Shutting Down Faith-Based Adoption Services Exposes Progressive Vindictiveness

And please spare us the “Well, they oppressed us when they had the power” responses, as if that were a morally convincing argument.



26 Comments for “Shutting Down Faith-Based Adoption Services Exposes Progressive Vindictiveness”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Why should government should license/pay a service provider to discriminate against gay and lesbian parents?

    Reply
  2. posted by JohnInCA on

    As always, if these whiners were arguing against *all* non-discrimination laws and policies, that would be one thing. But they aren’t. They are arguing against a specific one they don’t like, while hiding behind the same protections they would deny to others.

    Put simply, Catholic Charities is not entitled to state sponsorship. If they are unwilling to play by the same rules as other contractors, it isn’t unreasonable to deny then that sponsorship.

    Reply
  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    And please spare us the “Well, they oppressed us when they had the power” responses, as if that were a morally convincing argument.

    I’ve not heard anyone make this argument on IGF. Not once. So consider yourself spared. Or maybe just setting up a straw man that fell on its ass.

    Reply
  4. posted by Lori Heine on

    Catholic Charities gladly takes the taxpayers’ money. No one has bothered to ask me if I want them to do this. Yet–boo-hoo–I’m somehow violating them if I choose not to support them. Because–muh religious freedoms!

    Baloney spumoni. They’re welfare queens. Cut them off, and now.

    Reply
  5. posted by Lori Heine on

    And how, pray tell, are we “shutting them down?” By not committing armed robbery against the citizenry and forcing them–literally at gunpoint–to fund people who refuse to serve every one of them?

    I don’t believe that Catholic Charities should be forced to do a damned thing. But what’s really going on here is that we are being lied to, and told that they are being “forced to shut down,” when what’s really happening is that citizens are sick and tired of being robbed.

    Reply
  6. posted by Lori Heine on

    Republicans are crap. They’re not the solution–they’re a part of the problem.

    And there’s an especially hot place in Hell awaiting “journalists” who peddle twaddle that lies to us about this.

    Reply
  7. posted by Jorge on

    “On a deeper level, however, the issue cuts right to the core of religious liberty. Although the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom has always meant that the state couldn’t impose a religion upon its people, secularism would seem to qualify as a religion inasmuch as the state’s policies are really beliefs — articles of faith based upon far less information and experience than the church’s. There’s no dogma like no-dogma, if I may quote myself.”

    I am disturbed by how seldom this point is made.

    “And, rather oddly, the church objects only to same-sex couples.”

    *Shrug.* It’s always about the sex.

    Why should government should license/pay a service provider to discriminate against gay and lesbian parents?

    The flaw in your question and the rationale against bad government have been explained to you many times, and you have chosen not to agree.

    As always, if these whiners

    They’re welfare queens.

    Republicans are crap.

    Reading your comments, there was something Glenn Beck wrote about Milo Yiannapoulous that strikes me as relevant just now.

    “I don’t know what pain you had to go through to make you so cold and distant from any feelings of compassion and basic kindness but causing hurt makes you into the monster you are running from.

    But the question is: SHOULD WE? Not, can we.

    …you can hide behind anything that helps you sleep… but at some point you will come to the realization that
    You have become that bully that hurt you so deeply in the past.”

    Mr. Miller’s headline are spot-on.

    I find it rather funny, Tom, that you deny the motivation, and yet yours and Lori’s comments embody that vindictiveness.

    Put simply, Catholic Charities is not entitled to state sponsorship. If they are unwilling to play by the same rules as other contractors, it isn’t unreasonable to deny then that sponsorship.

    That strikes me as rather shortsighted considering how recently the rules were changed.

    As I believe I have said before, it suggests to me a view that the “law” is nothing more than a tool to be used for the quickest and most immediate gain by those who have the most power. For what purpose should be hold the temporal pursuit of power as the highest purpose?

    (You’re conflating law and politics, Mr. Jorge. Case law is apolitical.)

    So I am. No it’s not.

    Reply
    • posted by JohnInCA on

      I am disturbed by how seldom this point is made.

      Don’t be absurd. Folks such as yourself frequently try to make the “secularism is a religion” argument. There’s nothing seldom or convincing about it.

      That strikes me as rather shortsighted considering how recently the rules were changed.

