Jump to content

Alabama will allow adoption agencies to discriminate against LGBT couples


Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Agreed!  Well except for the factual bit, for which I'd like to see a quote.

But on the other hand, who needs the words of Jesus when we have modern day, Christian homophobes to explain what he thought?

I'm far from a biblical expert but Romans 1:26-27 seems to be an exhortation against extraordinary sexual acts. Romans is a New Testament book FYI. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply
11 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

I'm far from a biblical expert but Romans 1:26-27 seems to be an exhortation against extraordinary sexual acts. Romans is a New Testament book FYI. 

Is it in "red"?

But thanks for acknowleging this law is based on a religious belief which clearly makes it unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

I'm far from a biblical expert but Romans 1:26-27 seems to be an exhortation against extraordinary sexual acts. Romans is a New Testament book FYI. 

Also read Genesis 19: 4-6 where homosexuality is referred to as wickedness (one Webster Dictionary synonym for this word is devilry.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Is it in "red"?

But thanks for acknowleging this law is based on a religious belief which clearly makes it unconstitutional.

Okay 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Is it in "red"?

But thanks for acknowleging this law is based on a religious belief which clearly makes it unconstitutional.

Except they aren't the spokespeople for it and there are valid non-religious reasons to favor households with two parents (a mother and a father) in them over other possible arrangements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though this may sound adversarial, I don't mean it to be. Question, does a private business, which many agencies are, have the privilege to operate their business according to their personal beliefs? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, aubearcat said:

Even though this may sound adversarial, I don't mean it to be. Question, does a private business, which many agencies are, have the privilege to operate their business according to their personal beliefs? 

No they do not.

This is a free country, the free-est country EVER, which means you are not free to refuse service to someone. You must offer your services to anyone if you want to (legally) stay in business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

Show us the part where Jesus said homosexuals were not worthy of adopting an orphan.  

I missed that part.

You might... I'm not sure, ..but maybe.

 

You might be falling into a slippery slope of literal translations Homer. Did Jesus ever say NOT to murder all bubble yum chewers? Did Jesus ever say to praise any Juicy Fruit chewers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mims44 said:

No they do not.

This is a free country, the free-est country EVER, which means you are not free to refuse service to someone. You must offer your services to anyone if you want to (legally) stay in business.

I disagree with that premise. Adoption is not a vital service. People are not being denied services they need to live. There are also agencies that operate from a secular perspective that can be used. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, aubearcat said:

I disagree with that premise. Adoption is not a vital service. People are not being denied services they need to live. There are also agencies that operate from a secular perspective that can be used. 

I agree.  In this case, a good compromise would be for the couple to seek out a different agency.  It's similar to the proverbial wedding cake example.  

Also, to Titan's point, I agree that agencies that accept the responsibility of taking in orphans should be allowed a wide latitude of descretion in determining adoption criteria.  Although I do not necessarily agree that research is sufficient to rule out a whole class of people. Regardless, I think each case should be looked at individually.  For example there might be a single man or woman would would make a good adoptive parent.

But this is different.  This is a law promulgated by the state that specifically targets homosexuals.  

First, it's not necessary and secondly, how would you feel if the state singled you out as a class to be denied specific rights everyone else has.  You either believe homosexuals should enjoy equal rights as every other citizen or you don't.  This is a legal statute that specifically and arbitrarily denies them that equality.

The religious basis of the prejudice makes it doubly unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Mims44 said:

You might... I'm not sure, ..but maybe.

 

You might be falling into a slippery slope of literal translations Homer. Did Jesus ever say NOT to murder all bubble yum chewers? Did Jesus ever say to praise any Juicy Fruit chewers?

Well, maybe I am wrong, but my understanding of Jesus is that he would not condemn homosexuals for simply being who they are - or as God made them, if you prefer.

That understanding does not rely on Jesus having said as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Well, maybe I am wrong, but my understanding of Jesus is that he would not condemn homosexuals for simply being who they are - or as God made them, if you prefer.

That understanding does not rely on Jesus having said as such.

We're all "made sinners" is that's how you define "being who they are."  Doesn't mean He says, "it's all good, you're just sinning cuz you're a sinner."

Being born into a fallen world, with desires and tendencies that are off the mark from what God intends, directs, and desires for us is not a free pass to just keep on doing those things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

I agree.  In this case, a good compromise would be for the couple to seek out a different agency.  It's similar to the proverbial wedding cake example.  

