How a new religious freedom lawsuit affects Michigan's faith-based adoption agencies

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    April 26, 2019 11:07 a.m.

    Gay couples represent a small portion of adoptive parents. As long as the State government has appointed an adoption agency who will provide services to these couples that assures their rights. That allows religious adoptive agencys to serve the larger group of adoptive or foster parents.

    Lets get his settled by the Supreme Court soon so that these children can be served and so personal businesses can practice their religion even in the marketplace.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    April 23, 2019 2:48 p.m.

    @RiDal

    "The Left is perpetrating a myth and misunderstanding about "rights".
    The Constitution clearly delineates a right to free expression of religion."

    Individual rights for individuals; not for businesses or government agencies. If faith based agencies want to discriminate in the conduct of their business they are free to do so. Once, however, they choose to accept tax-payer dollars to administer and deliver services on behalf of the state, "faith-based" discrimination is no longer allowed. The choice to accept or decline Caesar's nickle is theirs. Simple stuff really.

  • Back Talk Federal Way, WA
    April 22, 2019 11:14 p.m.

    There needs to be a supreme court ruling on this matter.

    It is amazing how many national issues are being held hostage by the government trying to force religious organizations to support or participate in activities that are against their religious beliefs. A religious exemption from the national discrimination laws allows all groups to enjoy their constitutional rights and will settle this issue once and for all.

    American Citizens are entitled to federal tax support for all services that the Federal or State government provide. The Supreme Court should rule that those citizens can use those funds with any certified business that they want including qualifying religious organizations. That is what freedom is all about.

    In truth, this should include schools and universitys or even healthcare.

  • Silflay Katy, TX
    April 17, 2019 10:21 p.m.

    @ RiDal

    Karen R. here.

    "And the Constitution prevents establishment of a State religion.
    But that does *not* mean that the government can never support people and actions of people who are religious."

    But it does mean that government can't favor one religion or religious belief over others because that would amount to an establishment of religion. That's what these carve-out laws do. They make beliefs about SSM more sacrosanct than the beliefs about mixed-race marriage or mixed-faith marriage, when all are seen as equal in the eyes of the law. I've yet to hear a justification for that position.

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    April 17, 2019 10:08 a.m.

    The Left is perpetrating a myth and misunderstanding about "rights".
    The Constitution clearly delineates a right to free expression of religion.
    And the Constitution prevents establishment of a State religion.
    But that does *not* mean that the government can never support people and actions of people who are religious. In fact, since all people are free to exercise religion, it is inevitable and unavoidable that the government will be influenced by and take actions that will support religious people.
    There simply is no "right to never be influenced by religious people" and no prevention of the government supporting religious people when they are doing things that are not directly propagating religion. In this case, they are promoting adoption, and they have a right to promote they type of adoption they deem beneficial. If someone else wants to use a different adoption agency, they also have that right.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 17, 2019 6:16 a.m.

    @ New to Utah

    Would you be supportive of this carve-out if St. Vincent's was using it to deny mixed-race couples? What about non-Catholic couples, including atheist ones? Because it gives them this right. It doesn't say, "Applicable only to same-sex couples." It's applicable to any of us. And only faith-based agencies are given this right. It doesn't apply to secular agencies. Their beliefs apparently aren't equally sacrosanct before the law.

    So these laws that were crafted to protect this one particular belief held only by some actually upend the entire 1st Amendment. They give government the power to play favorites.

    Do you really want to set this precedent? Aren't you counting on government always being run by religion-favoring folk? What happens if/when it isn't?* Still want government to have this power?

    * See "‘Nones’ now as big as evangelicals, Catholics in the US," Religious News Service, April 16, 2019

  • New to Utah Provo, UT
    April 16, 2019 9:32 p.m.

