What A Blessing: Texas Adoption Agencies Could Ban Jews, Gays, And Muslims

[SAYIT]

Why, exactly, is your right to freedom of association greater than another's right not to be discriminated against, demeaned and humiliated in places of public accommodation?

Because they can go where they're wanted if they wish. Nobody should be forced to be nice to people they consider undesirable.

There is no law forcing anyone - even you - to be nice to anyone. Either you are just trolling for shits and giggles or you have have become a whiny, sniveling, victim of your own making.

 

[RealDave]

It's so good to see this conversation has been so civil and not degraded into a racist bigoted free for all.

IMHO If an organization is a Catholic adoption agency then they should place the kids with Catholic's, if Muslim then the kid should be placed with Muslims, if public than the kids should be placed with whatever family they can get. Unfortunate fact is if it goes to the SCOTUS( and it probably will) it will most likely be labeled discrimination and therefore unconstitutional due to the current climate in the USA. This of course could lead to less adoptions and more welfare mothers. I can see where someone might not want to give up a daughter if they knew that the adoptive family might be Muslim and force her to cover herself from head to toe just because she's a woman. A Jew might not want a Muslim family or a Muslim might not want a Jewish family and a Christian might not want an atheist family. Hell a Christian baker can't even turn down making a gay wedding cake so I have little hope that religious adoption agency's will be able to continue unobstructed on the grounds of religious freedom.

Adoption is much different than baking cakes. Apples and oranges.

"Apples and oranges"? Religious adoption and Christian bakery's aren't so different as they both fall under religious freedom and are therefore both fruit. It's also unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom but the left doesn't seem to understand that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I am on your side, I'm just saying they aren't moral equivalents. Baking a cake for a faggot wedding is a far cry from adopting a child.

Granted children are more important than cakes but they both still fall under religious freedom. The left however don't see it that way.

Where in Christianity does it say it is OK be be a racist, bigot or in general, to judge people?

 

[WinterBorn]

Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality.

You are dumber than shit.

Homosexuals are pedophiles. It's a fact.

Only in your mind. It is most certainly NOT a fact in the real world.

Oh they absolutely are. 66 percent of child rapists are in fact homosexuals and they are only about 3 to 5 percent at best of the population. Homosexuals are four times more likely to rape children. That makes them a complete danger to society and especially our children.

The people who rape prepubescent children, whether the victim is of the same gender or not, are not homosexuals. If you don't believe me, check with the FBI.

Oh, and Stevie, even if your figures were correct, that does not mean all homosexuals are pedophiles. Perhaps if you had paid attention in math class in middle school, you would know this.

Oh, and by your logic, white males are serial killers. I mean, something like 99% of the serial killers in this country are white males, right?

Read it. Become educated.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Lesbian women should get preferential treatment over straight couples. Since they have a lower rate of abusing children than anyone.

 

[RealDave]

Adoption is much different than baking cakes. Apples and oranges.

"Apples and oranges"? Religious adoption and Christian bakery's aren't so different as they both fall under religious freedom and are therefore both fruit. It's also unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom but the left doesn't seem to understand that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What the left does understand, and that you don't seem to understand, is that the concept of religious freedom has been distorted, bastardized and weaponized by the religious right. It is only in recent history that it has become an excuse to discriminate.

Lol....just like the homos have weaponized the government against people of faith. Don't cry when your tactics backfire on you. And remember, your side has always been the aggressor...you wanted to change society and force people to accept your lifestyle...and when the people were asked to vote on fag 'marriage' in the States... You lost the vast majority of times.

