US House Committee Moves to Restrict LGBT Adoption

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Quite. If a church starts participating in politics, their tax exempt status should be revoked immediately.

Though some churches, like the PC(USA), engage in politics in a progressive way.

In which case, warn them. If they continue, revoke their tax exempt status.

[Kannap]

Unfortunately, with the law slowly making it's way through Congress, it'll soon be the law of the land that states cannot force religious adoption agencies to adopt to LGBT couples - and states that do will receive a cut in Federal funding to state adoption agencies.

If that's true, that's shitty. The proper response then would be to disallow all private adoption agencies and bring adoption entirely in-house.

It's passed in The House Appropriations Committee 29-23. If I'm not mistaken, the House of Representatives as a whole votes on it now?

[The South Falls]

Quite. If a church starts participating in politics, their tax exempt status should be revoked immediately.

Though some churches, like the PC(USA), engage in politics in a progressive way.

That is true. For fairness, they should lose funding too.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

If that's true, that's shitty. The proper response then would be to disallow all private adoption agencies and bring adoption entirely in-house.

It's passed in The House Appropriations Committee 29-23. If I'm not mistaken, the House of Representatives as a whole votes on it now?

I am not sure, tbh.

[Kannap]

Though some churches, like the PC(USA), engage in politics in a progressive way.

In which case, warm them. If they continue, revoke their tax exempt status.

While I hope the super conservative denominations would back out of politics for fear of losing their tax exempt status, I do personally believe - especially having known the head of the church since before he was the head of the church - that the PC(USA) would move to start paying taxes just to be able to continue our goal of pushing for the advancement of civil rights instead of stopping.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

In which case, warm them. If they continue, revoke their tax exempt status.

While I hope the super conservative denominations would back out of politics for fear of losing their tax exempt status, I do personally believe - especially having known the head of the church since before he was the head of the church - that the PC(USA) would move to start paying taxes just to be able to continue our goal of pushing for the advancement of civil rights instead of stopping.

They could, but not all churches could.

[Communist Xomaniax]

B-but I thought the government persecuted innocent christians?!

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

B-but I thought the government persecuted innocent christians?!

Some aren't so innocent, really.

[Cekoviu]

Ugh. Absolutely stupid.

[Ifreann]

Or, better idea, ban them from taking custody of children.

Mind you, I could be wrong, but I don't think you can ban them from taking custody of children on the grounds of religious affiliation.

I'm not saying ban Christians from adopting children.

I'm saying ban religious organisations from operating orphanages or adoption agencies or generally ever having the power to decide whether or not a guardian-less child leaves an institution and goes to a family or not. Have such institutions operated by the state and the state alone.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Mind you, I could be wrong, but I don't think you can ban them from taking custody of children on the grounds of religious affiliation.

I'm not saying ban Christians from adopting children.

I'm saying ban religious organisations from operating orphanages or adoption agencies or generally ever having the power to decide whether or not a guardian-less child leaves an institution and goes to a family or not. Have such institutions operated by the state and the state alone.

I didn't say that either, Iffy. It's banning these religious agencies that I'm not sure about. If you move to ban them from taking custody of children, on the grounds of them being religious, you could run afoul of the first amendment.

[Ifreann]

I'm not saying ban Christians from adopting children.

I'm saying ban religious organisations from operating orphanages or adoption agencies or generally ever having the power to decide whether or not a guardian-less child leaves an institution and goes to a family or not. Have such institutions operated by the state and the state alone.

I didn't say that either, Iffy. It's banning these religious agencies that I'm not sure about. If you move to ban them from taking custody of children, on the grounds of them being religious, you could run afoul of the first amendment.

I don't think so. That religious organisations are discriminating on the basis of sexuality demonstrates that they are not acting in the best interests of their wards, and thus are unsuitable guardians.

[The South Falls]

B-but I thought the government persecuted innocent christians?!

Gay people are the persecuted. This isn't the Ottoman Empire.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I didn't say that either, Iffy. It's banning these religious agencies that I'm not sure about. If you move to ban them from taking custody of children, on the grounds of them being religious, you could run afoul of the first amendment.

I don't think so. That religious organisations are discriminating on the basis of sexuality demonstrates that they are not acting in the best interests of their wards, and thus are unsuitable guardians.

That could very well be, but I am not entirely sure. These organizations could also claim religious discrimination, based on the first amendment. I don't think they have their wards's best interest at hand either (what should matter is the child finding a loving home, regardless of whether the parents are heterosexual or same sex), but they're supposedly basing this discriimination on their religious grounds and, in the US, there is such a thing as freedom of religion. I, personally, don't know how it would play.

[Ifreann]

I don't think so. That religious organisations are discriminating on the basis of sexuality demonstrates that they are not acting in the best interests of their wards, and thus are unsuitable guardians.

