TheRealDJT says:"Right to free exercise of religion: Clearly
enunciated in the Constitution."Right" to *force* any
adoption agency to serve Gay couples: Mentioned nowhere.It seems
obvious that this is another newly imagined "right" that is really just
a "want" involving forcing everyone else to acquiesce to a fringe group.
The Liberal-Left's war on all traditional American moral and cultural
values continues. They seem to be winning."--Right
to free exercise of religion: Clearly enunciated in the Constitution."Right" to *taxpayer funds* to operate your religious organization:
Mentioned nowhere.It seems more like it’s the
“religious” who are “forcing everyone else to acquiesce to a
fringe group.” Fringe superstitions have no right to operate on the
taxpayer dime.@BackTalk;Lets hope the SCOTUS will stop
the harassment of LGBT folks by "religious" folks who seem to think
they're above the law.
Ahhh the tolerance of the LGBTQ movement.Capitulate to their beliefs
and ways of life or in other words, completely endorse their way or....wait for it...Its all out war against you! Boycotts,
lawsuits harassment and attacks on your religious beliefs.Only the
Supreme Court can fix this nonsense.
Religious organizations and non profit services agencys like these should not be
forced to go against their religious values in order to serve for the public
good. Tax dollars can go to LGBT couples by many other agencys.
Tax dollars can also go to couples who chose to work with a religiously
affiliated agency. No discrimination by the state is condoned in this manor.
THe State is simply serving the whole public with this vital service. Lets hope the Supreme Court can soon stop this harassment by LGBT Groups and
firmly establish the right of people, private schools and religious affiliated
service agencys to serve the members of the public in accordance with their
I know part of the priesthood ban being overturned is because BYU was afraid
they were going to lose federal funding because of discrimination. I would
imagine LGBT issues isn't far behind in that respect.
What's next?How about follow the law. And "do
unto others as you would have done unto you". Would you like to be denied
services because your beliefs differ from someone else? Then don't do that
to same sex couples and try to excuse it by wresting the words if Jesus.
As a business owner, once the government is involved, you have basically turned
yourself over to them to make the decisions for you. Keep government out.
Unfortunately, we don't have a say as to where our taxes go. I believe
everyone should be able to send their tax dollars to whom ever they will.
@drich wrote,"No one is thinking of the children here and
what's next for them."@drich, how many kids have you
adopted? Utah prides itself on its caring for families. But as I
write this, there are, in Utah alone, over a hundred children available for
adoption. No, they are not healthy Caucasian babies. Most of them are school
age, and all have been abused or neglected, frequently both. But all are
beautiful, and all deserve a home where they are loved and wanted. Now if only there were an organization in Utah that had branches in every town
and hamlet, a comprehensive social services network, and a commitment to
families, that would take on this issue---then the number would be what it
should be: zero.7 LikeReport
Iceman.."That is what society used to say to African Americans - separate
but equal. Separate is not equal, Jim Crow demonstrated that. "This point needs to be made over and over with all of the separate but equal
excuses (they are doing good, what about the children, they can just go
somewhere else). The organization is receiving govt. funding, all
citizens deserve their services...period.
"The children should be the focus, not a the gay community's demand for
acceptance."Gay people don't go to adoption agencies,
bakers, florists, etc. to gain acceptance. They go for the same reason straight
people go: to adopt, buy wedding cakes, buy flowers, etc. It is certain
adoption agencies, bakers, and florists that are making this about acceptance,
specifically THEIR acceptance. So please stop laying this at the
feet of gay people. They aren't seeking any special carve outs. They
aren't seeking anything above and beyond what straight people get. The ones who are actually demanding something special are religious
people/organizations with certain beliefs. They are the ones demanding
codification of their disapproval. They are the ones demanding that government
give them exactly what government is enjoined from doing: granting special
status to certain beliefs.The problem isn't gay people.
It's people who insist on making transactions in the public marketplace
about them and their beliefs. IMO, this is one of the side effects that
religion can have. It can induce otherwise thoughtful, giving people to be
Why don’t we tell the government to stop taxing us for social programs?
