Jump to content

Alabama will allow adoption agencies to discriminate against LGBT couples


Recommended Posts

Just now, homersapien said:

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.  

It doesn't matter.  Not only does it not matter whether they're born that way or not, it doesn't matter that you feel differently.  You're welcome to your opinion.  We both are.  The point is, your or anyone else's opinion shouldn't be able to force someone who disagrees to violate their conscience and beliefs on the issue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It doesn't matter.  Not only does it not matter whether they're born that way or not, it doesn't matter that you feel differently.  You're welcome to your opinion.  We both are.  The point is, your or anyone else's opinion shouldn't be able to force someone who disagrees to violate their conscience and beliefs on the issue.  

Well, I can understand why a religious person would say it doesn't matter.  

Religious belief and scientific truth have always been in contention.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, I can understand why a religious person would say it doesn't matter.  

Religious belief and scientific truth have always been in contention.    

It doesn't matter because the scientific and religious realms on this issue aren't overlapping, not because Christianity is 'anti-science.'  Science may also prove that I have a sex drive that is naturally bent against monogamy.  But that doesn't change anything in terms of how I am expected to express my sexuality as a Christian.  Science does not dictate morality.  It simply doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 0:15 PM, PUB78 said:

Homosexuality is not Christ like and against the Scriptures. 

For a man that spent a lot of the time in the "wilderness" alone with nothing but men, I'm thinking that homosexuality may be very Christ like. Might be why new testament scripture is so quite on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It doesn't matter because the scientific and religious realms on this issue aren't overlapping, not because Christianity is 'anti-science.'  Science may also prove that I have a sex drive that is naturally bent against monogamy.  But that doesn't change anything in terms of how I am expected to express my sexuality as a Christian.  Science does not dictate morality.  It simply doesn't matter.

I get that we can all have different moral beliefs and religious beliefs but what about a constitutional belief? Are we ignoring the big question? Is it legal for religious based entities to discriminate against gays and lesbian in business practices? if so, where does that stop? Would we be having the same discussion if religious based agencies were granted the right not to issue adoptions to black couples or Muslim couples? It seems this country has turned the corner on realizing that religious entities doing business can't discriminate based upon race or religious belief, but we are still tolerate of allowing sexuality based discrimination in practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, shabby said:

I get that we can all have different moral beliefs and religious beliefs but what about a constitutional belief? Are we ignoring the big question? Is it legal for religious based entities to discriminate against gays and lesbian in business practices? if so, where does that stop? Would we be having the same discussion if religious based agencies were granted the right not to issue adoptions to black couples or Muslim couples? It seems this country has turned the corner on realizing that religious entities doing business can't discriminate based upon race or religious belief, but we are still tolerate of allowing sexuality based discrimination in practices.

There are so many things to unpack there, including the automatic assumption that sexuality and race are to be equated.  Not even all gay people would subscribe to such a notion.  But putting that aside for the moment, the issue is that you have two competing constitutional claims.  The difference in remedies is, one strips one side of their rights in order to give the other side the fullest extent of theirs possible.  But this solution actually preserves the rights of both.  The LBGT couple, the single parent, the unmarried couple, can still pursue adoption through state agencies or other private agencies.  And the religious agency can continue to operate in a manner consistent with their ethics and beliefs - which are part and parcel to what they do, not some ancillary bolt-on to be discarded on a whim.

The most basic essence of liberty is not the freedom to do something unfettered.  It is the freedom NOT to do something - freedom from coercion and force by the state or anyone else.  If you take away that freedom from someone, then liberty is truly meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

There are so many things to unpack there, including the automatic assumption that sexuality and race are to be equated.  Not even all gay people would subscribe to such a notion.  But putting that aside for the moment, the issue is that you have two competing constitutional claims.  The difference in remedies is, one strips one side of their rights in order to give the other side the fullest extent of theirs possible.  But this solution actually preserves the rights of both.  The LBGT couple, the single parent, the unmarried couple, can still pursue adoption through state agencies or other private agencies.  And the religious agency can continue to operate in a manner consistent with their ethics and beliefs - which are part and parcel to what they do, not some ancillary bolt-on to be discarded on a whim.