    Michigan’s attorney general is clearly discriminating against faith based adoption agencies and the laws of the state she is supposed to represent. Her desire to punish St Vincent’s and side with ACLU is denying foster children an opportunity to be placed in homes. Posters are missing the point that same sex couples can adopt and receive state money. There are plenty of adoption agencies and plenty of foster kids to adopt. It is certainly possible to let both groups help kids.

  • Justinstitches American Fork, UT
    April 16, 2019 8:20 p.m.

    The irony with the recently decided Michigan case, St. Vincent’s (I think that was the agency being sued) was willing to place foster kids and kids being adopted by same sex couples, they just had another organization do the home study, etc., and they would place the child based on the recommendations. They felt that because of their religious beliefs they weren’t sure they could be as unbiased as they should be. So they didn’t refuse placement at all. The lawsuit never should have proceeded.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 16, 2019 5:45 p.m.

    "And I will say again why can't we all just to to those who will accept and leave the ones who won't alone."

    This will happen on its own once those in the latter group take their hands out of the public till. Or do you think it's fair for someone to take money that all are required to contribute to, but tell some of those contributors, "We won't serve you?"

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 16, 2019 2:07 p.m.

    That's right, Bob P., Put us gays "in our place"! We just don't deserve to be treated like everyone else, we NEED to be told "go somewhere else"! Yes, that's obvious, I guess.

    @Neece;

    Open an agency and run it on your own funds and then discriminate to your hearts content. Just don't expect me to subsidize you when you're telling me to "go somewhere else".

    @Ms.W;

    Sorry, when you claim that your superstitions allow you to discriminate against me, you've lost any entitlement to respect. Discrimination and "discernment" are entirely different things. One is harmful, the other means "seeing clearly". Homosexuality is not "harmful conduct" - but discrimination is.

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    April 16, 2019 1:33 p.m.

    I want to make sure I understand the consensus here...

    It does not impinge one *my* rights if I cannot go to St. Vincent Catholic Charities.
    But it does impinge on *your* rights if you cannot go to St. Vincent Catholic Charities.

    Is that about right?

    In case that's too subtle... y'all kept saying, over and over again, that there are plenty of alternatives to St. Vincent Catholic Charities, and that it doesn't harm anyone if they St. Vincent Catholic Charities wont' work with them.

    But now y'all are cheering on a lawsuit in which you're claiming harm because St. Vincent Catholic Charities won't work with them.

    So which is it? Does having to got a non-St. Vincent Catholic Charities adoption agency cause harm, or is having to go to a non-St. Vincent Catholic Charities adoption agency benign and neutral?

    Note: you don't get to give an separate answer for gays and Christians. It's either harmful or benign for all of us. No special rights.

    @GrainOfSalt
    "No one said lesbians or gays can't adopt."
    Actually, the state of Utah (along with many others) does. It lost the legal fight there and was overruled by the courts, but don't expect us to forget it happened.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 16, 2019 1:06 p.m.

    @neece

    "Why can't I have a religious based Adoption agency? "

    Nobody's stopping you. These decisions aren't ones that ban the adoption agency if they don't adopt to same-sex couples, it just removes access to gov't funding.

  • neece Hyde Park, UT
    April 16, 2019 12:25 p.m.

    @dmcvey
    Yes you are!

    Why can't I have a religious based Adoption agency? If I don't believe in "gay" marriages Why can't I say no? All of our religious based opinions and beliefs are being destroyed all because a 'community" of people are "MAKING" us come around to their beliefs. it goes back to the Baker who didn't want to make a cake for a gay couple. Instead of bashing over and over what we believe why can't they go to another baker or adoption agency? And I will say again why can't we all just to to those who will accept and leave the ones who won't alone. NO MATTER what someone will and is being discriminated against.

  • Ms.W South Jordan, UT
    April 16, 2019 10:59 a.m.

    @dmcvey " if you're an adoption agency you have to treat all clients with respect and not discriminate."

