First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Texas Senate approves 'religious refusal' adoption measure
35657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17

karatecowboy wrote:
What's your point? What you wrote is like "seriously?". doesn't tell me much.


You're making a "How dare you not tolerate my intolerance argument". And you're doing it on a topic that goes hand in hand with your foremost crusade. You're arguing that you both want no abortions *and* less adoptions? That fark, man.

Banned
21752 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
53 / M / In
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17

karatecowboy wrote:


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.


The first priority should be getting the child into a stable loving home regardless of religion. I would rather see the kid in loving caring Jewish home then an abusive Christen one, Not saying all Christens are abusive just using it as an example
59386 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
59 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17

karatecowboy wrote:



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.


Nice try, but you are arguing using public dollars to allow discriminatory practices.

I don't have an issue with a private group setting their own practices - that's their choice as long as they don't run afoul of various federal laws.

When such groups take public funding, that's a different matter altogether. They are no longer 'private' but are being subsidized by government at some level (federal/state/local). That means they need to comply in whole or in part with the same rules as set for fully public groups. They no longer get a free pass to discriminate based upon internal policy/philosophy/religious belief.

Frankly, Texas would have been better served to cut off funding for private institutions and to stay out of it altogether. This move comes close to violating the establishment clause, and it's hard to say whether it would stand up in court. It is likely to be a very expensive litigation.

10738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17

runec wrote:


karatecowboy wrote:
Muhammed's Rape Victims, what's your point? What you wrote is like "seriously?". doesn't tell me much.


You're making a "How dare you not tolerate my intolerance argument". And you're doing it on a topic that goes hand in hand with your foremost crusade. You're arguing that you both want no abortions *and* less adoptions? That fark, man.



That's not at all what I am saying, especially because abusing a legal loophole to litigate people out of adoption placement ends up with fewer adoptions.

First, the "tolerate my intolerance" thing is meaningless and pointless for one simple reason: if you understand anything about tolerance, you know that everyone has different ideas of what is and is not tolerance, and what type of intolerance should be accepted or is good intolerance vs bad intolerance. It's really a pointless topic.

If a Christian adoption agency decides it's better to place kids with a faithful, God-fearing home rather than, say, a nihilistic, amoral atheist environment then that is just living out their worldview. That's reasonable and expected. That's just normal.

The definition of 'bigotry' is 'an obstinate intolerant devotion to your own beliefs or opinions'. Professional activists, actively preying upon adoption agencies and abusing a loophole to try to force either 1) The agency to comply with your worldview or 2) Be litigated out of operations is NOT reasonable, and definitely is obstinate. It definitely bigotry. I mean, they're sitting there, looking to say "Oh, that adoption agency doesn't comply with my worldview. I'm going to exploit this loophole to force them into submission!". These people are cancer.

10738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17

uncletim wrote:

The first priority should be getting the child into a stable loving home regardless of religion. I would rather see the kid in loving caring Jewish home then an abusive Christen one, Not saying all Christens are abusive just using it as an example


The part I bolded: that's your belief that religion is a non-issue. Most people would disagree and say that religion plays a huge part in people's worldviews and relationships. And, all other things equal, most people would say a Christian home is better than an atheistic one. However, that is up to the agency to decide for itself. They're not children: you don't get to push them around.
10738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17

MeanderCat wrote:



Nice try, but you are arguing using public dollars to allow discriminatory practices.




Discrimination is a fundamental human right. It's how we make decisions. It literally means "to discern".

What you wrote there is the mantra of the bigoted activist. You have God given rights, and you have private individuals who used their God-given right to help unfortunate kids and make a better world. You have a government that decided to help them out. And, you have bigoted hypocrites who want to impose restrictions on the God-given rights of these agencies. These are restrictions that normally imposed only the government. However, you get these bigoted groups out there who see this as an opportunity to use a loophole to force their beliefs on others.

The bottom line here is you have three parties: Private groups trying to help children. The state government trying to help private groups help poor children. Bigoted activist groups abusing the situation to force their views on others, and would rather see the whole thing burn to the ground than see another party behave in a way they can't bring themselves to tolerate. The third party is the villain here. You have aligned squarely with them.