The most basic essence of liberty is not the freedom to do something unfettered.  It is the freedom NOT to do something - freedom from coercion and force by the state or anyone else.  If you take away that freedom from someone, then liberty is truly meaningless.

But again, I have to ask, would you ascribe to this same viewpoint if the law allowed for discrimination of adoption by black couples? I'm baffled by those that see discrimination of one class as unacceptable but seem tolerant of it when done to another. Listen, I deliberately quoted you because I disagree with many stances you take but you have a respectable / logical way of arguing / debating with facts. It seems here that your are noting that one is a form of discrimination and the other is not. I'm just seeking to find out where you stand on that. Do you believe business can discriminate against couples based upon race. If not, what makes it different for you when it comes to sexuality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, shabby said:

But again, I have to ask, would you ascribe to this same viewpoint if the law allowed for discrimination of adoption by black couples?

And again I'd ask, why do you automatically assume that race and sexuality are to be equated?

 

Just now, shabby said:

I'm baffled by those that see discrimination or one class as unacceptable but seem tolerant of it when done to another. Listen, I deliberately quoted you because I disagree with many stances you take but you have a respectable way of arguing / debating with facts. It seems here that your are noting that one is a form of discrimination and the other is not. I'm just seeking to find out where you stand on that. Do you believe business can discriminate against couples based upon race. If not, what makes it different for you when it comes to sexuality?

I don't think they should be able to discriminate based on race for a few reasons.

1.  I don't believe race and sexuality are the same thing or the same order of thing.  

2.  I don't believe anyone would be able to make a credible claim that refusing to allow any black families to adopt a child is somehow a sincere religious belief.  It certainly couldn't be made under Christianity.

The bottom line is, there is a deep and sincere disagreement on sexuality in this country and it doesn't just apply to LBGT people.  Since the Sexual Revolution there has been a rift opened up between various segments of our society on this matter.  Now, it is one thing to argue that those who hold to a traditional, Judeo-Christian sexual ethic should not be able to dictate to people who disagree how to live their lives:  who they have sex with, who they live with, etc.  But it is a whole other thing to say that the latter group's freedom to express their own sexuality (whether homo or hetero) should then force the former group to act against their beliefs.  It is one thing to passively allow one other to coexist and leave each other be.  But to force religious adoption agencies to act in ways that violate long held and understood ethics on sexuality (and not just regarding LBGT people) when deciding on the best homes to place adoptive children is simply doing the reverse of what you claimed shouldn't happen - dictating to others how they live their lives.  In other words, "it's not enough to just let me live my life, you now have to alter how you live your life to accommodate me."  I don't think that's fair, nor is it necessary.  There are solutions to these problems where we can basically tell each side, "You get to retain your beliefs and how you live those out but neither of your get to take away the other's rights."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sexuality and "race" come from exactly the same place.  That is what makes them comparable.

In fact, there was a time in this country that racial discrimination was justified on the basis of religion just as homosexuality is today.

And I think the notion of homosexuals "forcing" others to accept homosexuality as a natural condition is over-stated.  We are all "forced" to act in a way that accepts the constitutional and human rights of others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

1.  I don't believe race and sexuality are the same thing or the same order of thing.

 

I think he was asking for clarification on that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Sexuality and "race" come from exactly the same place.  That is what makes them comparable.

Not really.  They are different in important ways.

While race implies nothing about one’s actions, sexual orientation and gender identity are frequently descriptions for one’s actions (particularly in this context since in discussing gay married couples we are not talking about people who identify as gay but have chosen celibacy).  There is nothing about the union of a black man and a black woman that is materially different in nature than the union of a white man and white woman.  

 

Quote

In fact, there was a time in this country that racial discrimination was justified on the basis of religion just as homosexuality is today.

Not exactly if you understand history.  Interracial marriage bans and the kind of racial discrimination that one might try to equate here have not always been part of Christianity.  They were an aberration in Christian history.  Christians did not argue for such bans or discrimination in the early church or for centuries after.  Their real rise began in the American colonies and were a departure from historical Christian understanding.

But the Christian sexual ethic on marriage and on same sex sexual relations has been remarkably consistent until about the day before yesterday. 