That's true. If it had been left up to the individual states you'd still have a majority that would not allow gay marriage. Now I personally think under the Constitution gays have a right to live their lifestyle. That said I don't think gays have a right to ram their lifestyle down everybody's throat who doesn't approve anymore than I.E. Catholic's can insist you abide by the Pope and follow Catholic traditions and policy's. And yes LGBT for the most part it is a lifestyle and not something you're born with or biological. Very few of the LGBT are actually born gay. This is evidenced by the who they choose as partners. I.E.If a lesbian hooks up with a lesbian who looks like a man( and most of them that i've seen do) than obviously they don't have a problem being attracted to men. It's a sexual preference not a biological thing. You can't force someone to accept your sexual preference. This means that a good portion of the LGBT is sexual preference and forcing people to accept their lifestyle should be unconstitutional. Sex change is mostly a mental issue and again people should not be legally forced accept it anymore than you guys should be forced to abide by my diagnosed germaphobe obsessive cleaning OCD.

Nobody is 'born' to be homosexual. Tons of studies have been done, especially the twin studies that debunk the idea of one being born that way.

It doesn't even make sense to make the claim. Men and women are physiologically designed to compliment each other, to become companions.

Bullshit.

Trying to justify your racism & bigotry?

 

[SAYIT]

I agree, for the most part it's a sexual preference.

It's the preference of those who hold sexuality above everything else. People who are hedonistic.

Well this 66 yr old has noticed that guys who demean other's libido tend to be prudish (mama's boys), lack testosterone (mama's boys), and have pecker-inferiority issues (mama's boys).

And did I mention mama's boys?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What the left does understand, and that you don't seem to understand, is that the concept of religious freedom has been distorted, bastardized and weaponized by the religious right. It is only in recent history that it has become an excuse to discriminate.

Lol....just like the homos have weaponized the government against people of faith. Don't cry when your tactics backfire on you. And remember, your side has always been the aggressor...you wanted to change society and force people to accept your lifestyle...and when the people were asked to vote on fag 'marriage' in the States... You lost the vast majority of times.

That's true. If it had been left up to the individual states you'd still have a majority that would not allow gay marriage. Now I personally think under the Constitution gays have a right to live their lifestyle. That said I don't think gays have a right to ram their lifestyle down everybody's throat who doesn't approve anymore than I.E. Catholic's can insist you abide by the Pope and follow Catholic traditions and policy's. And yes LGBT for the most part it is a lifestyle and not something you're born with or biological. Very few of the LGBT are actually born gay. This is evidenced by the who they choose as partners. I.E.If a lesbian hooks up with a lesbian who looks like a man( and most of them that i've seen do) than obviously they don't have a problem being attracted to men. It's a sexual preference not a biological thing. You can't force someone to accept your sexual preference. This means that a good portion of the LGBT is sexual preference and forcing people to accept their lifestyle should be unconstitutional. Sex change is mostly a mental issue and again people should not be legally forced accept it anymore than you guys should be forced to abide by my diagnosed germaphobe obsessive cleaning OCD.

Nobody is 'born' to be homosexual. Tons of studies have been done, especially the twin studies that debunk the idea of one being born that way.

It doesn't even make sense to make the claim. Men and women are physiologically designed to compliment each other, to become companions.

I agree, for the most part it's a sexual preference.

It's the preference of those who hold sexuality above everything else. People who are hedonistic.

Why do you keep trying so hard to convince us that you are as stupid as a stone?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Why, exactly, is your right to freedom of association greater than another's right not to be discriminated against, demeaned and humiliated in places of public accommodation?

Because they can go where they're wanted if they wish. Nobody should be forced to be nice to people they consider undesirable.

There is no law forcing anyone - even you - to be nice to anyone. Either you are just trolling for shits and giggles or you have have become a whiny, sniveling, victim of your own making.

Wrong. You must be a troll or a completely uninformed imbecile.

 

[Dragonlady]

Now that is an interesting question. Should birth mothers be allow d to dictate by who and how their child will be raised when given up to adoption? You mentioned "responsible couples" in your post, but I doubt there are many responsible couples giving up kids for adoption. Having birth parents who were neither responsible or a couple is kinda how these babies ended up being adopted.