    Sorry, but when clients pursue lawsuits over adoption agencies they've lost their privilege of any respect.
    Discrimination used to be synonymous with discernment. But the "gay" movement has exploited this association and redefined it to be synonymous with "racial prejudice".

    Although there is no rational basis for discrimination on criteria such as race, skin color and ethnicity, discrimination against harmful conduct is entirely rational.

    @Laura Bilington

    Yes, there is obvious confusion and turmoil amongst children in all of those dysfunctional circumstances you've mentioned. How could there not be?

    Children will often look outside of their surroundings for some semblance of normalcy, and want help.

    But those who don't often fall into addictions, suicide, and other unhealthy behaviors because they're not raised in a functional environment to begin with.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    April 16, 2019 10:44 a.m.

    Let's recap where our left-leaning friends are:

    Billion dollar companies like Facebook and Twiter refusing to host content they deem to be racist or "hateful": Good.

    Billion dollar international drug company Pfizer that makes a fortune selling drugs to medicare/medicaid patients refusing to sell drugs to assure lawful executions are painfree because its operaters believe executions are immoral: Good.

    Businesses of all sizes posting "No Guns Allowed" signs and thus forcing law abiding gun owners to either live in the closet or forego service: Good.

    Businesses foregoing some profit in order to operate in the most environmentally friendly manner possible based on the morals of the operators: Good.

    A business founder using his money to support traditional marriage: Very bad. Boycott the business.

    A small business owner declining to attend an event she finds morally offensive: Must be illegal. Bankrupt her. Ditto if she declines to use artistic talent to promote that event.

    A church run, non-profit placing children only with heterosexual couples: Terrible. Shut them down. No govt money. And even if they don't take govt money, still terrible; shut them down.

    Consistency? No

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    April 16, 2019 10:35 a.m.

    @Ranch: ".. "private businesses" *are* subsidized by taxpayers, right?"

    Ah, the old "You didn't build that," canard.

    But you're fine if Facebook refuses to post content that it deems immoral / racist. You're happy if Pfizer refuses to sell drugs for legal executions it consideres immoral. You're thrilled if gun owners are denied services.

    Simply put, you are happy to discriminate in ways you like and have simply found a rationalization for it.

    I'd support full anti-discrimination protections for sexual minorities today if we could agree that nobody should be required to support any message that offends him. Nobody has to provide goods or services to an NRA fundraiser, a church wedding, nor a homosexual wedding. And, nobody would be allowed to discriminate against gun owners, religious persons, nor homosexual individuals or couples when it comes to off the shelf items.

    I don't want to see any individual discriminated against. Neither do I want to see anyone forced to promote any message nor event he finds offensive.

    Forcing photographers to choose between bankruptcy and attending/supporting events that offend them (whether KKK rallies or homosexual marriages), is immoral.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    April 16, 2019 10:34 a.m.

    TheRealDJT

    Can we please also acknowledge that Dr Fitzgibbons is not exactly unbiased? He is part and parcel of a practice that seeks to maintain Catholic dogma as it relates to marriage and family. He is not an unbiased source, nor is his work universally accepted by mental health professionals.

    RiDal

    It is long established law that religious practice may not violate legislative acts or Constitutional principle. An extreme example might be human or animal sacrifice. Couch it however you may, but law that asks a religiously affiliated institution (not a Church) to follow established law when receiving public money is most definitely not restricting religious practice. Unless that practice is prejudice and bigotry.

    LaterDaySaintForever

    Your religious belief defines family. Good for you. Why do you insist on making that my definition? Is your religion better than mine? Are we not a secular nation, not a theocracy?

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan Ypsilanti, MI
    April 16, 2019 10:14 a.m.

    The claim that the goal is not to shuttered faith based organizations is leftist rhetoric. Central religious goals can not be compromised and daith based institutions will never place children in homes that violate their values.

    This Michigan attempt to win by the government abandoning defense of the law is another in a long lune of times when the liberal elite has tried to destroy legislative power by back handed moves.

