contracts to serve a function for the local government have to abide by that government’s laws in the use of the public funds they receive? Scandal! Shock! Awe! The First Amendment is Burning!!!! BURNING!!!! 8
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Organizations that apply for public contracts to serve a function for the local government have to abide by that government’s laws in the use of the public funds they receive? Scandal! Shock! Awe! The First Amendment is Burning!!!! BURNING!!!! I repeat my question to rockpond, above: Quote Are you seriously arguing that the outcome would be different absent the tax dollars? Why do you think the LDS Church [sic] shut down its adoption agencies? https://www.lds.org/church/news/lds-family-services-no-longer-operating-as-adoption-agency?lang=eng The reason seems pretty plain to me: compulsory observance of state-sponsored antireligionist ideology. Do it our way, or else.
Popular Post The Nehor Posted August 31, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 31, 2018 1 minute ago, USU78 said: Are you seriously arguing that the outcome would be different absent the tax dollars? Why do you think the LDS Church [sic] shut down its adoption agencies? https://www.lds.org/church/news/lds-family-services-no-longer-operating-as-adoption-agency?lang=eng The reason seems pretty plain to me: compulsory observance of state-sponsored antireligionist ideology. Do it our way, or else. Adoption and foster care are government functions. Of course they are going to be involved no matter what. They have custody of the children and are ultimately responsible for them. As to your article there LDS family services explained why they discontinued the program. Funnily enough your plain reason was not mentioned......almost as if you are wanting it to be over this to fuel righteous outrage. It is at least as plain as your reasoning and does not require LDS Family Services to be deceptive. 5
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Adoption and foster care are government functions. Of course they are going to be involved no matter what. They have custody of the children and are ultimately responsible for them. As to your article there LDS family services explained why they discontinued the program. Funnily enough your plain reason was not mentioned......almost as if you are wanting it to be over this to fuel righteous outrage. It is at least as plain as your reasoning and does not require LDS Family Services to be deceptive. Adoption is not a government function, except to the extent of judicial oversight. I can do a private placement for a child and the government is powerless to stop me so long as certain minimal requirements are met [notices; fee-paying; consent-taking; and paying an MSW to do a fitness study]. I daresay that a birth mother who objected to my placing her yet-to-be-born child with a homosexual couple might well fall afoul of state police power, though, and certainly I probably would, because a 16-year-old wanted a nice Mormon home for her baby. 1
rockpond Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 14 minutes ago, USU78 said: Are you seriously arguing that the outcome would be different absent the tax dollars? Why do you think the LDS Church [sic] shut down its adoption agencies? https://www.lds.org/church/news/lds-family-services-no-longer-operating-as-adoption-agency?lang=eng The reason seems pretty plain to me: compulsory observance of state-sponsored antireligionist ideology. Do it our way, or else. The article you linked explains why they shut down the LDS FS adoption services - so let's just go with their reasons. As Nehor said, foster care is a government function so it is tough to get involved in that without adhering to local laws and regulations. But, regarding adoption services, I am not aware of any religious organization who does NOT receive taxpayer funding and was forced to place children with gay couples. 2
RevTestament Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 7 minutes ago, USU78 said: Are you seriously arguing that the outcome would be different absent the tax dollars? Why do you think the LDS Church [sic] shut down its adoption agencies? https://www.lds.org/church/news/lds-family-services-no-longer-operating-as-adoption-agency?lang=eng The reason seems pretty plain to me: compulsory observance of state-sponsored antireligionist ideology. Do it our way, or else. Yes, it should be. The constitution was designed to ensure that the people all received a fair handshake from the government - ultimately this resulted in laws with no prejudices based on gender, "race", age, etc. Why people have come to expect those same laws to be applied to private companies is really beyond me. It really is just not in the constitution, yet people expect it, so it is coming to be. The courts have traditionally viewed the receipt of government funds as an extension of the government. This ensures that local governments don't get around the rules by outsourcing certain activities. Minorities often cry fowl if some private business doesn't treat them the same, but really the best place to solve that issue is the private market rather than all this bickering about that prejudiced bakery refusing to make my transgender wedding cake. It's just not in the constitution people. Private people are allowed to utter profanities and be obnoxious and unfair. Boycott them and open your own business to fill the niche rather than crying and dragging them to court to force them to be more like you. Anyway, potentially this case could have been decided in favor of the Catholic charity if it did not receive any government funds even if the government must extend the right to marry to gays. One involves a government entity and the other a private religious charity. The public should learn the difference. Adoption never has been a right guaranteed by the government (of course who knows what the future will bring).