Let us fund who we will. I donate to pro life organizations, I will take my
former tax dollars and use them to support Christian charities and adoption by
loving Christ-centered families. The government’s intrusion into my
private, personal funds has been going on too long and I feel discriminated
@sknny tires fat skis - "The fact that a gay couple can go to another
equally accessible adoption center only makes the harm to the children more
inexcusable."That is what society used to say to African
Americans - separate but equal. Separate is not equal, Jim Crow demonstrated
that. However, your point is moot because that is not the issue. The
issue is the government by giving public monies to an organization that
discriminates is a de-facto endorsement.From Sandra Day
O'Connor: Endorsement sends a message to non-adherents that they are
outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying
message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political
community.And that violates the Establishment Clause of the
@sknny tires fat skis - If your concern is truly the children then it
would seem your Angst should be directed at organizations turning away qualified
parents not with the patmrents that are ready and willing to adopt.
This ruling doesn’t violate any “religious rights”. Any
service entity operating in the public domain with the support of public funds
is required not to discriminate against protected classes of people. If
they want to discriminate against protected classes of people for religious
reasons their provision of services and funding should be constrained within the
structure of the religious organization.
@Lilly Munster:That is what it means to stand up for principle and
hold on to your values. It will not be popular or comfortable, but that is the
price to be paid for following your deeply held beliefs. Go read your
scriptures as well as the teachings of the modern prophets and and apostles and
see if that isn't what they have taught. Yes, it is a loney road to travel
at times, but that is the price for discipleship.
This is good. Faith based businesses shouldn't be recieving government
money or advancement. If a business wants to discriminate against other citizens
they shouldn't get tax dollars.
StandAlone “And what if a child wants to be adopted by a
mother and a father and no one else?”Those faith-based
agencies can still make those choices. If, however, the faith-based agencies
want to take tax dollars to provide services on behalf of the state, they cannot
pick and choose which taxpayers they will serve. Withdrawing tax support is a
win for all: the church can legally discriminate with impunity and the state can
spend those tax revenues serving all citizens.
And what if a child wants to be adopted by a mother and a father and no one
else? Who is considering the rights of the child? Why do homosexuals seek
out Catholic adoption agencies when there are plenty of non-Christian agencies
to choose from? It appears they delight in seeing people get hurt when it
comes to war on traditional values. @ApplelovernowJust
because something is legal, doesn't mean it's right.
@TheRealDJT“Right to free exercise of religion: Clearly
enunciated in the Constitution.”Not with government handouts,
The best interest of the children should trump. Why does a gay
couples' interest in forcing religious communities into accepting their
sexual conduct trump the interests of the children who are receiving competent
care from a religious organization. The children should be the focus, not a the
gay community's demand for acceptance. The fact that a gay
couple can go to another equally accessible adoption center only makes the harm
to the children more inexcusable.
@David R“The adoption agencies at issue here are Catholic
charities. They aren't businesses for profit. They're doing a
charitable service. Even though they receive some state funding, they
aren't making money off the state or taxpayers”With vast
amounts of gold deposits, some of the greatest art work ever produced, and
billions of dollar assets on deposit why does the Catholic Church need
Caesar’s penny at all? If they were to sell off a fraction of their
properties they would have enough to cover their churches and charities for a
couple of lifetimes. Then, there’s that whole tax exempt thing.“In fact, they relieve the state and taxpayers of costs for the children
the state and taxpayers bear.”Unless you are LGBT. Then they
do nothing more than relieve you of your dollars.“It's a
message of intolerance...”Intolerance by and against whom? “good Catholic people trying to live in accordance with Biblical
beliefs”Which biblical belief says orphaned children will not
be placed with loving and completely qualified LGBT adults? It’s clearly
not found in Matthew 22:15-22.
Right to free exercise of religion: Clearly enunciated in the Constitution."Right" to *force* any adoption agency to serve Gay couples:
Mentioned nowhere.It seems obvious that this is another newly
imagined "right" that is really just a "want" involving forcing
everyone else to acquiesce to a fringe group. The Liberal-Left's war on
all traditional American moral and cultural values continues. They seem to be
winning.Remember in 2020.
The simple answer is that the State should not be in the business of deciding
who to subsidize on any issue. Strangle the power of government by stopping the
funding.Then, let charitable organizations service whomever they please.
Why should faith-based people allow their tax money to be channeled
to things like gay adoption of Planned Parenthood *at all*. It is as if the
decision that we have to fund immorality is assumed. But we don't!
