Should Churches Be Forced to Accomodate for Homosexual Adoptions?

[mdk]

Why should every other public adoption agency have to follow the rules and yet they alone get an exemption?

Because they are a church and can't be dealt with like a secular agency. A little common sense is needed.

They want the money like any secular agency but they don't wish to follow the stipulations that come attached with the money. I agree, a little common sense is in order, like turn into a private operation and place children with only familt units that meets their religious as well as their financial/mental/stability criterias.

 

[AgentSparky]

I support gay couples adopting children if they meet the requirements to proving a good loving home for them. If this goes against the Church's religion in accomodating them, then who are we to force them to?

Agreed, but nobody is forcing them to accept public funds. If you accept those funds then you have to follow the rules like every other adoption agency.

Why shouldn't the Churches accept public funding if they are using the money to provide food, shelter, clothing and schooling for the children?

Why should they be exempt from the rules that every other public adoption agency has to follow?.

Because they are using that money to provide food, shelter, clothing and schooling for orphaned children in need. It's for helping the children. Why would you not want Churches to help children?

What is stopping other agencies from taking public funds and announcing the rules don't apply to them as well. Don't want to follow the rules then don't accept the money. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Why are you so hung up on what rules can apply to what different agencies if they all share a common interest in providing food, shelter, clothing and schooling for the children in need?

Why can't you be happy that there's also agencies that will happily provide adoptions for gay couples ? That's the beauty of American Liberty.
If other agencies aren't

I have no problem with churches helping children in the least. You don't get to take taxpayers funds then decide that rules do not apply to you.

They are taking the money to PROVIDE to the children in need. They're not pocketing the money Also they following the rules and laws of their freedom of religion but yet, you seem to be wanting to make a big stink about things, why?

 

[mdk]

Agreed, but nobody is forcing them to accept public funds. If you accept those funds then you have to follow the rules like every other adoption agency.

Why shouldn't the Churches accept public funding if they are using the money to provide food, shelter, clothing and schooling for the children?

Why should they be exempt from the rules that every other public adoption agency has to follow?.

Because they are using that money to provide food, shelter, clothing and schooling for orphaned children in need. It's for helping the children. Why would you not want Churches to help children?

What is stopping other agencies from taking public funds and announcing the rules don't apply to them as well. Don't want to follow the rules then don't accept the money. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Why are you so hung up on what rules can apply to what different agencies if they all share a common interest in providing food, shelter, clothing and schooling for the children in need?

Why can't you be happy that there's also agencies that will happily provide adoptions for gay couples ? That's the beauty of American Liberty.
If other agencies aren't

I have no problem with churches helping children in the least. You don't get to take taxpayers funds then decide that rules do not apply to you.

They are taking the money to PROVIDE to the children in need. They're not pocketing the money Also they following the rules and laws of their freedom of religion but yet, you seem to be wanting to make a big stink about things, why?

I never claimed they are pocketing the money. No organization; religious or otherwise, has a right to government funds and make no mistake that it is exactly that this is about. Do not accept public funds, become private, and tell the state to mind their own damn business.

On most issue concerning churches I find myself siding with the church despite losing my faith many years ago:

Should churches be forced to marry gays? (Or anyone for that matter) Absolutely not.
This nonsense with subpoenas in Houston? I support the churches.
When churches fire gay employees for violating their morality clauses, I've sided with the churches.
Should churches lose their tax exempt status for speaking out against gays? Of course not.
Should private religious adoption agencies be forced to place children with gays? Nope on that one as well.

This boils down to public funds for me and not some animosity towards churches.

 

[Disir]

I am not familiar enough with church roles in adoptions in the US to really speak on that specific issue. Most churches are a community controlled by the congregation (a few exceptions like the Catholics). If the community doesn't want the weddings/adoptions then fine. If they do, then fine with them as well. Churches generally are not places of public accommodation.

Well, but the legal mandate now is, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that if any entity holds itself open to the public, they have to abide by gay marriages in every stage, from planning the wedding to adopting children to them.

Am I wrong about this?

Yes.

Your agency wants the contract. Your agency wants to and receives the vast majority of funding from the American tax payers. Thus, your agency is not allowed to discriminate. Pretty simple.

It is so simple that you are wrong. Churches are not allowed to discriminate in relation to those matters subject to the public funds. They are still free to discriminate i.e. not perform the weddings if they so desire. The Catholic adoption agencies that have voluntarily closed did so as not to have to provide those adoption services to gays, not to avoid performing the weddings.

No. I'm not interested in whether or not churches preform weddings. Adoption agencies are a different matter all together. You are aware of this.

 

[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

Gay is evil, no business raising children.

What I hear you saying is that you don't have an argument.

Gays need to stop discriminating against Christians. The gays started this war, they can shut up.

This allows you to circumvent law? I think not. Does your organization accept public funding? Comply. Simple.

Nope. And I will not comply with Astana soldiers.

Welcome to ignore. If you aren't adult enough to carry on a conversation or a debate then you waste my time.

 

[Disir]

Your agency wants the contract. Your agency wants to and receives the vast majority of funding from the American tax payers. Thus, your agency is not allowed to discriminate. Pretty simple.

Well it's simple except that in order to adopt out children to "gay marriages" the church would be condemning itself to obliteration, and thereby be forced to abandon its freedom to practice its core faith values. Read Jude 1 of Jesus's NEW Testament when you get a chance.

Requiring someone to violate their religious freedom cannot be a secular law. So I don't think it's going to be as simple as all that. What you're up to is forcing churches and faithful people to disgorge their protected orphans into the clutches of lewd sex street performers and their 100% -supportive sychophants/sex cult.

I think this is as they say..."where the rubber will meet the road" on the gay marriage debate in the courts... There is something "simple" about it though in the end.. The choice will be one the judges will have to make about what is more important:

1. Children or

2. The cult of LGBT who wants to force churches to surrender kids to them.

You're not interested in the children.

What is the highest law in the land?

Two thirds of the funding of Catholic Charities comes from the tax payers. If you cannot fulfill the contract then you have no place accepting the money. I guarantee you that they don't sit on the side lines and say, "We can't accept that money because we know that LGBT paid into this system."

It should come from the taxpayers. They are performing an incredibly valuable public service, but to make them go against one of their most fundamental beliefs is a violation of Freedom of Religion. The lawmakers can easily make an exception for the church.

No.

Secular organizations are actually much better at this.

 

[Disir]

Churches that don't support gays will not adopt to gays and will shut down instead. By not giving the church an exemption, lawmakers are hurting the children far more than anyone. Lawmakers should keep the welfare of the children in mind above everything else.

A private faith based adoption agency can place a child in any family unit they see fit, as it should be. The moment they accept money from the government then they must abide by the rules that come attached with the money. They can't willingly take money from the taxpayers and say, sorry, we don't place children with Southern Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Gays, Wiccans, etc because use it violates the tenants of our faith. Stop accepting the money from the state and they can place children with whomever they please. Instead, they want the money; that all the taxpayers pay into, and then tell certain taxpayers that they cannot use their services. It doesn't work that way.

Except that, they are doing the taxpayers a favor and have no benefit to themselves other than spiritual and emotional.

Other adoption agencies are already picking up the slack. They were getting $30 million dollars a year from the State of Illinois. They don't get to take the money and then tell otherwise qualified couples (or singles) whether they be gay, Jews, atheists, or Wiccan to go elsewhere. They seem to have no problem taking their money but they have a problem placing children in their homes for adoption or foster care. They can't have it both ways. If they don't take the money they can kindly tell the state to butt out.

Unless you can prove other agencies can replace everything the church was doing, I doubt it. Can the orphanages be replaced?

Uh..........much has changed since the days of orphanages. You seem to carry a romantic vision of a couple hundred years ago.

 

[sameech]

I am not familiar enough with church roles in adoptions in the US to really speak on that specific issue. Most churches are a community controlled by the congregation (a few exceptions like the Catholics). If the community doesn't want the weddings/adoptions then fine. If they do, then fine with them as well. Churches generally are not places of public accommodation.

Well, but the legal mandate now is, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that if any entity holds itself open to the public, they have to abide by gay marriages in every stage, from planning the wedding to adopting children to them.

Am I wrong about this?

Yes.

