Page 1 of 33

Trump Says Adoption Agency Should be Allowed to Refuse LGBT

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:46 pm
by Kannap
The Trump administration submitted a brief to the Supreme Court on Wednesday arguing that a taxpayer-funded organization should be able to refuse to work with same-sex couples and others whom the group considers to be in violation of its religious beliefs.

The brief was filed by the Department of Justice in the case Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which centers on the refusal of Catholic Social Services, a religious nonprofit that operates a child welfare agency in Philadelphia, to place adoptive and foster children with same-sex couples in violation of the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance.

In its brief, the government argued that “Philadelphia has impermissibly discriminated against religious exercise,” and that the city’s actions “reflect unconstitutional hostility toward Catholic Social Services’ religious beliefs.”

The latter argument cites a recent Supreme Court case in which the government intervened on behalf of baker Jack Phillips who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple due to his religious beliefs. The high court awarded a narrow victory to Phillips on the grounds that the Colorado Human Rights Commission had shown hostility toward his religious views.

Catholic Social Services sued Philadelphia in 2018 after the city ended its contract with the faith-based service provider upon learning the organization would not consider same-sex couples as potential parents for foster children. The organization argued that to provide these services to gay couples violated its constitutional rights to free religious exercise and free speech.

Catholic Social Services lost the case in district court and subsequently appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which unanimously affirmed the lower court’s ruling in April 2019. Attorneys for the organization then appealed to the Supreme Court in February.

“I’m relieved to hear that the Supreme Court will weigh in on faith-based adoption and foster care,” Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing Catholic Social Services, said in February. “Over the last few years, agencies have been closing their doors across the country, and all the while children are pouring into the system.”

Civil rights advocates, however, warned of the far-reaching consequences of ruling for Catholic Social Services.

“While this case involves rejecting LGBTQ families, if the Court accepts the claims made in this case, not only will this hurt children in foster care by reducing the number of families to care for them, but anyone who depends on a wide range of government services will be at risk of discrimination based on their sexual orientation, religion or any other characteristic that fails a provider’s religious litmus test,” Leslie Cooper, deputy director of the ACLU’s LGBT and HIV Project, told NBC News.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Under President Donald Trump, the Department of Justice has not shied away from weighing in on LGBTQ rights cases at the Supreme Court. In addition to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the department also submitted a brief on behalf of a funeral home accused of firing an employee, Aimee Stephens, when she came out as transgender. The high court’s ruling in that case could come down any time.

In January 2019, the administration granted a waiver to Miracle Hill Ministries in South Carolina, allowing it to deny services to same-sex or non-Christian couples and continue as a state-supported foster care agency.

Eleven states have laws that allow state-licensed agencies to claim religious exemptions in the foster care and adoption process, and others are considering similar measures.

LGBTQ advocates say these laws and policies only worsen the problem of a lack of available foster families. There were about 443,000 children in foster care across the United States in 2017, according to a Department of Health and Human Services report published that year. Each year, around 50,000 children are adopted through the child welfare system, but about 20,000 others “age out” before being placed with an adoptive family, the department reports.

Studies show LGBTQ families foster and adopt at higher rates and are more likely to take in older, special needs and minority children. Over 21 percent of gay couples are raising adopted children, compared with 3 percent of straight couples, and nearly 3 percent of gay couples have foster children, compared with 0.4 percent of straight couples, according to a 2018 report from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law.

“Our government provides critical social services to people in need, including through partnerships with private secular and religious organizations,” Cooper said. “Discrimination has no place there.”

The Supreme Court will hear Fulton v. City of Philadelphia during its next term, which begins in October.

Source


So what say you NSG? Do you think LGBT people have a right to adopt and raise children? Do you think religious adoption agencies have a right to refuse to allow LGBT people to adopt solely based on their sexuality? Any other thoughts?

Personally, I think there are a lot of children - nearly 450,000 - in foster care across the United States and that we should not discriminate on adoption on the basis of sexuality. Otherwise, we might as well refuse people the right to adopt on the basis of their skin color or gender. I do firmly believe that LGBT people have the right to adopt and raise children just as much as heterosexual people do.

I think its wrong for religious adoption agencies to refuse to allow LGBT people to adopt, but I can see why there would be an argument for why they should be allowed to. However, if they refuse to allow LGBT people to adopt solely on the basis of their sexuality, that should be recognized for the discrimination it is and they should not be allowed to receive taxpayer funding. There should be adequate options for parents capable of raising children to be able to adopt.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:53 pm
by Rojava Free State
Anything to pander to the evangelicals and distract from his own sinful life.

I swear it is so weird that people hate gays just for being gay.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:56 pm
by Gig em Aggies
Rojava Free State wrote:Anything to pander to the evangelicals and distract from his own sinful life.

I swear it is so weird that people hate gays just for being gay.

same thing can be said about people hating Jewish people just for being Jewish but there is a big difference between should be allowed and would be allowed

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:56 pm
by Galloism
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.

Trump Says Adoption Agencies Should be Allowed to Refuse

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 3:59 pm
by Deacarsia
I see no problem with this.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:00 pm
by Antibuda
Galloism wrote: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.

