Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 8 minutes ago, rockpond said: That's speculation unless you can provide some evidence. And you are speculating against the reasons that LDSFS provided to church members. No, it's just my comment based on perhaps a faulty recollection of a conversation. I respectfully ask you to remove the post you quoted and let stand the correction. I do not want any of my comments to reflect negatively on LDSFS or its workers. With respect, please. I apologize for any confusion.
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 11 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'll rephrase: Why would LDSFS mislead church members regarding their termination of adoption services? See above. I'll rephrase, too. If you had asked whether my understanding lined up with the article without talking about lying, I would have responded accordingly and there would be no problem.
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 4 hours 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 Why do some people think adoption agencies should be allowed to discriminate based on sexual identity? Would those of you who think this should be allowed be in favor of adoption agencies discriminating based on race, age, ethnicity or religion? What factors should adoption agencies legally have the right to use when placing children for adoption, and what factors do you think should be illegal? 3
Bernard Gui Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Why do some people think adoption agencies should be allowed to discriminate based on sexual identity? Would those of you who think this should be allowed be in favor of adoption agencies discriminating based on race, age, ethnicity or religion? What factors should adoption agencies legally have the right to use when placing children for adoption, and what factors do you think should be illegal? If I had a problem with any agency's policies, I would walk out and find another agency that would better suit my needs. There are strong feelings among some people of color that white couples should not adopt babies of color. Edited August 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui 1
mfbukowski Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 2 hours 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. I will be happy to let USU Esquire remain my consiglieri in this matter. Please communicate through my attorney. 2
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 8 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Why do some people think adoption agencies should be allowed to discriminate based on sexual identity? Would those of you who think this should be allowed be in favor of adoption agencies discriminating based on race, age, ethnicity or religion? What factors should adoption agencies legally have the right to use when placing children for adoption, and what factors do you think should be illegal? So the desires of, let's say, the rape victim who brings the fruit of that rape to term with the intent of placing her child with a nice Mormon family should be wholly disregarded? Is that your position? Because that's the practical implication of your position. 2
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 25 minutes ago, rockpond said: That's speculation unless you can provide some evidence. And you are speculating against the reasons that LDSFS provided to church members. I suppose we can close our eyes to the goings on at the time of the announcement: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/faith-based-adoption-agencies-under-assault-from-left/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2018/03/shutting-down-faith-based-adoption-agencies/ https://world.wng.org/content/aclu_fights_faith_based_child_placement_agencies http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20199/ Question for you, rockpond: intended or unintended consequence when religious organizations shut down their adoption and fosterage systems in such an environment? 2
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: If I had a problem with any agency's policies, I would walk out and find another agency that would better suit my needs. There are strong feelings among some people of color that white couples should not adopt babies of color. I understand there are strong feelings for many different people across many different traits. But do you think the government should allow discrimination based on these strong feelings. We have laws and history with respect to certain forms of discrimination. What types of discrimination do you think should be protected under the law and which ones do you think don't deserve protection? 1
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 14 minutes ago, USU78 said: So the desires of, let's say, the rape victim who brings the fruit of that rape to term with the intent of placing her child with a nice Mormon family should be wholly disregarded? Is that your position? Because that's the practical implication of your position. I'm asking for which kind of traits do you think adoption agencies should be legally allowed to discriminate based on? I don't know how that would apply to a family offering up their own child to another family that they know, that might be a good question as well, would these laws that describe certain protected traits also apply to an individual family giving their child to another family for adoption? I think that's a question worth considering as well. Are you saying there should be no laws about discrimination on the books, because we have constitutional protections in place today for certain traits, should we roll those back and get rid of all protected classes? 1
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, hope_for_things said: I'm asking for which kind of traits do you think adoption agencies should be legally allowed to discriminate based on? I don't know how that would apply to a family offering up their own child to another family that they know, that might be a good question as well, would these laws that describe certain protected traits also apply to an individual family giving their child to another family for adoption? I think that's a question worth considering as well. Are you saying there should be no laws about discrimination on the books, because we have constitutional protections in place today for certain traits, should we roll those back and get rid of all protected classes? So ... choice of the mother is of no consequence?
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 10 minutes ago, USU78 said: I suppose we can close our eyes to the goings on at the time of the announcement: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/faith-based-adoption-agencies-under-assault-from-left/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2018/03/shutting-down-faith-based-adoption-agencies/ https://world.wng.org/content/aclu_fights_faith_based_child_placement_agencies http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20199/ Question for you, rockpond: intended or unintended consequence when religious organizations shut down their adoption and fosterage systems in such an environment? It seems these agencies have other options besides shutting down, they could instead follow the law of their local jurisdictions. By this logic we could say that all those businesses that didn't allow people of other races to patronize their establishment, and consequentially closed their doors instead of following civil rights laws, was an unintended consequence of civil rights.
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: Are you saying there should be no laws about discrimination on the books, because we have constitutional protections in place today for certain traits, should we roll those back and get rid of all protected classes? That's quite a separate issue, but I'm, for the most part, libertarian when it comes to laws empowering individuals to weaponize the Police Power because of accidents of one's birth [or, as now, probably nearly wholly environment influenced behaviors]. Stinks of hereditary and purchased aristocracy to me. 1
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: It seems these agencies have other options besides shutting down, they could instead follow the law of their local jurisdictions. By this logic we could say that all those businesses that didn't allow people of other races to patronize their establishment, and consequentially closed their doors instead of following civil rights laws, was an unintended consequence of civil rights. Of course they have options: submit to whippings until their attitudes improve. 1
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, USU78 said: So ... choice of the mother is of no consequence? I'm asking whether you think there should be laws to protect certain classes of people when it comes to adoption agencies. Should a mother's choice superseded the law? I didn't say this was an uncomplicated issue. 1
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, hope_for_things said: I'm asking whether you think there should be laws to protect certain classes of people when it comes to adoption agencies. Should a mother's choice superseded the law? I didn't say this was an uncomplicated issue. Please answer my question. I've answered yours in a separate post. Is the mother's choice of no consequence? Choose wisely, Grasshopper. 1
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, USU78 said: That's quite a separate issue, but I'm, for the most part, libertarian when it comes to laws empowering individuals to weaponize the Police Power because of accidents of one's birth [or, as now, probably nearly wholly environment influenced behaviors]. Stinks of hereditary and purchased aristocracy to me. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by the bolded statement in the slightest. Can you clarify what this means?
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, USU78 said: Please answer my question. I've answered yours in a separate post. Is the mother's choice of no consequence? Choose wisely, Grasshopper. It depends whether the mother's choice violates the law of the land. We don't have unlimited freedom. This is what the social contract is all about. We agree to the rule of law as a society for mutual benefits. 1
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, USU78 said: 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: It seems these agencies have other options besides shutting down, they could instead follow the law of their local jurisdictions. By this logic we could say that all those businesses that didn't allow people of other races to patronize their establishment, and consequentially closed their doors instead of following civil rights laws, was an unintended consequence of civil rights. Of course they have options: submit to whippings until their attitudes improve. i think you're answering tongue in cheek, but I'm wondering if you also are in favor of rolling back our civil rights laws? You never answered whether you are in support of laws to protect certain traits or classes of people in our society. 1
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 Just now, hope_for_things said: It depends whether the mother's choice violates the law of the land. We don't have unlimited freedom. This is what the social contract is all about. We agree to the rule of law as a society for mutual benefits. Wrong! The state has no compelling interest in wresting from a pregnant girl/woman her choice to place her child with whoever she chooses. The presumption of her unfettered right should only be impinged in Juvy Court based upon her unfitness to make such a decision for the child. It is a monstrous thing to steal that choice from her because somebody else wants in. Her baby: her choice. 1
rockpond Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 21 minutes ago, USU78 said: I suppose we can close our eyes to the goings on at the time of the announcement: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/faith-based-adoption-agencies-under-assault-from-left/ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2018/03/shutting-down-faith-based-adoption-agencies/ https://world.wng.org/content/aclu_fights_faith_based_child_placement_agencies http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20199/ Question for you, rockpond: intended or unintended consequence when religious organizations shut down their adoption and fosterage systems in such an environment? I think it is fair for the government to require taxpayer funded agencies to not discriminate. If those agencies want to operate without receiving money from the government, they ought to be able to discriminate as they wish. 1
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by the bolded statement in the slightest. Can you clarify what this means? Melanin content: accident of birth; Eye shape: accident of birth; Hair type: accident of birth --> hereditary aristocracy. Homosexuality, bisexuality, and the like --> nonhereditary aristocracy based upon environment and/or choice [in the absence of better/some evidence to the contrary] Aristocracies are repugnant to America.
rockpond Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 15 minutes ago, USU78 said: So ... choice of the mother is of no consequence? In LDSFS Adoption Services, the birth mother got to choose who the adoptive parents of her child would be. I assume this is the case in other adoption agencies as well. 1
USU78 Posted August 31, 2018 Author Posted August 31, 2018 1 minute ago, rockpond said: I think it is fair for the government to require taxpayer funded agencies to not discriminate. If those agencies want to operate without receiving money from the government, they ought to be able to discriminate as they wish. Please answer the question: intended or unintended consequence.
rockpond Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, USU78 said: Please answer the question: intended or unintended consequence. I believe that those who fight for the laws intend on shutting down organizations that received government funding and discriminate. I can't speak to intentions beyond that. I do know, as a donor to both, that LDSFS and Catholic Charities are very well funded, large organizations that could continue to provide adoption services if they wished. Edited August 31, 2018 by rockpond 1
hope_for_things Posted August 31, 2018 Posted August 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, USU78 said: Wrong! The state has no compelling interest in wresting from a pregnant girl/woman her choice to place her child with whoever she chooses. The presumption of her unfettered right should only be impinged in Juvy Court based upon her unfitness to make such a decision for the child. It is a monstrous thing to steal that choice from her because somebody else wants in. Her baby: her choice. Could you explain why you think a mother has an unlimited right in this area? There are many of our rights that have limits. I don't have the right to come up and punch you in the nose. Why do you think a mother's rights can't be limited by the social contract and the laws of the land? And just to clarify, we're speaking of a mother using an adoption agency, not giving a child directly to another family of her choice. I think that would be different, but I do wonder if the state should have some involvement in that scenario as well, but thats a different debate. BTW, all of these things have a process, that process is based on our representative republic and our elected officials passing laws that we all agree to abide by. This is the imperfect system we all live within. Any one individual doesn't have the right to be above the system, no matter how passionate they are with respect to how they personally feel about an issue. 1
Recommended Posts