This LDS family of over 60 souls, living in the heart of the Midwest Bible Belt,
ask all LDS adults, safely tucked away in Utah and Idaho, to ask us what it is
really like to live where LDS Americans are regularly insulted, belittled,
bullied and discriminated against. In schools, PTA meetings, public meetings,
and in the marketplace.....the bias and verbal insults never stop. That will
give you an idea of what supporting and excusing any form of discrimination
really results in. Be careful what you demand. Be careful what you fail to
The adoption agencies at issue here are Catholic charities. They aren't
businesses for profit. They're doing a charitable service. Even though they
receive some state funding, they aren't making money off the state or
taxpayers. In fact, they relieve the state and taxpayers of costs for the
children the state and taxpayers bear. There are other adoption agencies that
cater to same sex marriages, so nobody lacked services. This change helps
nobody. It's a message of intolerance to good Catholic people trying to
live in accordance with Biblical beliefs and help place children and families.
They are doing a good work and should be lauded for what they do.
Several readers are claiming that this court ruling somehow discriminates
against faith based (which in this court case means Evangelical Christian)
charities. Did anyone else notice that every one lives in Utah or one of the
surrounding states? I suggest you try living for even a year in Oklahoma or
Alabama or rural South Carolina where there is palpable discrimination against
most anybody who is not an Evangelical Christian, preferably Southern Baptist.
Straight, married couples who are Mormon or Catholic can tell you stories about
blatant discrimination against Christians who are not the "right" kind
@IJ"Why is it that LGBTQ can't go to an agency that has no
religious beliefs one way or the other than pick on those that do. Tolerance
goes both ways"Tolerance isn't telling people to go
somewhere else, and this is quite disingenuous considering that the shift in
popular opinion is the only thing stopping there from being bans on same-sex
marriage and same-sex adoption.
“Outcomes like the Michigan settlement harm religious people who are
trying to do good in the world, they say.”Complete fallacy. They
aren’t trying to do good. They’re trying to discriminate towards a
specific segment of the population. And allowing others the same rights that you
have in no way harms you.
Read former SCOTUS Judge Sandra Day O'Connor's writing regarding the
Several years ago, Catholic adoption services in MA, accepting state money, had placed children with gay couples. Eventually, it was reported in
the local newspaper, eventually resulting in Catholic services in MA no longer
participating in adoptions. So here we are again. Religious
organizations can’t accept govt money and discriminate. Religious
organizations can, however, use their own resources to facilitate adoptions.
The solution to ending discrimination is simple. Discriminate against
faith-based organizations.This revenge hurts children, just like many
politically correct solutions. I truly hope funding can be obtained in other
ways. I surely would not want government to take over everything in my life.
The Green New Steal strikes out again for me.
No one is thinking of the children here and what's next for them.
"When you accept taxpayer funds to provide this really important government
service, you can't throw away good families based on religious criteria
that have no relationship to your ability to care for the child," said
Leslie Cooper who is deputy director of the American Civil Liberties
Union's LGBT & HIV Project. Leslie Cooper is right. If these adoption
agencies want to be free to practice prejudicial disrimination and bigotry, they
should do it on their own dime and with contributions from like-minded
discriminators, NOT on funds contributed by the general public.
The writing was on the wall for faith based adoption agencies when gay marriage
was passed nationally.
@Mainly Me - March 22, 2019 10:29 p.m.This needs to be appealed to the
Supreme Court. Hopefully, it will be overturned.-----Actually the
reverse is true -- this settlement needs to be followed, and put in place, in
all jurisdictions. There is absolutely no reason to deny LGBT individuals and
couples the opportunity to be adoptive parents. They are just as good and
qualified, and provide just as good and nurturing homes, as heterosexuals.
Children will prosper and grow in the care of same-sex parents, jut as they
would prosper and grow in the care of opposite-sex parents. In some cases, the
child would benefit from being placed with same-sex parents (example -- when the
child has been abused by a parent and the same-sex couple are of the other
gender).Additionally, this is an issue that concerns allocation of
public funds (funds that both same sex attracted and other sex attracted
individuals contribute). If they are going to contribute the money, they
deserve to get the full range of benefits to which the money is distributed.