Your agency wants the contract. Your agency wants to and receives the vast majority of funding from the American tax payers. Thus, your agency is not allowed to discriminate. Pretty simple.

It is so simple that you are wrong. Churches are not allowed to discriminate in relation to those matters subject to the public funds. They are still free to discriminate i.e. not perform the weddings if they so desire. The Catholic adoption agencies that have voluntarily closed did so as not to have to provide those adoption services to gays, not to avoid performing the weddings.

No. I'm not interested in whether or not churches preform weddings. Adoption agencies are a different matter all together. You are aware of this.

I am aware that your response to another poster contained inaccurate information. This is a nuanced area of law that has well predated gay marriage. The line was drawn over things like shelter/soup kitchen/support group services. To me, the grayest line has been over Alcoholic's Anonymous type programs. AA is so oriented around Christianity and the Bible, giving public funds for those type programs probably crosses the church-state line.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

This is a very complicated issue. I don't believe in 'gay marriage', but I don't believe that orphan's should not be allowed to go to a loving home.

Why is it, that it is easier to adopt a child from another country than it is to adopt one here at home? That is the question we need to be asking.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Nope. No sucking on the public teat if you go against establish
ed rules for distributing public money. They can use the same crying towel as the BSA.

Nope, they aren't. They are a charity.

They are a charity...but they WERE taking public money. Now they aren't. A win/win.

The only people that win are a handful of gay couples that for some reason must go to a church orphanage to adopt rather than the many other adoption agencies available to them.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Why is it, that it is easier to adopt a child from another country than it is to adopt one here at home? That is the question we need to be asking.

Probably because if adoption were easy, there would be a shortage of kids, and that would entice women to carry to term and adopt out instead of getting abortions.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Why should every other public adoption agency have to follow the rules and yet they alone get an exemption?

Because they are a church and can't be dealt with like a secular agency. A little common sense is needed.

They want the money like any secular agency but they don't wish to follow the stipulations that come attached with the money. I agree, a little common sense is in order, like turn into a private operation and place children with only familt units that meets their religious as well as their financial/mental/stability criterias.

You keep making that mistake. They do not want the money. The money is NEEDED to provide the basic needs of children, from what I understand, most of whom have been dumped there by the state.

Of course, the common sense I meant was that a church has its own character that is inviolable. It's just like you communicate differently with various countries and different people with distinct personalities.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I have no problem with churches helping children in the least. You don't get to take taxpayers funds then decide that rules do not apply to you. It isn't just gays that are effected. Do you think CC are allowing adoptions to Jews, Atheists, or Muslims? My understanding is that CC handled 1/4 of all adoptions in Illinois. They are effectively cutting out whole swatches of taxpayers from using their services despite the fact that they are funding it. That isn't right. No organization has a right to government funds and the courts told them as much.

Do you know for a fact the Catholic Charities only adopts to Christians? Where did you learn that to be the definitive case or provide a link? It may be or it may be not, and they may hold the urgency to provide homes for children above that. idk

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Your agency wants the contract. Your agency wants to and receives the vast majority of funding from the American tax payers. Thus, your agency is not allowed to discriminate. Pretty simple.

Well it's simple except that in order to adopt out children to "gay marriages" the church would be condemning itself to obliteration, and thereby be forced to abandon its freedom to practice its core faith values. Read Jude 1 of Jesus's NEW Testament when you get a chance.

Requiring someone to violate their religious freedom cannot be a secular law. So I don't think it's going to be as simple as all that. What you're up to is forcing churches and faithful people to disgorge their protected orphans into the clutches of lewd sex street performers and their 100% -supportive sychophants/sex cult.

I think this is as they say..."where the rubber will meet the road" on the gay marriage debate in the courts... There is something "simple" about it though in the end.. The choice will be one the judges will have to make about what is more important:

1. Children or

2. The cult of LGBT who wants to force churches to surrender kids to them.

You're not interested in the children.

What is the highest law in the land?

Two thirds of the funding of Catholic Charities comes from the tax payers. If you cannot fulfill the contract then you have no place accepting the money. I guarantee you that they don't sit on the side lines and say, "We can't accept that money because we know that LGBT paid into this system."