Also, to Titan's point, I agree that agencies that accept the responsibility of taking in orphans should be allowed a wide latitude of descretion in determining adoption criteria.  Although I do not necessarily agree that research is sufficient to rule out a whole class of people. Regardless, I think each case should be looked at individually.  For example there might be a single man or woman would would make a good adoptive parent.

But this is different.  This is a law promulgated by the state that specifically targets homosexuals.  

First, it's not necessary and secondly, how would you feel if the state singled you out as a class to be denied specific rights everyone else has.  You either believe homosexuals should enjoy equal rights as every other citizen or you don't.  This is a legal statute that specifically and arbitrarily denies them that equality.

The religious basis of the prejudice makes it doubly unconstitutional.

To me it is not about the prospective parents or their rights. It's about what is best for the kids. It's non religious but 1. Mom and Dad is preferred. After that you have to make tough decisions. Single parent homes are not ideal. Neither are homes with two moms or two dads. But if they are not pedifiles, have means to support, are not flipped out crazy then they are better than orphanages or constant foster hopping.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

But this is different.  This is a law promulgated by the state that specifically targets homosexuals.  

First, it's not necessary and secondly, how would you feel if the state singled you out as a class to be denied specific rights everyone else has.  You either believe homosexuals should enjoy equal rights as every other citizen or you don't.  This is a legal statute that specifically and arbitrarily denies them that equality.

The religious basis of the prejudice makes it doubly unconstitutional.

 

Actually, the bill does not "specifically target" anyone.  Here is the text of the bill:

Quote

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF ALABAMA:

Section 1. This act may be cited as the Alabama Child Placing Agency Inclusion Act. Section 2. The Legislature finds all of the following:

(1) Alabama provides state licensed child placing services through various state, charitable, religious, and private organizations.

(2) Religious organizations, in particular, have a lengthy and distinguished history of providing child placing services that predate government involvement.

(3) Religious organizations have long been licensed and should continue to contract with and be licensed by the state to provide child placing services.

(4) The faith of the people of the United States has always played a vital role in efforts to serve the most vulnerable, and this act seeks to ensure that people of any faith, or no faith at all, are free to serve children and families who are in need in ways consistent with the communities that first inspired their service.

(5) Religious organizations display particular excellence when providing child placing services.

(6) Religious organizations cannot provide certain child placing services without receiving a state license.

(7) Child placing agencies, both individuals and organizations, have the inherent, fundamental, and inalienable right to free exercise of religion protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(8) The Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment, Amendment 622 to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section 3.01 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended, protects the free exercise of religious rights of Alabama citizens by prohibiting the government from burdening the freedom of religion of a person unless the burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is done in the least restrictive means.

(9) The right to free exercise of religion for child placing agencies includes the freedom to refrain from conduct that conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs.

(10) Children and families benefit greatly from the child placing services provided by religious organizations.

(11) Ensuring that religious organizations can continue to provide child placing services will benefit the children and families that receive those services.

(12) The state provides child placing services through individual licensed child placing agencies with varying religious beliefs.

(13) Because state and private entities provide child placing services through many entities, each with varying religious beliefs or no religious beliefs, the religiously compelled inability of the entities to provide child placement will not prevent any particular individual from alternative equal access to child placing services.

(14) There is no compelling reason to require a child placing agency to violate its sincerely held religious beliefs in providing any service, since alternative access to the services is equally available.

(15) This act implements remedial measures that are congruent and proportional to protecting the constitutional rights of child placing agencies guaranteed under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

(2) CHILD PLACING AGENCY. A private child-care facility which receives no federal funds and which receives, places, or arranges for the placement of any child or children in adoptive or foster family homes apart from the custody of the child's or children's parents, in accordance with the Alabama Child Care Act of 1971, Chapter 7, Title 38, Code of Alabama 1975.

(1) To prohibit governmental entities from discriminating or taking an adverse action against a child placing agency on the basis that the agency declines to make a child placement that conflicts, or under circumstances that conflict, with the sincerely held religious beliefs of the agency, provided the agency is otherwise in compliance with Minimum Standards for Child Placing Agencies.

(b) If a child placing agency under subsection (a) declines to make, provide, facilitate, or refer for a child placement, the decision of the child placing agency may not limit the ability of another child placing agency to make, provide, facilitate, or refer for the placement.

