Wow. I'm amazed this is a thing that happened at all."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."
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."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.
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.Wow. I'm amazed this is a thing that happened at all.
"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.
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.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.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.
Christianity is an extension of Judaism. There is no difference in "Gods" Moreover, God is God. Most religions argue over who God is.Their God is far superior to other gods.
Tax em. All of em. Until it hurts. Churches need to be taxed"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.
And that is what the current attack on education is all about. Privatize what is left of public educationWait'll private, charter and religious schools that have some type of religious instruction get a greater handle on various forms of public funding.
They are Christian first and American a distant secondTheir God is far superior to other gods.
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 ConstitutionThis 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.
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.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.
They can have their deeply held religious belief on their own damn dime. Not the taxpayersClearly, 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.
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.
This is not in violation of the establishment clause, which only prevents congress from establishing a state church like what exists in Denmark or EnglandJewish 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.
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."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.
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 RussiaThey can have their deeply held religious belief on their own damn dime. Not the taxpayers
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 suppressThey 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 PatriaThey are Christian first and American a distant second
What about side effects?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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?