• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rebuffs Catholic agency over same-sex foster care

TU Curmudgeon

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
62,574
Reaction score
19,330
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From NBC News

Supreme Court rebuffs Catholic agency over same-sex foster care
​

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Thursday to force the city of Philadelphia to resume the placement of children in need of foster care with a Catholic agency that refuses to accept gay couples as foster parents.

In a decision that Catholic Social Services had said would force its foster care program to close, the justices refused the religious agency’s request for an injunction compelling the city to allow it to place children in foster homes while litigation over the dispute continues in lower courts.

In the brief order that did not give any reasons for the decision, three conservative members of the court, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said they would have granted the agency’s request.

...

Philadelphia says that as part of its foster care contract with Catholic Social Services, the agency must follow a city anti-discrimination law, which covers sexual orientation.

COMMENT:-

An interesting situation.

By analogy, and using the same type of reasoning, a car manufacturer which produced cars that didn't meet the "crash safety laws" could sue the government for not buying its cars if the government insisted that all cars purchased had to meet the "crash safety laws".
​
 
So it isn't about the children?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
So it isn't about the children?
Click to expand...

It's about the law.

There is nothing "theological" about being a foster parent.

What would your position be if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) the Catholic agencies refused to to home studies on Jews?

What would your position be if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) the Catholic agencies refused to to home studies on (whatever the acceptable term is for persons with a higher than average melanin skin content)?

What would your position be if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) the Catholic agencies refused to to home studies on persons who were "Registered Republicans"?

What would your position be if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) the Catholic agencies refused to to home studies on persons who were physically handicapped?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
There is nothing "theological" about being a foster parent.
Click to expand...

To them it is... And I wouldn't be surprised if a Catholic adoption agency refused applicants who weren't Christian. One of the Big things in the Catholic church is that you vow to raise your children Catholic.
 
All the same arguments that are in the thread about the baker are going to rehashed again.

My question is what do adoption agencies do exactly? Do they actually approve adoptions or just help people through the legal process involved?

It also raises another question for me. Does the parent have the right to deny a gayvperson the ability to adopt their child?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
It's about the law.

There is nothing "theological" about being a foster parent.

What would your position be if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) the Catholic agencies refused to to home studies on Jews?

What would your position be if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) the Catholic agencies refused to to home studies on (whatever the acceptable term is for persons with a higher than average melanin skin content)?

What would your position be if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) the Catholic agencies refused to to home studies on persons who were "Registered Republicans"?

What would your position be if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) the Catholic agencies refused to to home studies on persons who were physically handicapped?
Click to expand...

Take your law and the kids can rot in foster care rather than finding a home through this agency.

Ta da, you win!
 
trouble13 said:
All the same arguments that are in the thread about the baker are going to rehashed again.

My question is what do adoption agencies do exactly? Do they actually approve adoptions or just help people through the legal process involved?

It also raises another question for me. Does the parent have the right to deny a gayvperson the ability to adopt their child?
Click to expand...

The last question is a good one.

Does a parent that is giving up all rights to a child have a "right" to insist that the child be placed with a "straight" family that rates (as an example) 51 out of 100 rather that with a "gay" family that rates (same type of example) 95 out of 100?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Take your law and the kids can rot in foster care rather than finding a home through this agency.

Ta da, you win!
Click to expand...

Actually there is a "simple solution" and that it to require that everyone who is "Pro-Life" make themselves available as foster/adoptive parents.

I am, however, interested in your answers to

  • What is your position if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) an adoption agency refused to to home studies on Jews?
  • What is your position if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) an adoption agency refused to to home studies on (whatever the acceptable term is for persons with a higher than average melanin skin content)?
  • What is your position if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) an adoption agency refused to to home studies on persons who were "Registered Republicans"?
  • What is your position if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) an adoption agency refused to to home studies on persons who were physically handicapped?
 
celticwar17 said:
To them it is... And I wouldn't be surprised if a Catholic adoption agency refused applicants who weren't Christian. One of the Big things in the Catholic church is that you vow to raise your children Catholic.
Click to expand...

The difference is the Catholic church could have kept everything...in house. Foster and adoption to members or Catholics only. In that way, they could discriminate as to who could adopt and foster.

What the Catholics did is go outside there membership and allow the general public to adopt/ foster.

Once you do that, you must treat the general public without discrimination.


example...
A Catholic Hospital can still adhere to their creed and not perform abortions, but if they offer heart transplants to the public...they can not discriminate towards gay folk on religious reasoning.
 
Last edited:
1750Texan said:
The difference is the Catholic church could have kept everything...in house. Foster and adoption to members or Catholics only. In that way, they could discriminate as to who could adopt and foster.

What the Catholics did is go outside there membership and allow the general public to adopt/ foster.

