Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[Inevitable]

And being denied parents because some church marm doesn't like them is abusive.

Hundreds or thousands of children will be denied parents when Catholic Charities closes down.

And being denied parents because some church marm doesn't like them is abusive.

Hundreds or thousands of children will be denied parents when Catholic Charities closes down.

Well if they would put their politics aside they wouldn't have to abandon those children.

If anyone is at fault for abandoned children, it is the state.

Yeah the Catholic church is just at fault fit raping and murdering them.

 

[Silhouette]

"County Galway death records showed that the children, mostly babies and toddlers, died often of sickness or disease in the orphanage during the 35 years it operated from 1926 to 1961...A 1944 government inspection recorded evidence of malnutrition among some of the 271 children then living in the Tuam orphanage alongside 61 unwed mothers. The death records cite sicknesses, diseases, deformities and premature births as causes...

**********
The Great Depression struck in the 1930s. Then there was Great Britain's notorious food-rationing during WWII. An orphange is always strapped for cash. I'll bet you most of the deaths there occured during the 1930s & 40s. I'll bet the house on it. Before you announce that the catholic church is at fault, read the very article you linked to...

...idiot...

Catholic charities have done more good for this world than the cult of LGBT. You berate them for doing their best under conditions they could not control.

Meanwhile your "church" promotes gay sex to kids in school via your czar Kevin Jennings...and the numbers of "gay boys" who are coming down with HIV at ages 13-24 keep rising upwards in an exponential curve. What about those preventable deaths?
I'm sure gay-run orphanages would always be a better bet for youngsters than the catholic charities.. dumbass.

So you just casually ignore the malnutrition of a child born in 1957- by spouting gibberish about the 1930's?...
Catholic Church shamed by Irish abuse report - World news - Europe NBC News

She spent the first 18 years of her life in a Dublin orphanage where she said children were forced to manufacture rosaries — and were humiliated, beaten and raped whether they achieved their quota or not. She didn't track down her parents, an Irish mother and Nigerian father, until her 40s, when she became one of the first to break silence and demand justice for her stolen youth.

"I didn't have a childhood," said Buckley, who recalled being constantly cold and hungry. She was severely beaten by a nun for trying to smuggle out a letter detailing the abuse, she said — which included being forced by nuns to have a "date" with a pedophile on staff

Is that the same account as the mass grave orphanage where disease and malnutrition during the harsh years of the depression in the 1930s and rationing in WWII's 1940s took such a toll? Or is that a different account.

It sounds to me like old school nonsense where there wasn't enough oversight by the public. It was around the 1950s when atrocities from both church and secular institutions were exposed all over the world and opened up to routine public inspections and oversight.

You cannot JUST blame this on the church. Your group was up to it too. That pedophile you talk about in your quote above would probably be welcomed into the LGBT ranks with open arms, BTW. Remember, y'all celebrate Harvey Milk, a man who raped his underaged son/ward and many other young teen boys like him who were addled and incapable of consent by virtue of the fact that they were on drugs..

Here's a picture from a gay pride parade in LA in the 1980s in fact. Featured is Harry Hay, famous pedophile. How you think that a secular orphanage is superior to a catholic one is beyond me. Neither should be without oversight because creeps make their way into the ranks. But the pressure from the catholic charities is to keep trying to weed them out. An LGBT orphanage would be throwing the doors wide open to the lurkers and embracing them with open arms...

 

[ChrisL]

Not sure how I feel about gays having children. If you already had children, fine, but to go out of your way to adopt a child into such a situation just seems a bit selfish to me. Poor kids have it rough enough already, why make things more difficult for them if you don't have to?

 

[Syriusly]

"County Galway death records showed that the children, mostly babies and toddlers, died often of sickness or disease in the orphanage during the 35 years it operated from 1926 to 1961...A 1944 government inspection recorded evidence of malnutrition among some of the 271 children then living in the Tuam orphanage alongside 61 unwed mothers. The death records cite sicknesses, diseases, deformities and premature births as causes...

**********
The Great Depression struck in the 1930s.

And that has what do with abuse in Irish orphanages in 1961? Or even 1944?

Shall we go for more records of abuse at Irish Orphanages?

• Abuse was 'endemic' in childrens' institutions
• Safety of children in general was not a consideration
• No abusers will be prosecuted
• Victims banned from launch of shocking report

Church leaders and government watchdogs covered up 'endemic' and 'ritualised' abuse of thousands of children in Roman Catholic schools and orphanages in the Irish Republic, a shocking report revealed yesterday.

For six decades, priests and nuns terrorised boys and girls in the workhouse-style schools with sexual, physical and mental abuse.

But officials in Ireland's Catholic Church shielded paedophile staff from arrest to protect their own reputations despite knowing they were serial attackers, according to the 2,600-page report, which took nine years to complete.

Irish government inspectors also failed to stop the chronic beatings, rape and humiliation, it found.


Justice Sean Ryan launches the report at the Conrad Hotel in Dublin today - but refuses to take questions from journalists

About 35,000 children and teenagers who were orphans, petty thieves, truants, unmarried mothers or from dysfunctional families were sent to Ireland's network of 250 Church-run industrial schools, reformatories, orphanages and hostels from the 1930s up until the early 1990s.

The report by Ireland's Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse found 'a climate of fear, created by pervasive, excessive and arbitrary punishment, permeated most of the institutions and all those run for boys'.

It added: 'Children lived with the daily terror of not knowing where the next beating was coming from.'

Judge Sean Ryan, who chaired the commission, said that when confronted with evidence of sex abuse, religious authorities responded by moving the sex offenders to another location, where in many instances they were free to abuse again.

'There was evidence that such men took up teaching positions sometimes within days of receiving dispensations because of serious allegations or admissions of sexual abuse,' the report said.

'The safety of children in general was not a consideration.'


Read more: Revealed six decades of ritual child abuse Catholic schools and orphanages damned in report Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Syriusly]

Not sure how I feel about gays having children. If you already had children, fine, but to go out of your way to adopt a child into such a situation just seems a bit selfish to me. Poor kids have it rough enough already, why make things more difficult for them if you don't have to?

Because those kids are sooo much better off living in foster care for years on end.....

Poor kids- don't burden them with parents who will love and care for them........they are so much better off 'in the system'.....and then of course aging out of the system without any support system.

101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Facts and Statistics

 

[ChrisL]

Not sure how I feel about gays having children. If you already had children, fine, but to go out of your way to adopt a child into such a situation just seems a bit selfish to me. Poor kids have it rough enough already, why make things more difficult for them if you don't have to?

Because those kids are sooo much better off living in foster care for years on end.....

Poor kids- don't burden them with parents who will love and care for them........they are so much better off 'in the system'.....and then of course aging out of the system without any support system.

101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Facts and Statistics

That's because they are too old. Most people don't want to adopt a 15-year-old. It's babies and toddlers that people want.

 

[Syriusly]

Not sure how I feel about gays having children. If you already had children, fine, but to go out of your way to adopt a child into such a situation just seems a bit selfish to me. Poor kids have it rough enough already, why make things more difficult for them if you don't have to?

Because those kids are sooo much better off living in foster care for years on end.....

Poor kids- don't burden them with parents who will love and care for them........they are so much better off 'in the system'.....and then of course aging out of the system without any support system.

101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Facts and Statistics

That's because they are too old. Most people don't want to adopt a 15-year-old. It's babies and toddlers that people want.

And so- make it illegal for homosexuals to adopt....because most people don't want to adopt a 15 year old?

Does that make any sense to you?

Here is an example of a gay couple who you think are 'selfish'......

This all makes the Hastings household presided over by David Upjohn and Andrew Daniels somewhat unusual. David, 59, and Andrew, 47, are foster carers and have also been adoptive parents.

They have been together in a relationship for 24 years, and before they became full-time carers, Andrew taught at a school for children with special needs, and David worked in adult social care.

They first fostered 18 years ago. Then, the idea of two men adopting a child was uncommon, which is partly what led them to foster when, due to Andrew's experience with children with special needs, they were asked if they would look after a boy with severe disabilities. "He wasn't expected to live to his first birthday, although he eventually lived until he was seven and a half," says Andrew.

The death of a child will always be traumatic, but Andrew and David felt compelled to continue.

"He'd taught us so much and we'd developed so many skills … we thought, we can't just leave it. We've got to do something with this knowledge. That's when we decided to carry on fostering children with profound disabilities and terminal conditions."

The couple contacted Credo Care, an organisation that specialises in disability foster placements. Shortly after, Armand arrived.

Advertisement
"He arrived in March, 10 years ago," explains David. Born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, six-year-old Armand had lived in hospital for most of his short life. A wheelchair user, he has severe learning disabilities, a tracheotomy and is fed through a Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

"He came to us when he was six and was the first one to arrive. Four months later, we had an emergency phone call, asking us if we'd take a boy from Derby. Luke arrived that afternoon. He was 12 and had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In those days he could shuffle around, but now, he's totally … well, the disease has got hold of his body. He's 22 now. He's a great lad, he really is. He's brilliant."

A couple of months after Luke joined the household, the couple were asked to take Steven, who was five and had cerebral palsy and learning difficulties. They have looked after the three boys ever since. Two years ago, they adopted a little girl. Sadly, she wasn't well and didn't live long.

"We had 17 wonderful months," says David. "She was three when she died. It was just 10 days after the adoption was completed, and it was very sudden, so … we haven't gone down that road again," he adds, choosing his words carefully to describe what must have been a devastating experience.

The latest addition to the household arrived earlier this year. Three-year-old Emma is immobile, has limited vision and breathes via a tracheotomy, but appears to be thriving in their care.

"She's making huge progress," says Andrew. "She was in a place in Surrey, where she had lots of different people working with her. She couldn't make connections with people. Now she just has two voices that she hears all the time – the same people caring for her. And we have the luxury of spending time with her."

Need I point out that these were all children abandoned one way or another by their biological- and presumably heterosexual parents?

 

[ChrisL]

Not sure how I feel about gays having children. If you already had children, fine, but to go out of your way to adopt a child into such a situation just seems a bit selfish to me. Poor kids have it rough enough already, why make things more difficult for them if you don't have to?

Because those kids are sooo much better off living in foster care for years on end.....

Poor kids- don't burden them with parents who will love and care for them........they are so much better off 'in the system'.....and then of course aging out of the system without any support system.

101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Facts and Statistics

That's because they are too old. Most people don't want to adopt a 15-year-old. It's babies and toddlers that people want.

And so- make it illegal for homosexuals to adopt....because most people don't want to adopt a 15 year old?

Does that make any sense to you?

Here is an example of a gay couple who you think are 'selfish'......

This all makes the Hastings household presided over by David Upjohn and Andrew Daniels somewhat unusual. David, 59, and Andrew, 47, are foster carers and have also been adoptive parents.

They have been together in a relationship for 24 years, and before they became full-time carers, Andrew taught at a school for children with special needs, and David worked in adult social care.

They first fostered 18 years ago. Then, the idea of two men adopting a child was uncommon, which is partly what led them to foster when, due to Andrew's experience with children with special needs, they were asked if they would look after a boy with severe disabilities. "He wasn't expected to live to his first birthday, although he eventually lived until he was seven and a half," says Andrew.

The death of a child will always be traumatic, but Andrew and David felt compelled to continue.

"He'd taught us so much and we'd developed so many skills … we thought, we can't just leave it. We've got to do something with this knowledge. That's when we decided to carry on fostering children with profound disabilities and terminal conditions."

The couple contacted Credo Care, an organisation that specialises in disability foster placements. Shortly after, Armand arrived.

Advertisement
"He arrived in March, 10 years ago," explains David. Born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, six-year-old Armand had lived in hospital for most of his short life. A wheelchair user, he has severe learning disabilities, a tracheotomy and is fed through a Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

"He came to us when he was six and was the first one to arrive. Four months later, we had an emergency phone call, asking us if we'd take a boy from Derby. Luke arrived that afternoon. He was 12 and had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In those days he could shuffle around, but now, he's totally … well, the disease has got hold of his body. He's 22 now. He's a great lad, he really is. He's brilliant."

A couple of months after Luke joined the household, the couple were asked to take Steven, who was five and had cerebral palsy and learning difficulties. They have looked after the three boys ever since. Two years ago, they adopted a little girl. Sadly, she wasn't well and didn't live long.

"We had 17 wonderful months," says David. "She was three when she died. It was just 10 days after the adoption was completed, and it was very sudden, so … we haven't gone down that road again," he adds, choosing his words carefully to describe what must have been a devastating experience.

The latest addition to the household arrived earlier this year. Three-year-old Emma is immobile, has limited vision and breathes via a tracheotomy, but appears to be thriving in their care.

"She's making huge progress," says Andrew. "She was in a place in Surrey, where she had lots of different people working with her. She couldn't make connections with people. Now she just has two voices that she hears all the time – the same people caring for her. And we have the luxury of spending time with her."

Need I point out that these were all children abandoned one way or another by their biological- and presumably heterosexual parents?

That's a very heart-touching story, but it still does NOT mean that it is in the best interest of children to be raised by homosexuals. That doesn't mean I think homosexuals are "bad" or anything. I just don't think that is the best environment for young children. I think it's confusing for them at the very least. Perhaps compared to not having a family at all, it would be better. Don't know, but it could also be harmful in some kind of psychological way to the children to not be exposed to a "normal" man/woman relationship, having both a mom and a dad.

 

[Syriusly]

Not sure how I feel about gays having children. If you already had children, fine, but to go out of your way to adopt a child into such a situation just seems a bit selfish to me. Poor kids have it rough enough already, why make things more difficult for them if you don't have to?

Because those kids are sooo much better off living in foster care for years on end.....

Poor kids- don't burden them with parents who will love and care for them........they are so much better off 'in the system'.....and then of course aging out of the system without any support system.

101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Facts and Statistics

That's because they are too old. Most people don't want to adopt a 15-year-old. It's babies and toddlers that people want.

And so- make it illegal for homosexuals to adopt....because most people don't want to adopt a 15 year old?

Does that make any sense to you?

Here is an example of a gay couple who you think are 'selfish'......

This all makes the Hastings household presided over by David Upjohn and Andrew Daniels somewhat unusual. David, 59, and Andrew, 47, are foster carers and have also been adoptive parents.

They have been together in a relationship for 24 years, and before they became full-time carers, Andrew taught at a school for children with special needs, and David worked in adult social care.