Section 6. Child placing agencies shall otherwise meet the Minimum Standards for Child Placing Agencies required for child placement, pursuant to the Alabama Child Care Act of 1971, Chapter 7, Title 38, Code of Alabama 1975.

Section 7. A child placing agency injured by a violation of subsection (a) of Section 5 may obtain all appropriate relief provided by the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act. In addition to the remedies provided therein, an aggrieved agency shall be entitled to all rights, remedies, and defenses available to it under the First Amendment Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the United States Constitution and The Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment, Amendment 622 to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, now appearing as Section

3.01 of the Official Recompilation of the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, as amended.

Section 8. This act shall become effective immediately following its passage and approval by the Governor, or its otherwise becoming law.

 

As you can see from the bill itself, it "specifically" targets no one.  The only thing it specifically does is what you said the state actually should do...give agencies wide latitude in determining adoption criteria.  Now, for some religious adoption agencies, that may result in them choosing to seek out households that are stable, two-parent households with a mother and a father present.  It may mean they do not seek out single people, couples in long term relationships who are not married, or LBGT couples.  But that is not the same thing as singling out someone or a particular group.  And the law specifically does not exclude any of the above mentioned groups from adopting through other non-religious private agencies or directly through the state adoption agency, so no one's rights are being denied.  They simply cannot force religious adoption agencies to violate their beliefs.  This bill actually preserves the rights of both sides rather than denying one's side's rights in favor of the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

 

Actually, the bill does not "specifically target" anyone.  Here is the text of the bill:

 

As you can see from the bill itself, it "specifically" targets no one.  The only thing it specifically does is what you said the state actually should do...give agencies wide latitude in determining adoption criteria.  Now, for some religious adoption agencies, that may result in them choosing to seek out households that are stable, two-parent households with a mother and a father present.  It may mean they do not seek out single people, couples in long term relationships who are not married, or LBGT couples.  But that is not the same thing as singling out someone or a particular group.  And the law specifically does not exclude any of the above mentioned groups from adopting through other non-religious private agencies or directly through the state adoption agency, so no one's rights are being denied.  They simply cannot force religious adoption agencies to violate their beliefs.  This bill actually preserves the rights of both sides rather than denying one's side's rights in favor of the other.

Oh come on Titan.   Everyone knows the target of this bill.

Why was it felt it was needed in the first place?  What was the threat to "religious freedom" if not gays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, homersapien said:

Oh come on Titan.   Everyone knows the target of this bill.

Why was it felt it was needed in the first place?  What was the threat to "religious freedom" if not gays?

You said it "specifically targeted" them and took away their rights.  The bill doesn't target anyone, but allows religious adoption agencies to retain the very discretion you said they should have.  Nothing in the bill prevents anyone from adopting through state or other private agencies.  All it means is that one group of people cannot coerce or force another to act in a certain manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2017 at 0:39 PM, TitanTiger said:

We're all "made sinners" is that's how you define "being who they are."  Doesn't mean He says, "it's all good, you're just sinning cuz you're a sinner."

Being born into a fallen world, with desires and tendencies that are off the mark from what God intends, directs, and desires for us is not a free pass to just keep on doing those things.

There are homosexuals who are devout Christians.

Maybe Jesus or anyone else of that time period didn't understand that homosexuality was a natural condition, but we know better today.  And that's the point.  While we may all be sinners, homosexualty is not a sin.

But like I said, I don't mind if "Christians" call homosexuality a sin. It simply reflects their mind.  The more they advertise it, the better for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, homersapien said:

There are homosexuals who are devout Christians.

So?

 

Just now, homersapien said:

Maybe Jesus or anyone else of that time period didn't understand that homosexuality was a natural condition, but we know better today.  And that's the point.  While we may all be sinners, homosexualty is not a sin.

You're welcome to believe that and run your business accordingly.

 

Just now, homersapien said:

But like I said, I don't mind if "Christians" call homosexuality a sin. It simply reflects their mind.  The more they advertise it, the better for everyone.

Then we're in agreement on this matter?  The bill wasn't targeting anyone or taking away their rights.  It was addressing an issue that was unclear under previous law and brokering a compromise that allowed both sides of the issue to retain their respective rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You said it "specifically targeted" them and took away their rights.  The bill doesn't target anyone, but allows religious adoption agencies to retain the very discretion you said they should have.  Nothing in the bill prevents anyone from adopting through state or other private agencies.  All it means is that one group of people cannot coerce or force another to act in a certain manner.