 

Quote

And I think the notion of homosexuals "forcing" others to accept homosexuality as a natural condition is over-stated.  We are all "forced" to act in a way that accepts the constitutional and human rights of others.

And when the Christian adoption agency chooses to focus on adoptive families with a mother and a father in the home, they are not denying them those rights.  They can still secure adoptions through state and other private agencies.  When that is how this works, both sides (in the way you're stating it) are "forced" to accept the constitutional rights and human rights of others.  If you compel the religious agencies to act against their conscience and beliefs, you are choosing to only uphold one side's rights.  And like it or not, they both have rights.  The religious organizations/individuals rights are enshrined in the First Amendment in fact.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And again I'd ask, why do you automatically assume that race and sexuality are to be equated?

Because I'm Gay and I don't distinguish between types of discrimination. If you treat a class differently, does it matter the criteria that qualifies them for that class. if you faced discrimination growing up (not having the right to marry was huge to me) then you would probably be less likely to see the differences.

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

I don't think they should be able to discriminate based on race for a few reasons.

1.  I don't believe race and sexuality are the same thing or the same order of thing.  

2.  I don't believe anyone would be able to make a credible claim that refusing to allow any black families to adopt a child is somehow a sincere religious belief.  It certainly couldn't be made under Christianity.

The bottom line is, there is a deep and sincere disagreement on sexuality in this country and it doesn't just apply to LBGT people.  Since the Sexual Revolution there has been a rift opened up between various segments of our society on this matter.  Now, it is one thing to argue that those who hold to a traditional, Judeo-Christian sexual ethic should not be able to dictate to people who disagree how to live their lives:  who they have sex with, who they live with, etc.  But it is a whole other thing to say that the latter group's freedom to express their own sexuality (whether homo or hetero) should then force the former group to act against their beliefs.  It is one thing to passively allow one other to coexist and leave each other be.  But to force religious adoption agencies to act in ways that violate long held and understood ethics on sexuality (and not just regarding LBGT people) when deciding on the best homes to place adoptive children is simply doing the reverse of what you claimed shouldn't happen - dictating to others how they live their lives.  In other words, "it's not enough to just let me live my life, you now have to alter how you live your life to accommodate me."  I don't think that's fair, nor is it necessary.  There are solutions to these problems where we can basically tell each side, "You get to retain your beliefs and how you live those out but neither of your get to take away the other's rights."

 

These arguments are matter of opinions. not sure why opinion should dictate human rights. needless to say I disagree with both points one and two. First, people made what they viewed as credible religious reasons for racial discrimination in the past. which brings me to point two. In our changing society, do you really believe that 20 years from now people will look at religious discrimination against gays any differently than they we do today when we look at past religious justification for racial discrimination. Why can't we just state that we are against all forms of discrimination. You state:  "The most basic essence of liberty is not the freedom to do something unfettered.  It is the freedom NOT to do something - freedom from coercion and force by the state or anyone else.  If you take away that freedom from someone, then liberty is truly meaningless" doesn't that point get rendered meaningless by your stance that people shouldn't be allowed to racially discriminate based upon religious belief (faulty or otherwise). you're placing a justifaction on that. A criteria that states the religious objection must be credible. Who determines credibility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shabby said:

Because I'm Gay and I don't distinguish between types of discrimination. If you treat a class differently, does it matter the criteria that qualifies them for that class. if you faced discrimination growing up (not having the right to marry was huge to me) then you would probably be less likely to see the differences.

These arguments are matter of opinions. not sure why opinion should dictate human rights. needless to say I disagree with both points one and two. First, people made what they viewed as credible religious reasons for racial discrimination in the past. which brings me to point two. In our changing society, do you really believe that 20 years from now people will look at religious discrimination against gays any differently than they we do today when we look at past religious justification for racial discrimination. Why can't we just state that we are against all forms of discrimination. You state:  "The most basic essence of liberty is not the freedom to do something unfettered.  It is the freedom NOT to do something - freedom from coercion and force by the state or anyone else.  If you take away that freedom from someone, then liberty is truly meaningless" doesn't that point get rendered meaningless by your stance that people shouldn't be allowed to racially discriminate based upon religious belief (faulty or otherwise). you're placing a justifaction on that. A criteria that states the religious objection must be credible. Who determines credibility?

