Trump Says Adoption Agency Should be Allowed to Refuse LGBT

[San Lumen]

A lie, followed by "you're using it wrong" (I didn't realise the human body came with a manual), followed by "homosexuality is a mental illness" drivel.

I didn't say homosexuality is a mental illness. Please don't use quotation marks to attribute your own misinterpretation to me.

Yet everything you wrote in your previous comment is a lie. Why shouldnt two men or two woman be able to adopt? I know someone who was raised by two men. They are the only family he has ever known

[Necroghastia]

Homosexuality is an orientation which is likely to lead to unhappiness.

Source?

Sexual activity between two homosexuals isn't another modality of the way in which mutual love is expressed between two heterosexual couples, coitus, a natural act from which new life springs.

Not nearly all the time. Also, it's more than possible for a gay couple to have penis-in-vagina sex.

Homosexuality is based on the idea of the misuse of the genitals, and the misuse of the body of the receptive partner.

It's not "based" on anything of the sort, it just is.

Sodomy, oral and anal, has been proven medically to damage the body and carries a higher risk of transmission of venereal diseases.

1. Source? 2. You do realize a lot of hetero couples do that too right?

I can't come up with one rational explanation for why society should effectively promote homosexuality by decriminalising acts of consenting sexual abuse that are pestilential and cause serious injury and death, or legalising marriage between people whose relationships are based upon them, or even allowing children to be raised by people who practice them.

The reason you can't come up with a rational explanation is because you're loaded down with false pretenses.

I can't reconcile Love as it is defined metaphysically with something which is abnormal, and people who do are unfortunately delusional.

I can't see a difference at all between a hetero couple and a gay couple in terms of "metaphysical love."

Love is not enabling the self-abuser.

lolwut

[Jedi Council]

Homosexuality is an orientation which is likely to lead to unhappiness.

Sexual activity between two homosexuals isn't another modality of the way in which mutual love is expressed between two heterosexual couples, coitus, a natural act from which new life springs. Homosexuality is based on the idea of the misuse of the genitals, and the misuse of the body of the receptive partner. Sodomy, oral and anal, has been proven medically to damage the body and carries a higher risk of transmission of venereal diseases.

I can't come up with one rational explanation for why society should effectively promote homosexuality by decriminalising acts of consenting sexual abuse that are pestilential and cause serious injury and death, or legalising marriage between people whose relationships are based upon them, or even allowing children to be raised by people who practice them. I can't reconcile Love as it is defined metaphysically with something which is abnormal, and people who do are unfortunately delusional. Love is not enabling the self-abuser.

1) I know plenty of happy Gay couples. Why does homosexuality mean unhappiness to you?

2) "Sex is only good if kids can come from it," is pure and utter bullshit; tell that to a heterosexual couple once the woman goes through menopause.

3) Sodomy, oral sex, and many other acts common in homosexual relationships are also done in heterosexual relationships.

4) Is it really abuse if it is between two consenting adults? Cause serious injury or death? Have you ever tried anal sex? Presumably not, but if you had you would know how ludicrous you sound.

5) Most definitions that rely upon metaphysics are garbage.

[The Black Forrest]

Homosexuality is an orientation which is likely to lead to unhappiness.

And yet it exists in the animal kingdom.

Sexual activity between two homosexuals isn't another modality of the way in which mutual love is expressed between two heterosexual couples, coitus, a natural act from which new life springs. Homosexuality is based on the idea of the misuse of the genitals, and the misuse of the body of the receptive partner. Sodomy, oral and anal, has been proven medically to damage the body and carries a higher risk of transmission of venereal diseases.

Don’t be spreading lies. Hetro sex actually had more issues then gay sex.

I can't come up with one rational explanation for why society should effectively promote homosexuality

Again the lies. Homosexuals should be able to live their lives without abuse by the “faithful.”

“by decriminalising acts of consenting sexual abuse that are pestilential and cause serious injury and death, [/quote]

Again the lies. I won’t hold my breath for your “proof”

or legalising marriage between people whose relationships are based upon them, or even allowing children to be raised by people who practice them.

How is society hurt by them.

Why haven’t the “christians” emptied the system of children needing homes?

