All Things LGBTQ+ (6 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[samiam5211]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

Religious organizations shouldn't get special treatment when they are performing non religious functions. Just my opinion.

 

[efil4]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

so who suffers in the end from this decision?

 

[superchuck500]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

It's not surprising, I haven't read the case but overturning a state prohibiting state agencies from working with an adoption agency because that it won't facilitate same-sex adoptions on the basis of religion seems to be on solid ground.

But I hope you would also share the view that states have no business insisting that agencies may not facilitate adoption to same-sex parents, either through mandate (law, regulation, or policy) or by practice that effectively shuts out those adoption agencies.

 

[coldseat]

Can you add "Anti-" before LGBTQ+ so that it can reflect your intent with this thread.

Given your history, we can all assume that you won't be posting anything positive or affirming towards the LGBTQ+ community, so this thread is certainly not "All things". The title should reflect the true purpose of this thread.

 

[Farb]

Can you add "Anti-" before LGBTQ+ so that it can reflect your intent with this thread.

Given your history, we can all assume that you won't be posting anything positive or affirming towards the LGBTQ+ community, so this thread is certainly not "All things". The title should reflect the true purpose of this thread.

"All" implies both 'positive' and 'negative' so the title is fine, even in a veiled attempt to censure language as is the MO of the left.

 

[superchuck500]

I think the title is fine.

 

[MT15]

"All" implies both 'positive' and 'negative' so the title is fine, even in a veiled attempt to censure language as is the MO of the left.

Yes, your tribe would never try to censure language. Oh wait, they do it all the time. Like way more than anyone else. They are busy right now regulating speech in schools in a whole bunch of states.

You don’t have a high horse here so may as well dismount

 

[Farb]

It's not surprising, I haven't read the case but overturning a state prohibiting state agencies from working with an adoption agency because that it won't facilitate same-sex adoptions on the basis of religion seems to be on solid ground.

But I hope you would also share the view that states have no business insisting that agencies may not facilitate adoption to same-sex parents, either through mandate (law, regulation, or policy) or by practice that effectively shuts out those adoption agencies.

I would share that view. The state has no business mandating where or with what agency a birth mother places her child for adoption. All this is under the assumption that the agency is legal and is operating under current safely laws for the child, birth mother/father and adoptive parents.

 

[coldseat]

"All" implies both 'positive' and 'negative' so the title is fine, even in a veiled attempt to censure language as is the MO of the left.

I think the title is fine.

Lets' just keep track of negative/positive stories in this thread and see how it goes. My guess is that it will be the same as the CRT and BLM threads.

Negative LGBTQ+ Stories: 1
Positive LGBTQ+ Stories: 0

 

[SystemShock]

Hitchens was right.

That's what I do what I do.

 

[Farb]

Lets' just keep track of negative/positive stories in this thread and see how it goes. My guess is that it will be the same as the CRT and BLM threads.

Negative LGBTQ+ Stories: 1
Positive LGBTQ+ Stories: 0

Can I ask why you want to keep a tally? Is there a rule on this board that I am not aware of that you have to have a percentage of + stories compared to - stories? Is this some type of litmus test?

So you think the ruling by the SCOTUS was incorrect or 'negative'. Care to explain?

 

[coldseat]

Can I ask why you want to keep a tally? Is there a rule on this board that I am not aware of that you have to have a percentage of + stories compared to - stories? Is this some type of litmus test?

So you think the ruling by the SCOTUS was incorrect or 'negative'. Care to explain?

Because as with the BLM and CRT threads, I suspect this thread will be more about negative stories about the LGBTQ+ community.

I think the ruling is definitely negative towards the LGBTQ+ community. It basically allows discrimination against LGBTQ+ couples who are seeking to adopt. But I'm not surprised by the ruling.

Is the ruling correct? I guess so. Our constitution allows discrimination of "others" based on someones religious beliefs, or at least that's how SCOTUS has always interpreted our laws.

 

[SystemShock]

I think the title is fine.

In on its own, sure, but seems to me nothing but petty passive aggressive "retaliation" for the old Trump thread: all things LGBTQ+, Biden Tracker, all things racist, etc...

But, hey, I shouldn't complain; another thread that gives me a chance to dump on religion

 

[SystemShock]

... on a side note, how ironic that the institution that actively hides and even enables child molesters has a problem with parents of the same sex.

 

[JRad]

I suppose it's the "correct" ruling, but I don't know that it's the "right" ruling. I'll respect someone's right to their religion, but I don't so much like what's essentially legally protected discrimination.

And the thread title is fine.

 

[DaveXA]

I was somewhat surprised at the 9-0 ruling, but considering the court's overall history, it's probably not terribly surprising. I do think if churches want to get into the business of secular professions and such, they should follow the same rules as everyone else.

But, that being said, as long as no one is being forced to do anything, I don't think there's a lot to look at here. If an adoption agency doesn't want to service a certain group of people on religious grounds, then go find one that will. There are plenty of options to consider.

If there were no other options, I'd feel differently.

 

[MT15]

I’m not all that familiar with adoptions, so this is an honest question: are there plenty of options for LGBTQ people to adopt? In all states?