      To the best of my knowledge, the first time Catholic Charities ended adoption services (or threatened to do so) in response to a non-discrimination law was in Massachusetts in the very recent year of 2006. The oh-so-recent law that they were protesting was signed in 1989. They had, in fact, been placing kids with gay couples for almost two decades.

      That was twelves years ago. But sure, “short sighted”.

      As for being “bullies”, those who oppose LGBT rights have set quite a high bar on that. Non-discrimination laws are the least that they have done to us, but they are the most we have done to them.

      And as always… if non-discrimination laws are such a burden upon the conscience of religious folks, they are free to argue against all such laws. But when they only argue against a narrow sliver of those laws, it becomes clear they do not have a principled stand, be it moral, legal, or philosophical.

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        To the best of my knowledge, the first time Catholic Charities ended adoption services (or threatened to do so) in response to a non-discrimination law was in Massachusetts in the very recent year of 2006. The oh-so-recent law that they were protesting was signed in 1989. They had, in fact, been placing kids with gay couples for almost two decades.

        That was twelves years ago. But sure, “short sighted”.

        Hmm. I almost found your argument persuasive, John.

        Two things.

        1) You seem to be arguing a national trend or some kind of precedent to CSS’s actions. I do not believe that is either relevant or true.

        Massachusetts is a different legal entity than the city of Philadelphia, the state of Pennsylvania, or the United States, whose laws apply to this situation. I believe Catholic Social Services’s contracts with government entities should be looked at individually and in isolation from each other when making decisions about how best to reconcile them.

        Massachusetts is also an outlier when it comes to gay civil rights legislation, being one of the first states in the US to authorize gay marriage… in 2004. As you may recall from my earlier post, Catholic Social Services currently has a rather “odd” rule whereby it will place children with gay individuals, but not gay “couples”, a rule you say it changed in 2006. I think you are only half-right that the relevant law is from 1989. Never before had a gay couple with a marriage license presented themselves for adoption services.

        So in sum, Massachusetts CSS actually encountered a situation very similar to that which concerns CSS in Philadelphia: a gay marriage law that was only a few years old.

        2) Even if it were true that in Massachusetts it was Catholic Social Services that tried to change a 17-year status quo and was told “No” by the state, it is indisputable that the reverse situation is present here.

        In this case we have an example of where a certain status quo was in effect since 2006, when Catholic Social Services changed its policy to exclude gay couples with a marriage license, to March 2018, when a complaint was made. That’s 12 years. And it was the government that changed its policy unilaterally.

        The most I am willing to give you is that Catholic Social Services and the State of Massachusetts had sufficient time to negotiate a termination in as non-disruptive a fashion as possible, and that the same careful process is under way in Philadelphia.

        Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        [Catholic Charities] had, in fact, been placing kids with gay couples for almost two decades.

        That was the experience in Illinois, too.

        Catholic Charities had no trouble placing kids with gays and lesbians (as, in their words, an “accommodation to the greater good”) until until gay/lesbian couples could marry.

        After Illinois gay/lesbian couples could marry, somehow the “greater good” became irrelevant to Catholic thinking about adoption.

        Reply
  8. posted by Lori Heine on

    How is that “vindictiveness?” Why, exactly, are we obligated to fund them?

    Jorge, you have not even attempted to answer that question. Not surprisingly, I suppose. Republicans are Defcon 5 level frauds.

    I resent having my pocket picked–at gunpoint–to fund people who hate me and want to destroy me. And in that scenario, it is I who am portrayed as a weirdo.

    How very, very bizarre and dishonest life in this country has become.

    Reply
  9. posted by Kosh III on

    Meanwhile,
    https://www.ocregister.com/2018/05/24/dana-rohrabacher-says-its-ok-to-not-sell-homes-to-gays-loses-support-of-realtors/

    and this absurdly delusional statement
    ” his stance likely will “alienate a certain number of gays who think I’m anti-gay, which isn’t the case.””

    Reply
  10. posted by Lori Heine on

    Quoting a lunatic like Glenn Beck does not exactly help your cause.]

    My question remains unanswered. Why ARE the American people obligated to be robbed at gunpoint to support these people?

    Jorge, you and deluded people like you have permitted real religious freedom in this country to be destroyed. But…but…but…muh religious freedom!

    You, and everyone who thinks like you, is a fraud. Shut up and go away in shame. Oh, wait…you’re not capable of shame.

