Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[QuickHitCurepon]

She became desperate a long time ago.

That is why I said promises like you continue to give and these mean nothing. Government promises are made primarily to make it look good. Children are already being taken out of caring homes and are losing out. You asked for proof, and I gave it to you.

They aren't taken. Don't twist it. The reality is that the Catholic Charities are irrelevant and are not anywhere close to being as necessary in this as you seem to think. The rest of what you wrote is bullshit. You know it and I know it.

You aren't relating to the thousands of happy families adopted children have found with Catholic Charities. If there are so many agencies that will adopt to gays, why do those families and the thousands in the future that can continue to give happy homes have to pay the price for across-the-board bureaucratic, impersonal decisions? Foster children will lose the opportunity to go to loving families who will end up excluded due to religious discrimination. No child can lose by continuing the long-standing policy, and the church can continue its charitable service to the public, without their religious freedom being trampled.

No gay is being prevented from adopting.

If people care enough to maintain these basic rights, they can, evidently, as seen in these bills, SB2495 and HB3942:

Illinois Catholic Charities Drop Lawsuit Against State Over Gay Adoption Foster Care

Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society described the "dismantling" of the charities' foster care ministry as "a tragic end to 90 years of foster care service by some of the most effective child welfare agencies in Illinois."

"The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act only passed after specific assurances that the law would not impact the work of religious social service agencies," Breen said. "Specific protections for these agencies were written into the law, but unfortunately, Illinois officials refused to abide by those protections."

Last month, state Senator Kyle McCarter (R-Lebanon) filed legislation that would amend the state's civil union law to allow for the charities to continue to not serve same-sex couples in licensing foster and adoptive parents on the state's behalf. The measure, SB2495, was cosponsored by every active Republican State Senator, plus one Democratic lawmaker: William Haine (D-Alton), Chicago Pride reported.

And with another bill, they kept on trying for more than a year...

IL HB3942 2011-2012 97th General Assembly LegiScan

They were killed because of the same old politics, where a democratic majority gets its way by basically all voting against it. Although, it can be done, but more people that care are needed.

I see a lot of assuming on those happy families.

From a link within your link:
Among its arguments, Catholic Charities said it was entitled to a hearing over the canceled contracts because after 40 years of annually renewed pacts, the organization had developed a "property interest" in the work and should be able to object to state action.

Schmidt disagreed.

"Plaintiffs are not required by the state to perform these useful and beneficial services," the judge wrote. The work, he said, "is a desire of the plaintiffs to perform their mission as directed by their religious beliefs."

Doesn't "property interest" here mean they believe the contracts were their "property" because they had them for such a long time? All they were asking for was a hearing. What's the point?

They aren't entitled to the contract. They aren't missed much either.

The judge was sympathetic to gays which is fairly common. Again, the church could have been accommodated, and people would be none the wiser.

 

[Disir]

She became desperate a long time ago.

They aren't taken. Don't twist it. The reality is that the Catholic Charities are irrelevant and are not anywhere close to being as necessary in this as you seem to think. The rest of what you wrote is bullshit. You know it and I know it.

You aren't relating to the thousands of happy families adopted children have found with Catholic Charities. If there are so many agencies that will adopt to gays, why do those families and the thousands in the future that can continue to give happy homes have to pay the price for across-the-board bureaucratic, impersonal decisions? Foster children will lose the opportunity to go to loving families who will end up excluded due to religious discrimination. No child can lose by continuing the long-standing policy, and the church can continue its charitable service to the public, without their religious freedom being trampled.

No gay is being prevented from adopting.

If people care enough to maintain these basic rights, they can, evidently, as seen in these bills, SB2495 and HB3942:

Illinois Catholic Charities Drop Lawsuit Against State Over Gay Adoption Foster Care

Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society described the "dismantling" of the charities' foster care ministry as "a tragic end to 90 years of foster care service by some of the most effective child welfare agencies in Illinois."

"The Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act only passed after specific assurances that the law would not impact the work of religious social service agencies," Breen said. "Specific protections for these agencies were written into the law, but unfortunately, Illinois officials refused to abide by those protections."