No, I really don't.  Even in our days of segregation and Jim Crow, the argument wasn't that it was morally wrong for black people to be black, or to marry other blacks, or to have sex with each other.  It was an aberration first of all and secondly, it wasn't a moral argument - it was one that was more in line with eugenics and biology:  that blacks were somehow an inferior race or not even fully human.  For some time they were property, and then they were simply a race of people to be subjugated to the intellectually superior white race.  There might have been all sorts of other justifications glommed on to it later, but at it's base that's what it was about.

There's nothing intrinsic to adoption or the concept of the family that makes a black or HIspanic couple different from a white one.  But even from a completely non-religious, research-based approach that simply says, "If at all possible, we should seek to place adoptive children into stable, loving homes with both a mother and father present.  A child has the right to a mom and a dad and men/women - dads/moms are not interchangeable parts, it makes reasonable sense to treat potential homes other than that differently.  And it certainly makes sense from a Christian perspective.

And to be clear, I'm talking about narrow and pertinent exceptions for religious freedom here.  No one is arguing to refuse to serve gays in a restaurant or sell them a birthday cake in a bakery.  If someone tries to use religion to say they shouldn't have to sell or interact with gay (or black, or Hispanic) people AT ALL for any reason, that is wrong and should be illegal.  But anyone should be able to refuse to accept business or to facilitate actions with which they have a sincere, pertinent, and reasonably documented religious objection to being part of.  As I've said before, if a photographer refused to do a photo shoot to promote an album from a black rap artist because the artist's lyrics were full of vulgarity, sexual references, violence and misogyny, they are discriminating - but it isn't because the artist is black.  It's not a racial issue.  It's a content issue.  It's the actions or the activity with which you are asking them to materially participate in.  That same photographer shouldn't be able to refuse to take a family photo of the rapper and his wife because there's no moral or religious conflict over such a thing.  I don't see refusing to use one's time, talents and abilities to participate in certain actions or events that gay people wish to do any differently.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, I really don't.  Even in our days of segregation and Jim Crow, the argument wasn't that it was morally wrong for black people to be black, or to marry other blacks, or to have sex with each other.  It was an aberration first of all and secondly, it wasn't a moral argument - it was one that was more in line with eugenics and biology:  that blacks were somehow an inferior race or not even fully human.  For some time they were property, and then they were simply a race of people to be subjugated to the intellectually superior white race.  There might have been all sorts of other justifications glommed on to it later, but at it's base that's what it was about.

There's nothing intrinsic to adoption or the concept of the family that makes a black or HIspanic couple different from a white one.  But even from a completely non-religious, research-based approach that simply says, "If at all possible, we should seek to place adoptive children into stable, loving homes with both a mother and father present.  A child has the right to a mom and a dad and men/women - dads/moms are not interchangeable parts, it makes reasonable sense to treat potential homes other than that differently.  And it certainly makes sense from a Christian perspective.

And to be clear, I'm talking about narrow and pertinent exceptions for religious freedom here.  No one is arguing to refuse to serve gays in a restaurant or sell them a birthday cake in a bakery.  If someone tries to use religion to say they shouldn't have to sell or interact with gay (or black, or Hispanic) people AT ALL for any reason, that is wrong and should be illegal.  But anyone should be able to refuse to accept business or to facilitate actions with which they have a sincere, pertinent, and reasonably documented religious objection to being part of.  As I've said before, if a photographer refused to do a photo shoot to promote an album from a black rap artist because the artist's lyrics were full of vulgarity, sexual references, violence and misogyny, they are discriminating - but it isn't because the artist is black.  It's not a racial issue.  It's a content issue.  It's the actions or the activity with which you are asking them to materially participate in.  That same photographer shouldn't be able to refuse to take a family photo of the rapper and his wife because there's no moral or religious conflict over such a thing.  I don't see refusing to use one's time, talents and abilities to participate in certain actions or events that gay people wish to do any differently.  

science really isnt settled as you claim on the benefits of heterosexual vs homosexual adoptions. not even close. take a look at all the quantified resear h studies here. you can't possibly make that claim. I'm glad we can all eat cake though......

http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shabby, the preponderance of the studies on the subject say over and again that the best situations for children are two-parent homes with a mother and father both in the home.  Men are not the same as women.  Mothers are not the same as fathers.  They both bring unique, needed and indispensable things to a child's life.  That's not to say that a single parent that provides a stable home isn't better than a chaotic two-parent household.  But all other things being equal, the best situation is a mother and a father.  Children have a right to that.  They aren't things to provide fulfillment for adults, they are people and they deserve not just a home, but the best home we can give them.  