I would allow for input on religion and at least a lower middle class standard of living.
To be honest, I know quite a few adoptive parents who are more than dysfunctional but have good careers and nice homes.
You can be successful, yet irresponsible, or just downright evil.

Indeed they can. And that is not about religious beliefs or sexual orientation. There are plenty of horror stories about children being abused by "good christian" parents.

Only if the children have been infiltrated by Satan.

I would believe that you have been infiltrated by Satan, if I believed in Satan. Since I don't, I can only conclude that you are mentally ill.

You can't believe in Satan since you already are Satan. As a man of the holy faith who relishes on the word of God as well as his love, your words can't penetrate the superiority of my truth. I am truly an Aryan entity blessed by the Almighty!

You are NOT a righteous man of God. God loves Jews, blacks and Mexicans. God punishes those who don't follow Jesus' teachings. You must love all people of all religions and races.

Satan is in your racism, your hate and bigotry. You're screwed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Good thing you are not in government as you would be eroding constitutional rights of your fellow citizens.

I actually would be expanding freedom.

You are not expanding freedom if you are oppressing gay people, who enjoy the same rights as the rest of us do.

I would be expanding the freedom of association and disassociation. That is more freedom than we have currently.

Why, exactly, is your right to freedom of association greater than another's right not to be discriminated against, demeaned and humiliated in places of public accommodation?

Because they can go where they're wanted if they wish. Nobody should be forced to be nice to people they consider undesirable.

That does not answer the question I does not even make sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Liberty777]

I would have respected the faggots that serve a lot more if DADT stayed in place.

Anybody who wants to serve our country should be allowed to do so and Don't Ask, Don't Tell got some people discharged from the military for their sexuality even if they didn't tell.

Anyone to who identifies as their sexual preference is unfit for the military.

Says who? Says what? A hero is not exclusive to one race, one religion, one sex or one sexual orientation.

I fail to see how that is relevant as science shows that homosexuality is not a choice. People are born with it.

 

[SAYIT]

There is no law forcing anyone - even you - to be nice to anyone. Either you are just trolling for shits and giggles or you have have become a whiny, sniveling, victim of your own making.

Wrong. You must be a troll or a completely uninformed imbecile.

As already mentioned, there is no law forcing anyone - even you - to be nice to anyone. Evidently you feel oppressed by that which does not exist and your only response, lame as it is, is to lash out at those who notice it.

 

[SAYIT]

Because they can go where they're wanted if they wish. Nobody should be forced to be nice to people they consider undesirable.

That does not answer the question I does not even make sense.

Ironically, the same Straw Man methodology employed by Offensive to make himself the victim of non-existent laws requiring him to be nice to people he considers undesirable, has been used by you to create "the horror" of that you believe is being perpetrated upon our LGBT community. You are both a bit over-the-top.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Anybody who wants to serve our country should be allowed to do so and Don't Ask, Don't Tell got some people discharged from the military for their sexuality even if they didn't tell.

Anyone to who identifies as their sexual preference is unfit for the military.

Says who? Says what? A hero is not exclusive to one race, one religion, one sex or one sexual orientation.

I fail to see how that is relevant as science shows that homosexuality is not a choice. People are born with it.

Another troll who is heavily invested in the idea that homosexuality is a choice, thinking that if they can convince others, it will justify the bigotry and discrimination,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Because they can go where they're wanted if they wish. Nobody should be forced to be nice to people they consider undesirable.

That does not answer the question I does not even make sense.

Ironically, the same Straw Man methodology employed by Offensive to make himself the victim of non-existent laws requiring him to be nice to people he considers undesirable, has been used by you to create "the horror" of that you believe is being perpetrated upon our LGBT community. You are both a bit over-the-top.

Think what you wish, but unlike Offensive, I have made my case with logic and facts, facts that are in plain sight for anyone not afraid to open their eyes.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

There is no law forcing anyone - even you - to be nice to anyone. Either you are just trolling for shits and giggles or you have have become a whiny, sniveling, victim of your own making.