I can't reconcile Love as it is defined metaphysically with something which is abnormal,

How is it abnornaml.

and people who do are unfortunately delusional. Love is not enabling the self-abuser.

Indeed. Religious people can be very delousional.

[Purgatio]

The whole Masterpiece Cakeshop debacle was at least, in my view, more contentious, even though I still vehemently disagreed with the idea of a 'religious exemption' to anti-discrimination laws, at the very least we were talking about a privately-owned cake shop discriminating against gay customers who wanted to buy a cake, rather than any State-affiliated bodies.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia is a whole different ball game. CSS is trying to have its contract renewed with the City of Philadelphia to be permitted to place children into foster home facilities, after the contract was ended because CSS refuses to allow LGBT or same-sex parents to be foster parents to their children. When you sign up to be a foster agency, managing children placed into the foster care system, you are most definitely discharging a State function or service. There really isn't any justification for why a State or public service should be performed or discharged in a discriminatory way, the whole point of public institutions is to serve the entire public, to be an agent for the entire community, not pick and choose favourite and disfavoured classes in society.

And it most certainly is not a First Amendment violation, as CSS and the Trump administration are arguing. How can it be religiously-discriminatory to refuse to allow a person to perform a State service, because their religious views prevent them from discharging that State service in a non-discriminatory way? In the same way as it wouldn't be contrary to the First Amendment for a school board to refuse to hire a public school teacher who had strong religious convictions against teaching black or Muslim students, and it wouldn't be contrary to the First Amendment for a public hospital to refuse to hire a doctor or a nurse who refused to treat gay patients for religious reasons. You simply can't perform the public service at issue if you have religious convictions against actually serving the public, the community taken as a whole, which is your job. There really isn't anything to debate here, we're not even talking about a private institution like a small, local business or whatever, the foster care system is, by definition, a State-managed institution, and any entity like CSS who wants to be a contractor of the City of Philadelphia is asking for the ability to discharge and perform a State function on the City's behalf. CSS is asking for the right to perform a State service, and perform it in a discriminatory and exclusionary way, and arguing that the City's refusal to allow it to perform a State service whilst discriminating against a class of the public, is somehow a violation of the First Amendment. Its galling logic, and a blatant attempt by CSS to play the victim when the real victims are obviously the same-sex parents who suffered discrimination at their hands, and any children who suffered as a result of that exclusionary policy.

I'm not even gonna get into how there's pretty much a scientific consensus that children in same-sex families perform no worse than children in opposite-sex families, since I'm sure anyone who has done even a modicum of research into the subject of same-sex parenting can find that out pretty quickly on Google and Wikipedia. The research is so overwhelming, its hard to miss.

[Estanglia]

A lie, followed by "you're using it wrong" (I didn't realise the human body came with a manual), followed by "homosexuality is a mental illness" drivel.

I didn't say homosexuality is a mental illness. Please don't use quotation marks to attribute your own misinterpretation to me.

The quotation marks there aren't me saying you said it, it's me saying the stuff you're saying reeks of the kind of "homosexuality is a mental illness" stuff I've seen before. Begin with an unexplained assumption (that there's a "right" way to use your genitals, and that using it a "wrong" way is somehow harmful (unsubstantiated) or inherently wrong), and end with the most negative description of homosexuality you can muster whilst having an ounce of sympathy for them.

I'll admit, I jumped the gun because I misinterpreted parts of the latter part of your post, and I'll apologise for that.

[Jedi Council]

The whole Masterpiece Cakeshop debacle was at least, in my view, more contentious, even though I still vehemently disagreed with the idea of a 'religious exemption' to anti-discrimination laws, at the very least we were talking about a privately-owned cake shop discriminating against gay customers who wanted to buy a cake, rather than any State-affiliated bodies.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia is a whole different ball game. CSS is trying to have its contract renewed with the City of Philadelphia to be permitted to place children into foster home facilities, after the contract was ended because CSS refuses to allow LGBT or same-sex parents to be foster parents to their children. When you sign up to be a foster agency, managing children placed into the foster care system, you are most definitely discharging a State function or service. There really isn't any justification for why a State or public service should be performed or discharged in a discriminatory way, the whole point of public institutions is to serve the entire public, to be an agent for the entire community, not pick and choose favourite and disfavoured classes in society.