35657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17

karatecowboy wrote:
That's not at all what I am saying, especially because abusing a legal loophole to litigate people out of adoption placement ends up with fewer adoptions.


How is upholding the Establishment Clause an abuse of a legal loophole? You yourself literally just cited the First Amendment. Does the other half of the First Amendment not count because it doesn't conform to your "worldview"?



karatecowboy wrote:First, the "tolerate my intolerance" thing is meaningless and pointless for one simple reason: if you understand anything about tolerance, you know that everyone has different ideas of what is and is not tolerance, and what type of intolerance should be accepted or is good intolerance vs bad intolerance. It's really a pointless topic.


It is not a pointless topic, its pretty much the entire crux of this subject. Can you not see the absurdity of arguing that telling someone not to discriminate is in itself discrimination?



karatecowboy wrote:If a Christian adoption agency decides it's better to place kids with a faithful, God-fearing home rather than, say, a nihilistic, amoral atheist environment then that is just living out their worldview. That's reasonable and expected. That's just normal.


No, that is not normal. Children are not born Christian and they should not be forced into Christianity. Especially not on the public dime. The government is secular. If you want a theocracy, immigrate to Saudi Arabia. And this is all still putting aside the absurdity of you arguing against abortion beyond all reason then turning around and arguing against adoption.

Make up your mind. You already demonstrated that your beliefs were more important than the children you professed to care about in another thread. This is further cementing that hypocrisy.



karatecowboy wrote:
These people are cancer.


They're not the ones who are cancer here.
10738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17

runec wrote:



No, that is not normal. Children are not born Christian and they should not be forced into Christianity. Especially not on the public dime. The government is secular. If you want a theocracy, immigrate to Saudi Arabia. And this is all still putting aside the absurdity of you arguing against abortion beyond all reason then turning around and arguing against adoption.





I'm glad you brought the establishment clause into this. A state government saying "You're an adoption agency helping poor kids out. here's some public benefit funds to help you with that" does not recognize an establishment of religion. But what else does it say? No law restricting the free exercise thereof. What the extremist activist groups are trying to do is exactly that. Any law that says "you can't decide and think as a Christian, according to your Christian values" explicitly limits free exercise of religion. The fact that money is involved does not change that. If there is a restriction of that decision process then it restricts the exercise. On the other hand, giving funds to an adoption agency does not recognized any religious establishment.

I do not have any problem with discrimination in itself, and so I am not arguing that disallowing discrimination is discrimination. I haven't said that once, and if you think that's what I mean then you don't understand where I am coming from. What I am saying is that extremist activist groups, who don't give a damn about these children involved, are abusing a technical loophole to force their agenda on well-meaning, well-doing organizations.

If these activist groups had their way it would mean fewer adoptions. They could easily take the LOADS of money they put into litigating and use it to do adoptions in a way they see fit. Instead, they instigate take-no-prisoners litigation. When these groups win, everyone else loses... especially the kids.

The government may be secular; these private groups are not. If the government decides to give them funds then it is not fair to try and destroy their right to discriminate. The 'no public funds' idea violates the first amendment by restricting free exercise. Period.


They're not the ones who are cancer here.


Yeah OK we get it. You hate god and religion. Not the people exploiting loopholes to coerce-or-destroy adoption agencies.
20075 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / So. Cal
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17
I wonder if any of those law makers have finacial ties to the system. They get paid more the more kids are waiting for adoption and that sort of thing.
35657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17

karatecowboy wrote:
Any law that says "you can't decide and think as a Christian, according to your Christian values" explicitly limits free exercise of religion. The fact that money is involved does not change that.


It does, actually.



karatecowboy wrote:What I am saying is that extremist activist groups, who don't give a damn about these children involved, are abusing a technical loophole to force their agenda on well-meaning, well-doing organizations.


So the people suing to prevent the "well meaning" organizations from reducing the size of the possible adopters in a scenario where there is already not enough of them are "extremists" that don't "give a damn" about the children involved. And what of the couples who are suing States with these laws because they can and want to adopt but are being targeted by these laws?

