- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 54,917
- Reaction score
- 51,798
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Ya gotta feel for the children who will not neccesarily get to be adopted by the most fit parents.
It is true the current Supreme Court of the US made a confusing decision ({Philadelphia case) allowing a state funded adoption agency to discriminate against a same sex couple and opened the door to adoption agencies receiving government funding to discriminate based on religious views.
However The Philadelphia decision is very narrow in application of the ruke it applied, i.e., it might apply if a specific clause exists that allows the government funder to consider religious exemption. Even then it says in such cases if the clause exists then the obligation is to consider the exception fairly. It does not say automatically allow the religious exemption. It can not-no court at any level can tell a decision maker at any level to impose a specific ruling without considering the merits of the case. That would be called trying to impose bias in the decision making which violates the fundamental principle of natural justice (fairness) a principle all decision makers must follow.
Judge Roberts wrote in the Philadelphia decision that adoption agencies receiving federal funding are not private. However an agency that is private status loses that status in regards to the use of any of its government provided funds. In that sense the government funds being used to violate the First Amendment are most certainly public in the sense that the government funds can come with a precondition not to be used in a discriminatory manner.
It is also important to understand if an agency has very narrow religious beliefs and is upfront and clear about it so potential clients understand these preconditions and it does NOT receive public funding whether a potential client feeling discriminated against and wishes to challenge that is a distinct legal situation from one where a PUBLIC/GOVERNMENT funded agency or a state run agency wishes to discriminate.
State run agencies can not violate the First Amendment.
Publically funded private agencies and private agencies might be able to but I would suggest only where there are state funded or state run agencies also available because of alternative services of equal access are available.
Also that religious discrimination let's think about it for second. Judge Roberts the person who wrote the Philadelphia decision and three other Judges on the USSC are openly Christian in their beliefs and feel "religion" not be separated from state laws. They were appoDinted because they believe there should be no state funding of agencies they believe allow abortion. They favour imposing Christian values in laws. If the agency engaging discrimination was the Church of Satan, Church of Scientology, Church of the Aryan Brotherhood, would the decision have gone the same way if those agencies said they will not serve non believers? Probably not.
Furthermore the Philadelphia decision does not magically take precedent over the other many SC decisions that uphold the First Amendment (separating government services from religious consideration.
Yes the Philadelphia decision will be used by pro religious people to say you can discriminate. Of course. They already have that preconceived political view you can and so they will use this decision in a manner pulling it out of the actual narrow exception it provides to say it can be used in wider application.
Hiowever is a a decision replete with many references that limit it to narrow application not general application if it is used as a precedent (binding decision that must be applied) in future cases.
So I caution to jump to the conclusion this one case will allow First Amendment violations on a wide spread basis with adoption services is a bit premature.
I believe they did see all as equal. Based on where you lived, such as Thomas Jefferson, you had no choice but to own slaves and just couldn't set the free. But, I don't think you know this, do you? I believe the majority did want all to be equal. Nevertheless, it's clear that all are created equal. And, we know creation begins at conception. The created human at conception is just as equal with it's rights as the mother.It looks like your understanding of the word "Happiness" entails the ownership of physical property. Why?
With all the 'discussion' at this time with the recent publication of a Supreme Court opinion, much of it focused on "originalism" and how the Founders understood certain words and phrases, I think we should understand just how certain words were interpreted in the 18th century.
A well-known phrase in the Declaration of Independence follows: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Tell the curious - Did the Founders include women in their understanding of "created equal"? Did the Founders see those of darker-color skin as members of the group that was "created equal"?
If the Founders didn't think the phrase covered those 'others', should Americans in the 21st century go back to that original understanding?
Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
I do believe I know a bit more American history than you. Just going by what you have written here, I think you may have read David Barton's version of American History.I believe they did see all as equal. Based on where you lived, such as Thomas Jefferson, you had no choice but to own slaves and just couldn't set the free. But, I don't think you know this, do you? I believe the majority did want all to be equal. Nevertheless, it's clear that all are created equal. And, we know creation begins at conception. The created human at conception is just as equal with it's rights as the mother.