Once you do that, you must treat the general public without discrimination.


example...
A Catholic Hospital can still adhere to their creed and not perform abortions, but if they offer heart transplants to the public...they can not discriminate towards gay folk on religious reasoning.
Click to expand...

"In House" vs "At Large" is a very good point.

Once you start offering services to the general public then you must treat all members of the general public equally.

On the other hand, what with the position being taken by the Roman Catholic Church regarding reporting sexually deviant behaviour (whether amongst the RCC clergy or revealed in "Confession"), I'm not so sure that I would want to accept an assessment of fitness conducted by an agency of the RCC with respect to a member of the RCC - at least not without independent, third-party, confirmation.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Actually there is a "simple solution" and that it to require that everyone who is "Pro-Life" make themselves available as foster/adoptive parents.

I am, however, interested in your answers to

  • What is your position if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) an adoption agency refused to to home studies on Jews?
  • What is your position if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) an adoption agency refused to to home studies on (whatever the acceptable term is for persons with a higher than average melanin skin content)?
  • What is your position if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) an adoption agency refused to to home studies on persons who were "Registered Republicans"?
  • What is your position if (and I know that I'm exaggerating here) an adoption agency refused to to home studies on persons who were physically handicapped?
Click to expand...

Another simple solution is to allow parents to abort their children up to the age of 18 years. If they don't want them, they can decide that no one should have them. (I get the impression you assume I am pro life).

A large city like Philadelphia needs all the help it can get and if private agencies are going to be used, then I have no position on any of your groups.

Here is one for you, should Philadelphia adoption agencies refuse to work with Canadians. If someone there wants to give a child a good home, why not?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Another simple solution is to allow parents to abort their children up to the age of 18 years. If they don't want them, they can decide that no one should have them. (I get the impression you assume I am pro life).

A large city like Philadelphia needs all the help it can get and if private agencies are going to be used, then I have no position on any of your groups.

Here is one for you, should Philadelphia adoption agencies refuse to work with Canadians. If someone there wants to give a child a good home, why not?
Click to expand...

If Pennsylvania had a "residency requirement" for adoptions, then I would say "Of course.". However Pennsylvania does NOT have a "residency requirement".

On the other hand, the expense of conducting the requisite background checks and/or home studies, might be sufficient to justify the Philadelphia adoption agencies prioritizing the order in which they deal with adoption applications so that they can maximize the number of placements they are able to facilitate. (ASIDE - I rather suspect that the Philadelphia agencies are already doing this to a great extent.)

Mind you, if an agency is operated by a religion which has as a basic tenet
  • "Being a Canadian is a sin in the eyes of God." or
  • "Being Jewish is a sin in the eyes of God.", or
  • "Being a person with a higher than average melanin skin content is a sin in the eyes of God.", or
  • "Being a 'Registered Republican' is a sin in the eyes of God.", or
  • "Being a 'Registered Democrat' is a sin in the eyes of God." or
  • "Having a physical handicap is a sign of being a sinner in the eyes of God."
then I suspect that there is some prospect of an American court actually granting that agency a "religious exemption".
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If Pennsylvania had a "residency requirement" for adoptions, then I would say "Of course.". However Pennsylvania does NOT have a "residency requirement".

On the other hand, the expense of conducting the requisite background checks and/or home studies, might be sufficient to justify the Philadelphia adoption agencies prioritizing the order in which they deal with adoption applications so that they can maximize the number of placements they are able to facilitate. (ASIDE - I rather suspect that the Philadelphia agencies are already doing this to a great extent.)

Mind you, if an agency is operated by a religion which has as a basic tenet
  • "Being a Canadian is a sin in the eyes of God." or
  • "Being Jewish is a sin in the eyes of God.", or
  • "Being a person with a higher than average melanin skin content is a sin in the eyes of God.", or
  • "Being a 'Registered Republican' is a sin in the eyes of God.", or
  • "Being a 'Registered Democrat' is a sin in the eyes of God." or
  • "Having a physical handicap is a sign of being a sinner in the eyes of God."
then I suspect that there is some prospect of an American court actually granting that agency a "religious exemption".
Click to expand...

Exactly, it isn't about the children.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
So it isn't about the children?
Click to expand...
If it was, the Catholic Church wouldn't concern itself with keeping the secrets of pedophile priests under lock and key.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
trouble13 said:
All the same arguments that are in the thread about the baker are going to rehashed again.

My question is what do adoption agencies do exactly? Do they actually approve adoptions or just help people through the legal process involved?