They first fostered 18 years ago. Then, the idea of two men adopting a child was uncommon, which is partly what led them to foster when, due to Andrew's experience with children with special needs, they were asked if they would look after a boy with severe disabilities. "He wasn't expected to live to his first birthday, although he eventually lived until he was seven and a half," says Andrew.

The death of a child will always be traumatic, but Andrew and David felt compelled to continue.

"He'd taught us so much and we'd developed so many skills … we thought, we can't just leave it. We've got to do something with this knowledge. That's when we decided to carry on fostering children with profound disabilities and terminal conditions."

The couple contacted Credo Care, an organisation that specialises in disability foster placements. Shortly after, Armand arrived.

Advertisement
"He arrived in March, 10 years ago," explains David. Born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, six-year-old Armand had lived in hospital for most of his short life. A wheelchair user, he has severe learning disabilities, a tracheotomy and is fed through a Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

"He came to us when he was six and was the first one to arrive. Four months later, we had an emergency phone call, asking us if we'd take a boy from Derby. Luke arrived that afternoon. He was 12 and had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In those days he could shuffle around, but now, he's totally … well, the disease has got hold of his body. He's 22 now. He's a great lad, he really is. He's brilliant."

A couple of months after Luke joined the household, the couple were asked to take Steven, who was five and had cerebral palsy and learning difficulties. They have looked after the three boys ever since. Two years ago, they adopted a little girl. Sadly, she wasn't well and didn't live long.

"We had 17 wonderful months," says David. "She was three when she died. It was just 10 days after the adoption was completed, and it was very sudden, so … we haven't gone down that road again," he adds, choosing his words carefully to describe what must have been a devastating experience.

The latest addition to the household arrived earlier this year. Three-year-old Emma is immobile, has limited vision and breathes via a tracheotomy, but appears to be thriving in their care.

"She's making huge progress," says Andrew. "She was in a place in Surrey, where she had lots of different people working with her. She couldn't make connections with people. Now she just has two voices that she hears all the time – the same people caring for her. And we have the luxury of spending time with her."

Need I point out that these were all children abandoned one way or another by their biological- and presumably heterosexual parents?

That's a very heart-touching story, but it still does NOT mean that it is in the best interest of children to be raised by homosexuals. That doesn't mean I think homosexuals are "bad" or anything. I just don't think that is the best environment for young children. I think it's confusing for them at the very least. Perhaps compared to not having a family at all, it would be better. Don't know, but it could also be harmful in some kind of psychological way to the children to not be exposed to a "normal" man/woman relationship, having both a mom and a dad.

So here is how I look at it- children who are up for adoption are by far children who have been abandoned in one form or another by their parents- their heterosexual parents. Many come from abusive families. Some like the ones in this story were abandoned because their biological families weren't willing to take care of children with severe disabilities.

I think that anyone who steps up and offers to adopt children is braver than I am. It is a huge commitment- and unlike having your own child, those people don't know how much abuse the child has suffered before they reached them.

I pointed out the numbers before:

101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant

So- might it be more of a challenge for a child who is raised by a homosexual couple? Maybe- though there is no scientific data which supports that believe.

But we do know that children without families suffer- and we know that children are suffering while waiting to be adopted. And that there are children which few people are willing to adopt.

I think those children deserve a loving and supportive family, and that whatever small negatives that there might be for having a homosexual couple as their parents will be FAR FAR outweighed by the benefit of having parents who care- of being part of a family.

 

[Inevitable]

"County Galway death records showed that the children, mostly babies and toddlers, died often of sickness or disease in the orphanage during the 35 years it operated from 1926 to 1961...A 1944 government inspection recorded evidence of malnutrition among some of the 271 children then living in the Tuam orphanage alongside 61 unwed mothers. The death records cite sicknesses, diseases, deformities and premature births as causes...

**********
The Great Depression struck in the 1930s. Then there was Great Britain's notorious food-rationing during WWII. An orphange is always strapped for cash. I'll bet you most of the deaths there occured during the 1930s & 40s. I'll bet the house on it. Before you announce that the catholic church is at fault, read the very article you linked to...

...idiot...

Catholic charities have done more good for this world than the cult of LGBT. You berate them for doing their best under conditions they could not control.

Meanwhile your "church" promotes gay sex to kids in school via your czar Kevin Jennings...and the numbers of "gay boys" who are coming down with HIV at ages 13-24 keep rising upwards in an exponential curve. What about those preventable deaths?
I'm sure gay-run orphanages would always be a better bet for youngsters than the catholic charities.. dumbass.

So you just casually ignore the malnutrition of a child born in 1957- by spouting gibberish about the 1930's?...
Catholic Church shamed by Irish abuse report - World news - Europe NBC News

She spent the first 18 years of her life in a Dublin orphanage where she said children were forced to manufacture rosaries — and were humiliated, beaten and raped whether they achieved their quota or not. She didn't track down her parents, an Irish mother and Nigerian father, until her 40s, when she became one of the first to break silence and demand justice for her stolen youth.

"I didn't have a childhood," said Buckley, who recalled being constantly cold and hungry. She was severely beaten by a nun for trying to smuggle out a letter detailing the abuse, she said — which included being forced by nuns to have a "date" with a pedophile on staff

Is that the same account as the mass grave orphanage where disease and malnutrition during the harsh years of the depression in the 1930s and rationing in WWII's 1940s took such a toll? Or is that a different account.

It sounds to me like old school nonsense where there wasn't enough oversight by the public. It was around the 1950s when atrocities from both church and secular institutions were exposed all over the world and opened up to routine public inspections and oversight.

You cannot JUST blame this on the church. Your group was up to it too. That pedophile you talk about in your quote above would probably be welcomed into the LGBT ranks with open arms, BTW. Remember, y'all celebrate Harvey Milk, a man who raped his underaged son/ward and many other young teen boys like him who were addled and incapable of consent by virtue of the fact that they were on drugs..

Here's a picture from a gay pride parade in LA in the 1980s in fact. Featured is Harry Hay, famous pedophile. How you think that a secular orphanage is superior to a catholic one is beyond me. Neither should be without oversight because creeps make their way into the ranks. But the pressure from the catholic charities is to keep trying to weed them out. An LGBT orphanage would be throwing the doors wide open to the lurkers and embracing them with open arms...

I don't have a group, I don't play these ridiculous childish tribalism games.

 

[Inevitable]

Not sure how I feel about gays having children. If you already had children, fine, but to go out of your way to adopt a child into such a situation just seems a bit selfish to me. Poor kids have it rough enough already, why make things more difficult for them if you don't have to?

So let me get this straight, it's more difficult for a child to have two parents of the same sex that love them than it is for them to grow up in foster care, or on shelters and then...when they age out, just...um...vanish or live in the streets.

There are worse things in this world than having two parents that love you.

Further, placing a child's needs over yourself isn't selfish. I don't know where you came up with that horse shit.

 

[Inevitable]

Not sure how I feel about gays having children. If you already had children, fine, but to go out of your way to adopt a child into such a situation just seems a bit selfish to me. Poor kids have it rough enough already, why make things more difficult for them if you don't have to?

Because those kids are sooo much better off living in foster care for years on end.....

Poor kids- don't burden them with parents who will love and care for them........they are so much better off 'in the system'.....and then of course aging out of the system without any support system.