The D of I originally said "life, liberty and the pursuit of property." The Northern States thought property meant slaves and had it changed to happiness. And, property doesn't mean physical property like land, houses. It can also be money, stocks and bonds and anything of value.
LAWS OF VIRGINIA, MAY 1782−−6th OF COMMONWEALTH.
CHAP. XXI
I. WHEREAS application hath been made to this present general assembly, that those persons who are disposed to emancipate their slaves may be empowered so to do, and the same hath been judged expedient under certain restrictions: Be it therefore enacted, That it shall hereafter be lawful for any person, by his or her last will and testament, or by any other instrument in writing, under his or her hand and seal, attested and proved in the county court by two witnesses, or acknowledged by the party in the court of the county where he or she resides to emancipate and set free, his or her slaves, or any of them, who shall thereupon be entirely and fully discharged from the performance of any contract entered into during servitude, and enjoy as full freedom as if they had been particularly named and freed by this act.
Abraham Lincoln made just this point when he declared: All honor to Jefferson – to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, and so to embalm it there, that to-day and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.I do believe I know a bit more American history than you. Just going by what you have written here, I think you may have read David Barton's version of American History.
You wrote: Based on where you lived, such as Thomas Jefferson, you had no choice but to own slaves and just couldn't set the[sic] free
Notes on the State of Virginia
Although extolling the virtues of America’s native peoples in Query XI: "Aborigines," Jefferson argues in Query XIV: "Laws" that blacks were inferior to both whites and Indians, although he recognizes the possibility that the conditions of enslavement may be responsible for what he perceives as shortcomings. His denigration of blacks in the harshest terms is the most unsettling of Jefferson’s views and has earned the most serious criticism.
1-stand up comedyWhat exactly are "non-Christian behaviors"?
LOL!!! Nope, just unlock the chains of sin and lawlessness to give all of us the unalienable rights of our Creator.
The couple went to a private religious adoption agency. They knew from the beginning that it was a religious agency. The agency even recommended another agency to the couple after they rejected them.You can't have religious freedom when religion is deciding the freedom.
Kindly quote the Constitutional text that stipulates the separation of church and state. It's not there. The mythical wall of separation is a judicial contrivance to purge Christian beliefs while promoting atheism.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
The establishment clause. Look it upKindly quote the Constitutional text that stipulates the separation of church and state. It's not there. The mythical wall of separation is a judicial contrivance to purge Christian beliefs while promoting atheism.
The establishment clause prohibits designation of a state religion like the church of England. Look at the text of the 1A.The establishment clause. Look it up
You asked for the Constitutional text. The establishment clause is the constitutional tectThe establishment clause prohibits designation of a state religion like the church of England. Look at the text of the 1A.
I asked you to quote the Constitutional text that stipulates the separation of church and state. The establishment clause doesn’t do that. Stop deflecting and start quoting.You asked for the Constitutional text. The establishment clause is the constitutional tect
This is stupid.1-stand up comedy
2-eating bagels and lox
3-having an orgasm
4-engaging in a Jihad
5-wearing pants that fit
6-wearing a g string
7-using lubricant on anything
8-agreeing with Vladimir Putin's actions
9-asking questions you don't want answers to
10-telling people they will not go to hell if they don't agree with your religion
11-wearing colour coordinated clothes
12-dancing with your hips
13-giving someone the tongue (not to be confused with speaking in tongues)
If there is anything else you need help with let me know.
Not against Christian thought.1-stand up comedy
Not against Christian thought2-eating bagels and lox
Christianity teaches sex is a gift of self giving love, learning to pleasure your spouse in the marital act is a part of christian belief on sex3-having an orgasm
Engaging in holy struggle is not against Christian thought4-engaging in a Jihad
This is not against Christian thought5-wearing pants that fit
One is not to dress to provoke lust in others. Whether or not you wear a G-string is not specifically banned, but the principle of not causing others to stumble is6-wearing a g string
Wrong7-using lubricant on anything
Christians can agree or disagree with the political acts of a political leader provided they are not intrinsically evil8-agreeing with Vladimir Putin's actions
Huh?9-asking questions you don't want answers to
There is no known salvation outside of Christianity, however God may make the gift of salvation available to people outside the church available to those outside it, however we do not know if salvation outside of the church is possible. It is proper as a Christian that you pray for the souls of those outside the church.10-telling people they will not go to hell if they don't agree with your religion
not against Christian thought11-wearing colour coordinated clothes
Again, you can’t engage in acts to cause others to stumble into lust12-dancing with your hip
Huh?13-giving someone the tongue (not to be confused with speaking in tongues)
Stupid listIf there is anything else you need help with let me know.