  • TheRealDJT Sandy, UT
    April 16, 2019 10:04 a.m.

    The Catholic adoption agency is being accused of "religious bias"; but it also just happens to be in accordance with scientific studies on the welfare of children.
    From the US National Library of Medicine; National Institutes of Health
    "Growing up with gay parents: What is the big deal?"
    Richard P. Fitzgibbons

    "A very large body of social science research going back decades has documented the vital and unique role of mothers and of fathers in childhood development. These studies have also demonstrated the negative psychological, educational, and social effects on children who have been deprived of growing up in a home with both biological parents who are married to each other."
    In the paper, Fitzgibbons also debunks the two recent studies that have been heavily promoted on social media about there being no negative effects to children raised by gay couples. Those studies were uncontrolled, biased pseudoscience. The truth just happens to be what everyone with common sense would think is obvious: mothers and fathers are different and play different unique roles in childhood development. To deprive a child of one of those produces measurable, long-lasting negative effects.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 16, 2019 9:09 a.m.

    @ neece

    What are your thoughts on these agencies using public money, but refusing to serve part of the public? This wouldn't be an issue but for this part of the story. Were these agencies totally self-funded, they would have every right to reject anyone they chose.

    @ Tekakaromatagi

    The Regnerus study is what the State of Utah backed away from in its fight to keep Utah's SSM ban. That's right - the party AGAINST same-sex marriage, that based part of its argument on Regnerus' study, acknowledged in a letter to the court that the results couldn't be relied upon.

  • tahnl Francis, UT
    April 16, 2019 8:52 a.m.

    Many people don't want 'their' tax dollars going to any organization that supports abortion. Personally, I don't want 'my' tax dollars going to any organization that discriminates against the LGBTQ community.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 16, 2019 8:52 a.m.

    @NoNames;

    You do realize, I hope, that "private businesses" *are* subsidized by taxpayers, right?

    We subsidize their SBA loans. Their police and fire protection services. The roads upon which their raw materials arrive and their finished products are delivered. We EDUCATE their employees. Among other things.

    If "religious" people want to discriminate against others, then they should give up their own CRA non-discrimination protections.

    Am I "willing to grant anyone the right to discriminate"? No. Public businesses should NOT be allowed to discriminate against any customers.

    @windsor;

    Can you atheist spouse also "clearly see the confusion" engendered from having a parent living a superstitious lifestyle?

    @1hemlock;

    Can you prove that an SS couple isn't equally capable as an OS couple? If not, your question is moot. Simple "believe" that something is so doesn't make it so. Studies have shown that SS & OS families are equal.

    For those of you in favor of this discrimination, remember this agency also refused to adopt to an OS Jewish couple (they were involved in the lawsuit). Are you okay with that too? After all, "religious liberty".

  • Latter-daySaintForever St. George, UT
    April 16, 2019 8:51 a.m.

    The world is getting so crazy. There is far to much selfishness and who suffers the most because of it - the Children. "The Family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother.."
    To many have gone away from God and have lost sight of this. Yes SSM is now a law of the land but this is only temporary. When Jesus Christ comes again Gods laws will reign over all the earth. I prefer Gods laws over mans. We need to learn to be able to put are differences aside and do what is best for the children not are agendas.

  • dmcvey Los Angeles, CA
    April 16, 2019 8:49 a.m.

    @neece
    "People just don't get it... by the lgbtq community 'MAKING' me change my "faith Based" Ideals you are now turning it around and discriminating against me."

    No one is making you do anything. You do not have to change your ideals. But, if you are an adoption agency you have to treat all clients with respect and not discriminate--this does not affect your personal or religious freedoms in any way.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    April 16, 2019 8:37 a.m.

    We don't have a shortage of adoption agencies in this country we have a shortage of parents willing to adopt.

    When you turn away a qualified family willing to adopt, you only hurt children in desperate need of a home.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 16, 2019 8:25 a.m.

    @windsor wrote,

    "My spouse is an Atheist--yet without any religious 'superstitions' can clearly see the obvious confusion and turmoil for children in having a same-sex couple for parents."

    Is there "obvious confusion and turmoil" for a child with parents of mixed race?

    Or for a child of immigrant parents?

    Or for a child with a widowed parent?

    Or for a child raised by a couple who were both past 50 when they were born?

    Or for a child who has a parent in the military? Or who works on the graveyard shift? Or whose mother is a rabbi?

    The "confusion and turmoil" comes from outside adults who have a problem accepting that some people are different from other people--and then try their darndest to pass their prejudices on to their children. Frequently it doesn't work. The kid matter-of-factly explains to the other kids that their father isn't around much because he's a research scientist in Antarctica. Or that their mom needs leg braces to walk because she had polio. Or that he's adopted because his birth parents had drug issues. Or that her dads are gay and that gay people marry people of the same sex.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    April 16, 2019 8:08 a.m.

    This requirement by the attorney general could create a big legal mess in 30 years time. The available evidence on children raised by parents of the same gender is that they experience a statistically higher rate of negative outcomes than children raised by male/female parents (the Regnerus study), anecdotal stories from people raised by same gender parents say that they missed out from being exposed to the male/female balance. Various cultures recognize how a mothers and fathers teach children in different by complementary ways.

    History will remember these adoption agencies as being ethical, they knew the dangers and the risks and they did not give in.

    It is not a progressive when we make this huge social science experiment on children solely to validate the feelings of adults. It reminds me of the Moche civilization in Peru who would sacrifice children to stop the rain during El Nino events.

  • neece Hyde Park, UT
    April 16, 2019 7:58 a.m.

    People just don't get it... by the lgbtq community 'MAKING' me change my "faith Based" Ideals you are now turning it around and discriminating against me. No matter what someone is going to be discriminated against. I am not forcing you to go to my faith based adoption agency, why are you again MAKING me conform to your views? See? no matter what. Oh and those who are "bashing" faith based" religion, adoption agencies, my faith is NOT superstitious, discriminatory, etc. You want to be Gay go for it. but then don't knock my religion because you don't like it either.

  • Rustymommy Clovis, NM
    April 16, 2019 7:30 a.m.

    Only addressing adoptions under a year old:

    In the case of open adoption, birth parents want a voice in picking parents. Will this ruling prevent birth parents having choices? Isn’t there an added risk of a birth parent opting not to adopt to avoid limiting their choices?

    In the case of early adoptions, there is a waiting list of adoptive parents. So how does this new law improve a baby’s chance for a loving home?

    It seems like there could be limitations to protect children from delays or birth parents from being ignored. Give an agency a limited period in which to make a suitable match or the child is automatically placed through a different agency. Give birth parents an option to choose which race, religion, gender, marital status, etc they want for their child.

    Fostering children is a much more complex situation. Kids are often older or less “adoptable” or not expected to ever be adopted. They need every chance for a good match. So the fostering system needs separate policies.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 16, 2019 7:02 a.m.

    "Faith-based agencies like St. Vincent consistently do the best work because of their faith..."

    If placing belief over evidence is the best they can do - belief that is not only unsupported but CONTRARY to the evidence - then maybe it is time for the St. Vincent's of the world to step aside and let others fill the vacuum. Religion has been proven wrong too many times in the past to rush to its defense on the backs of children needing stable, loving homes. Let's be faithful to the evidence, not age-old and baseless prejudices (definition: a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.)

  • 1hemlock Tooele, Utah
    April 16, 2019 6:57 a.m.

    @rlynn, ranch-here
    So you have an institution that provides adoptions for hundreds of children a year (it’s all about the children isn’t it?) that believes the best place to raise children is in a home with a mother and father. That will now have to shut down (less adoptions more kids in foster care) because few people care more about themselves. There may be more children adopted by LGBTQ+ folks, but they will be in the 10’s and the children will not be in the best place for children.
    100’s a year in a family with a mother and a father vs a few in another arrangement.
    What’s best for the children?