Wrong. You must be a troll or a completely uninformed imbecile.

As already mentioned, there is no law forcing anyone - even you - to be nice to anyone. Evidently you feel oppressed by that which does not exist and your only response, lame as it is, is to lash out at those who notice it.

There are laws forcing people to deal with and be around people they have no desire to be around. If you don't know that, you're a retard.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

It's so good to see this conversation has been so civil and not degraded into a racist bigoted free for all.

IMHO If an organization is a Catholic adoption agency then they should place the kids with Catholic's, if Muslim then the kid should be placed with Muslims, if public than the kids should be placed with whatever family they can get. Unfortunate fact is if it goes to the SCOTUS( and it probably will) it will most likely be labeled discrimination and therefore unconstitutional due to the current climate in the USA. This of course could lead to less adoptions and more welfare mothers. I can see where someone might not want to give up a daughter if they knew that the adoptive family might be Muslim and force her to cover herself from head to toe just because she's a woman. A Jew might not want a Muslim family or a Muslim might not want a Jewish family and a Christian might not want an atheist family. Hell a Christian baker can't even turn down making a gay wedding cake so I have little hope that religious adoption agency's will be able to continue unobstructed on the grounds of religious freedom.

Adoption is much different than baking cakes. Apples and oranges.

"Apples and oranges"? Religious adoption and Christian bakery's aren't so different as they both fall under religious freedom and are therefore both fruit. It's also unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom but the left doesn't seem to understand that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I am on your side, I'm just saying they aren't moral equivalents. Baking a cake for a faggot wedding is a far cry from adopting a child.

Granted children are more important than cakes but they both still fall under religious freedom. The left however don't see it that way.

Where in Christianity does it say it is OK be be a racist, bigot or in general, to judge people?

The same book in the bible that idiots like you take out of context and claim it is an order not to judge.

"
Matthew 7:1-6New International Version (NIV)
Judging OthersA)" style="font-size: 0.9em; line-height: 22px; vertical-align: top;">
7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.B)" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; vertical-align: top;"> 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.C)" style="font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; vertical-align: top;">

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
"

In full context, this is an order to judge others righteously, not an order to not judge.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

"Apples and oranges"? Religious adoption and Christian bakery's aren't so different as they both fall under religious freedom and are therefore both fruit. It's also unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom but the left doesn't seem to understand that.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What the left does understand, and that you don't seem to understand, is that the concept of religious freedom has been distorted, bastardized and weaponized by the religious right. It is only in recent history that it has become an excuse to discriminate.

Lol....just like the homos have weaponized the government against people of faith. Don't cry when your tactics backfire on you. And remember, your side has always been the aggressor...you wanted to change society and force people to accept your lifestyle...and when the people were asked to vote on fag 'marriage' in the States... You lost the vast majority of times.

That's true. If it had been left up to the individual states you'd still have a majority that would not allow gay marriage. Now I personally think under the Constitution gays have a right to live their lifestyle. That said I don't think gays have a right to ram their lifestyle down everybody's throat who doesn't approve anymore than I.E. Catholic's can insist you abide by the Pope and follow Catholic traditions and policy's. And yes LGBT for the most part it is a lifestyle and not something you're born with or biological. Very few of the LGBT are actually born gay. This is evidenced by the who they choose as partners. I.E.If a lesbian hooks up with a lesbian who looks like a man( and most of them that i've seen do) than obviously they don't have a problem being attracted to men. It's a sexual preference not a biological thing. You can't force someone to accept your sexual preference. This means that a good portion of the LGBT is sexual preference and forcing people to accept their lifestyle should be unconstitutional. Sex change is mostly a mental issue and again people should not be legally forced accept it anymore than you guys should be forced to abide by my diagnosed germaphobe obsessive cleaning OCD.

