"Friend of the LGBT"

[ceez]

So Trump the friend/ally ( I can't keep up with his lies anymore) of the LBGT community and his administration are pushing the supreme court to allow adoption agencies to reject lgbt people for religious beliefs. There was a meme I saw that I would love to share if I could find it showing Obama being called the antichrist and Trump who was "sent by god".

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2020/06/...-families/

[InbetweenDreams]

Well this one will do...

[kindy64]

Very narrow reading of that you know.

Not all adoption agencies, just agencies started on and operated under religious principles.

[InbetweenDreams]

Correct @"kindy64" , not all of them. The majority of adoption agencies are faith based, such as Bethany Christian Services. Now, I think it is great that Christians or any other religious group wants to help kids. I can though tell you that whether it is getting a wedding cake or adopting a child using one's religion to discriminate against same sex couples is absolute bullshit.

[kindy64]

Correct @"kindy64" , not all of them. The majority of adoption agencies are faith based, such as Bethany Christian Services. Now, I think it is great that Christians or any other religious group wants to help kids. I can though tell you that whether it is getting a wedding cake or adopting a child using one's religion to discriminate against same sex couples is absolute bullshit.

I do not know that a majority of adoption agencies are faith based. My ex-wife and I went through our state agency to adopt our son, we were given a pretty extensive list of service providers for education and certification.

This is an interesting case, a Catholic mother was rejected from a Protestant adoption/foster agency. 

I think, a particular thorny issue for the agency ought to be that it's "state funded."  If the state is funding it (or a majority of it,) then it should be open to all, employees, volunteers and prospective foster/adoptive parents. If it is a privately funded religious based agency, then I am more apt to agree that they can have more religiously guided practices.

************

We often want to enact laws which restrict others because we find their thoughts/actions to be counter to our own in deeply profound ways. But a government that can restrict such stuff by decree can just as easily enact laws against you.

Should a Jewish baker or photographer be FORCED to service a white supremacist wedding?

Should a gay baker or photographer be FORCED to service an infamous anti-LGBT advocates wedding?


In any case, you are getting into freedom of conscious/thought issues, do you want the state to tell YOU what you can believe or not believe, or how you should act in accordance with those beliefs?

---

BTW here is a good background of the issue from the conservative side...

https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/r...ld-welfare

*****

PLEASE NOTE: I am FOR displaced children being fostered and adopted into loving caring families no matter what the sexual orientation of the parent or parents.

In a truly diverse society, differences of thought/opinion/faith must be accommodated in a reasonable manner.

[InbetweenDreams]

Correct @"kindy64" , not all of them. The majority of adoption agencies are faith based, such as Bethany Christian Services. Now, I think it is great that Christians or any other religious group wants to help kids. I can though tell you that whether it is getting a wedding cake or adopting a child using one's religion to discriminate against same sex couples is absolute bullshit.

I do not know that a majority of adoption agencies are faith based. My ex-wife and I went through our state agency to adopt our son, we were given a pretty extensive list of service providers for education and certification.

I probably should redact that. Upon further research I do not know for sure if there are more faith-based adoption agencies vs public/state adoption agencies. Can't seem to find any viable statistics.

This is an interesting case, a Catholic mother was rejected from a Protestant adoption/foster agency. 

I think, a particular thorny issue for the agency ought to be that it's "state funded."  If the state is funding it (or a majority of it,) then it should be open to all, employees, volunteers and prospective foster/adoptive parents. If it is a privately funded religious based agency, then I am more apt to agree that they can have more religiously guided practices.

It is indeed a thorny issue. The government's job is to make some guidelines, and while we can argue about what those guidelines ought to be and so on. I think we both agree for the most part that prospective parents should meet some guidelines. Shouldn't have a criminal record, should have a car, should steady income that can support a child, should be loving and able to care for a child. I think we can agree that if you're straight, gay, trans or whatever doesn't disqualify you from being a good parent, just as whether you believe in a God or not. So what business does a faith-based adoption agency have in rejecting someone because of their faith? My religious beliefs, or the lack thereof, is offensive? It should be simple, foster care sucks, find kids good homes to live in. Religious grounds, sexual orientation, your skin color, your ethnicity shouldn't have anything to do with it.