It also raises another question for me. Does the parent have the right to deny a gayvperson the ability to adopt their child?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They do a lot. When my husband and I were going through our adoption, some of the adoption workers did some very unethical things. One worker coached a child we were looking at to say they didn't want to be adopted by anyone but a "Christian Mom and Dad". The child had been very eager to be adopted by us until that worker got involved. A supervisor at another agency reassigned a worker who was working with us and the new worker she assigned to us lied about a kid who the previous worker had been working with us to adopt. The adoption agencies provide the training, home studies, supervision, and placement required by state law to adopt. We have since adopted, but I sometimes check on those other two kids through the online system and it looks like they have yet to be adopted. Apparently those workers thought the state would be a better option than a same sex couple.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I never said that it was.

You also never answered the questions.

That, I find, is rather unusual for you.
Click to expand...

You said to my first post: "it is about the law", for some reason you chose to respond to my post so what else do you leave me with?

Assuming your questions in #8, I left you with: "then I have no position on any of your groups."

If the most recent post, then you have no questions in that post.
 
Hatuey said:
If it was, the Catholic Church wouldn't concern itself with keeping the secrets of pedophile priests under lock and key.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you can't stick to the topic, you might seek help for that. I have no experience with the priesthood, so perhaps your own issues affect you differently.

I don't give a crap about the Catholic Church on this topic (or most any others), but I don't freak out if some group of do-gooders have conditions for their help. Maybe if Philadelphia raised their taxes, they wouldn't need private entities to help.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I'm sorry you can't stick to the topic, you might seek help for that. I have no experience with the priesthood, so perhaps your own issues affect you differently.

I don't give a crap about the Catholic Church on this topic (or most any others), but I don't freak out if some group of do-gooders have conditions for their help. Maybe if Philadelphia raised their taxes, they wouldn't need private entities to help.
Click to expand...
I must have hit a nerve. As I said, and to expand if Catholics, the Catholic Church or this Catholic institution were concerned about the children, there would be a major uproar about the church creating special privileges for itself that violate the rights of children.

They aren't, so no - the clear answer is that this isn't about children, but about the church and its pawns wanting to live by standards created when they had more power to destroy people's lives.

You seem bent out of shape because the answer to your question was given.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
CriticalThought said:
They do a lot. When my husband and I were going through our adoption, some of the adoption workers did some very unethical things. One worker coached a child we were looking at to say they didn't want to be adopted by anyone but a "Christian Mom and Dad". The child had been very eager to be adopted by us until that worker got involved. A supervisor at another agency reassigned a worker who was working with us and the new worker she assigned to us lied about a kid who the previous worker had been working with us to adopt. The adoption agencies provide the training, home studies, supervision, and placement required by state law to adopt. We have since adopted, but I sometimes check on those other two kids through the online system and it looks like they have yet to be adopted. Apparently those workers thought the state would be a better option than a same sex couple.
Click to expand...

Because we all know that homosexuality is contagious, amirite?

Ugh, it really irritates me that people like that are in positions that effect the well-being of children.
 
Hatuey said:
I must have hit a nerve. As I said, and to expand if Catholics, the Catholic Church or this Catholic institution were concerned about the children, there would be a major uproar about the church creating special privileges for itself that violate the rights of children.

They aren't, so no - the clear answer is that this isn't about children, but about the church and its pawns wanting to live by standards created when they had more power to destroy people's lives.

You seem bent out of shape because the answer to your question was given.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

How sad for you. You didn't even read the story, you just have your generic response without the ability to stay on topic.

I don't care whether the Catholic Church, Christianity in general, or any religion thrives or is consigned to the dustbin of history.

Can you say the same thing?
 
AliHajiSheik said:
You said to my first post: "it is about the law", for some reason you chose to respond to my post so what else do you leave me with?

Assuming your questions in #8, I left you with: "then I have no position on any of your groups."

If the most recent post, then you have no questions in that post.
Click to expand...

The question is not whether you do, or do not, think that those groups should be allowed to adopt, but whether you do, or do not, think that agencies which offer a service to the general public should be allowed to discriminate against those groups (based on the tenets of their religion).

That's what you didn't respond to.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Take your law and the kids can rot in foster care rather than finding a home through this agency.

Ta da, you win!
Click to expand...

They will simply put the kids through with another agency who will do home studies on any couple, including same sex couples. The kids will still be placed and have even better odds of being placed with a good family rather than simply placed.
 
roguenuke said:
They will simply put the kids through with another agency who will do home studies on any couple, including same sex couples. The kids will still be placed and have even better odds of being placed with a good family rather than simply placed.
Click to expand...

Most likely.

And the state government will simply take the money that it isn't giving to an agency that considers that it doesn't have to comply with state law and use it to increase the funding of agencies that do comply with state law so that the "shortfall in placements" is taken care of.

On the other hand, I do realize that some RCC couples who want to adopt a child simply won't do so if they cannot adopt a child through an arm of the RCC. I mean, they might get a child that has "Protestant" (or, even worse, "Jewish") blood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom