• 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!

Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
25,767
Reaction score
23,380
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption (TODAY)

"A couple in Knoxville, Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services this week alleging that they were denied services by a state-funded foster care agency because they are Jewish."
....
"In an email to TODAY, Brad Williams, the president and CEO of the agency, confirmed that the organization had rejected the couple due to their religious beliefs."


Seems pretty clear-cut to me. "A 2020 Tennessee law allows private child-placing agencies that receive public funding to provide services based on 'religious or moral convictions'" So much for the First Amendment's establishment clause.
 
"In a statement to 10News, Holston Home said, as a religious organization, it feels it is vital that it remain "free to continue placing at-risk children in loving, Christian families, according to our deeply held beliefs."

I have no trouble with that as long as they cut their ties to the state. We need a complete separation of Church and State in this country and what we have feels anything but that.
 
"In a statement to 10News, Holston Home said, as a religious organization, it feels it is vital that it remain "free to continue placing at-risk children in loving, Christian families, according to our deeply held beliefs."

I have no trouble with that as long as they cut their ties to the state. We need a complete separation of Church and State in this country and what we have feels anything but that.
That's precisely the problem with this - they are operating as an arm of the State and being funded by Jewish, Muslim and Atheist taxpayers. That is precisely what the First Amendment was crafted to prevent.
 
"state funded foster care agency"


Problematic.

in Kansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, agencies that receive state funding can discriminate based on religious belief.

I'm surprised it took this long to get challenged.
 
Wow. I'm amazed this is a thing that happened at all.
Are you really? Vanilla ISIS has been trying to do this for decades, push for a theocracy. The republicans stacked tghe courts with hacks, and they want to run this country like teh Taliban rule Afghanistan. And the courts will allow them to do it. Look at Barret, she's a complete religious wackjob.
 
"In a statement to 10News, Holston Home said, as a religious organization, it feels it is vital that it remain "free to continue placing at-risk children in loving, Christian families, according to our deeply held beliefs."

I have no trouble with that as long as they cut their ties to the state. We need a complete separation of Church and State in this country and what we have feels anything but that.


Wait'll private, charter and religious schools that have some type of religious instruction get a greater handle on various forms of public funding.
 
Seems pretty clear-cut to me. "A 2020 Tennessee law allows private child-placing agencies that receive public funding to provide services based on 'religious or moral convictions'" So much for the First Amendment's establishment clause.
I think a key factor that I keep seeing being missed in this case is that the Jewish parents weren't going to the agency to actually adopt a child, they were only looking to receive the state-mandated training prior to adopting from out-of-state. To me, this moves beyond the agency determining how they operate to the trying to determine how the entire system operates.
 
Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption (TODAY)

"A couple in Knoxville, Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services this week alleging that they were denied services by a state-funded foster care agency because they are Jewish."
....
"In an email to TODAY, Brad Williams, the president and CEO of the agency, confirmed that the organization had rejected the couple due to their religious beliefs."


Seems pretty clear-cut to me. "A 2020 Tennessee law allows private child-placing agencies that receive public funding to provide services based on 'religious or moral convictions'" So much for the First Amendment's establishment clause.
This is actually a really interesting issue. I am wondering this this is an offshoot of GWB's faith-based initiatives that was premised on the idea that church/religious charities did a far better job of delivering social and welfare services than the government, so why not piggy-back on the effective social delivery infrastructure of religious charities? Frankly, I thought it was one of Bush's better ideas.

Of course, co-mingling with religious charitable organizations was tricky, as you had to have some degree of deference to their purpose, which in the case of many Christian organizations was to spread the Gospel. There are complex issues at play here, likely without a simple answer, which is why we have courts.

Their God is far superior to other gods.
Christianity is an extension of Judaism. There is no difference in "Gods" Moreover, God is God. Most religions argue over who God is.
 
Last edited:
Clearly, the adoption agency will prevail. They have a "deeply held" religious belief that all children need to be raised in Christian homes. Therefore, they should be allowed to discriminate against non-Christian parents who wish to adopt.

I based my conclusion on the Hobby Lobby decision in which it was ruled that a company with "a deeply held religious belief" should be allowed to decide which medications are covered under their employee healthcare plan. Hobby Lobby objected to making birth control medications available to their employees, regardless of the employee's religious beliefs. Employees are free to seek birth control, but without employer support.

Using this same line of reasoning, the adoption agency, holding a "deeply held religious belief" that Jewish parents are unfit to raise adoptive children (because they are not Christian), will win their case. Jewish couples are free to seek adoption from other agencies that do not hold such objections.