Nobody is 'born' to be homosexual. Tons of studies have been done, especially the twin studies that debunk the idea of one being born that way.

It doesn't even make sense to make the claim. Men and women are physiologically designed to compliment each other, to become companions.

Bullshit.

Trying to justify your racism & bigotry?

There is nothing in that quote that is directed towards any race of people, dipshit. Try harder.

 

[SAYIT]

Ironically, the same Straw Man methodology employed by Offensive to make himself the victim of non-existent laws requiring him to be nice to people he considers undesirable, has been used by you to create "the horror" of that you believe is being perpetrated upon our LGBT community. You are both a bit over-the-top.

Think what you wish, but unlike Offensive, I have made my case with logic and facts, facts that are in plain sight for anyone not afraid to open their eyes.

I assure you Offensive believes the same about his case. Just because you believe in something, no matter how strongly, doesn't make it so.

As already mentioned, there is no law forcing anyone - even you - to be nice to anyone. Evidently you feel oppressed by that which does not exist and your only response, lame as it is, is to lash out at those who notice it.

There are laws forcing people to deal with and be around people they have no desire to be around. If you don't know that, you're a retard.

Once more for the Obdurate One:
You repeatedly claimed you are "forced to be nice to people" you "consider undesirable." I simply pointed out that it's just not true so you moved the goalposts. That's lame.

Not only that but your latest complaint - that you are by law forced "to deal with and be around people" you "have no desire to be around" is also BS. You are free to live in a cave or hide out in your mama's basement - which I suspect is already the case - and unless you consider her "undesirable" to be around," you will never have to deal with anyone you find "undesirable."

Ain't America grand!

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Ironically, the same Straw Man methodology employed by Offensive to make himself the victim of non-existent laws requiring him to be nice to people he considers undesirable, has been used by you to create "the horror" of that you believe is being perpetrated upon our LGBT community. You are both a bit over-the-top.

Think what you wish, but unlike Offensive, I have made my case with logic and facts, facts that are in plain sight for anyone not afraid to open their eyes.

I assure you Offensive believes the same about his case. Just because you believe in something, no matter how strongly, doesn't make it so.

As already mentioned, there is no law forcing anyone - even you - to be nice to anyone. Evidently you feel oppressed by that which does not exist and your only response, lame as it is, is to lash out at those who notice it.

There are laws forcing people to deal with and be around people they have no desire to be around. If you don't know that, you're a retard.

Once more for the Obdurate One:
You repeatedly claimed you are "forced to be nice to people" you "consider undesirable." I simply pointed out that it's just not true so you moved the goalposts. That's lame.

Not only that but your latest complaint - that you are by law forced "to deal with and be around people" you "have no desire to be around" is also BS. You are free to live in a cave or hide out in your mama's basement - which I suspect is already the case - and unless you consider her "undesirable" to be around," you will never have to deal with anyone you find "undesirable."

Ain't America grand!

I didn't move the goalposts, moron. You played dumb and now want to save face.

Any law enforced by the gun of the federal government or state government, which is ANY law on their books...is by definition force. Affirmative Action is force, Desegregation and forced accommodation are all examples of what I am talking about.

That you are too intellectually dishonest to admit it comes as no surprise to me. Your mind is like a child's.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is no law forcing anyone - even you - to be nice to anyone. Either you are just trolling for shits and giggles or you have have become a whiny, sniveling, victim of your own making.

Wrong. You must be a troll or a completely uninformed imbecile.

As already mentioned, there is no law forcing anyone - even you - to be nice to anyone. Evidently you feel oppressed by that which does not exist and your only response, lame as it is, is to lash out at those who notice it.

There are laws forcing people to deal with and be around people they have no desire to be around. If you don't know that, you're a retard.

There are laws that require all persons to be treated equally in places of public accommodation. Providing good and services is not "associating " with them. If the people whos job it is to provide those services are too immature or stupid to understand that distinction, they can get another job. No one is forcing them to do anything