101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Facts and Statistics

That's because they are too old. Most people don't want to adopt a 15-year-old. It's babies and toddlers that people want.

And so- make it illegal for homosexuals to adopt....because most people don't want to adopt a 15 year old?

Does that make any sense to you?

Here is an example of a gay couple who you think are 'selfish'......

This all makes the Hastings household presided over by David Upjohn and Andrew Daniels somewhat unusual. David, 59, and Andrew, 47, are foster carers and have also been adoptive parents.

They have been together in a relationship for 24 years, and before they became full-time carers, Andrew taught at a school for children with special needs, and David worked in adult social care.

They first fostered 18 years ago. Then, the idea of two men adopting a child was uncommon, which is partly what led them to foster when, due to Andrew's experience with children with special needs, they were asked if they would look after a boy with severe disabilities. "He wasn't expected to live to his first birthday, although he eventually lived until he was seven and a half," says Andrew.

The death of a child will always be traumatic, but Andrew and David felt compelled to continue.

"He'd taught us so much and we'd developed so many skills … we thought, we can't just leave it. We've got to do something with this knowledge. That's when we decided to carry on fostering children with profound disabilities and terminal conditions."

The couple contacted Credo Care, an organisation that specialises in disability foster placements. Shortly after, Armand arrived.

Advertisement
"He arrived in March, 10 years ago," explains David. Born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, six-year-old Armand had lived in hospital for most of his short life. A wheelchair user, he has severe learning disabilities, a tracheotomy and is fed through a Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

"He came to us when he was six and was the first one to arrive. Four months later, we had an emergency phone call, asking us if we'd take a boy from Derby. Luke arrived that afternoon. He was 12 and had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In those days he could shuffle around, but now, he's totally … well, the disease has got hold of his body. He's 22 now. He's a great lad, he really is. He's brilliant."

A couple of months after Luke joined the household, the couple were asked to take Steven, who was five and had cerebral palsy and learning difficulties. They have looked after the three boys ever since. Two years ago, they adopted a little girl. Sadly, she wasn't well and didn't live long.

"We had 17 wonderful months," says David. "She was three when she died. It was just 10 days after the adoption was completed, and it was very sudden, so … we haven't gone down that road again," he adds, choosing his words carefully to describe what must have been a devastating experience.

The latest addition to the household arrived earlier this year. Three-year-old Emma is immobile, has limited vision and breathes via a tracheotomy, but appears to be thriving in their care.

"She's making huge progress," says Andrew. "She was in a place in Surrey, where she had lots of different people working with her. She couldn't make connections with people. Now she just has two voices that she hears all the time – the same people caring for her. And we have the luxury of spending time with her."

Need I point out that these were all children abandoned one way or another by their biological- and presumably heterosexual parents?

That's a very heart-touching story, but it still does NOT mean that it is in the best interest of children to be raised by homosexuals. That doesn't mean I think homosexuals are "bad" or anything. I just don't think that is the best environment for young children. I think it's confusing for them at the very least. Perhaps compared to not having a family at all, it would be better. Don't know, but it could also be harmful in some kind of psychological way to the children to not be exposed to a "normal" man/woman relationship, having both a mom and a dad.

Explain to me if you can hire your parents genitalia plays any role in your life?

 

[Zorro!]

Does your agency take public money? Then your agency does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of the adoption business. AND it is a business.

From 2011:
Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Does your city take public money? Then your city does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of Public Office.

CHANGE? Supreme Court Gives Hope to Adoption Agency Targeted for Its Religious Beliefs.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would take up a case involving a Roman Catholic adoption agency denied taxpayer funding and placement opportunities because of its religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality. In Philadelphia v. Fulton, the City of Philadelphia cut ties with the Catholic Social Services (CSS) foster care system over the organization's refusal to place children in foster care with same-sex or unmarried couples. While the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city, the agency claims this violated its First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free speech.

LGBT extremists and state and local governments have deliberately targeted religious foster care and adoption agencies, claiming that they should therefore be excluded from the adoption process or lose any taxpayer funding for their work. They force these agencies out of the market, leaving fewer options for needy children.

"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, the religious freedom law firm representing Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "Over the last few years, agencies have been closing their doors across the country, and all the while children are pouring into the system. We are confident that the Court will realize that the best solution is the one that has worked in Philadelphia for a century—all hands on deck for foster kids."​

Demanded Loyalty Oath or Shut Down:

In March 2018, the City of Philadelphia stopped allowing foster children to be placed with families who work with CSS, claiming that the Catholic agency either had to endorse and certify same-sex relationships or shut down.

No Standing:

The city targeted the church regardless of the fact that not a single same-sex couple had sought foster care certification from CSS over its 100 years of service in the city. Same-sex couples easily go elsewhere. Indeed, no couple has ever been prevented from fostering or adopting a child in need because of CSS's religious beliefs.

Two Courageous Philadelphia foster moms defend the faith-based agency that brought their families together.

"CSS has been a godsend to my family and so many like ours. I don’t think I could have gone through this process without an agency that shares my core beliefs and cares for my children accordingly," Toni Simms-Busch, a former social worker who recently adopted the children she fostered through Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "We are so grateful that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case and sort out the mess that Philadelphia has created for so many vulnerable foster children."​

Across the country, five major cities and one state have already shut faith-based agencies out of the foster care system, even though there is a shortage of families and a surplus of at-risk children due to the opioid epidemic. Religious agencies like CSS are particularly successful at placing high-risk children in loving families.

"There’s no reason to single out and punish adoption providers who are motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs that the best home for a child includes a mother and father," Keisha Russell, counsel at First Liberty Institute, explained. "When the government decides whose faith is or is not acceptable, we all lose."​

"When the city of Philadelphia excluded a Catholic agency from its foster care program, it was not only violating the agency’s constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion, but also dealing a blow to the thousands of vulnerable children in Philadelphia who desperately need safe homes," Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, policy advisor for The Catholic Association, said in a statement. "We fully expect that the Supreme Court will protect the rights of Americans who are motivated by their faith to help children, as government should let good people do good things, and not make violating their beliefs the price of doing indispensable work."​

 

[Disir]

Does your agency take public money? Then your agency does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of the adoption business. AND it is a business.

From 2011:
Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Does your city take public money? Then your city does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of Public Office.

CHANGE? Supreme Court Gives Hope to Adoption Agency Targeted for Its Religious Beliefs.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would take up a case involving a Roman Catholic adoption agency denied taxpayer funding and placement opportunities because of its religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality. In Philadelphia v. Fulton, the City of Philadelphia cut ties with the Catholic Social Services (CSS) foster care system over the organization's refusal to place children in foster care with same-sex or unmarried couples. While the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city, the agency claims this violated its First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free speech.

LGBT extremists and state and local governments have deliberately targeted religious foster care and adoption agencies, claiming that they should therefore be excluded from the adoption process or lose any taxpayer funding for their work. They force these agencies out of the market, leaving fewer options for needy children.

"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, the religious freedom law firm representing Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "Over the last few years, agencies have been closing their doors across the country, and all the while children are pouring into the system. We are confident that the Court will realize that the best solution is the one that has worked in Philadelphia for a century—all hands on deck for foster kids."​

Demanded Loyalty Oath or Shut Down:

In March 2018, the City of Philadelphia stopped allowing foster children to be placed with families who work with CSS, claiming that the Catholic agency either had to endorse and certify same-sex relationships or shut down.

