I agree if the story is legit. I’m skeptical.
That is insane IF true.
I would need to see the evidence though.
The Supreme Court ruled it was OK to turn away LGTQ couples from Catholic foster care. Is this a just a reverse version of the same thing?
No, simply because this allegedly involves a STATE ACTOR.
It’s different when the government gets involved.
The government can’t discriminate on the basis of religion, which is what is allegedly happening here.
By contrast, of course a private religious group can exclude anyone that doesn’t share or follow their beliefs. That’s the situation that you described.
TOTALLY different. NOT comparable.
Not even close.
The government has to provide equal protection of the laws. That’s why they are being sued under the 1st (religious free exercise), and 14th (equal protection clause) amendments.
As I said, I haven’t seen the evidence so I don’t know if this allegation is true.
But if it is, then yeah, it’s INSANE!!!
IMHO, someone executing a contract, and thus doing the work for the government, should be considered a state actor. Otherwise, all a government need do is outsource to get away with violating the constitution.
Same but…
It is what they claim in a lawsuit. Though it is about their Catholic views rather than them being Conservative.
Will be interesting to see the outcome of the lawsuit.
I’d like to see the answers to the questions about having an lgbtq foster child. If it’s as innocuous as the claim, this is a problem.
I think there’s a valid state interest in not placing a kid who could be lgbtq in a home that’s admittedly anti-lgbtq. There are plenty of Catholic and other religious homes that aren’t anti-lgbt so the discrimination isn’t against religion. It’s a policy to ensure that LGBTQ kids aren’t discriminated against in the homes they are placed.
I mean probably not, probably answered the questions in a much more hostile way, but as is getting proven time and again these days especially with Federal judges from Hackistan it’s ok to be a shameless a- hole as long as you have a Bible at home.
Pretty soon we’re going to have dudes sending unsolicited “Christian” d*ck pics to female co-workers. And Brantley Starr or Kazzy will say it’s ok.
So you’re saying it’s OK for the government to discriminate against religious families in fostering, if their religions don’t meet whatever state requirements for a “qualifying” religious family might be?
Ooof!!!
I hope that you don’t mean that.
Sounds like a straight-up 1st amendment and equal protection violation.
You should probably give that a bit more thought.
That’s even worse than giving the vote to non-citizens.
I don’t know if you believe that there could the possibility for further damage to the child via abuse. Because let’s just say these folks told them that homosexuality/gender dysphoria is an abomination to God, and we will try to change their ways. That’s a red flag of potential abuse to me which would absolutely override their religious beliefs.
If the State requires that foster parents can not use corporal punishment as a means to discipline foster kids, is that a violation of “religious beliefs” if potential foster parents state they believe in and use corporal punishment due to “spare the rod and spoil the child” as stated in Proverbs 13:24 and are thereby excluded from fostering?
Should the State not have any standards for duty of care for the kids they place in foster homes? Can the State not ensure that foster parents provide foster kids prompt medical care and treatment and thereby exclude a couple who don’t believe in modern medicine even if those beliefs are rooted in religion?
The rights of foster kids, who the State is ultimately responsible for, absolutely outweigh the rights of couples wanting to foster.
Maybe YOU should give a little bit more thought.
The government can’t divide foster families into desirable and undesirable camps on the basis of religion.
That’s a straight up equal protection violation.
Are you saying that the only families that can foster are ones which are either non-religious, or are members of a faith group that’s OK with homosexual activity and same-sex marriage as being non-sinful?
Gadzooks.
Sure sounds like it.
That would disqualify not only many families of Christian denominations, but many Muslim and other non-Christian families as well.
The government should never be in the business of saying……having X religious beliefs entitles you to all the rights and privileges of the law, but having Y religious beliefs means that the rights and privileges of the law will be denied to you or otherwise given inequitably.
That’s straight up UNconstitutional.
1st and 14th Amendment violation.
Another hypothetical does this get posted as “woke insanity” and an attack on religion of these folks were strict Muslims? I’m talking Wahhabist sect followers who obviously treat women differently than men. But if they say a foster girl will be taken care of are we supposed to defer to that religion too?
The government is most certainly not doing that. The State is vetting and evaluating potential homes for foster kids using a set of standards. If a home doesn’t meet those standards then it’s deemed unsafe/unsuitable for a foster child.
The State setting a standard that a potential foster home must be LGBTQ-affirming and non-discriminatory has nothing to do with religion. A State standard that potential homes not discriminate on the basis of sex and gender has nothing to do with religion. A State standard that homes must meat certain housing quality and cleanliness standards has nothing to do with religion. If a home can’t meet those standards for whatever reason then they are deemed unsuitable and excluded.
A home can not say “We’re sorry but we can’t ensure that we won’t violate the rights, health and safety of the State’s children due to our religious beliefs” and receive both the State’s children and State funds. That’s absolutely asinine.
Would you place a kid in a home that was filthy and unkempt even if the foster parents state the home’s condition is an expression and part of their religious beliefs? Would you place a kid in home that uses corporal punishment because of the religious beliefs of the potential foster parents?
The standard that they are using for this “vetting” is apparently a RELIGIOUS one, and that’s a BIG TIME constitutional no-no my friend.
If it’s allowed here, then the next step would be to say, well, since you’re a member of XYZ religious group…you can’t sit as a Judge or hold office, etc. because you can’t be trusted to be fair or non-discriminate against LGBTQ+ people, etc, even though there’s NO RELIGIOUS TEST for public office. That’s in the constitution as well.
No “vetting” for rights and privileges of the law, based on religion (which is apparently what’s going on here) can be allowed to stand…in ANY government context.
Nor should you defend it.
It depends on how they answered the question. I’d like to know what caused the state to make this determination.
This could go either way for me depending on that.
Is it your contention that potential homes for foster children be allowed to discriminate against foster kids due to sexual orientation and gender identity?
The couple here said that they would not.
The said they would keep their religious beliefs on LGBTQ stuff, BUT, they also said that they’d help out any such kid they foster with such things.
One cannot PREJUDGE them in that regard because of their religious beliefs.
UNconstitutional.