That could very well be, but I am not entirely sure. These organizations could also claim religious discrimination, based on the first amendment. I don't think they have their wards's best interest at hand either (what should matter is the child finding a loving home, regardless of whether the parents are heterosexual or same sex), but they're supposedly basing this discriimination on their religious grounds and, in the US, there is such a thing as freedom of religion. I, personally, don't know how it would play.

I know exactly how it would play out. Some lefty on the internet says "Ban churches from taking in children" and then America doesn't even notice. There's near zero appetite for this in America. The Christian lobby is far too powerful for any politician to even consider it. I still think it's right, even if I don't know what buttons to push to make the US do it.

[Telconi]

I didn't say that either, Iffy. It's banning these religious agencies that I'm not sure about. If you move to ban them from taking custody of children, on the grounds of them being religious, you could run afoul of the first amendment.

I don't think so. That religious organisations are discriminating on the basis of sexuality demonstrates that they are not acting in the best interests of their wards, and thus are unsuitable guardians.

If "not acting in their best interest" was synonymous with "raising a child in a way someone finds objectionable" there wouldn't be any parenys with their kids.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't think so. That religious organisations are discriminating on the basis of sexuality demonstrates that they are not acting in the best interests of their wards, and thus are unsuitable guardians.

If "not acting in their best interest" was synonymous with "raising a child in a way someone finds objectionable" there wouldn't be any parenys with their kids.

Side note: When it comes to placing children in loving homes, the sexual orientation of the prospective parents shouldn't matter. If they're fit for parenting, if they have the income, if they can provide for that kid, if the home life is good, that they're not abusive, I think that's all that should matter ultimately to these adoption agencies.

[Ifreann]

I don't think so. That religious organisations are discriminating on the basis of sexuality demonstrates that they are not acting in the best interests of their wards, and thus are unsuitable guardians.

If "not acting in their best interest" was synonymous with "raising a child in a way someone finds objectionable" there wouldn't be any parenys with their kids.

Sure. Whatever.

[Telconi]

If "not acting in their best interest" was synonymous with "raising a child in a way someone finds objectionable" there wouldn't be any parenys with their kids.

Side note: When it comes to placing children in loving homes, the sexual orientation of the prospective parents shouldn't matter. If they're fit for parenting, if they have the income, if they can provide for that kid, if the home life is good, that they're not abusive, I think that's all that should matter ultimately to these adoption agencies.

The point here is that's what you think, that isn't a belief shared with everyone, if you and I defined what we considered "good homes" there would likely be a significant number that didn't overlap.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Side note: When it comes to placing children in loving homes, the sexual orientation of the prospective parents shouldn't matter. If they're fit for parenting, if they have the income, if they can provide for that kid, if the home life is good, that they're not abusive, I think that's all that should matter ultimately to these adoption agencies.

The point here is that's what you think, that isn't a belief shared with everyone, if you and I defined what we considered "good homes" there would likely be a significant number that didn't overlap.

Sure, but seeing as these religious agencies have decided to discriminate against same sex couples (which mind you, they can, as couples can very well use the services of a state agency), then they shouldn't have access to federal or state funding.

[Bienenhalde]

In which case, warm them. If they continue, revoke their tax exempt status.

While I hope the super conservative denominations would back out of politics for fear of losing their tax exempt status, I do personally believe - especially having known the head of the church since before he was the head of the church - that the PC(USA) would move to start paying taxes just to be able to continue our goal of pushing for the advancement of civil rights instead of stopping.

There is a difference between having opinions on issues which may become political and actually endorsing specific candidates or political parties. You can do the former without the latter.

[Telconi]

The point here is that's what you think, that isn't a belief shared with everyone, if you and I defined what we considered "good homes" there would likely be a significant number that didn't overlap.

Sure, but seeing as these religious agencies have decided to discriminate against same sex couples (which mind you, they can, as couples can very well use the services of a state agency), then they shouldn't have access to federal or state funding.

-shrug- I don't see why not.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Sure, but seeing as these religious agencies have decided to discriminate against same sex couples (which mind you, they can, as couples can very well use the services of a state agency), then they shouldn't have access to federal or state funding.

-shrug- I don't see why not.

Because they already pay ZERO taxes and they should not get taxpayer money just for practicing their religion.

[Telconi]

-shrug- I don't see why not.

Because they already pay ZERO taxes and they should not get taxpayer money just for practicing their religion.

Presumably they're getting taxpayer money for acting as an adoption service.

[The South Falls]

Because they already pay ZERO taxes and they should not get taxpayer money just for practicing their religion.

Presumably they're getting taxpayer money for acting as an adoption service.

If they're not placing kids with parents, because of their beliefs, they've done a shit job.