No Standing:

The city targeted the church regardless of the fact that not a single same-sex couple had sought foster care certification from CSS over its 100 years of service in the city. Same-sex couples easily go elsewhere. Indeed, no couple has ever been prevented from fostering or adopting a child in need because of CSS's religious beliefs.

Two Courageous Philadelphia foster moms defend the faith-based agency that brought their families together.

"CSS has been a godsend to my family and so many like ours. I don’t think I could have gone through this process without an agency that shares my core beliefs and cares for my children accordingly," Toni Simms-Busch, a former social worker who recently adopted the children she fostered through Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "We are so grateful that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case and sort out the mess that Philadelphia has created for so many vulnerable foster children."​

Across the country, five major cities and one state have already shut faith-based agencies out of the foster care system, even though there is a shortage of families and a surplus of at-risk children due to the opioid epidemic. Religious agencies like CSS are particularly successful at placing high-risk children in loving families.

"There’s no reason to single out and punish adoption providers who are motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs that the best home for a child includes a mother and father," Keisha Russell, counsel at First Liberty Institute, explained. "When the government decides whose faith is or is not acceptable, we all lose."​

"When the city of Philadelphia excluded a Catholic agency from its foster care program, it was not only violating the agency’s constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion, but also dealing a blow to the thousands of vulnerable children in Philadelphia who desperately need safe homes," Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, policy advisor for The Catholic Association, said in a statement. "We fully expect that the Supreme Court will protect the rights of Americans who are motivated by their faith to help children, as government should let good people do good things, and not make violating their beliefs the price of doing indispensable work."​

I guess you'll have that. Did you take public money? Done. It's not an extremist position.

 

[Zorro!]

Does your agency take public money? Then your agency does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of the adoption business. AND it is a business.

From 2011:
Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Does your city take public money? Then your city does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of Public Office.

CHANGE? Supreme Court Gives Hope to Adoption Agency Targeted for Its Religious Beliefs.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would take up a case involving a Roman Catholic adoption agency denied taxpayer funding and placement opportunities because of its religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality. In Philadelphia v. Fulton, the City of Philadelphia cut ties with the Catholic Social Services (CSS) foster care system over the organization's refusal to place children in foster care with same-sex or unmarried couples. While the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city, the agency claims this violated its First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free speech.

LGBT extremists and state and local governments have deliberately targeted religious foster care and adoption agencies, claiming that they should therefore be excluded from the adoption process or lose any taxpayer funding for their work. They force these agencies out of the market, leaving fewer options for needy children.

"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, the religious freedom law firm representing Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "Over the last few years, agencies have been closing their doors across the country, and all the while children are pouring into the system. We are confident that the Court will realize that the best solution is the one that has worked in Philadelphia for a century—all hands on deck for foster kids."​

Demanded Loyalty Oath or Shut Down:

In March 2018, the City of Philadelphia stopped allowing foster children to be placed with families who work with CSS, claiming that the Catholic agency either had to endorse and certify same-sex relationships or shut down.

No Standing:

The city targeted the church regardless of the fact that not a single same-sex couple had sought foster care certification from CSS over its 100 years of service in the city. Same-sex couples easily go elsewhere. Indeed, no couple has ever been prevented from fostering or adopting a child in need because of CSS's religious beliefs.

Two Courageous Philadelphia foster moms defend the faith-based agency that brought their families together.

"CSS has been a godsend to my family and so many like ours. I don’t think I could have gone through this process without an agency that shares my core beliefs and cares for my children accordingly," Toni Simms-Busch, a former social worker who recently adopted the children she fostered through Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "We are so grateful that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case and sort out the mess that Philadelphia has created for so many vulnerable foster children."​

Across the country, five major cities and one state have already shut faith-based agencies out of the foster care system, even though there is a shortage of families and a surplus of at-risk children due to the opioid epidemic. Religious agencies like CSS are particularly successful at placing high-risk children in loving families.

"There’s no reason to single out and punish adoption providers who are motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs that the best home for a child includes a mother and father," Keisha Russell, counsel at First Liberty Institute, explained. "When the government decides whose faith is or is not acceptable, we all lose."​

"When the city of Philadelphia excluded a Catholic agency from its foster care program, it was not only violating the agency’s constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion, but also dealing a blow to the thousands of vulnerable children in Philadelphia who desperately need safe homes," Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, policy advisor for The Catholic Association, said in a statement. "We fully expect that the Supreme Court will protect the rights of Americans who are motivated by their faith to help children, as government should let good people do good things, and not make violating their beliefs the price of doing indispensable work."​

I guess you'll have that. Did you take public money? Done. It's not an extremist position.

Of course Philadelphia took public money, and I expect that SCOTUS will inform them they they cannot use public funds to impose their religious views on others.

And make no mistake, the city’s refusal to accommodate Catholic Social Services is religious discrimination. In severing its 100 year long ties with Catholic Social Services’s foster care program, the city has hung a “Catholics Need Not Apply” sign outside its Health and Human Services Department.

More than 400,000 American children live in foster care today, rescued from the kind of abuse or neglect most of us can only imagine. Some 6,000 of these kids are in Philadelphia. More are waiting for good homes. Shutting out a century long trusted partner like Catholic Social Services comes at a time when these children deserve as many agencies working for them as possible. Promoting same-sex marriage and foster care among same-sex married couples should not erase the rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. Nor should it cause the closure of successful faith-based foster care and adoption agencies. American kids in desperate need deserve better. People of faith in the United States deserve better. Supreme Court review of Sharonell Fulton, et. al v. City of Philadelphia can ensure that Americans don’t have to check their religious beliefs at the door in order to care for the most vulnerable among us.

 

[Disir]

Does your agency take public money? Then your agency does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of the adoption business. AND it is a business.

From 2011:
Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Does your city take public money? Then your city does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of Public Office.

CHANGE? Supreme Court Gives Hope to Adoption Agency Targeted for Its Religious Beliefs.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would take up a case involving a Roman Catholic adoption agency denied taxpayer funding and placement opportunities because of its religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality. In Philadelphia v. Fulton, the City of Philadelphia cut ties with the Catholic Social Services (CSS) foster care system over the organization's refusal to place children in foster care with same-sex or unmarried couples. While the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city, the agency claims this violated its First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free speech.

LGBT extremists and state and local governments have deliberately targeted religious foster care and adoption agencies, claiming that they should therefore be excluded from the adoption process or lose any taxpayer funding for their work. They force these agencies out of the market, leaving fewer options for needy children.

"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, the religious freedom law firm representing Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "Over the last few years, agencies have been closing their doors across the country, and all the while children are pouring into the system. We are confident that the Court will realize that the best solution is the one that has worked in Philadelphia for a century—all hands on deck for foster kids."​

Demanded Loyalty Oath or Shut Down:

In March 2018, the City of Philadelphia stopped allowing foster children to be placed with families who work with CSS, claiming that the Catholic agency either had to endorse and certify same-sex relationships or shut down.

No Standing:

The city targeted the church regardless of the fact that not a single same-sex couple had sought foster care certification from CSS over its 100 years of service in the city. Same-sex couples easily go elsewhere. Indeed, no couple has ever been prevented from fostering or adopting a child in need because of CSS's religious beliefs.