Last month, state Senator Kyle McCarter (R-Lebanon) filed legislation that would amend the state's civil union law to allow for the charities to continue to not serve same-sex couples in licensing foster and adoptive parents on the state's behalf. The measure, SB2495, was cosponsored by every active Republican State Senator, plus one Democratic lawmaker: William Haine (D-Alton), Chicago Pride reported.

And with another bill, they kept on trying for more than a year...

IL HB3942 2011-2012 97th General Assembly LegiScan

They were killed because of the same old politics, where a democratic majority gets its way by basically all voting against it. Although, it can be done, but more people that care are needed.

I see a lot of assuming on those happy families.

From a link within your link:
Among its arguments, Catholic Charities said it was entitled to a hearing over the canceled contracts because after 40 years of annually renewed pacts, the organization had developed a "property interest" in the work and should be able to object to state action.

Schmidt disagreed.

"Plaintiffs are not required by the state to perform these useful and beneficial services," the judge wrote. The work, he said, "is a desire of the plaintiffs to perform their mission as directed by their religious beliefs."

Doesn't "property interest" here mean they believe the contracts were their "property" because they had them for such a long time? All they were asking for was a hearing. What's the point?

They aren't entitled to the contract. They aren't missed much either.

The judge was sympathetic to gays which is fairly common. Again, the church could have accommodated, and people would be none the wiser.

Ohhhh.............so it's because the judge was sympathetic to gays. Are you high?

 

[Silhouette]

She became desperate a long time ago

Let me know when you get that "Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" quote and the context it came in found and quoted here, OK? It's germane to the discussion. Having a cult whose messiah was sodomizing his 16 year old minor ward/son without a single LGBT voice coming out to condemn him for that...and worse...laws praising him for his sexuality and requiring children to celebrate his sexuality on a special day each year in schools...is very much a part of the "should churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual adoptions" conversation.

 

[Disir]

She became desperate a long time ago

Let me know when you get that "Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" quote and the context it came in found and quoted here, OK? It's germane to the discussion. Having a cult whose messiah was sodomizing his 16 year old minor ward/son without a single LGBT voice coming out to condemn him for that...and worse...laws praising him for his sexuality and requiring children to celebrate his sexuality as a matter of law on a special day each year in schools...is very much a part of the "should churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual adoptions" conversation.

Let's get this straight, you picked some quotes up from a right wing site that you don't have the balls to actually post the link. You have never read the book. You have no idea how ignorant you look at this very moment.

 

[Silhouette]

Let's get this straight, you picked some quotes up from a right wing site that you don't have the balls to actually post the link. You have never read the book. You have no idea how ignorant you look at this very moment.

Enlighten me then. Post the quote, the context and the page number, oh wise one.

 

[Disir]

Let's get this straight, you picked some quotes up from a right wing site that you don't have the balls to actually post the link. You have never read the book. You have no idea how ignorant you look at this very moment.

Enlighten me then. Post the quote, the context and the page number, oh wise one.

I posted what was on the page.

Grow a pair and post your site.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

But for the anti-gay activists- children are just a pawn to use to attack homosexuals.

The church was minding its own business, and if it hadn't been for this liberal interpretation of the new law, almost nobody would know about this issue because the system in place worked extremely well. Nobody but activist homosexuals and their activist supporters cared what the church did, because, why? It is a church and operates like a church. Big surprise.

It is the other way around; the church was attacked.

 

[Disir]

But for the anti-gay activists- children are just a pawn to use to attack homosexuals.

The church was minding its own business, and if it hadn't been for this liberal interpretation of the new law, almost nobody would know about this issue because the system in place worked extremely well. Nobody but activist homosexuals cared what the church did, because, why? It is a church and operates like a church. Big surprise.

It is the other way around; the church was attacked.

Bullshit. The Catholic Charities thought that they were entitled to the contracts. They were not. They withdrew. They shut down their own facilities. They were not attacked. Your persecution complex is noted.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

She became desperate a long time ago.