RevTestament Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 17 minutes ago, USU78 said: Adoption is not a government function, except to the extent of judicial oversight. I can do a private placement for a child and the government is powerless to stop me so long as certain minimal requirements are met [notices; fee-paying; consent-taking; and paying an MSW to do a fitness study]. I daresay that a birth mother who objected to my placing her yet-to-be-born child with a homosexual couple might well fall afoul of state police power, though, and certainly I probably would, because a 16-year-old wanted a nice Mormon home for her baby. Adoption is different from foster care, which is always a state function. Foster care applies when a child becomes a ward of the state. Adoption may be through public channels or like you point out through private channels. State laws apply to all kinds of activities, which doesn't make them state activities. I agree that adoption is not necessarily a government activity, and is not a "right" which would get the government involved. But these days people want the government to have its long arm in everything. The next step is socialism. There is little difference in who owns things, the government or individuals, if the individuals cannot run things as they see fit. 1
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 8 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Adoption is different from foster care, which is always a state function. Foster care applies when a child becomes a ward of the state. Adoption may be through public channels or like you point out through private channels. State laws apply to all kinds of activities, which doesn't make them state activities. I agree that adoption is not necessarily a government activity, and is not a "right" which would get the government involved. But these days people want the government to have its long arm in everything. The next step is socialism. There is little difference in who owns things, the government or individuals, if the individuals cannot run things as they see fit. To quoth Nehor, above, to whom I was responding: Quote 40 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Adoption and foster care are government functions.
Gray Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 40 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Adoption is different from foster care, which is always a state function. Foster care applies when a child becomes a ward of the state. Adoption may be through public channels or like you point out through private channels. State laws apply to all kinds of activities, which doesn't make them state activities. I agree that adoption is not necessarily a government activity, and is not a "right" which would get the government involved. But these days people want the government to have its long arm in everything. The next step is socialism. There is little difference in who owns things, the government or individuals, if the individuals cannot run things as they see fit. Apparently the Catholic organization wants their long arms in the government's pocketbooks but don't want to follow the government's rules. They could always self-fund and continue to discriminate based on the gender of the couples. 1
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, USU78 said: Are you seriously arguing that the outcome would be different absent the tax dollars? Why do you think the LDS Church [sic] shut down its adoption agencies? https://www.lds.org/church/news/lds-family-services-no-longer-operating-as-adoption-agency?lang=eng The reason seems pretty plain to me: compulsory observance of state-sponsored antireligionist ideology. Do it our way, or else. deleted for clarity. See below Edited August 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui 2
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Gray said: Apparently the Catholic organization wants their long arms in the government's pocketbooks but don't want to follow the government's rules. They could always self-fund and continue to discriminate based on the gender of the couples. If private organizations did not foot a huge portion of welfare/adoption/social services, our tax bills would be a lot higher. Government control over churches is not a good thing for anyone. Edited August 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui 4
rockpond Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) deleting per @Bernard Gui's request for the sake of clarity Edited August 31, 2018 by rockpond 2
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, rockpond said: So LDSFS lied about why they stopped providing adoption services, in a church news article? Why would they do that? Not every nuance of every fact and every response or side comment learned from other information means there is lying involved. Why do you do that? Edited August 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY!! WE'RE BEING PERSECUTED!! Yep. Here we go again.
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) For clarity, a correction of a hastily composed post that has led to misunderstanding.... LDSFS shut down adoptions because there has been a huge decrease in single mothers putting their kids up for adoption, which drastically reduced the demand for their services. In other discussions I have heard learned of concerns about the possibility of governmental involvement in adoption policies. Edited August 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui 2
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: For clarity, a correction of a hastily composed post that has led to misunderstanding.... LDSFS shut down adoptions mainly because there has been a huge decrease in single mothers putting their kids up for adoption, which drastically reduced the demand for their services. In other discussions I have learned that the threat of governmental involvement in adoption policies also had an influence. Precisely.
rockpond Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Not every nuance of every fact and every response or side comment learned from other information means there is lying involved. Why do you do that? I'll rephrase: Why would LDSFS mislead church members regarding their termination of adoption services? 1
rockpond Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: For clarity, a correction of a hastily composed post that has led to misunderstanding.... LDSFS shut down adoptions mainly because there has been a huge decrease in single mothers putting their kids up for adoption, which drastically reduced the demand for their services. In other discussions I have learned that the threat of governmental involvement in adoption policies also had an influence. 1 minute ago, USU78 said: Precisely. That's speculation unless you can provide some evidence. And you are speculating against the reasons that LDSFS provided to church members. 1
Recommended Posts