You are correct about my statement.  It doesn't specifically target homosexuals.  After all, that would have been blatently controversial.

And was there an actual case of anyone "coercing" an agency to act according to their will?

This was clearly a preemptive law written with homosexuals in mind.  Of course, it could also include mixed faith couples, single parents, divorced people.  

Again, I don't think such agencies should be forced to place children in harmful situations but this legislation simply grants agencies the legal license to act in their own interest instead of the orphans.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/alabama/articles/2017-05-03/ivey-signs-bill-letting-adoption-groups-turn-away-gays

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

So?

 

You're welcome to believe that and run your business accordingly.

 

Then we're in agreement on this matter?  The bill wasn't targeting anyone or taking away their rights.  It was addressing an issue that was unclear under previous law and brokering a compromise that allowed both sides of the issue to retain their respective rights.

I still am struck by the irony of Christian organizations to act in such a un Christ-like manner.  Such hypocrisy is just one of the reasons I left the Church.

If there was a problem to begin with, it should have been addressed on an individual basis in the legal system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, homersapien said:

And was there an actual case of anyone "coercing" an agency to act according to their will?

Yes.  Massachusetts went the opposite way and enacted laws that forced religious adoption agencies such as Catholic Charities to facilitate adoptions that violated their religious beliefs and removed from them the discretion to seek families they felt were the best possible homes for adoptive children.  Same thing happened in Washington DC.  Alabama lawmakers and religious adoption agencies could see the writing on the wall.

 

Just now, homersapien said:

This was clearly a preemptive law written with homosexuals in mind.  Of course, it could also include mixed faith couples, single parents, divorced people.  

Given how things went down in Massachusetts, DC and other states, they likely were considering how LBGT couples would approach things here eventually.  But it does also apply to other households that a religious agency may feel is not the best situation for adoptive children such as unmarried couples, single parents, etc.

 

Just now, homersapien said:

Again, I don't think such agencies should be forced to place children in harmful situations but this legislation simply grants agencies the legal license to act in their own interest instead of the orphans.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/alabama/articles/2017-05-03/ivey-signs-bill-letting-adoption-groups-turn-away-gays

It gives them the right to continue facilitating adoptions in the manner they have been doing very well for decades.  Nothing has changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

So?

(In response to Many homosexuals are devout Christians)

So if everyone who is Christian is born into sin, what makes their sins any different from a hetereosexual couple?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

I still am struck by the irony of Christian organizations to act in such a un Christ-like manner.  Such hypocrisy is just one of the reasons I left the Church.

If there was a problem to begin with, it should have been addressed on an individual basis in the legal system.

Says you.  Just because you deem it un-Christlike doesn't make it so.  If based on the years or decades of experience they have in adoption, and the research into the advantages of stable, loving, two-parent homes with a mother and father present that shows kids are better off in such situations, they have chosen to work to make such homes the focus of every adoption they facilitate.  That's not unloving or un-Christlike, especially to the children involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So if everyone who is Christian is born into sin, what makes their sins any different from a hetereosexual couple?

Well, generally speaking, one difference is that most of those Christians who sinning are not advocating for their sins to be ignored or deemed acceptable.  They are repenting of their sins and doing their best not to continue committing them going forward.  That's the definition of repent in the first place:  to turn away from something and walk in the other direction.  It's one thing for us all to understand we are sinners, but work through the process of giving those things up, accepting accountability, and striving to release the sinful habits and behaviors.  It's a whole other thing to just decide that our particular sin shouldn't be called sin anymore and demand that the Scriptures and 2000 years of church teaching be bent to fit our new paradigm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, generally speaking, one difference is that most of those Christians who sin are not advocating for their sins to be ignored or deemed acceptable.  They are repenting of their sins and doing their best not to continue committing them going forward.  That's the definition of repent in the first place:  to turn away from something and walk in the other direction.  It's one thing for us all to understand we are sinners, but work through the process of giving those things up, accepting accountability, and striving to release the sinful habits and behaviors.  It's a whole other thing to just decide that our particular sin shouldn't be called sin anymore and demand that the Scriptures and 2000 years of church teaching be bent to fit our new paradigm.

And there we have it. 

I feel homosexuals are so because that's the way they were born.  You feel homosexuality is a sinful decision.  

I think the science supports my view, but I don't really want to spend any time trying to prove it.    Been there, done that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...