Here We Go Again

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes 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.

But not on everything, correct?  You're not arguing for a private adoption agency operating without money from the government, to have the right to discriminate based on race, are you?   There are laws which govern private agencies in our society as well as publicly assisted ones.  

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

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.

You're labeling superficial racial traits as hereditary aristocracy.

You're labeling sexual traits as nonhereditary aristocracy and saying these are based on choice?  This has been scientifically debunked now, and is akin to the theological race based theories that the church disavowed in recent years.  Sexual and gender identity traits have genetic, epigenetic and environmental factors, but that doesn't make them a choice.  

I'm actually uncomfortable with these labels that you're using, I haven't heard them before for one, but for two they strike me as seriously ignorant and laced with bigotry.  I'm not trying to rile you up, but I may just bow out of this exchange so as not to get in a battle.  

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

But not on everything, correct?  You're not arguing for a private adoption agency operating without money from the government, to have the right to discriminate based on race, are you?   There are laws which govern private agencies in our society as well as publicly assisted ones.  

Personally, I believe that private agencies (not receiving government funding) ought to be able to discriminate... yes, even based on race.  I'm sorry - I know this doesn't win me any favor with you - but that is my political philosophy.  I want to be clear that I would find such discrimination to be abhorrent but I believe that society at large (feeling as I do) would reject such an agency.  This changes when it comes to a good or service that is necessary and not widely available.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Personally, I believe that private agencies (not receiving government funding) ought to be able to discriminate... yes, even based on race. 

I am with you on this.  The only thing I think that government should intervene on is the selling of children and placing children in dangerous environments...whether that is abuse, neglect or potential neglect (if potential parents have health issues that will impact their care of the child), or unsanitary conditions.  I understand that some believe bigotry is a dangerous situation, but I don't think the government should interfere there unless the agency is not being fully open with the parent(s)....say not telling the mother the prospective family is a particular religion or atheist, age of potential parents, educational and economic level, residents of another country, members of extreme political party...actually think political party should be something shared in all cases in fact because it means something to many.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

1 hour 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?  

 

Gosh, I don't know. Some bizarre reason like having a mother and father just seems outlandish to most people. I guess it is those old Neanderthals that think a mom and a dad have a value in raising children. They are so stupid to think that two men or two women cannot do the same thing.  Just stupid if you ask me. 

[hope_for_things]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Personally, I believe that private agencies (not receiving government funding) ought to be able to discriminate... yes, even based on race.  I'm sorry - I know this doesn't win me any favor with you - but that is my political philosophy.  I want to be clear that I would find such discrimination to be abhorrent but I believe that society at large (feeling as I do) would reject such an agency.  This changes when it comes to a good or service that is necessary and not widely available.

Obviously I disagree, but I appreciate the clarification on your perspective.  I'm not a lawyer or an expert on the law.  I know restaurants can't discriminate based on race, and I know businesses can't use race as a factor in hiring.  I don't know if private adoption agencies have the right to discriminate based on race under the current law in the USA.  Does anyone else know? 

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Gosh, I don't know. Some bizarre reason like having a mother and father just seems outlandish to most people. I guess it is those old Neanderthals that think a mom and a dad have a value in raising children. They are so stupid to think that two men or two women cannot do the same thing.  Just stupid if you ask me. 

It seems reasonable for our society to define which traits are legally acceptable to discriminate based on.  If the statistics show that kids being raised by same sex couples have just as good of outcomes, what would be the problem?  

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am with you on this.  The only thing I think that government should intervene on is the selling of children and placing children in dangerous environments...whether that is abuse, neglect or potential neglect (if potential parents have health issues that will impact their care of the child), or unsanitary conditions.  I understand that some believe bigotry is a dangerous situation, but I don't think the government should interfere there unless the agency is not being fully open with the parent(s)....say not telling the mother the prospective family is a particular religion or atheist, educational level, residents of another country, members of extreme political party...actually think political party should be something shared in all cases in fact because it means something to many.

This is interesting, I appreciate the candid responses.  I wonder if what you and rockpond have expressed here would be considered illegal under the current law or not, referring to letting private adoption agencies discriminate based on race.  

You've expanded this to other tribally defined characteristics, politics and religion, education.  I wonder if we don't get into some of the same things being discussed in the eugenics movements back in the early 20th century though.  At what point does discrimination based on all these categories not interfere with human decency and the rights of the little guy?  

[Calm]

When parents choose in their wills who is to take care of their children in the case of their death, the government isn't allowed to step in and tell them the children have to go to another family, correct?

Why should it be different for adoption?

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Obviously I disagree, but I appreciate the clarification on your perspective.  I'm not a lawyer or an expert on the law.  I know restaurants can't discriminate based on race, and I know businesses can't use race as a factor in hiring.  I don't know if private adoption agencies have the right to discriminate based on race under the current law in the USA.  Does anyone else know? 

I have limited experience but my wife and I did, some years back, go through the process to become approved adoptive parents (we never ended up adopting because my wife became pregnant).  But my understanding is this:  an adoption agency takes on clients (birth mom) and it approves the adoptive parents.  Then, the birth mom, of her own accord, chooses which adoptive parents get her child.

So, I would imagine that adoption agencies cannot refuse to accept birth moms based on race.  And I would imagine that the agencies cannot refuse to approve adoptive parents based on race.  But, the birth mom could certainly decline any adoptive parent for any reason at all... including race, sexual orientation, eye color, or the high school they attended.

*This is based solely on my experience going through the process with LDSFS.

Edited August 31, 2018 by rockpond

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

I have problems with the government getting involved with controlling feelings. Discrimination is a loaded word. I would prefer people be allowed to make their own choices unless it involves, safety, health, or other such considerations. No, I don’t approve of racism. 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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.

They get to choose a certain demographic and behavior set when they choose/chose LDSFS, according to disclosed criteria.

Outlaw those criteria, you outlaw her choice.

Her baby.  Her choice.  Unless, of course, a monstrous imposition intercedes.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

You're labeling superficial racial traits as hereditary aristocracy.

Isn't that how we go about determining whether someone is a member of a suspect/protected class?  A young woman whose maternal great-grandmother was black, but all the rest of whose immediate ancestors going back to the great-grandparent level were Caucasion, and she looks Caucasian.  Does she get to claim protected/suspect status, with its attendant ability to invoke the Police Power?  Or does she have to have tell-tale characteristics in her form and face in order to do so?

I myself am Dano-Franco-Scotto-Britto-Welsh with a half a teaspoon of Jewish.  Do I get to claim Jewishness if I'm 6'0 blonde and blue-eyed?  Or do I have to have certain facial characteristics, coloring, etc before I may invoke the Police Power?

You implicitly scoff at the absurdity and unscientific dependency upon superficial racial traits, and I agree with you.  It is irrational, undemocratic, and unscientific to make divisions based upon such trivialities.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, 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.

🤣

 

[The Nehor]

5 hours 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.

This is not what is happening here. And yes, there is government oversight and paperwork that must be dealt with in an adoption but you switched tacks to private adoptions which still happen normally.

BUT

that is not what is happening here or what this agency is doing. If this were just someone facilitating adoptions from a mother that wants to give up a baby and choose who the child goes to (a normal procedure) and the government was dictating as to who it was going to go to I would be upset too. It is none of the government's business unless there is something shady going on or they fail to pass a home inspection. This is for an adoption agency working with foster kids. The government has custody. The parent does not. Of course they get a say.

What is happening here is that the government is privatizing foster care (an idiotic decision in the first place but it is happening where I am too and seems to be the latest craze). So a non-profit gets the rights to certify foster parents. There are obligations and requirements attached in the selection process. So a Catholic group gets this contract and starts certifying people to be fit to be foster parents. This organization decides to add their own limitations on who can be foster parents and tries to hide behind the First Amendment. Allow me to be blunt. Unless the situation is very different in Philadelphia there already aren't enough foster parents to go around. So this Catholic organization, which is under government contract to vet foster parents, is refusing to consider qualified candidates on a basis that the government has not approved. They should be shut down and the contract given to someone willing to do their job so kids pulled out of homes for abuse and neglect do not end up in the much worse residential facilities.

If you want to pretend this is part of a slippery slope go ahead but don't misrepresent what is going on.

On a personal note I would prefer it if all kids were fostered and adopted by loving heterosexual couples. That is not going to happen. The entire foster care and adoption system is based on doing the best we can and a same-sex couple with stability is much better then no foster home and a same-sex couple adopting a kid out of the uncertainties and stress of foster care is better then being stuck in it until you age out with all the crazy that usually happens at that point.  

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

They get to choose a certain demographic and behavior set when they choose/chose LDSFS, according to disclosed criteria.

Outlaw those criteria, you outlaw her choice.

Her baby.  Her choice.  Unless, of course, a monstrous imposition intercedes.

And this monstrous imposition which hasn't happened has nothing to do with the cited article. You really need to read the article so you understand what the Catholic agency was sued over and what they were doing.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I have limited experience but my wife and I did, some years back, go through the process to become approved adoptive parents (we never ended up adopting because my wife became pregnant).  But my understanding is this:  an adoption agency takes on clients (birth mom) and it approves the adoptive parents.  Then, the birth mom, of her own accord, chooses which adoptive parents get her child.

So, I would imagine that adoption agencies cannot refuse to accept birth moms based on race.  And I would imagine that the agencies cannot refuse to approve adoptive parents based on race.  But, the birth mom could certainly decline any adoptive parent for any reason at all... including race, sexual orientation, eye color, or the high school they attended.

*This is based solely on my experience going through the process with LDSFS.

That is a process. When the child is in foster care and parental rights have been terminated and the child is eligible for adoption the birth parents have no say and probably no contact in any case.

[Tacenda]

3 hours 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.

And if she chooses the gay couple to adopt her baby? In fact, what if the upcoming generation start to prefer gay couples to adopt what then, do you think they'll have some kind of law to prevent the prevelance of it, and try to stop it "for the good of the child"? Just asking for curiosity sakes, a "what if" question. Since the new generation will mostly likely be very pro gay. Just curious if you think there should be laws that hinder it's being of abundance. Don't worry about answering though. It was just a thought I had.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Tacenda

[USU78]

52 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And this monstrous imposition which hasn't happened has nothing to do with the cited article. You really need to read the article so you understand what the Catholic agency was sued over and what they were doing.

Are you arguing that the money is what this is about?  Seriously?  I've asked the question thrice now of three different posters and nobody has even attempted to demonstrate that that would make a lick of difference, given slightly different fact pattern.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Are you arguing that the money is what this is about?  Seriously?

No, I am arguing it is about failing to fulfill a contract with a government agency. It is strange that you ignored the post where I explained what actually happened and chose to quote this one.

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I've asked the question thrice now of three different posters and nobody has even attempted to demonstrate that that would make a lick of difference, given slightly different fact pattern.

Because your entire premise is flawed. You are wrong. I doubt you even read the article you are citing to provoke your own outrage. There is no way to refute what you are saying because what you are saying never happened.

A Catholic agency agreed to find foster parents for a city. They signed a contract. Kids in foster care are either there because parental rights were taken away or were forfeited voluntarily. They are wards of the state. They decided to reject qualified foster parent candidates based on religious standards when the standards are set by the state. The agency has no legal or ethical standing to change those standards. They do not have custody of the children neither do parents they are working with. They changed the standards. They can't do. End of story.

You are arguing that a parent giving up a child for adoption will be compelled to give it to certain people. You have not demonstrated that this has happened. This article has nothing to do with parents with legal parental rights choosing who to adopt out their child to. Your outrage should be as great as it is about orcs invading over the Canadian border. Yet here we are.

 

The only outrage you can generate is that parents who neglect or abuse their children may not want their child fostered with same-sex foster parents. For which there is a simple solution: Don't neglect or abuse the child in the first place.

[The Nehor]

9 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

I love how that "presumably" bit somehow morphed into a "certainty" somehow.

Edited September 1, 2018 by The Nehor

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

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.

 

I am curious, do you know how much the nonprofit referred to in this case was funded by donations and how much of it was funded by the city government through the contracts with the city?

From the article:

Quote

The city of Philadelphia argued that Catholic Social Services is one of 30 nonprofit agencies that provide services for foster parents and children in the city's public child welfare system through contracts with the city's Department of Human Services. They say that no one is "compelling" the group to apply for the city-funded contracts and that the group can simply choose not to participate. 

"The contract obligates CSS to adhere to the City's long-standing non-discrimination policies and laws in performing the services required," city lawyers write. 

"The freedom of religion entitles faith-based organizations to participate in government programs on the same terms as other contractors; it does not entitle faith-based government contractors to alter the government services provided to confirm to their religious beliefs, or to opt out on religious grounds of some of the contract provisions," they wrote.

 

[Daniel2]

Hm. Based on the title, I clicked on this thread excited to revel in and share my love for the new sequel: “Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again”! 

Bummer. 

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Hm. Based on the title, I clicked on this thread excited to revel in and share my love for the new sequel: “Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again”! 

Bummer. 

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=Awr9NVXM74lbvEIAf.k0nIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBncGdyMzQ0BHNlYwNzZWFyY2gEdnRpZAM-;_ylc=X1MDMTM1MTE5NTcwMARfcgMyBGFjdG4DY2xrBGJjawMxYzNlOHBoY212cjhjJTI2YiUzRDMlMjZzJTNENjAEY3NyY3B2aWQDNmV1enFqRXdMaklXRGNqTVdXX3RERlY1TnpNdU1nQUFBQUJfUzIyTwRmcgN5aHMtaWJhLTEEZnIyA3NhLWdwBGdwcmlkA2RZU2paZ3I5U2ZpSmQucVJ0ZlpXN0EEbXRlc3RpZANudWxsBG5fcnNsdAM2MARuX3N1Z2cDMQRvcmlnaW4DdmlkZW8uc2VhcmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MDMARwcXN0cgMEcHFzdHJsAwRxc3RybAMxOARxdWVyeQNtYW1hIG1pYSBoZXJlIGFiYmEEdF9zdG1wAzE1MzU3NjY1MjAEdnRlc3RpZANudWxs?gprid=dYSjZgr9SfiJd.qRtfZW7A&pvid=6euzqjEwLjIWDcjMWW_tDFV5NzMuMgAAAAB_S22O&p=mama+mia+here+abba&ei=UTF-8&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av%2Cm%3Asa&fr=yhs-iba-1&hsimp=yhs-1&hspart=iba&type=gpnt_7511_CHW_US#id=2&vid=7664d1fe96df747e31c58eb4c1097e3f&action=view

[RevTestament]

6 hours 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.

Perhaps. That has yet to be really determined. But you say that like it's some kind of evil thing. Adoption agencies discriminate for all kinds of reasons - couples not having enough money, couples having poor health, and yes sometimes for religious reasons or preferences. If you don't like it, start your own adoption agency, and play god with some kids' future. But let me guess you would rather force some company to do things your way instead of watch adoption agencies for gays go broke.