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    April 16, 2019 6:28 a.m.

    The flip side here is what position religious organizations will take if/when another religion espouses another kind of discrimination, in the name of religion?

    There was another type of marriage in our nation which was long outlawed, and when the Supreme Court declared bans against it legal in 1967, one university barred students in that type of marriage all the way up to the year 2000.

    Will religions, seeking to defend themselves from a nation which is changing, defend other religious groups who want to take us back to 1967? (Won't they want to be consistent? Or just pick and choose?)

    This is the kind of acrimonious behavior by churches that turns people away from religion... but they'll never see it that way, and will be surprised and saddened as the church pews get emptier.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    April 16, 2019 6:22 a.m.

    When an "InDepth" piece starts with "limiting the rights of faith-based adoption and foster care agencies", then you know you read an opinion and not an indepth study. But to the meat of it...

    The faith-based adoption and foster care agencies agreed in Michigan (which has added the LGBT community to its non-discrimination law) to cease discriminating against gay and lesbian couples who sought to adopt. At this point the case should be closed.

    However, a politically motivated third party, the Becket Fund, seeks to inject itself into the matter. What the Becket Fund really wants is to allow anyone with Fundamentalist/Evangelical notions to be able to discriminate across the board, and do so with the force of law. Furthermore, it wants taxpayers to fund such discriminatory activities.

    The United States is not that kind of country, and most of us know this. We do not believe in discrimination. Period.

    What has the country come to when the right to discriminate against any of our citizens becomes clothed in religion, and is supported by the Press? Not the country I grew up in nor care to see become.

  • PolishBear Charleston, WV
    April 16, 2019 5:23 a.m.

    LGBT Americans are taxpayers, too. I won't tolerate my tax dollars subsidizing agencies that discriminate against me. Would you want your tax dollars going to organizations that turn away Christians?

    Catholic Charities of Boston went through this situation years ago. They USED to have no problem providing adoption services to Gay couples, but then they suddenly decided to stop, about the same time that marriage equality for Gay couples became a reality in Massachusetts. Problem was, Catholic Charities of Boston was getting about $1 million annually from the state, and they were given a choice: Either stop discriminating against adoptive Gay couples, or give up that funding. They chose the latter. Fine with me. You want to feed at the public trough, you'd better be prepared to play by the rules.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    April 16, 2019 5:22 a.m.

    I lose more respect for "faith- based" agencies every time they try to use religion as a weapon against their fellow citizens.

    How sad.

  • windsor Logan, UT
    April 16, 2019 4:59 a.m.

    Ranch--"just because of their superstitions"

    My spouse is an Atheist--yet without any religious 'superstitions' can clearly see the obvious confusion and turmoil for children in having a same-sex couple for parents.

    Reality trumps any accusations of bigotry, discrimination or superstition in this.

  • THEREALND Mishawaka, IN
    April 16, 2019 4:36 a.m.

    "This means that adoptive parents will have fewer choices and
    foster children will face longer waits to find permanent homes."

    How ironic that this is the argument that Catholic Charities is choosing to make if their government funding dries up. Their policies are counterproductive to their stated goal. Their policies actually cause children to face longer waits to find permanent homes and actually give adoptive parents fewer options.

    "Over 12,000 children are currently in Michigan’s foster care
    system, and the need for new foster parents far outstrips the number of
    families seeking to care for these children."

    And yet this organization chooses to deny legally qualified married couples the opportunity to help more of these children.

    "Because there are not enough families, more than 600 of these children “age out” of foster care every year. They exit the foster system at age 18
    without any permanent family, and many lack the resources and skills
    to successfully transition into adulthood."