As I said before, there may be times where any stable home is better than the alternatives they are facing, so less than ideal setups should be looked at then.  But a religious adoption agency that simply wants to help children to get the best homes they can get within the confines of their morals and ethics should be left to do that job.  They've been doing it well for decades.  There is no need to disrupt a working process to check some acceptance boxes for a subset of adults when there are numerous other avenues for those adults (whether they are single, LBGT, unmarried, whatever) to adopt children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

shabby, the preponderance of the studies on the subject say over and again that the best situations for children are two-parent homes with a mother and father both in the home.  Men are not the same as women.  Mothers are not the same as fathers.  They both bring unique, needed and indispensable things to a child's life.  That's not to say that a single parent that provides a stable home isn't better than a chaotic two-parent household.  But all other things being equal, the best situation is a mother and a father.  Children have a right to that.  They aren't things to provide fulfillment for adults, they are people and they deserve not just a home, but the best home we can give them.  

As I said before, there may be times where any stable home is better than the alternatives they are facing, so less than ideal setups should be looked at then.  But a religious adoption agency that simply wants to help children to get the best homes they can get within the confines of their morals and ethics should be left to do that job.  They've been doing it well for decades.  There is no need to disrupt a working process to check some acceptance boxes for a subset of adults when there are numerous other avenues for those adults (whether they are single, LBGT, unmarried, whatever) to adopt children.

You really need to cite your evidence for that.

Regardless, saying that a certain set of conditions is optimal is not the same as saying any other given set of conditions are unacceptable.   It would be optimal for all adoptive parents to be wealthy but that doesn't necessarily mean a middle class couple is unsuitable.

You also seem to be contradicting yourself by saying that gay couples have alternative sources for adoption.  Either they are fit to adopt or they aren't.

Again, this seems to be protecting the right of the religious to project their personal values while suboordinating the interests of the orphan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You really need to cite your evidence for that.

I'll gather a few for you.  They ain't hard to find but I'm a little tied up.

 

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You also seem to be contradicting yourself by saying that gay couples have alternative sources for adoption.  Either they are fit to adopt or they aren't.

According to the state, they are.  According to some private agencies, they aren't.  Likewise with single parents, unmarried hetero couples, etc.  Different states have different standards.  Different private agencies have different standards.  If one agency, due to their assessment of the research and their religious beliefs decides to focus solely on married couples with a mom and dad in the home, then that's their prerogative and we shouldn't force them to go against that when those other households have other options available to them.

 

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Again, this seems to be protecting the right of the religious to project their personal values while suboordinating the interests of the orphan.

No, it's called a compromise.  It manages to allow both the religious organization AND the LBGT couples to maintain their rights while still having avenues for the orphan to be adopted.  It may change which agency handles the adoption, but that's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, it's called a compromise.  It manages to allow both the religious organization AND the LBGT couples to maintain their rights while still having avenues for the orphan to be adopted.  It may change which agency handles the adoption, but that's about it.

Does the state really need to be  asserting itself to guarantee the right of the religious to discriminate against other civilians based only on a religious beliefs?  Is adoption a civil action or a religious one?

And again, what is the practical need for this law?  Was there a legal suit challenging the right of a religious group to discriminate thusly?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, homersapien said:

Does the state really need to be  asserting itself to guarantee the right of the religious to discriminate against other civilians based only on a religious beliefs?  Is adoption a civil action or a religious one?

And again, what is the practical need for this law?  Was there a legal suit challenging the right of a religious group to discriminate thusly?  

 

No.  The state needs to be asserting itself to guarantee the constitutional rights of the religious to have freedom of conscience and the liberties guaranteed to them against those who believe that their beliefs and rights should override everyone else's.  