Two Courageous Philadelphia foster moms defend the faith-based agency that brought their families together.

"CSS has been a godsend to my family and so many like ours. I don’t think I could have gone through this process without an agency that shares my core beliefs and cares for my children accordingly," Toni Simms-Busch, a former social worker who recently adopted the children she fostered through Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "We are so grateful that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case and sort out the mess that Philadelphia has created for so many vulnerable foster children."​

Across the country, five major cities and one state have already shut faith-based agencies out of the foster care system, even though there is a shortage of families and a surplus of at-risk children due to the opioid epidemic. Religious agencies like CSS are particularly successful at placing high-risk children in loving families.

"There’s no reason to single out and punish adoption providers who are motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs that the best home for a child includes a mother and father," Keisha Russell, counsel at First Liberty Institute, explained. "When the government decides whose faith is or is not acceptable, we all lose."​

"When the city of Philadelphia excluded a Catholic agency from its foster care program, it was not only violating the agency’s constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion, but also dealing a blow to the thousands of vulnerable children in Philadelphia who desperately need safe homes," Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, policy advisor for The Catholic Association, said in a statement. "We fully expect that the Supreme Court will protect the rights of Americans who are motivated by their faith to help children, as government should let good people do good things, and not make violating their beliefs the price of doing indispensable work."​

I guess you'll have that. Did you take public money? Done. It's not an extremist position.

Of course Philadelphia took public money, and I expect that SCOTUS will inform them they they cannot use public funds to impose their religious views on others.

And make no mistake, the city’s refusal to accommodate Catholic Social Services is religious discrimination. In severing its 100 year long ties with Catholic Social Services’s foster care program, the city has hung a “Catholics Need Not Apply” sign outside its Health and Human Services Department.

More than 400,000 American children live in foster care today, rescued from the kind of abuse or neglect most of us can only imagine. Some 6,000 of these kids are in Philadelphia. More are waiting for good homes. Shutting out a century long trusted partner like Catholic Social Services comes at a time when these children deserve as many agencies working for them as possible. Promoting same-sex marriage and foster care among same-sex married couples should not erase the rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. Nor should it cause the closure of successful faith-based foster care and adoption agencies. American kids in desperate need deserve better. People of faith in the United States deserve better. Supreme Court review of Sharonell Fulton, et. al v. City of Philadelphia can ensure that Americans don’t have to check their religious beliefs at the door in order to care for the most vulnerable among us.

No. It's not discrimination.

 

[Zorro!]

Does your agency take public money? Then your agency does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of the adoption business. AND it is a business.

From 2011:
Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Does your city take public money? Then your city does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of Public Office.

CHANGE? Supreme Court Gives Hope to Adoption Agency Targeted for Its Religious Beliefs.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would take up a case involving a Roman Catholic adoption agency denied taxpayer funding and placement opportunities because of its religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality. In Philadelphia v. Fulton, the City of Philadelphia cut ties with the Catholic Social Services (CSS) foster care system over the organization's refusal to place children in foster care with same-sex or unmarried couples. While the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city, the agency claims this violated its First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free speech.

LGBT extremists and state and local governments have deliberately targeted religious foster care and adoption agencies, claiming that they should therefore be excluded from the adoption process or lose any taxpayer funding for their work. They force these agencies out of the market, leaving fewer options for needy children.

"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, the religious freedom law firm representing Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "Over the last few years, agencies have been closing their doors across the country, and all the while children are pouring into the system. We are confident that the Court will realize that the best solution is the one that has worked in Philadelphia for a century—all hands on deck for foster kids."​

Demanded Loyalty Oath or Shut Down:

In March 2018, the City of Philadelphia stopped allowing foster children to be placed with families who work with CSS, claiming that the Catholic agency either had to endorse and certify same-sex relationships or shut down.

No Standing:

The city targeted the church regardless of the fact that not a single same-sex couple had sought foster care certification from CSS over its 100 years of service in the city. Same-sex couples easily go elsewhere. Indeed, no couple has ever been prevented from fostering or adopting a child in need because of CSS's religious beliefs.

Two Courageous Philadelphia foster moms defend the faith-based agency that brought their families together.

"CSS has been a godsend to my family and so many like ours. I don’t think I could have gone through this process without an agency that shares my core beliefs and cares for my children accordingly," Toni Simms-Busch, a former social worker who recently adopted the children she fostered through Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "We are so grateful that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case and sort out the mess that Philadelphia has created for so many vulnerable foster children."​

Across the country, five major cities and one state have already shut faith-based agencies out of the foster care system, even though there is a shortage of families and a surplus of at-risk children due to the opioid epidemic. Religious agencies like CSS are particularly successful at placing high-risk children in loving families.

"There’s no reason to single out and punish adoption providers who are motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs that the best home for a child includes a mother and father," Keisha Russell, counsel at First Liberty Institute, explained. "When the government decides whose faith is or is not acceptable, we all lose."​

"When the city of Philadelphia excluded a Catholic agency from its foster care program, it was not only violating the agency’s constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion, but also dealing a blow to the thousands of vulnerable children in Philadelphia who desperately need safe homes," Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, policy advisor for The Catholic Association, said in a statement. "We fully expect that the Supreme Court will protect the rights of Americans who are motivated by their faith to help children, as government should let good people do good things, and not make violating their beliefs the price of doing indispensable work."​

I guess you'll have that. Did you take public money? Done. It's not an extremist position.

Of course Philadelphia took public money, and I expect that SCOTUS will inform them they they cannot use public funds to impose their religious views on others.

And make no mistake, the city’s refusal to accommodate Catholic Social Services is religious discrimination. In severing its 100 year long ties with Catholic Social Services’s foster care program, the city has hung a “Catholics Need Not Apply” sign outside its Health and Human Services Department.

More than 400,000 American children live in foster care today, rescued from the kind of abuse or neglect most of us can only imagine. Some 6,000 of these kids are in Philadelphia. More are waiting for good homes. Shutting out a century long trusted partner like Catholic Social Services comes at a time when these children deserve as many agencies working for them as possible. Promoting same-sex marriage and foster care among same-sex married couples should not erase the rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. Nor should it cause the closure of successful faith-based foster care and adoption agencies. American kids in desperate need deserve better. People of faith in the United States deserve better. Supreme Court review of Sharonell Fulton, et. al v. City of Philadelphia can ensure that Americans don’t have to check their religious beliefs at the door in order to care for the most vulnerable among us.

No. It's not discrimination.

Your claim will soon be tested by the Supreme Court.

Demanded Loyalty Oath or Shut Down:

In March 2018, the City of Philadelphia stopped allowing foster children to be placed with families who work with CSS, claiming that the Catholic agency either had to endorse and certify same-sex relationships or shut down.

"Repeat after me?"

We'll see if that passes Constitutional muster, I suspect it won't.

And no victims: The city targeted the church regardless of the fact that not a single same-sex couple had sought foster care certification from CSS over its 100 years of service in the city. Same-sex couples easily go elsewhere. Indeed, no couple has ever been prevented from fostering or adopting a child in need because of CSS's religious beliefs.

We'll see what SCOTUS has to say.

 

[Disir]

Does your agency take public money? Then your agency does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of the adoption business. AND it is a business.