    It's safe to say that same sex couples didn't create this problem, but how can we not see that they can be a part of the solution.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    April 16, 2019 4:11 a.m.

    A reminder why Mr. Trump won in Michigan and in so many other states, from tip of Florida to tip of Idaho, a nation of red.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    April 16, 2019 4:03 a.m.

    Looking forward to hear Joseph Biden and John Kerry speak on this, they being Catholic, because children more important than the climate change. And climate change, like all other subjects, more important than law suit angry nation.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    April 15, 2019 11:09 p.m.

    St. Vincents is not being honest about their policy. They claim that their religious beliefs keep them from placing children in homes where the couple is gay. But their religion is equally condemning of couples where one or both of the parties have been previously divorced, where one or both are "fallen away" Catholics, or where one or both were baptized Catholic but married in a civil ceremony. But they will gladly work with couples who fit in these categories if they are otherwise qualified.

  • GrainOfSalt Draper, UT
    April 15, 2019 8:56 p.m.

    @Thomas Thompson
    No one said lesbians or gays can't adopt. There are other adoption agencies gays and lesbians can use specifically in this case, so it isn't about not being able to adopt. As in almost all these situations it's about shutting down anyone who disagrees with the LGBTQ worldview. And to assume that just because the money comes from the government the recipients somehow loses their right to religious freedom is fallacious.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    April 15, 2019 7:28 p.m.

    @Ranch: "They wouldn't be "forced to close down" if they were willing to STOP discriminating against good families just because of their superstitions."

    And yet you'll force completely private business owners to attend and support weddings they don't want to attend even though they don't accept any government money. So your objections based on accepting government money seem a bit inaccurate.

    Are you willing to grant anyone, anywhere, the right to exist, to operate a business according to their conscience, and not support, affirm, or celebrate same sex unions and intimacies?

    If there are adoption agencies that will provide the same level of service at the same low cost as do these religious-based non-profits, they should get the contract simply to avoid any questions about discrimination. But if not, then we ought to make best use of limited tax dollars by allowing the lowest cost, highest service provider to provide services to the 99% of prospective couples they will work with and then provide service to the 1% they can't, via other means.

    We do not need to waste money on "message laws" that express outrage over religious beliefs you find offensive. We need to help kids.

  • Fair Flower Layton, UT
    April 15, 2019 5:04 p.m.

    The birth parent or parents should have the right as to who adopts their child. If they want them in a traditional family, they should have the ability to do so. If they want it the other way, they should also be able to choose.

  • Thomas Thompson Salt Lake City, UT
    April 15, 2019 4:23 p.m.

    And here we come to a significantly more vital issue than whether a baker may refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple; it was easy to come down on the side of the baker when, as a practical matter, wedding cakes are a relatively trivial issue. Whether a gay couple can adopt a child is an issue that raises the stakes to a much higher level. The issue is not going to be an easy one to decide, but it seems to me that if a gay couple is lawfully married in the jurisdiction where they live, then they ought to have exactly the same right to adopt as every other couple seeking a child. Having children is a vital part of what many couples consider fundamental to their married relationship. If an adoption agency can refuse to allow an adoption to go forward even when the couple opting to adopt is in full compliance with the laws of the land, then it seems to me we're going to have to reject the whole concept of the "equal protection of the laws" enshrined in our Constitution. Is that really what we want?

  • rlynn Brandon, FL
    April 15, 2019 4:07 p.m.

    Still the same. You receive my Gay dollars, which I pay to the Government, you can't discriminate against me or my LGBTQ family. What about my Freedom of Religion? A non profit is not a Church, no so called Religion Freedom applies.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    April 15, 2019 3:53 p.m.

    They wouldn't be "forced to close down" if they were willing to STOP discriminating against good families just because of their superstitions.

    If you want to accept Public Monies, you MUST serve ALL the public. It really is that simple. "Religious freedom" does not mean 'freedom to discriminate in the public square, with public money'.