First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Texas Senate approves 'religious refusal' adoption measure
5395 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / The Cat Empire
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17
http://abc13.com/2022681/



Texas' Republican-controlled Senate has given final approval to a law that allows publicly funded foster care and adoption agencies to refuse to place children with non-Christian, unmarried or gay prospective parents because of religious objections.



http://www.adoptuskids.org/adoption-and-foster-care/how-to-adopt-and-foster/state-information/texas



In 2016 there were 28,732 children in foster care in Texas. As of January 2017 there were 3,600 children waiting for adoptive families.







5404 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17
Huh? I... Why would...? (devolves into nonsensical mumbling from the sheer insanity)
22855 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17
Well it's Texas....................................yeah
26393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Roasting In Hell
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17
Huh, is this accurate? You can't seriously delegate what are publicly funded agencies to only allow adoptions by Christians. That borders on an indirect attempt at indoctrination if I ever saw one.
9482 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17
I can't see that holding up.
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17
Based Texas

11581 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17

The right to discriminate is a First Amendment protected right, known more commonly as the "right to freedom of association". It's a fundamental human right. When you remove people's ability to make decisions then they change from citizens to subjects; from people to property.
22855 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17
isn't this slightly unconstitutional ??
11581 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17

uncletim wrote:

isn't this slightly unconstitutional ??


Well, the right to discriminate, better known as the "right to freedom of association" is a fundamental human right, protected by the First Amendment. Hence, it's actually protecting Constitutional rights. If a private adoption agency decides it's better to put children in a Christian home then that is their Constitutional, God-given right. This law appears to be trying to protect them from being sued or otherwise litigated for merely practicing their Constitutional, God-given rights. What's happening is otherwise private adoption groups are getting some assistance in providing for lost children. Bigoted activist groups are sitting out there, like sharks ready to attack, hoping to use this as an opportunity to force their ideologies on society. GLAAD, HRC, extremist groups like that. This law protects against them abusing a loophole to force others into subjugation.
59657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
60 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17

karatecowboy wrote:


The right to discriminate is a First Amendment protected right, known more commonly as the "right to freedom of association". It's a fundamental human right. When you remove people's ability to make decisions then they change from citizens to subjects; from people to property.


Apparently you missed the part about 'publicly funded'. That negates the 'right to discriminate' that you claim. Private individuals and institutions certainly have the right to freedom of association - but they are not allowed to act in discriminatory fashion once they start feeding at the public trough. They are also not exempt from the consequences of such discriminatory behavior once it becomes known.

It's difficult enough to get children adopted and out of foster care - so why encourage yet more barriers and bigotry?
11581 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17

MeanderCat wrote:

Apparently you missed the part about 'publicly funded'. That negates the 'right to discriminate' that you claim. Private individuals and institutions certainly have the right to freedom of association - but they are not allowed to act in discriminatory fashion once they start feeding at the public trough. They are also not exempt from the consequences of such discriminatory behavior once it becomes known.

It's difficult enough to get children adopted and out of foster care - so why encourage yet more barriers and bigotry?


What's happening is otherwise private adoption groups are getting some assistance in providing for lost children. Bigoted activist groups are sitting out there, like sharks ready to attack, hoping to use this loophole as an opportunity to force their ideologies on society. GLAAD, HRC, extremist groups like that. This law protects against them abusing a loophole to force others into subjugation.

If you really believe in trying to help the children, tell the bigoted activist groups to stop wasting private and public time and money by abusing a loophole to try and force their agenda on society.
22855 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17

karatecowboy wrote:


uncletim wrote:

isn't this slightly unconstitutional ??


Well, the right to discriminate, better known as the "right to freedom of association" is a fundamental human right, protected by the First Amendment. Hence, it's actually protecting Constitutional rights. If a private adoption agency decides it's better to put children in a Christian home then that is their Constitutional, God-given right. This law appears to be trying to protect them from being sued or otherwise litigated for merely practicing their Constitutional, God-given rights.


If they are privately funded then yes I agree but these aren't privately funded they are publicly funded

As for god-given rights it;s my god-given right to walk naked the middle of the street doesn't mean it's a good idea
11581 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17

uncletim wrote:


If they are privately funded then yes I agree but these aren't privately funded they are publicly funded

As for god-given rights it;s my god-given right to walk naked the middle of the street doesn't mean it's a good idea


It's a tricky situation. I mean, ideally, every child would have a right to a mom and dad and upbringing in an intact family. Problem is, parents die, break up, etc. I think the reasoning is that by helping otherwise private groups, the state can kind of move closer to that ideal. However, you have these bigoted activist groups who are slavering at the chance to abuse this loophole and force their agenda's on society by suing these agencies and trying to shut them down.
runec 
39520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17

karatecowboy wrote:
If you really believe in trying to help the children, tell the bigoted activist groups to stop wasting private and public time and money by abusing a loophole to try and force their agenda on society.


Jesus Christ, dude, are you listening to yourself?
11581 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/3/17

runec wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:
If you really believe in trying to help the children, tell the bigoted activist groups to stop wasting private and public time and money by abusing a loophole to try and force their agenda on society.


Jesus Christ, dude, are you listening to yourself?


What's your point? What you wrote doesn't tell me much.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.