Philly Catholic foster agency loses appeal to discriminate against gay people

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

It's still discrimination. Should be over turned .They should only be allowed to adopt children from Catholic family or parents or family members. That are okay with Catholics adopting their family member . Just like other different religions.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Unfortunately, this leaves a very vague line between protecting homosexual/trans rights and protecting religious liberty. We'll need more court cases to pin the Supreme Court down on the issue.

Gays and trans people don't have a right to make Catholic charity services give them foster children.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It's still discrimination. Should be over turned .They should only be allowed to adopt children from Catholic family or parents or family members. That are okay with Catholics adopting their family member . Just like other different religions.

Didn't Philadelphia discriminate against the Catholic Charity by refusing them the care of more children because the Charity wouldn't give these children to homosexuals?

To say that it's discrimination is obvious but not all discrimination is bad nor does it need the government to intervene. For instance, the Catholic Church discriminates against men when it says only unmarried men may become priests. If you are arguing a general principle that discrimination is wrong, that would lead to pandemonium.

For instance, I was watching a video the other day about a black female prostitute who refused to service black men. Her reasoning was that she had been hurt too much and what she's doing in that decision is discrimination. Yet I guess that's bad. I guess she should be forced to sexually service men she doesn't want to or stop being a prostitute.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

It prevents the destruction of Christian charities (generally) by allowing them to operate on their own terms, rather than another's. It might seem small, but this is a great victory because in the long run it will allow Christians in general to run their charities in accords with the Gospel, rather than secular progressivism.

The goal of Philadelphia was force homosexual acceptance of what seems to be a well respected Christian charity that does good work. Thankfully they failed.

This is why we need to have the government provide a social safety net and not rely on churches to do it because churches may force the poor to bow down to their deity in order to get help. This ruling shows that it happens in Philadelphia.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This is why we need to have the government provide a social safety net and not rely on churches to do it because churches may force the poor to bow down to their deity in order to get help. This ruling shows that it happens in Philadelphia.

It shows no such thing. But then again I'm not a progressive and don't care about gays getting foster children and think the CSS was and is right. Nor do I think making the government responsible for everything is efficient or useful for society.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

No . Catholics adoption agencies discrimate against gays. So they shouldn't be allowed to a do public adoption. And only Catholic adoption with Catholics.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No . Catholics adoption agencies discrimate against gays. So they shouldn't be allowed to a do public adoption. And only Catholic adoption.

Yes, they discriminate against gays, because that is in compliance with their religious and philosophical convictions about the natural family and what's best for children. Much like you discriminate against Catholic Charities and think they shouldn't be allowed to operate the way they do because you disagree with them.

So they're allowed to discriminate. Though I'm honestly confused as to why you would advocate them seeking only Catholic and I presume also Christians to work with. How does that help your cause? Foster children being given into the care of your ideological enemies? You want that?

Not very smart. For what it's worth though, I agree, they should only work with Christians and prefer Christians above non-Christians.

 

[Yttrium]

Gays and trans people don't have a right to make Catholic charity services give them foster children.

Yes, that is the decision I was responding to. Thank you for pointing that out, in case anyone missed it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yes, that is the decision I was responding to. Thank you for pointing that out, in case anyone missed it.

And the Supreme court was right.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

It shows no such thing. But then again I'm not a progressive and don't care about gays getting foster children and think the CSS was and is right. Nor do I think making the government responsible for everything is efficient or useful for society.

If churches didn’t make their beliefs as a hoop for those looking to them for help to jump through I could see your point of view. As it stands, if this group wants to be bigoted, they should do it on their own dime and not demand the citizens of Philadelphia push their archaic world view. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court says tax dollars should be used to propagate the views from a group that practices ritualistic symbolic cannibalism of a sacrificed virgin.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If churches didn’t make their beliefs as a hoop for those looking to them for help to jump through I could see your point of view. As it stands, if this group wants to be bigoted, they should do it on their own dime and not demand the citizens of Philadelphia push their archaic world view.

Ah, I see a bit of bigotry on the behalf of secularists like yourself. I suppose one person's so called bigot is another person's friend.

But this isn't really a hoop or using beliefs as an excuse for anything. Christians have been in the care of children longer than your puny humanist movement ever has and so they have an idea as to what benefits children. That being the natural family unit, a mother and a father.

Your statement reminds me of the anti Catholics tradition in the USA. Why can't you accept and tolerate Catholics for who they are? Joe Biden is a faithful Catholic who believes homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. You respect him right?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Ah, I see a bit of bigotry on the behalf of secularists like yourself. I suppose one person's so called bigot is another person's friend.