It should come from the taxpayers. They are performing an incredibly valuable public service, but to make them go against one of their most fundamental beliefs is a violation of Freedom of Religion. The lawmakers can easily make an exception for the church.

No.

Secular organizations are actually much better at this.

But are there or will there be enough of them so that just one child, who would have otherwise have been taken by the church, is not denied a chance and sent to juvenile hall instead, for the smallest of reasons, or worst yet, lost in the shuffle and then ends up on the street?

 

[bodecea]

Why shouldn't the Churches accept public funding if they are using the money to provide food, shelter, clothing and schooling for the children?

Why should they be exempt from the rules that every other public adoption agency has to follow?.

Because they are using that money to provide food, shelter, clothing and schooling for orphaned children in need. It's for helping the children. Why would you not want Churches to help children?

What is stopping other agencies from taking public funds and announcing the rules don't apply to them as well. Don't want to follow the rules then don't accept the money. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.

Why are you so hung up on what rules can apply to what different agencies if they all share a common interest in providing food, shelter, clothing and schooling for the children in need?

Why can't you be happy that there's also agencies that will happily provide adoptions for gay couples ? That's the beauty of American Liberty.
If other agencies aren't

I have no problem with churches helping children in the least. You don't get to take taxpayers funds then decide that rules do not apply to you.

They are taking the money to PROVIDE to the children in need. They're not pocketing the money Also they following the rules and laws of their freedom of religion but yet, you seem to be wanting to make a big stink about things, why?

I never claimed they are pocketing the money. No organization; religious or otherwise, has a right to government funds and make no mistake that it is exactly that this is about. Do not accept public funds, become private, and tell the state to mind their own damn business.

On most issue concerning churches I find myself siding with the church despite losing my faith many years ago:

Should churches be forced to marry gays? (Or anyone for that matter) Absolutely not.
This nonsense with subpoenas in Houston? I support the churches.
When churches fire gay employees for violating their morality clauses, I've sided with the churches.
Should churches lose their tax exempt status for speaking out against gays? Of course not.
Should private religious adoption agencies be forced to place children with gays? Nope on that one as well.

This boils down to public funds for me and not some animosity towards churches.

I agree with you on most of what you say. However, I believe churches, all churches, should have lost their tax-exempt status a long time ago.

 

[bodecea]

Your agency wants the contract. Your agency wants to and receives the vast majority of funding from the American tax payers. Thus, your agency is not allowed to discriminate. Pretty simple.

Well it's simple except that in order to adopt out children to "gay marriages" the church would be condemning itself to obliteration, and thereby be forced to abandon its freedom to practice its core faith values. Read Jude 1 of Jesus's NEW Testament when you get a chance.

Requiring someone to violate their religious freedom cannot be a secular law. So I don't think it's going to be as simple as all that. What you're up to is forcing churches and faithful people to disgorge their protected orphans into the clutches of lewd sex street performers and their 100% -supportive sychophants/sex cult.

I think this is as they say..."where the rubber will meet the road" on the gay marriage debate in the courts... There is something "simple" about it though in the end.. The choice will be one the judges will have to make about what is more important:

1. Children or

2. The cult of LGBT who wants to force churches to surrender kids to them.

You're not interested in the children.

What is the highest law in the land?

Two thirds of the funding of Catholic Charities comes from the tax payers. If you cannot fulfill the contract then you have no place accepting the money. I guarantee you that they don't sit on the side lines and say, "We can't accept that money because we know that LGBT paid into this system."

It should come from the taxpayers. They are performing an incredibly valuable public service, but to make them go against one of their most fundamental beliefs is a violation of Freedom of Religion. The lawmakers can easily make an exception for the church.

No.

Secular organizations are actually much better at this.

But are there or will there be enough of them so that just one child, who would have otherwise have been taken by the church, is not denied a chance and sent to juvenile hall instead, for the smallest of reasons, or worst yet, lost in the shuffle and then ends up on the street?

Show where that would happen if the Catholic Charities doesn't get public (aka big government) funds.