The adoption agencies who have a problem working with same sex couples are
saying the following:1. Our religious beliefs say we should
discriminate against these couples.2. The same sex couples are not hurt;
they can just go to another agency.3. We want to keep discriminating
without losing state money. Our religious organization isn't willing to
pay for it ourselves. 4. We'll shut down if we can't keep
discriminating on the state's dime. Then all of these deserving children
will not be placed in homes.But this logic is faulty. The same sex
couples could, indeed, go to another agency that follows the law. Why
couldn't the other prospective parents do the same?
Have to agree with the ACLU on this one. Faith based organizations needto
quit taking Federal funds. Same sex marriage is the law of the land.
So who is being discriminated against? It seems no matter how the government of
Michigan or any other state rules, there will be discrimination. The difference
being that the constitution prohibits the government from interfering with
religious beliefs but says nothing about a persons sexual preference.Why is it that LGBTQ can't go to an agency that has no religious beliefs
one way or the other than pick on those that do. Tolerance goes both ways and
in this case, the children suffer because one side wants to push their agenda.
And since faith based adoption agencies won't adjust their standards, you
will lose all those who have offered this valuable service to families. Maybe
that is their end game.
Just like the Colorado cake baking case, the couple that sued can go elsewhere
to adopt. They don't have to use any faith based organization to adopt.That said, religious organizations should just quit taking money from
the government. If so, the problem is solved.
What happens next?Little children get adopted into loving families
that's what happens next.
Let those giving up their baby choose the couple the baby will go to. This will
solve most of the problem. People giving up their baby should have this choice
Tax payer money should not be used to support any discriminatory practice. That
includes Universities receiving Federal funds and grants. In my
opinion, this is the perfect course of action to prevent that, but still allow
the faith based organizations to carry out their discrimination as their beliefs
dictate. New sources of funding should be easily resolved by faith
based solutions. For example, perhaps reprioritizing the billions of dollars
spent on buildings and real estate.
Discrimination is a beautiful word, positive word, when you go buy a home or a
car, you discriminate, you make the best choice possible; it is wrong to
discriminate against people, yet we do this in dating and courting and marriage
and who we spend our time with, and who we hire and what career to choose and
it is wrong to oppose bright perfect smart religion and it is wrong to worship
fragile, weak, aging government and foolish law suit. Freedom and truth will
win. Beautiful, pretty, nice, gorgeous, fun, exciting, kind capitalism will
win. One million words in English language and some people only speak one word:
discrimination. Pro choice people are pro discriminate people. Go tell the
world discrimination is your favorite word and friend. Oh, and science knows
religious people live longer.
Sadly the children are the only hurt by this stupid decision.
What the Becket Fund, the fundamentalist Christian lobby group, is asking for is
for government to pay for religious discrimination with public money. As
pointed out by the article, Christian Charities who do no wish to place children
in same-sex households are free to do so, With Their Own Money. Their right to
"expression" and "association" are protected. However, their
"right to government funding" is not, according to this action.It can not be argued that these Christian Discriminating Charities don't
do good works. However if we are to be a nation that believes that all are
equal in the eyes of the law and deserve equal protection under the law, and
that government has no business subsidizing discrimination, then we won't
collectively pay for fundamentalist Christian sects to discriminate.Sadly, it is indeed a problem that children might suffer, all because some
Christian charities favor dogma over their best interests. It is not a matter
of faith, it is a matter of experience and science, that children raised in a
loving same sex family fare just as well as kids in heterosexual families.It is time for Christian charities to end their culture war. We know
Great news!! You take my tax money, then don't provided services to me,
then I won't give you money. Simple as that. Charity organizations are not
Stop taking public money, or stop discriminating against same sex couples. It is simple.
"the state will no longer contract with and send taxpayer money to
faith-based adoption or foster care agencies that won't work with same-sex
couples for religious reasons."A 100% correct decision. If
religious organizations wish to feed a Caesar's trough they must abide by
Caesar's rules. Faith-based religious adoption and foster care agencies are
more the welcomed to discriminate against LGBTQ on their own dime. As soon as
they decide they want to take tax dollars or choose to act on behalf of the
state by contracting their services they are no longer a faith-based agent.
Liberalism (and all its other isms and ideologies) is the State religion of
Babylon, mandated and forced on everybody.
Perhaps it would be better for faith-based social service organizations
nationally to walk away from working with government. At any level, the sudden
loss of resources would deliver a strong message to the bureaucrats. And, not
taking the money of the state limits the control of the state over the
This needs to be appealed to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, it will be