    Reply
  11. posted by David Bauler on

    If we could get the Catholic Church to back a gay rights bill, i can see giving them a general exemption to civil rights laws.

    But, I see that people demanding their own selective freedom, cant be bothered to say, ” in general, lets have civil rights laws for LGBT people.”

    Reply
  12. posted by Jorge on

    How is that “vindictiveness?” Why, exactly, are we obligated to fund them?

    Republicans are Defcon 5 level frauds.

    I was going to answer that, but you just told me to shut up. I choose to accept your invitation once, and immediately.

    and this absurdly delusional statement
    ” his stance likely will “alienate a certain number of gays who think I’m anti-gay, which isn’t the case.””

    😐

    I’ve lived through watching Ron Paul give a dog whistle critique of the Civil Rights Act in a presidential debate. This does not bother me. (Well, Ron Paul did–a lot–because he was so eloquent and anti-war) I just swat him.

    Reply
  13. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I return to my original question: “Why should government should license/pay a service provider to discriminate against gay and lesbian parents?”

    The only two reasons I can think of offhand for contracting with an adoption service provider who discriminates against gay and lesbian parents are (1) the government is incapable of providing adoption services itself, and (2) no adoption service providers who do not discriminate against gay and lesbian parents exist.

    Neither seems to be the case in this instance.

    Adoption service providers who will not, for whatever reason, place children with gay/lesbian parents have the option of going private (that is, self-funding rather than contracting with the government) and operating privately through religious organizations. Many private adoption agencies exist (most serving niche markets, like placing children born into minority religions with parents of that religion) and are successful.

    Reply
  14. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I find it rather funny, Tom, that you deny the motivation …

    Just out of curiosity, what indication of vindictiveness do you find in my comments to this post? And what indication of denial of that motivation do you find in my comments?

    Your overactive fantasy life is at work, it seems.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Sorry that was a mistake on my part. I got confused and thought a comment I quoted from JohninCA (the “whiners” comment) came from you. When I was reading the original version of my comment I realized I only had three examples from two posters, and couldn’t immediately find the example I thought I had seen in John’s post.

      My overactive fantasy life is the key to solving all the world’s problems.

      Reply
  15. posted by Lori Heine on

    This very much appears to demonstrate that Team Red is as capable of dishonesty as Team Blue.

    Since when is getting a welfare queen social service agency off of the public teat tantamount to shutting it down?

    And since when is the taxpaying public obligated to be robbed at gunpoint?

    When did “Thou Shalt Not Steal” get expunged from Scripture?

    So many questions. None of which can be expected to be answered here.

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      So many questions. None of which can be expected to be answered here.

      You can exceed expectations by answering a few.

      Reply
      • posted by Lori Heine on

        Indeed I can. As can any of us. But those answers will–as they always are–be ignored.

        Reply
  16. posted by Greg on

    Faith Based adoption services shouldn’t be shut down, if they have practices that go against the city and/or state find discriminatory, they also shouldn’t receive funding from the state. If there are any groups getting shut down solely because of their religious beliefs let me know because that is wrong, however all instances I have seen of Religious adoption services shutting down have been due to no longer receiving public funding.

    Reply
  17. posted by Lori Heine on

    Why, indeed, should they expect to depend on public funding? They’re being dishonest if they claim that this means they are “being shut down.”

    They chose to make a Faustian bargain and receive the dubious benefit of taxpayer funding. They certainly could have done otherwise–as many religious charities still do. That route may not be easy, but it would have permitted them to keep their souls.

    What is happening to them is entirely their own fault. I have no obligation to support people who refuse to serve me. They are not entitled to my money.

    Reply
  18. posted by David Bauler on

    ….

    Reply
  19. posted by David Bauler on

    ND passed a law letting private faith based adoption agencies refuse to work with couples when their is a religious objection, i.e. not Catholic, unmarried, divorced, same-sex couple. It was framed as a civil rights issue.

    Yet, when it comes to a state gay rights bill, suddenly civil rights are not so important.

    Reply
  20. posted by Jim Michaud on

    Speaking of shutting down, apparently the Gay Patriot blog has. This happened May 20. I tried to go into it today (May 30) and Bruce Carroll said he’s gone fishin’. Past posts are available in the archives, but the blog is no longer active.

    Reply

Leave a Comment