Disclaimer: I do not agree with the Hobby Lobby decision. My primary objection is that it is none of your employer's business how you and your doctor decide to treat you. Many other conditions, such as severe debilitating menstrual cramps can be prevented by use of hormonal therapy (birth control pills), but the USSC has decided that the sensibilities of the employers take precedence over the legitimate medical needs of the employees.
 
"In a statement to 10News, Holston Home said, as a religious organization, it feels it is vital that it remain "free to continue placing at-risk children in loving, Christian families, according to our deeply held beliefs."

I have no trouble with that as long as they cut their ties to the state. We need a complete separation of Church and State in this country and what we have feels anything but that.
Tax em. All of em. Until it hurts. Churches need to be taxed
 
Wait'll private, charter and religious schools that have some type of religious instruction get a greater handle on various forms of public funding.
And that is what the current attack on education is all about. Privatize what is left of public education
 
This is actually a really interesting issue. I am wondering this this is an offshoot of GWB's faith-based initiatives that was premised on the idea that church/religious charities did a far better job of delivering social and welfare services than the government, so why not piggy-back on the effective social delivery infrastructure of religious charities? Frankly, I thought it was one of Bush's better ideas.

Of course, co-mingling with religious charitable organizations was tricky, as you had to have some degree of deference to their purpose, which in the case of many Christian organizations was to spread the Gospel. There are complex issues at play here, likely without a simple answer, which is why we have courts.


Christianity is an extension of Judaism. There is no difference in "Gods" Moreover, God is God. Most religions argue over who God is.
Obviously it's not a good idea. Churches exist to spread the gospel. It's not a complex issue. And we don't need the courts - we have the separation of church and state stipulated in our Constitution
 
Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption (TODAY)

"A couple in Knoxville, Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services this week alleging that they were denied services by a state-funded foster care agency because they are Jewish."
....
"In an email to TODAY, Brad Williams, the president and CEO of the agency, confirmed that the organization had rejected the couple due to their religious beliefs."


Seems pretty clear-cut to me. "A 2020 Tennessee law allows private child-placing agencies that receive public funding to provide services based on 'religious or moral convictions'" So much for the First Amendment's establishment clause.
I have it on good authority that George Soros wants to populate the world with his dirty, dirty, Jewish spawn. It has to be true, I heard Mel Gibson screaming it in his sleep as he and I were cuddling last night.
 
Clearly, the adoption agency will prevail. They have a "deeply held" religious belief that all children need to be raised in Christian homes. Therefore, they should be allowed to discriminate against non-Christian parents who wish to adopt.

I based my conclusion on the Hobby Lobby decision in which it was ruled that a company with "a deeply held religious belief" should be allowed to decide which medications are covered under their employee healthcare plan. Hobby Lobby objected to making birth control medications available to their employees, regardless of the employee's religious beliefs. Employees are free to seek birth control, but without employer support.

Using this same line of reasoning, the adoption agency, holding a "deeply held religious belief" that Jewish parents are unfit to raise adoptive children (because they are not Christian), will win their case. Jewish couples are free to seek adoption from other agencies that do not hold such objections.

Disclaimer: I do not agree with the Hobby Lobby decision. My primary objection is that it is none of your employer's business how you and your doctor decide to treat you. Many other conditions, such as severe debilitating menstrual cramps can be prevented by use of hormonal therapy (birth control pills), but the USSC has decided that the sensibilities of the employers take precedence over the legitimate medical needs of the employees.
They can have their deeply held religious belief on their own damn dime. Not the taxpayers
 
Clearly, the adoption agency will prevail. They have a "deeply held" religious belief that all children need to be raised in Christian homes. Therefore, they should be allowed to discriminate against non-Christian parents who wish to adopt.

I based my conclusion on the Hobby Lobby decision in which it was ruled that a company with "a deeply held religious belief" should be allowed to decide which medications are covered under their employee healthcare plan. Hobby Lobby objected to making birth control medications available to their employees, regardless of the employee's religious beliefs. Employees are free to seek birth control, but without employer support.

Using this same line of reasoning, the adoption agency, holding a "deeply held religious belief" that Jewish parents are unfit to raise adoptive children (because they are not Christian), will win their case. Jewish couples are free to seek adoption from other agencies that do not hold such objections.

The 9-0 Ruling in Fulton v City of Philadelphia, in which a gay couple sued a Catholic social services agency for, well, being Catholic probably points towards that result as well.

Disclaimer: I do not agree with the Hobby Lobby decision. My primary objection is that it is none of your employer's business how you and your doctor decide to treat you. Many other conditions, such as severe debilitating menstrual cramps can be prevented by use of hormonal therapy (birth control pills), but the USSC has decided that the sensibilities of the employers take precedence over the legitimate medical needs of the employees.