And again, I already explained that this issue has been a problem in other states.  That Alabama legislators saw that our laws needed to head this off before it causes some organization to spend needless money on lawyers is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I'll gather a few for you.  They ain't hard to find but I'm a little tied up.

Titan, I just presented to you a quantification of every major peer referenced research study done on the matter and the vast majority counter your assertion. The vast majority support the fact that adopted children raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents has little bearing on the outcome of the well being of the child raised. You can always name a few studies that support your  belief. That's why it's important to look at the body of research.  if you actually Look at that  body of research (the studies are referenced in the prior linked article) it will be apparent that "science" supports gay adoption and it's not even close. 75 studies support gay adoption and 4 believe it harmful. Again, I ask how you can make the assertion (Twice) that heterosexual couples, according to research provide better support. It's simply flat out wrong. I also think it's ridiculous to oppose religious exemption on matters involving baking cakes (trivial) yet supporting religious based discrimination on fundamentally important issues like the ability to raise children through adoption.  If I'm gauging your responses right, you justify your support for religious exemption in one scenario because of the impact on children. If you review the research and the preponderance of studies dispute your assertion would that lead you to change your view on the subject?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2017 at 1:19 PM, shabby said:

For a man that spent a lot of the time in the "wilderness" alone with nothing but men, I'm thinking that homosexuality may be very Christ like. Might be why new testament scripture is so quite on the subject.

You need to put away that crack pipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, shabby said:

Titan, I just presented to you a quantification of every major peer referenced research study done on the matter and the vast majority counter your assertion. The vast majority support the fact that adopted children raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents has little bearing on the outcome of the well being of the child raised. You can always name a few studies that support your  belief. That's why it's important to look at the body of research.  if you actually Look at that  body of research (the studies are referenced in the prior linked article) it will be apparent that "science" supports gay adoption and it's not even close. 75 studies support gay adoption and 4 believe it harmful. Again, I ask how you can make the assertion (Twice) that heterosexual couples, according to research provide better support. It's simply flat out wrong. I also think it's ridiculous to oppose religious exemption on matters involving baking cakes (trivial) yet supporting religious based discrimination on fundamentally important issues like the ability to raise children through adoption.  If I'm gauging your responses right, you justify your support for religious exemption in one scenario because of the impact on children. If you review the research and the preponderance of studies dispute your assertion would that lead you to change your view on the subject?

 

I read your link.  And I understand the motivation to try and poke holes in the idea that a child is better off with a mother and a father in the home, all else being equal.  I get that it's the new thing to believe that gender is a state of mind, men and women, moms and dads don't bring unique things to the table in a family - that they are just interchangeable parts like exchanging a blue Lego piece for a red one.  I just don't buy the conclusions they are drawing.  And I don't think this meta study is the final say on the matter.

As far as my argument, my main argument is that the religious organizations and the individuals in them have constitutional rights here too.  They are trying to do what they believe is the best possible for these children and do it within the mission and scope of their consciences and beliefs.  They are doing a good job and should be left to continue doing it without forcing them to violate those beliefs.  You cannot argue for the constitutional rights of one group while running roughshod over the constitutional rights of another to give it to them.  What this law does is actually fosters a compromise that preserves the rights of both to the greatest degree possible without stripping one side of their rights completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PUB78 said:

You need to put away that crack pipe.

This was either a very  poor attempt  at humor or an attack on Jesus Christ on Shabby's part.  Either way it is blasphemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PUB78 said:

You need to put away that crack pipe.

Crack is whack. Jesus has not made any statements on the matter of Homosexuality.  Ascribing Jesus as anti-gay is just as ignorant as making a statement about his sexuality. That was the snarky point of the original response, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ArgoEagle said:

This was either a very  poor attempt  at humor or an attack on Jesus Christ on Shabby's part.  Either way it is blasphemy.

Blasphemy?   Perhaps I don't believe homosexuality stands in oppositions with ones ability to be a great man. And it was a great attempt at Humor!! But as I state earlier, the point of my statement is this:  Jesus has not made any statements on the matter of Homosexuality.  Ascribing Jesus as anti-gay is just as ignorant as making a statement about his sexuality. That was the snarky point of the original response,  #fabuloussavior

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...