Parents seeking to adopt children in Texas could be rejected by state-funded or private agencies with religious objections to them being Jewish, Muslim, gay, single, or interfaith couples, under a proposal in the Republican-controlled state legislature.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/06/texas-adoption-agencies-ban-jewish-muslim-gay-or-single-couples

Sponsors of the Texas bill say it is designed to support the religious freedom of adoption agencies and foster care providers. Many such agencies are private and faith-based but receive state funds.

Your topic title is a blatant lie. The bill does not prohibit any group from adopting.

Maybe you should actually read your own sources. The majority of adoptions in Texas are handled by the state and there is no discrimination allowed with those.

Private adoptions usually allow the birthmother to have input on the family that will receive her child. Is this what you're opposing? You're in favor of a birth mother having the right to choose as long as that choice is limited to killing her unborn child. You oppose her having any choices beyond that?

Please tell me again how those Christofascists are working to rob us of our freedoms.

How about my freedom to not have my tax dollars used to support christinsanity.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Private adoptions usually allow the birthmother to
> have input on the family that will receive her
> child. Is this what you're opposing? You're in
> favor of a birth mother having the right to choose
> as long as that choice is limited to killing her
> unborn child. You oppose her having any choices
> beyond that?
>

You may want to read the article. They are not talking about the birth parent doing the rejection, rather the agency. The way I read it the agency can reject those seeking to adopt even if the birth parents do not object.

The birth mother chooses the agency she wishes to place her child with. See how that works?

My how your words change.

> Private adoptions usually allow the birthmother to
> have input on the family that will receive her
> child.

How now changed to choosing the agency, which of course is not at all the same. A liberal Christian mother my trust a christian agency, not knowing that they would be a conservation agency that would deny adoptions that she would have no issues with.,

And, of course you also do not address the issues raised about children in foster care.

TMSH, pull your head out of the sand for a moment and think. You aren't stupid and I know you have seen more of the world than I have. This is not just about restricting adoptions. This proposed law is just one of many attempts by cynical politicans over the last few decades to legalise prejudice under the guise of religious freedom to pander to ideological voters. Most don't pass. Some unfortunately do.

The 1950s ended over twenty years before I was born so I only know what I've read and seen. One of the films I've seen from that time is "Gentleman's Agreement" starring Gregory Peck from the book of the same name. It's about subtle and invasive anti-Semitism if you've not seen it. Back then discrimination was blatant and out in the open. You didn't need signs. People just did it.

That world is long gone. The majority of younger people just don't accept religious, racial, or sexual discrimination. So, as you well know, people who do want to live in a discriminatory world have gone to great lengths to appear rational and respectable. Suits and ties have replaced hoods and brownshirts. Code phrases like "religious freedom" and "freedom of association" are now used in place of more direct discriminatory language.

No one is saying that you don't have the right to hate or be a bigot. You can believe whatever you want about reality of the world no matter how unreal that belief is. If you want to live a "Christian" lifestyle according to what you think are "biblical" principles no one is stopping you. However, as I have said, the world is different now and things have changed. You can't go back. You can only move forward.

What you can't do is change the public space that we all live and work in together to be a space of hate and exclusion. That's not goring to work no matter how "right" you make think it is. Besides being just plain wrong it would also be impossible to fully enforce and would make business, trade and commerce unnecessarily complicated. So, once long ago it may have seemed right to have only ethnic white northern European males of the protestant faith have any public role or responsibility in life or openly discriminate against people but, to quote Christopher Marlowe, "that was in another country and besides, the wench is dead."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2017 07:35PM by anybody.

I often read the things you write and realize you are so deeply buried in your ideology you often have no concept of the world around you.

This bill is simply a matter of choice for pregnant women. Should a pregnant woman who wishes to place her child up for adoption have the choice to pick an agency that will locate a family that aligns with her wishes or should she be denied that choice? She can legally choose to kill the child. Are you really insisting that if she chooses to let her child live, the state should force her to surrender her child to the family of the state's choice instead of hers? This is a level of authoritarianism usually reserved for fascist regimes. You are the monster you claim to fear.

That's it. There are currently a number of LGBT-friendly adoption agencies that can help gay couples adopt. This will remain unchanged. Women should have the right to choose the family that adopts their child. Why are do you want to deny women that choice?

Please don't tell me that you're in favor of a woman's right to choose only if she chooses to kill her unborn child. Should she choose to let it live, the state will deny her any choice in selecting the home for her child.

The other part is the use of public funds to support religious discrimination.

From the article:
"Parents seeking to adopt children in Texas could be rejected by **state-funded**[emphasis added] or private agencies with religious objections to them being Jewish, Muslim, gay, single, or interfaith couples, under a proposal in the Republican-controlled state legislature."

"Five states have passed similar laws protecting faith-based adoption organizations that refuse to place children with gay parents or other households on religious grounds. The proposed Texas rule would extend to **state-funded agencies**[again emphasis added]. Only South Dakota’s measure is similarly sweeping."

"I often read the things you write and realize you are so deeply buried in your ideology you often have no concept of the world around you."
===================================

The projection is strong in this one.

This proposed law is directed to the foster kid population. The birth parents of foster children are not "choosing" either the agency or adoptive parents. The birth parents have either given up their rights to the children or had their rights taken away.

This is about state funded adoption agencies and foster care organizations being paid by the state to discriminate on the basis of religion, marital status and sexual orientation. This and the South Dakota law seem to me to be unconstitutional.

There are some other states that allow blatant discrimination in adoption, but only for organizations that do not accept state funds. This seems less clearly unconstitutional, but lunch counters in the South were private organizations/businesses too.

Hey TMSH

Why on earth do you keep making these insinuations about abortion? This is an adoption issue. No one said that if the bill doesn't pass him women have less freedom in choosing their adoption agencies, which wouldn't happen, that women are going to start killing their unborn children en masse. This is something you are bringing to the topic and I don't really understand why.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2017 01:24AM by midwestanon.

Again, what does this have to with abortion? It's about religious preference by adoption agencies. Also, the idea of open adoption is very recent. Ask yourself why all of these "religious freedom" laws have sprung up in last few years.

And, as I've told you many times, I don't have any paritsan ideological blinders. I don't care if something is left, right, or upside-down as long as works. I do believe in freedom, equality, and justice for all -- and not just for some.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2017 09:05AM by anybody.