Broadly, SCOTUS appears to be slowly enforcing the Utah Compromise, but, the Hobby Lobby decision was not about whether Hobby Lobby could ban the use of birth control, but, whether it could be forced to fund it. Respectfully, those are very different things.
 
Jewish couple challenges Tennessee law after Christian agency’s policy prevented adoption (TODAY)

"A couple in Knoxville, Tennessee filed a lawsuit against the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services this week alleging that they were denied services by a state-funded foster care agency because they are Jewish."
....
"In an email to TODAY, Brad Williams, the president and CEO of the agency, confirmed that the organization had rejected the couple due to their religious beliefs."


Seems pretty clear-cut to me. "A 2020 Tennessee law allows private child-placing agencies that receive public funding to provide services based on 'religious or moral convictions'" So much for the First Amendment's establishment clause.
This is not in violation of the establishment clause, which only prevents congress from establishing a state church like what exists in Denmark or England
 
"In a statement to 10News, Holston Home said, as a religious organization, it feels it is vital that it remain "free to continue placing at-risk children in loving, Christian families, according to our deeply held beliefs."

I have no trouble with that as long as they cut their ties to the state. We need a complete separation of Church and State in this country and what we have feels anything but that.
Lol, what you mean is you want state persecution of Christians because you politically disagree with them. You would never apply your misreading of the establishment clause against LGBT groups (which make theological claims about the nature of sexuality and metaphysics) or against atheists.

Actually in a country that’s allegedly Democratic then the majority of the population who believe in god should be catered to and not secular leftists
 
They can have their deeply held religious belief on their own damn dime. Not the taxpayers
Meh I disagree. Christianity should be funded and promoted as a positive good in society and minority faiths and atheists should merely be tolerated. Like in Russia the Orthodox Church is privileged and Catholics, Jews, Denominational Protestants, and Muslims are tolerated, allowed to run their houses of worship, in some cases like Jews and Muslims even have geographical zones they can impose religious law within, etc as long as they don’t oppose the Russian state or try to poach members of the ROC. That’s the system we should impose, except maybe altered for general pan-Christianity instead of a specific denomination like in Russia
 
They are Christian first and American a distant second
Hm. I would say that "American" probably isn't even second - I love my family more than my country, and, if my wife and children were kicked out for some reason, I would go with them, rather than stay here. I'm also a proponent of classic liberal order - of political and religious tolerance, the free exchange of ideas, goods, and services, and of individual rights that Government exists to defend, rather than suppress

But I find this complaint interesting because of its Nationalist assumptions. I've sacrificed a bit for love of this country - I've been shot at, deployed more times than I can think of offhand, lost more friends than I like to really think about..... but, why do you assume that "obedience to your preferred legal structure for my country" should be my highest moral value?
 
They are Christian first and American a distant second
I don’t know why you think that’s a knock. Leftists don’t love America. What burning love do you have for the Patria
?

You lefties consider nationalism a dirty word and believe countries are mere economic zones which can be flooded with foreigners whenever it benefits leftist election campaigns, part of the reason lefties hate Russia so much is because Putin is a Christian and a Russian and believes strongly in a nationalist Christian Russia and leftists don’t like people who link god to their Nation and love their nation. When Russians Sing their national anthem they have the verse
От южных морей до полярного края
Раскинулись наши леса и поля.
Одна ты на свете! Одна ты такая –
Хранимая Богом родная земля! The last line of which is “our native land kept by god!”

Something that gives lefties a heart attack
 
The 9-0 Ruling in Fulton v City of Philadelphia, in which a gay couple sued a Catholic social services agency for, well, being Catholic probably points towards that result as well.



Broadly, SCOTUS appears to be slowly enforcing the Utah Compromise, but, the Hobby Lobby decision was not about whether Hobby Lobby could ban the use of birth control, but, whether it could be forced to fund it. Respectfully, those are very different things.
What about side effects?

Should an employer be allowed to take a certain medication off of their coverage because they object to the side effects? For example some anti-acne medications can cause severe birth defects, and patients are strongly admonished to use effective birth control methods during their treatment. Should an employer be allowed to say, "we object to that anti-acne medication on religious grounds" because the side effect it could cause birth defects?

Or how about objecting to coverage of a particular medical procedure on religious grounds? You know of any sects that object to blood transfusions? Or, perhaps a patient who is undergoing heart valve replacement gets a pig valve? Should the employer be allowed to disallow that procedure on insurance coverage due to their religious beliefs regarding touching pigs?

Tell me why these things are different than disallowing birth control on medical insurance coverage.
 
Back
Top Bottom