From 2011:
Illinois Catholic Charities to close rather than allow same-sex couples to adopt children - Nation - The Boston Globe

Does your city take public money? Then your city does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of Public Office.

CHANGE? Supreme Court Gives Hope to Adoption Agency Targeted for Its Religious Beliefs.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would take up a case involving a Roman Catholic adoption agency denied taxpayer funding and placement opportunities because of its religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality. In Philadelphia v. Fulton, the City of Philadelphia cut ties with the Catholic Social Services (CSS) foster care system over the organization's refusal to place children in foster care with same-sex or unmarried couples. While the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city, the agency claims this violated its First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free speech.

LGBT extremists and state and local governments have deliberately targeted religious foster care and adoption agencies, claiming that they should therefore be excluded from the adoption process or lose any taxpayer funding for their work. They force these agencies out of the market, leaving fewer options for needy children.

"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, the religious freedom law firm representing Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "Over the last few years, agencies have been closing their doors across the country, and all the while children are pouring into the system. We are confident that the Court will realize that the best solution is the one that has worked in Philadelphia for a century—all hands on deck for foster kids."​

Demanded Loyalty Oath or Shut Down:

In March 2018, the City of Philadelphia stopped allowing foster children to be placed with families who work with CSS, claiming that the Catholic agency either had to endorse and certify same-sex relationships or shut down.

No Standing:

The city targeted the church regardless of the fact that not a single same-sex couple had sought foster care certification from CSS over its 100 years of service in the city. Same-sex couples easily go elsewhere. Indeed, no couple has ever been prevented from fostering or adopting a child in need because of CSS's religious beliefs.

Two Courageous Philadelphia foster moms defend the faith-based agency that brought their families together.

"CSS has been a godsend to my family and so many like ours. I don’t think I could have gone through this process without an agency that shares my core beliefs and cares for my children accordingly," Toni Simms-Busch, a former social worker who recently adopted the children she fostered through Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "We are so grateful that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case and sort out the mess that Philadelphia has created for so many vulnerable foster children."​

Across the country, five major cities and one state have already shut faith-based agencies out of the foster care system, even though there is a shortage of families and a surplus of at-risk children due to the opioid epidemic. Religious agencies like CSS are particularly successful at placing high-risk children in loving families.

"There’s no reason to single out and punish adoption providers who are motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs that the best home for a child includes a mother and father," Keisha Russell, counsel at First Liberty Institute, explained. "When the government decides whose faith is or is not acceptable, we all lose."​

"When the city of Philadelphia excluded a Catholic agency from its foster care program, it was not only violating the agency’s constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion, but also dealing a blow to the thousands of vulnerable children in Philadelphia who desperately need safe homes," Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, policy advisor for The Catholic Association, said in a statement. "We fully expect that the Supreme Court will protect the rights of Americans who are motivated by their faith to help children, as government should let good people do good things, and not make violating their beliefs the price of doing indispensable work."​

I guess you'll have that. Did you take public money? Done. It's not an extremist position.

Of course Philadelphia took public money, and I expect that SCOTUS will inform them they they cannot use public funds to impose their religious views on others.

And make no mistake, the city’s refusal to accommodate Catholic Social Services is religious discrimination. In severing its 100 year long ties with Catholic Social Services’s foster care program, the city has hung a “Catholics Need Not Apply” sign outside its Health and Human Services Department.

More than 400,000 American children live in foster care today, rescued from the kind of abuse or neglect most of us can only imagine. Some 6,000 of these kids are in Philadelphia. More are waiting for good homes. Shutting out a century long trusted partner like Catholic Social Services comes at a time when these children deserve as many agencies working for them as possible. Promoting same-sex marriage and foster care among same-sex married couples should not erase the rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. Nor should it cause the closure of successful faith-based foster care and adoption agencies. American kids in desperate need deserve better. People of faith in the United States deserve better. Supreme Court review of Sharonell Fulton, et. al v. City of Philadelphia can ensure that Americans don’t have to check their religious beliefs at the door in order to care for the most vulnerable among us.

No. It's not discrimination.

Your claim will soon be tested by the Supreme Court.

Demanded Loyalty Oath or Shut Down:

In March 2018, the City of Philadelphia stopped allowing foster children to be placed with families who work with CSS, claiming that the Catholic agency either had to endorse and certify same-sex relationships or shut down.

"Repeat after me?"

We'll see if that passes Constitutional muster, I suspect it won't.

And no victims: The city targeted the church regardless of the fact that not a single same-sex couple had sought foster care certification from CSS over its 100 years of service in the city. Same-sex couples easily go elsewhere. Indeed, no couple has ever been prevented from fostering or adopting a child in need because of CSS's religious beliefs.

We'll see what SCOTUS has to say.

The CSS could have maintained. They simply could not have received public funds. Pretty simple. Are you telling me that they could not have functioned without public funding? Because that's what I'm hearing and that the CSS is entitled to public funds. Is that what I am hearing?

 

[Zorro!]

Does your city take public money? Then your city does not win the ability to discriminate. Period. Don't like it? Get out of Public Office.

CHANGE? Supreme Court Gives Hope to Adoption Agency Targeted for Its Religious Beliefs.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would take up a case involving a Roman Catholic adoption agency denied taxpayer funding and placement opportunities because of its religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality. In Philadelphia v. Fulton, the City of Philadelphia cut ties with the Catholic Social Services (CSS) foster care system over the organization's refusal to place children in foster care with same-sex or unmarried couples. While the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the city, the agency claims this violated its First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free speech.

LGBT extremists and state and local governments have deliberately targeted religious foster care and adoption agencies, claiming that they should therefore be excluded from the adoption process or lose any taxpayer funding for their work. They force these agencies out of the market, leaving fewer options for needy children.

"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, the religious freedom law firm representing Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "Over the last few years, agencies have been closing their doors across the country, and all the while children are pouring into the system. We are confident that the Court will realize that the best solution is the one that has worked in Philadelphia for a century—all hands on deck for foster kids."​

Demanded Loyalty Oath or Shut Down:

In March 2018, the City of Philadelphia stopped allowing foster children to be placed with families who work with CSS, claiming that the Catholic agency either had to endorse and certify same-sex relationships or shut down.

No Standing:

The city targeted the church regardless of the fact that not a single same-sex couple had sought foster care certification from CSS over its 100 years of service in the city. Same-sex couples easily go elsewhere. Indeed, no couple has ever been prevented from fostering or adopting a child in need because of CSS's religious beliefs.

Two Courageous Philadelphia foster moms defend the faith-based agency that brought their families together.

"CSS has been a godsend to my family and so many like ours. I don’t think I could have gone through this process without an agency that shares my core beliefs and cares for my children accordingly," Toni Simms-Busch, a former social worker who recently adopted the children she fostered through Catholic Social Services, said in a statement. "We are so grateful that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear our case and sort out the mess that Philadelphia has created for so many vulnerable foster children."​

Across the country, five major cities and one state have already shut faith-based agencies out of the foster care system, even though there is a shortage of families and a surplus of at-risk children due to the opioid epidemic. Religious agencies like CSS are particularly successful at placing high-risk children in loving families.

