Trump Says Adoption Agency Should be Allowed to Refuse LGBT

[Vassenor]

So what do the Log Cabin Republicans have to say about this move?

[Gormwood]

So what do the Log Cabin Republicans have to say about this move?

At best nothing, or "Please Sir, May I Have Another?"

[-Astoria]

Days without being a national embarrassment: 0

[Rojava Free State]

So what do the Log Cabin Republicans have to say about this move?

At best nothing, or "Please Sir, May I Have Another?"

Theyre as shameful as Arab and Latino Republicans, like Jeanine Pirro and Ted Cruz.

[Andsed]

Being a child in a homosexual family is probably better for the child's welfare than being stuck in the foster/adoption system, so I think that they shouldn't discriminate and allow same-sex couples to adopt children even from religious agencies. After all, a child is not a cake or piece of art. Its welfare should be put first over the convictions and views of adoption agencies.

That being said, they should not lower their standards otherwise. They must be allowed to reject LGBT couples if there's a genuine question of whether they're ready or capable of caring for a child.

Of course if they have a legitimate reason on why the couple is not a good fit for raising a child then they should have every right to turn them down. But the reason just cannot only be ¨their LGBT.¨

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think religious foster agencies (and most religious organizations) should be legally permitted to discriminate in this regard, and we should just as legally yank every taxpayer dollar from it, and post an ad for free dollars to any foster agency willing to not be an asshole and work in the same area.

You’re free to exercise your first amendment rights. But we don’t have support you.

We should be more like Batman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jZ-_f7kj_8

This is the liberal way to approach the issue.

This p much.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Man Trump be out here simping for the Evangelical vote that he was loseing.

Fucking disgusting. LGBT parents are just as capable as straight parents, with the minor down side of either an endless loop of "go ask your mom" or 2X the dad jokes.

I think religious foster agencies (and most religious organizations) should be legally permitted to discriminate in this regard, and we should just as legally yank every taxpayer dollar from it, and post an ad for free dollars to any foster agency willing to not be an asshole and work in the same area.

You’re free to exercise your first amendment rights. But we don’t have support you.

We should be more like Batman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jZ-_f7kj_8

This is the liberal way to approach the issue.

Seems fair tbh, why spend money on a place that will discriminate?

[Thepeopl]

Being a child in a homosexual family is probably better for the child's welfare than being stuck in the foster/adoption system, so I think that they shouldn't discriminate and allow same-sex couples to adopt children even from religious agencies. After all, a child is not a cake or piece of art. Its welfare should be put first over the convictions and views of adoption agencies.

That being said, they should not lower their standards otherwise. They must be allowed to reject LGBT couples if there's a genuine question of whether they're ready or capable of caring for a child.

They should do a better job of screening adoptive parents. The fact that you are a straight couple with a child wish doesn't qualify you as "fit" parents. My sister in law and her wife have two children. They were lucky because my brother in law agreed to donate sperm and my sister in laws wife could be impregnated by my sister in law on account of both being md.
(The wife doesn't have brothers, so she birthed both children)

My adoptive parents were a disaster, well my adoptive mum was. She liked the idea of babies but didn't know what the reality of babies is. Also she didn't want to perform the daily care for toddlers/ pre school kids or any child at all.
But because she kept saying how much she loves children, the adoption agency approved my adoption. Till this day I detest child services.

Narrow minded people shouldn't be judging other people.
Lets disband all religious adoption organisations and put psychologists, pedagogues, and pediatricians in charge.

[Kannap]

...kids are property now?

I mean, yeah they're dependents who are provided for by a guardian(s) of some kind, but they aren't crying chairs.

You could say the orphanage is their property, but yall are more interested in spurious claims.

See. but people aren't adopting the orphanage, they're adopting children.

[Kannap]

This aged well:

(Image)

Hey, all of his LGBT supporter worked hard on that banner!

At the very least they could've made sure he wasn't holding the flag upside down or the words weren't written the wrong way.

[The Reformed American Republic]

If they accept tax payer money, then they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate in such a manor, per the 14th Amendment.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Hey, all of his LGBT supporter worked hard on that banner!