We often want to enact laws which restrict others because we find their thoughts/actions to be counter to our own in deeply profound ways. But a government that can restrict such stuff by decree can just as easily enact laws against you.

Should a Jewish baker or photographer be FORCED to service a white supremacist wedding?

Should a gay baker or photographer be FORCED to service an infamous anti-LGBT advocates wedding?

I know you're trying to make an analogy between the old gay couple is refused service buying a cake for their wedding. Here's the problem with it... The white supremacists do harm to people, being gay doesn't. Same goes with the anti-LGBT groups, they want to harm LGBT people in some manner, mainly rolling back same-sex marriage. Being gay, being atheist, being black, is not harmful to anyone. So yes, in that instance I think the Jewish baker and the gay baker can refuse service if they want.

In a similar manner, it's like no shirt, no shoes, no mask...no service. Not wearing a mask in public can be harmful during this pandemic. So yes, those businesses should be able to refuse service on those grounds.

I think I understand what you're getting at, but the examples aren't really counterweights to what the issue is. Being gay might offend some people but it doesn't harm them, someone who is a white supremacist is someone who harms people of color.

In any case, you are getting into freedom of conscious/thought issues, do you want the state to tell YOU what you can believe or not believe, or how you should act in accordance with those beliefs?

---

BTW here is a good background of the issue from the conservative side...

https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/r...ld-welfare

*****

PLEASE NOTE: I am FOR displaced children being fostered and adopted into loving caring families no matter what the sexual orientation of the parent or parents.

In a truly diverse society, differences of thought/opinion/faith must be accommodated in a reasonable manner.

I haven't read the article (must have added that since I started writing my response). Yeah, I realize we're getting into the nitty gritty, but the idea of this or any country being free is completely false. Freedom to do certain things, like actively discriminate against black people, gay people, on religious grounds are and should be limited as those positions quell the rights of those groups.

One, sort of, example is I honestly think if I stuck a BLM, LGBT, or a Joe Biden sticker on my car that I might find that might car has a broken window coming out of Wal-Mart...and is why I refuse to put political stickers on my car...I mean it's bad enough I drive a Prius around here...people get aggressive and tailgate and shit just because of that. How dare I stick a pride flag on my car...

edit: I guess the question this leads us to is whether our freedom should be limited and if so how and under what circumstance but then we're getting into some philosophical stuff that goes way beyond this thread.

[kindy64]

Well, the old Libertarian quote is "your right to swing your fist around ends before it gets to my nose." Your right to something are curbed when they interfere with the rights of others, and note, we do not have a right not to be offended.

The issues are complicated and I believe we should be resistant to using the government for solving every social issue that there is.

(NOTE: In the following, I'm not saying I agree with their arguments, just that I understand where they are coming from)

Beyond saying "the Bible says so," some people do believe that being homosexual is a harm to yourself and society. They can point to statistics showing disparate outcomes for disease, suicide, abuse, etc. So, in their own way, they are trying to protect individuals, families and society from this potential harm.

Having grown up in a very liberal denomination, the view of the Bible is slightly different. The Bible in it's original form (Aramaic) was the divine word of God. Everything after that is subject to interpretation by religious scholars we hope were/are "inspired by the word of God."

Look at several different translations of the Bible and you can not many differences, some which are pretty glaring.

"Thou shalt not kill" versus "Thou shalt not murder" is a one big example that I know of.

So, here's an interesting site for anyone who wants some "ammo" for arguing with bigots of a religious nature.

https://www.stopbibleabuse.org/

And FYI there are plenty of people on the left who will vandalize a car, home or business because they are displaying Republican sided bumper stickers/signs. Radicalism and hate aren't confined to one quadrant of the political spectrum.