Yes, that's the smart way to go about it. You don't want to just straight-up close them all, as the Karens will object, but just suck all the life (read: taxpayer money) out of them.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:01 pm
by Antityranicals
This seems obvious to me. Why shouldn't an adoption agency choose whom it allows to adopt? It's not as though adoption is a right...

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:03 pm
by Andsed
Galloism wrote: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.

That works. You can be homophobic twats but the government is not going to support you.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:05 pm
by Orostan
Antityranicals wrote:This seems obvious to me. Why shouldn't an adoption agency choose whom it allows to adopt? It's not as though adoption is a right...

>hey guys I’m a libertarian who loves freedom

>no no not that freedom

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:08 pm
by Thermodolia
Galloism wrote: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.

I agree with this.

You have the right to believe and do what you want no matter how stupid it is, however the government and thus the taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for it

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:09 pm
by Thermodolia
Orostan wrote:
Antityranicals wrote:This seems obvious to me. Why shouldn't an adoption agency choose whom it allows to adopt? It's not as though adoption is a right...

>hey guys I’m a libertarian who loves freedom

>no no not that freedom

And not that freedom either or that one or that one

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:18 pm
by Snoodum
Who are religious foster agencies (or any foster agencies for that matter) to tell certain people they can't adopt? If the person who wants to adopt has a history of being an abuser, or something similar, I can see an argument to not let them adopt but on the grounds of sexuality? Frankly homophobic nonsense. As others have said, cut off all government funding to such places.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:19 pm
by Esternial
If taxpayers pay for a service, shouldn't they be able to use it?

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:21 pm
by Cisairse
Inhumane and cruel.

Let's not forget that evangelicals are the same group of people pushing the "Just put them up for adoption!" narrative as way to try and legitimize the outlawing of abortion. The adoption system is already supremely flooded with children and in dire need of more willing parents; this move will only exacerbate it and increase the severity of the humanitarian crisis happening within the borders of the United States.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:22 pm
by Myrensis
But he touched the rainbow flag once!

Antityranicals wrote:This seems obvious to me. Why shouldn't an adoption agency choose whom it allows to adopt? It's not as though adoption is a right...


They can, as soon as they stop taking taxpayer money.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:30 pm
by Kannap
Antityranicals wrote:This seems obvious to me. Why shouldn't an adoption agency choose whom it allows to adopt? It's not as though adoption is a right...


Would you be fine with an adoption agency refusing to let African Americans to adopt? Or refusing to let Chinese Americans adopt?

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:32 pm
by Cisairse
Kannap wrote:
Antityranicals wrote:This seems obvious to me. Why shouldn't an adoption agency choose whom it allows to adopt? It's not as though adoption is a right...


Would you be fine with an adoption agency refusing to let African Americans to adopt? Or refusing to let Chinese Americans adopt?


Or, more aptly, refusing to let straight Americans adopt.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:34 pm
by Kannap
Esternial wrote:If taxpayers pay for a service, shouldn't they be able to use it?


I can see where you'd draw that conclusion

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:35 pm
by Kannap
Cisairse wrote:
Kannap wrote:
Would you be fine with an adoption agency refusing to let African Americans to adopt? Or refusing to let Chinese Americans adopt?


Or, more aptly, refusing to let straight Americans adopt.


That's a silly idea and a horrible argument, as long as straight people make up the majority. I was making comparisons to other minorities because minorities are always the ones who get oppressed.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:37 pm
by Lucja
Why should religion be able to interfere with children having a stable home?

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:39 pm
by Nanatsu no Tsuki
Antibuda wrote:
Galloism wrote: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.

Yes, that's the smart way to go about it. You don't want to just straight-up close them all, as the Karens will object, but just suck all the life (read: taxpayer money) out of them.


Karens gotta Karen. Idiots the lot of them.

But yes, Gallo is right. They can be assholes, it’s a constitutional right, but we don’t have to support them in their quest to be assholes.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:39 pm
by Fulgornia
I think this is an on-point policy for fuhrer Trump. It speaks to his ideology of degrading the common man while convincing the common man is exceptional to the common man. Truly an amazing political move for future despots on how to teach the populace to attack itself from a false belief of supremacy.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:39 pm
by Loben The 2nd
Lucja wrote:Why should religion be able to interfere with children having a stable home?


why are LGBT couples bothering to go through religious ran organizations?

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:42 pm
by Middle Barael
Antityranicals wrote:This seems obvious to me. Why shouldn't an adoption agency choose whom it allows to adopt? It's not as though adoption is a right...

Because it’s only doing it because they are same-sex couples, which is discrimination. If the family was actually deemed not suitable for raising a child, then you can understand it, but if the only reason is that they are gay, there’s a problem.

I feel like it will be very difficult to force these organizations to allow gay people to adopt, but instead the government should simply refuse to fund them. Our taxpayer money should not be going to a charity that openly discriminates against any legally protected group, including the LGBTQ community. If an adoption service decided that they would not let Jews adopt, the government would defund them and maybe even prosecute, so why would it be any different for the LGBTQ community?

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 4:42 pm
by Bienenhalde
I don't agree with the policy of Christian or other religious adoption agencies that refuse to allow same-sex couples to adopt, but if they close, that would mean that fewer adoption agencies would have to handle a larger number of children. Is that really in the children's best interests?