"There’s no reason to single out and punish adoption providers who are motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs that the best home for a child includes a mother and father," Keisha Russell, counsel at First Liberty Institute, explained. "When the government decides whose faith is or is not acceptable, we all lose."​

"When the city of Philadelphia excluded a Catholic agency from its foster care program, it was not only violating the agency’s constitutionally protected right to free exercise of religion, but also dealing a blow to the thousands of vulnerable children in Philadelphia who desperately need safe homes," Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, policy advisor for The Catholic Association, said in a statement. "We fully expect that the Supreme Court will protect the rights of Americans who are motivated by their faith to help children, as government should let good people do good things, and not make violating their beliefs the price of doing indispensable work."​

I guess you'll have that. Did you take public money? Done. It's not an extremist position.

Of course Philadelphia took public money, and I expect that SCOTUS will inform them they they cannot use public funds to impose their religious views on others.

And make no mistake, the city’s refusal to accommodate Catholic Social Services is religious discrimination. In severing its 100 year long ties with Catholic Social Services’s foster care program, the city has hung a “Catholics Need Not Apply” sign outside its Health and Human Services Department.

More than 400,000 American children live in foster care today, rescued from the kind of abuse or neglect most of us can only imagine. Some 6,000 of these kids are in Philadelphia. More are waiting for good homes. Shutting out a century long trusted partner like Catholic Social Services comes at a time when these children deserve as many agencies working for them as possible. Promoting same-sex marriage and foster care among same-sex married couples should not erase the rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. Nor should it cause the closure of successful faith-based foster care and adoption agencies. American kids in desperate need deserve better. People of faith in the United States deserve better. Supreme Court review of Sharonell Fulton, et. al v. City of Philadelphia can ensure that Americans don’t have to check their religious beliefs at the door in order to care for the most vulnerable among us.

No. It's not discrimination.

Your claim will soon be tested by the Supreme Court.

Demanded Loyalty Oath or Shut Down:

In March 2018, the City of Philadelphia stopped allowing foster children to be placed with families who work with CSS, claiming that the Catholic agency either had to endorse and certify same-sex relationships or shut down.

"Repeat after me?"

We'll see if that passes Constitutional muster, I suspect it won't.

And no victims: The city targeted the church regardless of the fact that not a single same-sex couple had sought foster care certification from CSS over its 100 years of service in the city. Same-sex couples easily go elsewhere. Indeed, no couple has ever been prevented from fostering or adopting a child in need because of CSS's religious beliefs.

We'll see what SCOTUS has to say.

The CSS could have maintained. They simply could not have received public funds. Pretty simple. Are you telling me that they could not have functioned without public funding? Because that's what I'm hearing and that the CSS is entitled to public funds. Is that what I am hearing?

We are all equal before government, or at least we should be. Last month the US Supreme Court heard arguments over whether so-called Blaine Amendments — state constitutional amendments used to block public funding for even secular activities undertaken with a religious motivation — are constitutional. Justice Clarence Thomas observed in 2000 that Blaine Amendments were “born in bigotry” and “should be buried” once and for all. Let’s hope the Supremes do that in the case Espinoza v. Montana, and in this case with Philadelphia as well.

The amendments date back to the rampant anti-Catholicism of the late 19th century. Sen. James Blaine of Maine pressed for the state-level measures to cut funding from Catholic schools. Since then, activists have often seized upon Blaine Amendments to legally perpetuate his anti-religious bigotry.

Government officials should never disqualify the charitable activity of an organization just because of the religion that motivates it.

The Supreme Court moved in the right direction two years ago in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer. There, the high court explained that the Constitution prevents government from denying generally available benefits “solely because of an organization’s religious character.” Yet the scope of this decision remains in question.

Picking winners and losers based on their religion is un-American. Religious organizations that care for their communities ought to be welcomed by the government, not excluded. Americans of faith shouldn’t be excluded from public programs simply because of their religious viewpoint.

We have endured this bigotry for long enough. Religious liberty frees people of faith to do great work in their communities. When religious people and organizations are welcomed on equal footing with their secular neighbors, everyone wins.

 

[Disir]

I guess you'll have that. Did you take public money? Done. It's not an extremist position.

Of course Philadelphia took public money, and I expect that SCOTUS will inform them they they cannot use public funds to impose their religious views on others.

And make no mistake, the city’s refusal to accommodate Catholic Social Services is religious discrimination. In severing its 100 year long ties with Catholic Social Services’s foster care program, the city has hung a “Catholics Need Not Apply” sign outside its Health and Human Services Department.

More than 400,000 American children live in foster care today, rescued from the kind of abuse or neglect most of us can only imagine. Some 6,000 of these kids are in Philadelphia. More are waiting for good homes. Shutting out a century long trusted partner like Catholic Social Services comes at a time when these children deserve as many agencies working for them as possible. Promoting same-sex marriage and foster care among same-sex married couples should not erase the rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. Nor should it cause the closure of successful faith-based foster care and adoption agencies. American kids in desperate need deserve better. People of faith in the United States deserve better. Supreme Court review of Sharonell Fulton, et. al v. City of Philadelphia can ensure that Americans don’t have to check their religious beliefs at the door in order to care for the most vulnerable among us.

No. It's not discrimination.

Your claim will soon be tested by the Supreme Court.

Demanded Loyalty Oath or Shut Down:

In March 2018, the City of Philadelphia stopped allowing foster children to be placed with families who work with CSS, claiming that the Catholic agency either had to endorse and certify same-sex relationships or shut down.

"Repeat after me?"

We'll see if that passes Constitutional muster, I suspect it won't.

And no victims: The city targeted the church regardless of the fact that not a single same-sex couple had sought foster care certification from CSS over its 100 years of service in the city. Same-sex couples easily go elsewhere. Indeed, no couple has ever been prevented from fostering or adopting a child in need because of CSS's religious beliefs.

We'll see what SCOTUS has to say.

The CSS could have maintained. They simply could not have received public funds. Pretty simple. Are you telling me that they could not have functioned without public funding? Because that's what I'm hearing and that the CSS is entitled to public funds. Is that what I am hearing?

We are all equal before government, or at least we should be. Last month the US Supreme Court heard arguments over whether so-called Blaine Amendments — state constitutional amendments used to block public funding for even secular activities undertaken with a religious motivation — are constitutional. Justice Clarence Thomas observed in 2000 that Blaine Amendments were “born in bigotry” and “should be buried” once and for all. Let’s hope the Supremes do that in the case Espinoza v. Montana, and in this case with Philadelphia as well.

The amendments date back to the rampant anti-Catholicism of the late 19th century. Sen. James Blaine of Maine pressed for the state-level measures to cut funding from Catholic schools. Since then, activists have often seized upon Blaine Amendments to legally perpetuate his anti-religious bigotry.

Government officials should never disqualify the charitable activity of an organization just because of the religion that motivates it.

The Supreme Court moved in the right direction two years ago in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer. There, the high court explained that the Constitution prevents government from denying generally available benefits “solely because of an organization’s religious character.” Yet the scope of this decision remains in question.

Picking winners and losers based on their religion is un-American. Religious organizations that care for their communities ought to be welcomed by the government, not excluded. Americans of faith shouldn’t be excluded from public programs simply because of their religious viewpoint.

We have endured this bigotry for long enough. Religious liberty frees people of faith to do great work in their communities. When religious people and organizations are welcomed on equal footing with their secular neighbors, everyone wins.

Again. I ask you. Are you telling me that this organization is dependent on public funds?