And it most certainly is not a First Amendment violation, as CSS and the Trump administration are arguing. How can it be religiously-discriminatory to refuse to allow a person to perform a State service, because their religious views prevent them from discharging that State service in a non-discriminatory way? In the same way as it wouldn't be contrary to the First Amendment for a school board to refuse to hire a public school teacher who had strong religious convictions against teaching black or Muslim students, and it wouldn't be contrary to the First Amendment for a public hospital to refuse to hire a doctor or a nurse who refused to treat gay patients for religious reasons. You simply can't perform the public service at issue if you have religious convictions against actually serving the public, the community taken as a whole, which is your job. There really isn't anything to debate here, we're not even talking about a private institution like a small, local business or whatever, the foster care system is, by definition, a State-managed institution, and any entity like CSS who wants to be a contractor of the City of Philadelphia is asking for the ability to discharge and perform a State function on the City's behalf. CSS is asking for the right to perform a State service, and perform it in a discriminatory and exclusionary way, and arguing that the City's refusal to allow it to perform a State service whilst discriminating against a class of the public, is somehow a violation of the First Amendment. Its galling logic, and a blatant attempt by CSS to play the victim when the real victims are obviously the same-sex parents who suffered discrimination at their hands, and any children who suffered as a result of that exclusionary policy.

I'm not even gonna get into how there's pretty much a scientific consensus that children in same-sex families perform no worse than children in opposite-sex families, since I'm sure anyone who has done even a modicum of research into the subject of same-sex parenting can find that out pretty quickly on Google and Wikipedia. The research is so overwhelming, its hard to miss.

Homophobes, the Christian right, and other anti-LGBTQ groups tend to dismiss overwhelming evidence all the time.

[Kowani]

The whole Masterpiece Cakeshop debacle was at least, in my view, more contentious, even though I still vehemently disagreed with the idea of a 'religious exemption' to anti-discrimination laws, at the very least we were talking about a privately-owned cake shop discriminating against gay customers who wanted to buy a cake, rather than any State-affiliated bodies.

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia is a whole different ball game. CSS is trying to have its contract renewed with the City of Philadelphia to be permitted to place children into foster home facilities, after the contract was ended because CSS refuses to allow LGBT or same-sex parents to be foster parents to their children. When you sign up to be a foster agency, managing children placed into the foster care system, you are most definitely discharging a State function or service. There really isn't any justification for why a State or public service should be performed or discharged in a discriminatory way, the whole point of public institutions is to serve the entire public, to be an agent for the entire community, not pick and choose favourite and disfavoured classes in society.

And it most certainly is not a First Amendment violation, as CSS and the Trump administration are arguing. How can it be religiously-discriminatory to refuse to allow a person to perform a State service, because their religious views prevent them from discharging that State service in a non-discriminatory way? In the same way as it wouldn't be contrary to the First Amendment for a school board to refuse to hire a public school teacher who had strong religious convictions against teaching black or Muslim students, and it wouldn't be contrary to the First Amendment for a public hospital to refuse to hire a doctor or a nurse who refused to treat gay patients for religious reasons. You simply can't perform the public service at issue if you have religious convictions against actually serving the public, the community taken as a whole, which is your job. There really isn't anything to debate here, we're not even talking about a private institution like a small, local business or whatever, the foster care system is, by definition, a State-managed institution, and any entity like CSS who wants to be a contractor of the City of Philadelphia is asking for the ability to discharge and perform a State function on the City's behalf. CSS is asking for the right to perform a State service, and perform it in a discriminatory and exclusionary way, and arguing that the City's refusal to allow it to perform a State service whilst discriminating against a class of the public, is somehow a violation of the First Amendment. Its galling logic, and a blatant attempt by CSS to play the victim when the real victims are obviously the same-sex parents who suffered discrimination at their hands, and any children who suffered as a result of that exclusionary policy.

I'm not even gonna get into how there's pretty much a scientific consensus that children in same-sex families perform no worse than children in opposite-sex families, since I'm sure anyone who has done even a modicum of research into the subject of same-sex parenting can find that out pretty quickly on Google and Wikipedia. The research is so overwhelming, its hard to miss.

This is actually a decent analysis from someone I often disagree with on everything.

[Sundiata]

Wow...