You aren't relating to the thousands of happy families adopted children have found with Catholic Charities. If there are so many agencies that will adopt to gays, why do those families and the thousands in the future that can continue to give happy homes have to pay the price for across-the-board bureaucratic, impersonal decisions? Foster children will lose the opportunity to go to loving families who will end up excluded due to religious discrimination. No child can lose by continuing the long-standing policy, and the church can continue its charitable service to the public, without their religious freedom being trampled.

No gay is being prevented from adopting.

If people care enough to maintain these basic rights, they can, evidently, as seen in these bills, SB2495 and HB3942:

Illinois Catholic Charities Drop Lawsuit Against State Over Gay Adoption Foster Care

And with another bill, they kept on trying for more than a year...

IL HB3942 2011-2012 97th General Assembly LegiScan

They were killed because of the same old politics, where a democratic majority gets its way by basically all voting against it. Although, it can be done, but more people that care are needed.

I see a lot of assuming on those happy families.

From a link within your link:
Among its arguments, Catholic Charities said it was entitled to a hearing over the canceled contracts because after 40 years of annually renewed pacts, the organization had developed a "property interest" in the work and should be able to object to state action.

Schmidt disagreed.

"Plaintiffs are not required by the state to perform these useful and beneficial services," the judge wrote. The work, he said, "is a desire of the plaintiffs to perform their mission as directed by their religious beliefs."

Doesn't "property interest" here mean they believe the contracts were their "property" because they had them for such a long time? All they were asking for was a hearing. What's the point?

They aren't entitled to the contract. They aren't missed much either.

The judge was sympathetic to gays which is fairly common. Again, the church could have accommodated, and people would be none the wiser.

Ohhhh.............so it's because the judge was sympathetic to gays. Are you high?

Are you naïve?

 

[mdk]

But for the anti-gay activists- children are just a pawn to use to attack homosexuals.

The church was minding its own business, and if it hadn't been for this liberal interpretation of the new law, almost nobody would know about this issue because the system in place worked extremely well. Nobody but activist homosexuals and their activist supporters cared what the church did, because, why? It is a church and operates like a church. Big surprise.

It is the other way around; the church was attacked.

They are still free to operate as a church. They just cannot use funds provided by the taxpayers to discriminate. CC stated in court that they are owed this money from the state and the judge wisely ruled that no organization/business has a right to a taxpayer funded government contract.

 

[Disir]

She became desperate a long time ago.

I see a lot of assuming on those happy families.

From a link within your link:
Among its arguments, Catholic Charities said it was entitled to a hearing over the canceled contracts because after 40 years of annually renewed pacts, the organization had developed a "property interest" in the work and should be able to object to state action.

Schmidt disagreed.

"Plaintiffs are not required by the state to perform these useful and beneficial services," the judge wrote. The work, he said, "is a desire of the plaintiffs to perform their mission as directed by their religious beliefs."

Doesn't "property interest" here mean they believe the contracts were their "property" because they had them for such a long time? All they were asking for was a hearing. What's the point?

They aren't entitled to the contract. They aren't missed much either.

The judge was sympathetic to gays which is fairly common. Again, the church could have accommodated, and people would be none the wiser.

Ohhhh.............so it's because the judge was sympathetic to gays. Are you high?

Are you naïve?

You're high.

 

[Syriusly]

She became desperate a long time ago

Let me know when you get that "Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" quote and the context it came in found and quoted here,

I am glad to.

Page 180.

That was a quote from a person discussing Harvey Milk's love interest at the time- 25 year old Jack Lira

"...people met Jack Lira. Drunk. Harvey Milk always had a penchant....."

So Harvey Milk had a penchant for 25 year old drunks.

According to one quote. Out of a book full of quotes. About Harvey Milk being involved with other men- who were not drunks, and were older than 25.

 

[Syriusly]

[. But after laws in California forcing kids to worship the known-pedophile Harvey Milk's sexuality on a special day in schools, anything is possible with the cult of LGBT. .

And of course that is false also.

Every single word in the statement- just flat out lies.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Doesn't "property interest" here mean they believe the contracts were their "property" because they had them for such a long time? All they were asking for was a hearing. Of coursse, nobody is required to give charity, but what's the point?

