Adoption Rules Changed

[Hammster]

Well, then, let's not change the rule. That's the only fair and equitable way of doing it anyway. If Christian adoption agencies don't want to go along with it then they just shouldn't accept the federal subsidy.

Or, let them use the money in ways that don’t go against their conscience.

 

[Desk trauma]

Or, let them use the money in ways that don’t go against their conscience.

They are free to use their own money so as to avoid the issue entirely.

 

[Speedwell]

Or, let them use the money in ways that don’t go against their conscience.

And now we are back to that same question again: why should only Christian adoption agencies be afforded that privilege?

 

[Hank77]

And now we are back to that same question again: why should only Christian adoption agencies be afforded that privilege?

Why not all agencies have that same rule. A secular agency doesn't have to allow Christian couples to adopt through their agency.

 

[Elle12]

Why not all agencies have that same rule. A secular agency doesn't have to allow Christian couples to adopt through their agency.

I thought you wanted the agencies to make their own rules?

Most secular agencies recognize that religious beliefs and practices aren't a good reason for someone not to be a parent.

 

[Speedwell]

Why not all agencies have that same rule.

That's not what the Christian adoption agencies want. They want a unique exemption from non-discrimination policy.

A secular agency doesn't have to allow Christian couples to adopt through their agency.

They must if they want the federal subsidy.

 

[Hammster]

And now we are back to that same question again: why should only Christian adoption agencies be afforded that privilege?

I’m not saying that they should be the only ones.

 

[Hank77]

I thought you wanted the agencies to make their own rules?

Most secular agencies recognize that religious beliefs and practices aren't a good reason for someone not to be a parent.

The same rule being that each agency can decide who they will allow to adopt. Doesn't that make it fair to everyone?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Well, then, let's not change the rule. That's the only fair and equitable way of doing it anyway. If Christian adoption agencies don't want to go along with it then they just shouldn't accept the federal subsidy.

I agree, If they can't agree with Gay adopting, they should be close down permanently . And , or lose federal subsidy.

 

[Hank77]

That's not what the Christian adoption agencies want. They want a unique exemption from non-discrimination policy.
They must if they want the federal subsidy.

How do you know what Christian agencies or Christians want? Has anyone asked or tried to compromise? I don't remember that was ever considered.

If every agency could decide for themselves who they would allow to adopt that would be fair, wouldn't it?

 

[Hank77]

I agree, If they cant give agree with Gay adopting, they should be close down permanently . And , or lose federal subsidy.

Why?

 

[Speedwell]

How do you know what Christian agencies or Christians want? Has anyone asked or tried to compromise? I don't remember that was ever considered.

If every agency could decide for themselves who they would allow to adopt that would be fair, wouldn't it?

The proposed rule change maintains all of the present non-discrimination requirements except for sexual orientation. In other words, only those groups who want to refuse to place children with same sex couples would benefit by it.

 

[Hank77]

The proposed rule change maintains all of the present non-discrimination requirements except for sexual orientation. In other words, only those groups who want to refuse to place children with same sex couples would benefit by it.

I'm aware of that. I didn't say that I agree with it, but I'd rather see that than have those agencies defunded over a political dispute, and that is exactly what it is. That's just as bad as someone saying I don't want my tax dollars going to Section 8 housing, food programs, and other benefits for the poor.

 

[Skewpoint]

I agree, If they cant give agree with Gay adopting, they should be close down permanently . And , or lose federal subsidy.

Close down permanently is not the way to go. I strongly disagree there. Losing subsidy is definitely the way to go. It's frankly ridiculous that this even has to be argued.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Close down permanently is not the way to go. I strongly disagree there. Losing subsidy is definitely the way to go. It's frankly ridiculous that this even has to be argued.

If conservatives religious people or religious people want to play games with infants, Foster kids lives , Then we should move on and completely eliminate them , from playing games with children's futures.

 

[Skewpoint]

If conservatives religious people or religious people want to play games with infants, Foster kids lives , Then we should move on and completely eliminate them , from playing games with children's futures.

Well, they have a right to operate as they see fit, so long as no laws are broken. But getting federal funding while explicitly discriminating against a class of people solely on religious conviction alone is unacceptable.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That's just as bad as someone saying I don't want my tax dollars going to Section 8 housing, food programs, and other benefits for the poor.

No, it's not. This isn't about not wanting our tax dollars to go to a particular group. It's about not wanting our tax dollars to be used for discrimination.

 

[Hammster]

Well, they have a right to operate as they see fit, so long as no laws are broken. But getting federal funding while explicitly discriminating against a class of people solely on religious conviction alone is unacceptable.

If you were in charge, is there any group that you wouldn’t place children with?

 

[Elle12]

The same rule being that each agency can decide who they will allow to adopt. Doesn't that make it fair to everyone?

No, it doesn't make it fair. Allowing everyone to discriminate helps only those who want to discriminate, and hurts those discriminated against and the children that they would be providing homes to.

Analogous to, if we let storeowners decide for themselves which ethnic groups they will allow in their stores, doesn't that make it fair to everyone? The ethnic minorities can discriminate against white people, and vice versa. Do you understand the inherent unfairness in that, and how it translates? That type of rule only serves the majority that wants to discriminate.

If you were in charge, is there any group that you wouldn’t place children with?

The discussion is about changing the rules surrounding placing adoptive children with same-sex couples. We shouldn't be changing the subject to other groups under a hypothetical scenario, especially since you've proven unwilling to respond to discussion on the subject.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why not all agencies have that same rule. A secular agency doesn't have to allow Christian couples to adopt through their agency.

The ironic part to me is none of them are making a big deal about having to provide services to people who have different opinions than they do.