[Kannap]

Think how big drama it would be, if adoption service would refuse to let Christians adopt.

Christians would use a Christian agency.

Except gay Christians, who apparently said Christian agency denies.

[Sundiata]

Christians would use a Christian agency.

Except gay Christians, who apparently said Christian agency denies.

We're not supposed to qualify our Christianity.

[Cisairse]

Except gay Christians, who apparently said Christian agency denies.

We're not supposed to qualify our Christianity.

That wasn't "qualifying" the adjective Christian, that was saying that the Christians in question are also gay. Grammar is a thing.

[Hakons]

The targeting of religious groups based on "discrimination" claims is exactly what the Obergefell v Hodge dissenting opinion warned about. The "slippery slope" arguments that people maligned five years ago have practically become a road map for LGBT activists. It isn't discrimination to be religious. It is discrimination to target people because they follow their religion. Three of the dissenting judges are still on the court, while two new religious freedom advocates have been added. As broken and increasingly violent our politics are, it will be a small glimmer of joy to see the majority opinion come crashing down on anticatholics.

[Cisairse]

The targeting of religious groups based on "discrimination" claims is exactly what the Obergefell v Hodge dissenting opinion warned about. The "slippery slope" arguments that people maligned five years ago have practically become a road map for LGBT activists. It isn't discrimination to be religious. It is discrimination to target people because they follow their religion. Three of the dissenting judges are still on the court, while two new religious freedom advocates have been added. As broken and increasingly violent our politics are, it will be a small glimmer of joy to see the majority opinion come crashing down on anticatholics.

Nobody is being targeted because of their religion here. Did you even read the article? Religious groups are demanding that the government give them money so they can discriminate against same-sex couples. This is an open-and-shut case of illegal discrimination; the Trump administration is only saying otherwise because Trump is trying to score "victories" in the eyes of his base for his re-election campaign.

[San Lumen]

The targeting of religious groups based on "discrimination" claims is exactly what the Obergefell v Hodge dissenting opinion warned about. The "slippery slope" arguments that people maligned five years ago have practically become a road map for LGBT activists. It isn't discrimination to be religious. It is discrimination to target people because they follow their religion. Three of the dissenting judges are still on the court, while two new religious freedom advocates have been added. As broken and increasingly violent our politics are, it will be a small glimmer of joy to see the majority opinion come crashing down on anticatholics.

There is no large scale anti catholic bias. Why should an adoption agency be allowed to refuse gay couples? What’s stopping them from denying interracial couples on religious grounds to?

[Jedi Council]

The targeting of religious groups based on "discrimination" claims is exactly what the Obergefell v Hodge dissenting opinion warned about. The "slippery slope" arguments that people maligned five years ago have practically become a road map for LGBT activists. It isn't discrimination to be religious. It is discrimination to target people because they follow their religion. Three of the dissenting judges are still on the court, while two new religious freedom advocates have been added. As broken and increasingly violent our politics are, it will be a small glimmer of joy to see the majority opinion come crashing down on anticatholics.

Why should an adoption agency, one that received taxpayer support, be allowed to discriminate?

[Sundiata]

We're not supposed to qualify our Christianity.

That wasn't "qualifying" the adjective Christian, that was saying that the Christians in question are also gay. Grammar is a thing.

That's fair.

While I side with the Catholic Church and Pope Francis on this one, I also agree with Pope Francis that the Catholic Church owes the marginalized an apology.

[Kannap]

Homosexuality is an orientation which is likely to lead to unhappiness.

Actually, most gay people are happy in regards to their sexuality. The unhappiness comes from the hate spewed against us by various people and organizations. But that's not unique to LGBT people, anybody can be unhappy when people so vocally hate them.

Sexual activity between two homosexuals isn't another modality of the way in which mutual love is expressed between two heterosexual couples, coitus, a natural act from which new life springs.

Are elderly couples who cannot conceive in the wrong when they have sex? People who are infertile or sterile? Neither of these couples could conceive no matter how much they boink.

Homosexuality is based on the idea of the misuse of the genitals, and the misuse of the body of the receptive partner.

Sex? They're having sex, seems like appropriate use of the genitalia.

Sodomy, oral and anal, has been proven medically to damage the body and carries a higher risk of transmission of venereal diseases.

