Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[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 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.

That's how gays and their supporters advance their agenda through random insults and attacks, we know.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

And no adoption experts care.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

And no adoption experts care.

Why won't you post the whole quote? Do you know why you won't? I do. It's because of the last part. "with substance abuse issues". You don't want the idea of a 30-40 something gay creeper preying on "young waifs" coupled with "who were addled on drugs" because it depicts that not only was he a predator of youth, he was also a drug-rapist.

Let's talk about Jack Mckinley. The 16 year old minor Milk sodomized while officiating as his father figure/guardian to. BTW, a description in the book also exists that depicts the age of 24 or 25 as the oldest target Milk picked out for sodomizing. The point was made that he preferred them much much younger than that.

Milk also advocated for gay promiscuity and was known to hook up sexually & anonymously with many of his "young waifs with substance abuse problems" in public parks. Condoms weren't popular at all then in the gay community and this was as the HIV epidemic was really getting on a roll.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They were entitled to the contracts for a very long time...

They may have been awarded the contract, there were not entitled to the contract.



>>>>

 

[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.

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.

Government has a duty to represent on an even basis. Since the Catholic Church represents a huge segment of the population, they deserve the contract. Saying it is not a right is a Strawman.

 

[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.

That's how gays and their supporters advance their agenda through random insults and attacks, we know.

Translation: you still don't have a legit argument. God, you are simply a waste of time and space. Really.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

They were entitled to the contracts for a very long time...

They may have been awarded the contract, there were not entitled to the contract.



>>>>

In technical terms, yes, but if they are awarded the contract, they are then entitled to it. Semantics.

 

[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.

Government has a duty to represent on an even basis. Since the Catholic Church represents a huge segment of the population, they deserve the contract. Saying it is not a right is a Strawman.

No, they are not entitled to anything. No organization has a right to taxpayer funded government contract. That would be like Planned Parenthood suing the government and claiming since they have done business together for a long time that those funds are automatically owed to them. Nobody is owed a taxpayer funded government contract.

 

[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 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.

Government has a duty to represent on an even basis. Since the Catholic Church represents a huge segment of the population, they deserve the contract. Saying it is not a right is a Strawman.

Wrong answer.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

That's how gays and their supporters advance their agenda through random insults and attacks, we know.

Translation: you still don't have a legit argument. God, you are simply a waste of time and space. Really.

Maybe, you need to be part of the group being attacked to realize what is going on.

 

[Disir]

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.

That's how gays and their supporters advance their agenda through random insults and attacks, we know.

Translation: you still don't have a legit argument. God, you are simply a waste of time and space. Really.

Maybe, you need to be part of the group being attacked to realize what is going on.

Mayhap you need to understand how the system works before playing the persecution game.

 

[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.

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.

Government has a duty to represent on an even basis. Since the Catholic Church represents a huge segment of the population, they deserve the contract. Saying it is not a right is a Strawman.

No, they are not entitled to anything. No organization has a right to taxpayer funded government contract. That would be like Planned Parenthood suing the government and claiming since they have done business together for a long time that those funds are automatically owed to them. Nobody is owed a taxpayer funded government contract.

You cannot totally shut them out. It is un-American.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And no adoption experts care.

Why won't you post the whole quote? Do you know why you won't? I do. It's because of the last part. "with substance abuse issues". You don't want the idea of a 30-40 something gay creeper preying on "young waifs" coupled with "who were addled on drugs" because it depicts that not only was he a predator of youth, he was also a drug-rapist.

Why won't you post the whole quote? Why do you intentionally try to imply that that quote is in regards to anyone other than 25 year old Jack Lira?

Why in all of your replies did you never refer to 25 year old Jack Lira?

You have failed- once again- to prove anything.

There is no evidence that Harvey Milk was a 'predator of youth'.
There is no evidence that Harvey Milk was a 'drug-rapist'

Just sad fictions created by ant-gay bigots.