They didn't ask for a hearing, they asked for a summary judgement. Since both parties asked for a summary judgement, that's what the judge did.

Illinois Circuit Court Summary Judgment Order in Catholic Charities Foster Care Adoption Services Case


>>>>

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

But for the anti-gay activists- children are just a pawn to use to attack homosexuals.

The church was minding its own business, and if it hadn't been for this liberal interpretation of the new law, almost nobody would know about this issue because the system in place worked extremely well. Nobody but activist homosexuals cared what the church did, because, why? It is a church and operates like a church. Big surprise.

It is the other way around; the church was attacked.

Bullshit. The Catholic Charities thought that they were entitled to the contracts. They were not. They withdrew. They shut down their own facilities. They were not attacked. Your persecution complex is noted.

They were entitled to the contracts for a very long time until this new interpretation of the law got in through a back (democrats only) door. And no, it is obvious the church is being attacked. To believe otherwise would be paranoia.

Two Catholic bishops, representing dioceses in Peoria and Springfield, condemned the decision as marking "a sad day for the children of Illinois" and a sign that "the state was "basically at war with the Catholic community and seem to be destroying their institutions."

Illinois Catholic Charities Drop Lawsuit Against State Over Gay Adoption Foster Care

 

[Disir]

But for the anti-gay activists- children are just a pawn to use to attack homosexuals.

The church was minding its own business, and if it hadn't been for this liberal interpretation of the new law, almost nobody would know about this issue because the system in place worked extremely well. Nobody but activist homosexuals cared what the church did, because, why? It is a church and operates like a church. Big surprise.

It is the other way around; the church was attacked.

Bullshit. The Catholic Charities thought that they were entitled to the contracts. They were not. They withdrew. They shut down their own facilities. They were not attacked. Your persecution complex is noted.

They were to the contracts until this new interpretation of the law got in through a back (democrats only) door)And no, it is obvious the church is being attacked. To believe otherwise would be paranoid.

Two Catholic bishops, representing dioceses in Peoria and Springfield, condemned the decision as marking "a sad day for the children of Illinois" and a sign that "the state was "basically at war with the Catholic community and seem to be destroying their institutions."

Illinois Catholic Charities Drop Lawsuit Against State Over Gay Adoption Foster Care

Again. Persecution complex noted. Still doesn't work.

 

[Silhouette]

I posted what was on the page.

Grow a pair and post your site.

You posted a paragraph without the quote. I want the quote in context from the book. Do it. Enlighten all of us how "Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" was used unfairly out of context with regards to the topic of this thread.

 

[Disir]

I posted what was on the page.

Grow a pair and post your site.

You posted a paragraph without the quote. I want the quote in context from the book. Do it. Enlighten all of us how "Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" was used unfairly out of context with regards to the topic of this thread.

That is NOT on the page, dingaling. Grow a pair and post your little right wing site. Or post the paragraph from your copy of the book...................

Oh, that's right. You have never read it. You don't have a copy.


Your lack of education shows.

 

[Silhouette]

That is NOT on the page, dingaling. Grow a pair and post your little right wing site. Or post the paragraph from your copy of the book...................

Oh, that's right. You have never read it. You don't have a copy.


Your lack of education shows.

Then find the page it is on and quote it here. Are you saying this sentence doesn't exist in Milk's biography by Randy Shilts?

"Harvey Milk always had a penchanct for young waifs with sustance abuse problems." Answer the question. Is that sentence in the book? Yes or no? Adoption agents want to know. Enlighten us, oh expert on Milk's biography.

 

[Disir]

That is NOT on the page, dingaling. Grow a pair and post your little right wing site. Or post the paragraph from your copy of the book...................

Oh, that's right. You have never read it. You don't have a copy.


Your lack of education shows.

Then find the page it is on and quote it here. Are you saying this sentence doesn't exist in Milk's biography by Randy Shilts?

"Harvey Milk always had a penchanct for young waifs with sustance abuse problems." Answer the question. Is that sentence in the book? Yes or no? Adoption agents want to know. Enlighten us, oh expert on Milk's biography.

Get off your ass and read the book. Fu........how do you wake up and look at yourself in the mirror?