But this isn't really a hoop or using beliefs as an excuse for anything. Christians have been in the care of children longer than your puny humanist movement ever has and so they have an idea as to what benefits children. That being the natural family unit, a mother and a father.

Your statement reminds me of the anti Catholics tradition in the USA. Why can't you accept and tolerate Catholics for who they are? Joe Biden is a faithful Catholic who believes homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. You respect him right?

Catholics can do as they want as long as they don’t do it on my dime. They want to prohibit certain people from adopting children, they can absolutely go for it, they shouldn’t demand my money help them do it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Catholics can do as they want as long as they don’t do it on my dime. They want to prohibit certain people from adopting children, they can absolutely go for it, they shouldn’t demand my money help them do it.

Some people might not have liked money going towards the white house celebration of gay pride when it was legalized, yet that was funded through public money. Some people don't like the idea of overturning the Hyde amendment that prohibits direct funding of abortion yet that is a democratic goal.

So why does your opinion matter here? The US government does all sorts of objectionable things and this is where you draw the line? Or is that this goes against your values and therefore you don't support it?

Libertarianism will never be implemented and if the left feels at liberty to use funds for their own social ends. The right has that same liberty and there is no principled place you can stand from to say they shouldn't. There is only a war on the levers of power and cultural influence.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Some people might not have liked money going towards the white house celebration of gay pride when it was legalized, yet that was funded through public money. Some people don't like the idea of overturning the Hyde amendment that prohibits direct funding of abortion yet that is a democratic goal.

So why does your opinion matter here? The US government does all sorts of objectionable things and this is where you draw the line? Or is that this goes against your values and therefore you don't support it?

Libertarianism will never be implemented and if the left feels at liberty to use funds for their own social ends. The right has that same liberty and there is no principled place you can stand from to say they shouldn't. There is only a war on the levers of power and cultural influence.

First Amendment prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. Placating Catholic sensibilities being a requirement in order to adopt from a government funded adoption agency is favoring Catholicism.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

First Amendment prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another. Placating Catholic sensibilities being a requirement in order to adopt from a government funded adoption agency is favoring Catholicism.

Your interpretation is wrong. The Supreme court said so and they know more about the law and the first amendment than you or I.

Curiously odd that you appeal to the First amendment here in the effort to say that Catholic charity institutions do not have the right to operate on the basis of their faith. Does the first amendment prevent you from opening a humanist LGBT foster service that will gladly hand out children to non-heteronormative, otherkin and trans-inclusive groups only?

Somehow I think such an operation wouldn't last long. No wonder you feel the need to compel Catholics into doing what you want.

 

[durangodawood]

....to say that Catholic charity institutions do not have the right to operate on the basis of their faith.....

He didnt say that. In fact he explicitly stated the precise opposite.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

He didnt say that.

That's the only interpretation one can reach of people who oppose this decision.

If Catholic Charity institutions must be forced to give children into the care of homosexual foster parents, they do not have a right to operate on the basis of their faith. At least as they understand it. Perhaps non-believers and progressive Catholics should be trusted only on what is truly Catholic. I'm sure Fr James Martin is deeply troubled by this news.

 

[durangodawood]

That's the only interpretation one can reach of people who oppose this decision.

If Catholic Charity institutions must be forced to give children into the care of homosexual foster parents, they do not have a right to operate on the basis of their faith. At least as they understand it. Perhaps non-believers and progressive Catholics should be trusted only on what is truly Catholic. I'm sure Fr James Martin is deeply troubled by this news.

He said he agreed the charity can discriminate at will, but not with the govts material participation.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

He said he agreed the charity can discriminate at will, but not with the govts material participation.

In other words, they should be without material support they need to continue operating. Only because they refuse to abide by the standards of the state.

Yet I pointed out that the left has no problem with funding leftwing issues. They actively want to get rid of the Hyde amendment and allow abortion to be tax payer funded. Homosexuality has also been celebrated publicly by the Whitehouse despite the objections of conservatives. So on what basis can they possibly argue that a Catholic charity should be unable to receive state funds?

 

[durangodawood]

In other words, they should be without material support they need to continue operating. Only because they refuse to abide by the standards of the state.

Yet I pointed out that the left has no problem with funding leftwing issues. They actively want to get rid of the Hyde amendment and allow abortion to be tax payer funded. Homosexuality has also been celebrated publicly by the Whitehouse despite the objections of conservatives. So on what basis can they possibly argue that a Catholic charity should be unable to receive state funds?

If they need govt support to operate, then the govt participation must fall within the bounds prescribed by the constitution. If they want to venture out and reject gays or blacks or whoever, then they should be on their own.