Yes, the text prohibits establishment of a national religion, and protects the “free exercise thereof”You asked for the Constitutional text. The establishment clause is the constitutional tect
The couple went to a private religious adoption agency. They knew from the beginning that it was a religious agency. The agency even recommended another agency to the couple after they rejected them.
I don't believe anything immoral or illegal was done here.
Literally no one forced the couple to use a religious adoption agency. They could have gone with a secular agency, but they didn't.What of the couple's secular freedom from religion being imposed upon them?
There is also no "wall of separation" that would prevent say the Congress from beginning each session with a prayer.Yes, the text prohibits establishment of a national religion, and protects the “free exercise thereof”
There is two parts to this, one is that the federal government may not establish a state church. Many state governments had official religions until the mid 19th century. This is now not permitted because of the 14th amendment.
The government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion, which means that you may practice your religious faith without harassment provided you otherwise obey the law. This means if you’re in a religious minority you can engage in traditional religious rites which do not go against public order. Meaning if in the 18th and 19th centuries you were a Jew or a Catholic or later a Muslim or a Shinto Japanese believer, or a member of some wierd cult you could have your house of worship, be entitled to the protection of the law if someone engaged in violence against you, and could be a citizen in good standing. It does not mean you could say “I am a traditional Aztec and believe in human sacrifice” for example.
The first amendment is limited to these concepts as regards to religion
Didn't you know it’s the government’s role to protect the precious sensitivities of the athiest? It doesn't matter if there is another adoption agency, cake shop or florist readily available the preferences of the athiest are paramount. The spectacular intolerance of the Left is on full display when they practice religious persecution.Literally no one forced the couple to use a religious adoption agency. They could have gone with a secular agency, but they didn't.
There is no such thing.What of the couple's secular freedom from religion being imposed upon them?
This couple is Jewish, not atheists. They were discriminated against because they're Jews.Didn't you know it’s the government’s role to protect the precious sensitivities of the athiest? It doesn't matter if there is another adoption agency, cake shop or florist readily available the preferences of the athiest are paramount. The spectacular intolerance of the Left is on full display when they practice religious persecution.
As I walked into the local Walmart the other day there was a prominent display of baked goods decorated in gay pride colors. Of course it wasn't as elegant as the Masterpiece cake shop produces so the government has every right to crush their religious convictions and bankrupt their business for refusing to provide a cake for a same sex wedding.
And apparently there's no such thing as being protected from discrimination because you believe in the wrong religion.There is no such thing.
You shouldn’t be protected from discrimination except in rare cases.And apparently there's no such thing as being protected from discrimination because you believe in the wrong religion.
Many people get taxpayer funding for various reasons. “I pay taxes” does not entitle you to unlimited services from an entity that may recieve taxpayer funding. Adoption agencies can set discriminatory policies in the best interests of the child. A Christian child should be placed into a home within that faith, just like black children should be placed into a black home if a suitable one is present. If I had a child I wouldn’t want them given away to a Jew or a Muslim or an atheist family to be stripped of their tradition.The adoption agency got funding from taxpayers and then told the couple, who presumably pay taxes, that they couldn't adopt because they believe in the wrong religion.
Yes.That in a nutshell is what you guys are defending here.
The two are not exclusive. In fact the vast majority of American Jews are completely secular and surveys have shown they don’t practice the Jewish faith in any meaningful wayThis couple is Jewish, not atheists.
Or because they’re not ChristiansThey were discriminated against because they're Jews.
It is clearly Christians being targeted, and I doubt these “jews” are wearing the whole black hat and suit with long braided hair. Me thinks they’re the secular kind of Jew. It’s probably not Ben Shapiro trying to adopt hereDo with that what you will but stop pretending this is a case of Christians being targetted by atheists.
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?