 

[Syriusly]

[\ Milk sodomized while officiating as his father figure/guardian to. BTW, a description in the book also exists that depicts the age of 24 or 25 as the oldest target Milk picked out for sodomizing. \

The book doesn't mention Harvey Milk sodomizing anyone.

Just another lie.

Another sick, anti-gay lie.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Government has a duty to represent on an even basis. Since the Catholic Church represents a huge segment of the population, they deserve the contract. Saying it is not a right is a Strawman.

No, they are not entitled to anything. No organization has a right to taxpayer funded government contract. That would be like Planned Parenthood suing the government and claiming since they have done business together for a long time that those funds are automatically owed to them. Nobody is owed a taxpayer funded government contract.

You cannot totally shut them out. It is un-American.

Their not being shut out of assisting with adoptions. They are choosing not to take taxpayer funds.


>>>>

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

Government has a duty to represent on an even basis. Since the Catholic Church represents a huge segment of the population, they deserve the contract. Saying it is not a right is a Strawman.

No, they are not entitled to anything. No organization has a right to taxpayer funded government contract. That would be like Planned Parenthood suing the government and claiming since they have done business together for a long time that those funds are automatically owed to them. Nobody is owed a taxpayer funded government contract.

You cannot totally shut them out. It is un-American.

Their not being shut out of assisting with adoptions. They are choosing not to take taxpayer funds.


>>>>

It is a religious thing where there is no choice. Same thing.

 

[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.

Government has a duty to represent on an even basis. Since the Catholic Church represents a huge segment of the population, they deserve the contract. Saying it is not a right is a Strawman.

No, they are not entitled to anything. No organization has a right to taxpayer funded government contract. That would be like Planned Parenthood suing the government and claiming since they have done business together for a long time that those funds are automatically owed to them. Nobody is owed a taxpayer funded government contract.

You cannot totally shut them out. It is un-American.

They can shut all the gays they wish if they are a private adoption agency, I have no problem with that whatsoever. They want all the perks of being a private agency all the while gobbling funds from the taxpayers. CC cannot have it both ways. Either you are a private agency and place children in any family unit you want or you are a public agency that has to abide by the rules that come attached with the money that is provided by the taxpayers. You don't get to be both.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Government has a duty to represent on an even basis. Since the Catholic Church represents a huge segment of the population, they deserve the contract. Saying it is not a right is a Strawman.

No, they are not entitled to anything. No organization has a right to taxpayer funded government contract. That would be like Planned Parenthood suing the government and claiming since they have done business together for a long time that those funds are automatically owed to them. Nobody is owed a taxpayer funded government contract.

You cannot totally shut them out. It is un-American.

Their not being shut out of assisting with adoptions. They are choosing not to take taxpayer funds.


>>>>

It is a religious thing where there is no choice. Same thing.

They are free to assist with adoptions based on their religious beliefs.


>>>>

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Government has a duty to represent on an even basis. Since the Catholic Church represents a huge segment of the population, they deserve the contract. Saying it is not a right is a Strawman.

No, they are not entitled to anything. No organization has a right to taxpayer funded government contract. That would be like Planned Parenthood suing the government and claiming since they have done business together for a long time that those funds are automatically owed to them. Nobody is owed a taxpayer funded government contract.

You cannot totally shut them out. It is un-American.

Their not being shut out of assisting with adoptions. They are choosing not to take taxpayer funds.


>>>>

It is a religious thing where there is no choice. Same thing.

They are free to assist with adoptions based on their religious beliefs.


>>>>

Such as how?

 

[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 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.

Government has a duty to represent on an even basis. Since the Catholic Church represents a huge segment of the population, they deserve the contract. Saying it is not a right is a Strawman.

No, they are not entitled to anything. No organization has a right to taxpayer funded government contract. That would be like Planned Parenthood suing the government and claiming since they have done business together for a long time that those funds are automatically owed to them. Nobody is owed a taxpayer funded government contract.

You cannot totally shut them out. It is un-American.

???????????????????