Or, even better. When this gets "Good for the goosed" like similar laws and, say, a Muslim or Atheist organization denies adoption rights to Christians what then? You can't tell me people won't throw a total shit fit.



karatecowboy wrote:If these activist groups had their way it would mean fewer adoptions. They could easily take the LOADS of money they put into litigating and use it to do adoptions in a way they see fit. Instead, they instigate take-no-prisoners litigation. When these groups win, everyone else loses... especially the kids.


Or they could not be shitheads and try to pass laws like this to begin with that they know will just be litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court and ultimately struck down anyhow. Texas has already pissed away taxpayer money trying to defend voter ID laws and TARP laws that they knew wouldn't survive the Supreme Court ( and didn't ).



karatecowboy wrote:
The government may be secular; these private groups are not. If the government decides to give them funds then it is not fair to try and destroy their right to discriminate. The 'no public funds' idea violates the first amendment by restricting free exercise. Period.


Which part of "state funded" are you having trouble with here? -.-




karatecowboy wrote:
Yeah OK we get it. You hate god and religion. Not the people exploiting loopholes to coerce-or-destroy adoption agencies.


I do not hate god nor do I hate religion. I am, however, not particularly fond of zealots and religious extremists of any strip. I am especially not fond of zealotry that directly causes suffering for no good reason.

Your particular brand and version of god is not everyone else's and you have no right legally or morally to force it on others. Especially not children.










35657 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17

camay1997 wrote:
I wonder if any of those law makers have finacial ties to the system. They get paid more the more kids are waiting for adoption and that sort of thing.


Who knows, its Texas. Texas's entire CPS system, fosters and adoption systems are universally awful. Someone profiting from the misery would at least make some sense as to why its allowed to be as terrible as it is.
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17


-But it's Texas oh -my
1336 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17
This is about what I've come to expect from Texas.
59386 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
59 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17

karatecowboy wrote:



Discrimination is a fundamental human right. It's how we make decisions. It literally means "to discern".

What you wrote there is the mantra of the bigoted activist. You have God given rights, and you have private individuals who used their God-given right to help unfortunate kids and make a better world. You have a government that decided to help them out. And, you have bigoted hypocrites who want to impose restrictions on the God-given rights of these agencies. These are restrictions that normally imposed only the government. However, you get these bigoted groups out there who see this as an opportunity to use a loophole to force their beliefs on others.

The bottom line here is you have three parties: Private groups trying to help children. The state government trying to help private groups help poor children. Bigoted activist groups abusing the situation to force their views on others, and would rather see the whole thing burn to the ground than see another party behave in a way they can't bring themselves to tolerate. The third party is the villain here. You have aligned squarely with them.


Try again. I am utterly against public dollars financing private religion. What a private organization does with its finances to meet its goals is none of my business until or unless it is violating written secular law, or receiving public funding. At that point it is my business, and the business of every concerned citizen.

I really don't care if a religious organization wants to restrict adoptions to members of its faith - as long as they aren't using my tax dollars to do so.

Advancing from your logic that 'discrimination is a fundamental human right', it should follow that racial, ethnic, sexual, religious discrimination et cetera are also fundamental human rights, yes? Discrimination as you define it is a trait, not a right, otherwise we would not define certain forms of discrimination as being against the law.

1336 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 6/2/17 , edited 6/2/17

MeanderCat wrote:

Try again. I am utterly against public dollars financing private religion. What a private organization does with its finances to meet its goals is none of my business until or unless it is violating written secular law, or receiving public funding. At that point it is my business, and the business of every concerned citizen.

I really don't care if a religious organization wants to restrict adoptions to members of its faith - as long as they aren't using my tax dollars to do so.

Advancing from your logic that 'discrimination is a fundamental human right', it should follow that racial, ethnic, sexual, religious discrimination et cetera are also fundamental human rights, yes? Discrimination as you define it is a trait, not a right, otherwise we would not define certain forms of discrimination as being against the law.



This. It's pretty the same reason why Planned Parenthood can't spend government dollars on abortions. Rather hypcritical imo.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.