 

[mdk]

I have no problem with churches helping children in the least. You don't get to take taxpayers funds then decide that rules do not apply to you. It isn't just gays that are effected. Do you think CC are allowing adoptions to Jews, Atheists, or Muslims? My understanding is that CC handled 1/4 of all adoptions in Illinois. They are effectively cutting out whole swatches of taxpayers from using their services despite the fact that they are funding it. That isn't right. No organization has a right to government funds and the courts told them as much.

Do you know for a fact the Catholic Charities only adopts to Christians? Where did you learn that to be the definitive case or provide a link? It may be or it may be not, and they may hold the urgency to provide homes for children above that. idk

I was incorrect. After doing some further research it seems I was entirely incorrect about that point and I apologize for adding to the confusion. I assumed (a foolish mistake on my part) they did not since those of other faiths violate the religious tenants of the Catholic Church. Again, I am sorry, I was wrong.

Does it not seem odd that CC place children with other family units that do not follow/violate their religious doctrine but exclude gays on that basis? Why? They place children with family units that violate their beliefs but for some reason gays are excluding but not others. Does that not seem a bit a hypocritical?

 

[Silhouette]

I was incorrect. After doing some further research it seems I was entirely incorrect about that point and I apologize for adding to the confusion. I assumed (a foolish mistake on my part) they did not since those of other faiths violate the religious tenants of the Catholic Church. Again, I am sorry, I was wrong.

Does it not seem odd that CC place children with other family units that do not follow/violate their religious doctrine but exclude gays on that basis? Why? They place children with family units that violate their beliefs but for some reason gays are excluding but not others. Does that not seem a bit a hypocritical?

Don't worry folks. This is the first and only time an LGBT spin artist was ever caught..er I mean "wrong" about some "hard fact" they were spinning to legitimize making inroads into overtaking the inner fabric of our culture [marriage/parents].

 

[mdk]

I was incorrect. After doing some further research it seems I was entirely incorrect about that point and I apologize for adding to the confusion. I assumed (a foolish mistake on my part) they did not since those of other faiths violate the religious tenants of the Catholic Church. Again, I am sorry, I was wrong.

Does it not seem odd that CC place children with other family units that do not follow/violate their religious doctrine but exclude gays on that basis? Why? They place children with family units that violate their beliefs but for some reason gays are excluding but not others. Does that not seem a bit a hypocritical?

Don't worry folks. This is the first and only time an LGBT spin artist was ever caught..er I mean "wrong" about some "hard fact" they were spinning to legitimize making inroads into overtaking the inner fabric of our culture [marriage/parents].

I was not spinning anything. I was wrong and when I am wrong I will admit that I am. Maybe you should try it at some point but you have too pride do anything of the sort. You have almost zero credibility when it comes to discussing gays.

 

[Disir]

I am not familiar enough with church roles in adoptions in the US to really speak on that specific issue. Most churches are a community controlled by the congregation (a few exceptions like the Catholics). If the community doesn't want the weddings/adoptions then fine. If they do, then fine with them as well. Churches generally are not places of public accommodation.

Well, but the legal mandate now is, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that if any entity holds itself open to the public, they have to abide by gay marriages in every stage, from planning the wedding to adopting children to them.

Am I wrong about this?

Yes.

Your agency wants the contract. Your agency wants to and receives the vast majority of funding from the American tax payers. Thus, your agency is not allowed to discriminate. Pretty simple.

It is so simple that you are wrong. Churches are not allowed to discriminate in relation to those matters subject to the public funds. They are still free to discriminate i.e. not perform the weddings if they so desire. The Catholic adoption agencies that have voluntarily closed did so as not to have to provide those adoption services to gays, not to avoid performing the weddings.

No. I'm not interested in whether or not churches preform weddings. Adoption agencies are a different matter all together. You are aware of this.

I am aware that your response to another poster contained inaccurate information. This is a nuanced area of law that has well predated gay marriage. The line was drawn over things like shelter/soup kitchen/support group services. To me, the grayest line has been over Alcoholic's Anonymous type programs. AA is so oriented around Christianity and the Bible, giving public funds for those type programs probably crosses the church-state line.

AA is self supporting. Again. If your agency receives public funding then it may not discriminate.

The author wished to bring extras into it and hold it up as nice shiny bright objects to deflect from the above statement. I was not wrong. At all.