At the very least they could've made sure he wasn't holding the flag upside down or the words weren't written the wrong way.

I missed the flag being the wrong way up. Interesting.

Was this a setup?

[Servilis]

As a Trans Woman in a Lesbian relationship with another Trans Woman, when we finally move in together and some Conservative bucko in power decides to remove our ability to adopt I'll be really saddened, because it means Shay and I won't be able to bear a symbol of our relationship. I've never been really good with children and I'd want to learn how to raise one, while also giving an orphan a family.

Besides, both the US and the UK (the country which Shay lives in) are Secular nations, even then, America has always separated Church and State, so to go as far as to decline LGBT people the right to adopt is unconstitutional, and also violates the Equality Acts put forth to prevent discrimination.

[Galloism]

As a Trans Woman in a Lesbian relationship with another Trans Woman, when we finally move in together and some Conservative bucko in power decides to remove our ability to adopt I'll be really saddened, because it means Shay and I won't be able to bear a symbol of our relationship. I've never been really good with children and I'd want to learn how to raise one, while also giving an orphan a family.

Besides, both the US and the UK (the country which Shay lives in) are Secular nations, even then, America has always separated Church and State, so to go as far as to decline LGBT people the right to adopt is unconstitutional, and also violates the Equality Acts put forth to prevent discrimination.

It’s a private agency, not a federal office.

[Middle Barael]

As a Trans Woman in a Lesbian relationship with another Trans Woman, when we finally move in together and some Conservative bucko in power decides to remove our ability to adopt I'll be really saddened, because it means Shay and I won't be able to bear a symbol of our relationship. I've never been really good with children and I'd want to learn how to raise one, while also giving an orphan a family.

Besides, both the US and the UK (the country which Shay lives in) are Secular nations, even then, America has always separated Church and State, so to go as far as to decline LGBT people the right to adopt is unconstitutional, and also violates the Equality Acts put forth to prevent discrimination.

It’s a private agency, not a federal office.

A private agency that gets tons of money from the government. If they refuse to comply with anti-discrinatory regulations and rules, then the government should just cut off their supply of money from the government, and then set up some sort of agency to find new foster homes and orphanages for the orphans in case the orphanage closes due to lack of government money.

[Auze]

No matter y'all's opinions, I have to ask:

Was anyone surprised in the least by this?

[Cisairse]

No matter y'all's opinions, I have to ask:

Was anyone surprised in the least by this?

Yes; I'm surprised Trump managed to write a brief.

[Galloism]

It’s a private agency, not a federal office.

A private agency that gets tons of money from the government. If they refuse to comply with anti-discrinatory regulations and rules, then the government should just cut off their supply of money from the government, and then set up some sort of agency to find new foster homes and orphanages for the orphans in case the orphanage closes due to lack of government money.

Yes that’s the correct move.

It’s just not unconstitutional for a private religious organization to do... well, anything. Constitution limits the government, not the people.

[Kannap]

No matter y'all's opinions, I have to ask:

Was anyone surprised in the least by this?

Yes; I'm surprised Trump managed to write a brief.

Doubt he wrote it himself.

[Palmyrion]

Remove their state funding while allowing them to shoo away LGBT adopters. That way, not only will it give the church more of an incentive to actually invest in (discriminative) charity (I have, personally, encountered LGBT people here in the Philippines being turned away by clergy from, say, soup kitchens), it also either saves the state money or allows it to invest on more inclusive adoption agencies.

And speaking of LGBT population adopting at rates higher than the straight population, this all sounds like a large-scale manifestation of the gay uncle theory, sans genetic kinship.

[Purpelia]

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.

[Kannap]

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.

That's all well and good, but then they should not receive any taxpayer funding. Why should people have to pay for a service they're going to be denied using?

[Cisairse]

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.

They're government-funded. That's the problem.

[New Jewlan]

As usual, Trump is right.

[Purpelia]

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.

They're government-funded. That's the problem.

That's a detail I did not know. And it's one that changes everything.
I absolutely agree that tax money should not go to any business that will not serve all citizens equally.