Citation needed

[Andsed]

The targeting of religious groups based on "discrimination" claims is exactly what the Obergefell v Hodge dissenting opinion warned about. The "slippery slope" arguments that people maligned five years ago have practically become a road map for LGBT activists. It isn't discrimination to be religious. It is discrimination to target people because they follow their religion. Three of the dissenting judges are still on the court, while two new religious freedom advocates have been added. As broken and increasingly violent our politics are, it will be a small glimmer of joy to see the majority opinion come crashing down on anticatholics.

No religions is being targeted here. What is being discussed is how to deal with adoption agencies that discriminate against the LGBT by refusing to allow them to adopt. And seeing as many as these agencies are publicly funded it is kinda a problem.

[Jedi Council]

That wasn't "qualifying" the adjective Christian, that was saying that the Christians in question are also gay. Grammar is a thing.

That's fair.

While I side with the Catholic Church and Pope Francis on this one, I also agree with Pope Francis that the Catholic Church owes the marginalized an apology.

Apologize but continue to discriminate?

Seems legit.

[Hakons]

The targeting of religious groups based on "discrimination" claims is exactly what the Obergefell v Hodge dissenting opinion warned about. The "slippery slope" arguments that people maligned five years ago have practically become a road map for LGBT activists. It isn't discrimination to be religious. It is discrimination to target people because they follow their religion. Three of the dissenting judges are still on the court, while two new religious freedom advocates have been added. As broken and increasingly violent our politics are, it will be a small glimmer of joy to see the majority opinion come crashing down on anticatholics.

Nobody is being targeted because of their religion here. Did you even read the article? Religious groups are demanding that the government give them money so they can discriminate against same-sex couples. This is an open-and-shut case of illegal discrimination; the Trump administration is only saying otherwise because Trump is trying to score "victories" in the eyes of his base for his re-election campaign.

This case has long been on the radar of Catholics. It spooked us, for good reason. Our charities are being targeted by the public authorities for not caving to their secular liberal religion political philosophy. The Trump Admin probably is trying to use this for political advantage, but the case was going to the court anyway with the legal effort of religious liberty advocates.

It's anticatholic discrimination. Catholic social services have operated their adoption charity for over a hundred years in Philadelphia. The city, by changing its criteria for who gets adoption funding, mandated the charity no longer be Catholic. That's anticatholic bigotry, and the supreme court will explain it that way too.

[Kannap]

Except gay Christians, who apparently said Christian agency denies.

We're not supposed to qualify our Christianity.

Pardon?

[Grimmsland]

As a complete atheist I see absolutely no problem with religious organizations refusing service to those they deem contrary to their faith. It should be within the rights of any private business to refuse service to anyone they choose provided they do not provide an essential service (food, healthcare, water, shelter etc.) that the person can not reasonably obtain elsewhere. So like if there is one water supplier in town than yea, force him to accept everyone. Otherwise I don't see why you would.

Could a point be made that an adoption agency seeks to provide all of that for children (plus affection) by way of finding caregivers that provide all of those things sufficiently?

[Sundiata]

We're not supposed to qualify our Christianity.

Pardon?

Many Catholics unfortunately seek to qualify their faith with preceding adjectives when the faith is supposed to come first.

[Andsed]

Nobody is being targeted because of their religion here. Did you even read the article? Religious groups are demanding that the government give them money so they can discriminate against same-sex couples. This is an open-and-shut case of illegal discrimination; the Trump administration is only saying otherwise because Trump is trying to score "victories" in the eyes of his base for his re-election campaign.

This case has long been on the radar of Catholics. It spooked us, for good reason. Our charities are being targeted by the public authorities for not caving to their secular liberal religion political philosophy. The Trump Admin probably is trying to use this for political advantage, but the case was going to the court anyway with the legal effort of religious liberty advocates.

It's anticatholic discrimination. Catholic social services have operated their adoption charity for over a hundred years in Philadelphia. The city, by changing its criteria for who gets adoption funding, mandated the charity no longer be Catholic. That's anticatholic bigotry, and the supreme court will explain it that way too.

What a load of bullshit. Many of these adoption agencies revives public funding. A publicly funded organization has no business discriminating against anyone and it is not bigotry to take away their funding once they begin to do so. Stop playing victim here.