All Things LGBTQ+ (4 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.

 

[SFIDC3]

... 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.

Yep, this is exactly how I see it....

 

[DaveXA]

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?

There are several thousand of them across the US. I don't know the breakdown of those, private vs public, but I'm pretty sure every state has at least one non-religious adoption agency. More likely there are dozens.

 

[Farb]

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

There have been several of these, so I want to address it and I am not addressing you in particular @SystemShock but the whole. Let us just say that SS are exactly correct, these threads are 'petty passive aggressive retaliation' for other threads started on this board. My question is: So?
Can someone show me where I should have put this article about the SCOTUS decision so I didn't have to start a new thread?
It seems that a lot of people have a certain idea how this board needs to operate and I seem to be the uninvited uncle at thanksgiving. This doesn't bother me, but if you all want to have more folks of my 'tribe' actually participate, you might want to grow up a little and understand not everyone shares you opinion and your opinion should not define who you are and stop with the not so subtle personal attacks.

If that is not the goal and you guys want the echo chamber, that is cool too and it is yalls treehouse anyway.

Now back to me being a homophobe, racist, butt creases, so I have been told.

 

[coldseat]

There have been several of these, so I want to address it and I am not addressing you in particular @SystemShock but the whole. Let us just say that SS are exactly correct, these threads are 'petty passive aggressive retaliation' for other threads started on this board. My question is: So?
Can someone show me where I should have put this article about the SCOTUS decision so I didn't have to start a new thread?
It seems that a lot of people have a certain idea how this board needs to operate and I seem to be the uninvited uncle at thanksgiving. This doesn't bother me, but if you all want to have more folks of my 'tribe' actually participate, you might want to grow up a little and understand not everyone shares you opinion and your opinion should not define who you are and stop with the not so subtle personal attacks.

If that is not the goal and you guys want the echo chamber, that is cool too and it is yalls treehouse anyway.

Now back to me being a homophobe, racist, butt creases, so I have been told.

For the record, I don't really care if the tread name is changed. I was making my own passive aggressive point of what this tread was really about as I recognized your passive aggressive post title.

Also for the record, there was a thread where we discussed the SC decision in favor of LGBTQ+ employment protection that this would have fit in.

 

[SystemShock]

There have been several of these, so I want to address it and I am not addressing you in particular @SystemShock but the whole. Let us just say that SS are exactly correct, these threads are 'petty passive aggressive retaliation' for other threads started on this board. My question is: So?

So nothing, but good for you for owning your behavior

Can someone show me where I should have put this article about the SCOTUS decision so I didn't have to start a new thread?

You could have started a new thread about the SCOTUS decision; why didn't you label the thread "All things SCOTUS"? After all, this SCOTUS decision has/could have ramifications beyond the LGBTQ community.

It seems that a lot of people have a certain idea how this board needs to operate and I seem to be the uninvited uncle at thanksgiving. This doesn't bother me, but if you all want to have more folks of my 'tribe' actually participate, you might want to grow up a little and understand not everyone shares you opinion and your opinion should not define who you are and stop with the not so subtle personal attacks.

If that is not the goal and you guys want the echo chamber, that is cool too and it is yalls treehouse anyway.

Now back to me being a homophobe, racist, butt creases, so I have been told.

Maybe if you tone it down with the passive-aggressive, and feel less persecuted...

 

[V Chip]

I’m just wondering where in the Bible it mentions adoptions and LGBTQ+ specifically. I must have missed that day in my vacation Bible schools.

 

[wardorican]

I guess I'll put this here for the party of "law and order".

At least the neckbeard turned himself in (dude to clear video evidence)...

Delray police: Driver arrested in LGBTQ Pride crosswalk vandalism

Alexander Jerich, 20, was charged Thursday with criminal mischief over $1,000, reckless driving and evidence of prejudice (felony enhancement).

www.palmbeachpost.com

How small of a person does one need to be to deface simple road art?

 

[SystemShock]

I’m just wondering where in the Bible it mentions adoptions and LGBTQ+ specifically. I must have missed that day in my vacation Bible schools.

It doesn't say anything specifically, but it is very clear in that anything outside binary is an aberration, punishable by death, do not pass go, do not collect eternal salvation. Unless of course you are a priest molesting kids, then the Catholic church moves you around.

 

[RobF]

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.

That's quite a spin in that last sentence.

Because, having stated that 'same sex couples adopting and raising children is a good thing', 'bend to a societal norm' there is standing in for 'not harmfully and irrationally discriminate against LGBT couples'. Why wouldn't you want to see religious institutions to be subject to the same laws against prejudice and discrimination as the rest of us? Why would you be actively hopeful that they're not?

That said, it's apparently a technically correct ruling by the law there, but it's also quite a narrow ruling. The First Amendment isn't a free-for-all for religion; to give a couple of examples, a religion based on human sacrifice is absolutely forced to 'bend to the societal norm' of not executing people, and bigamy is illegal.

So lines are drawn. And since Employment Division v. Smith, one of the bases for drawing those lines is whether a law is a 'neutral law of general applicability'. Here, Philadelphia's law included a 'formal system of entirely discretionary exceptions', meaning the city's nondiscrimination requirement isn't generally applicable. That being the case, the state has to show a compelling interest specifically in refusing to grant such an exemption and contract with Catholic Social Services. While it could be argued in general that the City's "compelling interest in enforcing its non-discrimination policies generally" necessitates such a compelling interest specifically, and this interest was seen as "a weighty one" by the court, the ruling was it could not meet the strict scrutiny applied because, essentially, "the creation of a system of exceptions under the contract undermines the City’s contention that its non-discrimination policies can brook no departures" with no compelling reason offered by Philadelphia as to "why it has a particular interest in denying an exception to CSS while making them available to others."

But consequently - as Alito was complaining in his concurrence - "if the City wants to get around today’s decision, it can simply eliminate the never-used exemption power." Which would make the law a neutral law of general applicability.

So essentially, the ruling is at heart that Philadelphia can in principle refuse to contract with Catholic Social Services on the grounds of non-discrimination; they just have to do so on the basis of a law that's generally applicable.

 

[Taurus]

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.

That was my takeaway, too.
The state can't take something away from an agency, but they can (and should) refuse to begin anything with them.

 

[bird]

Agree with the last two posts.

That being said I find interesting the concept being pushed by the alleged religious right that the left doesn’t want religion “in the public square”. The religious right actually does not want religion in the public square. to have religion in the public square must mean, imo, that dogma must be debated. That is not what they want. They want their dogma protected and also allowed to impact policy making as they wish. So, as an example, there is nothing in scripture about trans. Yes, there is commentary (it is an abomination, for example, regard man lying with man). So, what we have is evolution over time of dogma proclaimed “God’s will” (read: inshallah which would piss off the religious right) that they want imposed on those who believe differently or not at all.

No, they most certainly do not want religion in the public square where it can actually be debated.

 

[CoolBrees]

@MT15 -

Same sex adoption is still incredibly difficult; even in liberal states like. CA and OR.

my wife is a child welfare social worker who specializes in foster to adopt same sex couples and has worked in these states. In California, there are only specific agencies that even will take same sex couples as clients. Mainly due to issues outside of the control of the agency - like prejudice from the birth mother or foreign country. So the route most taken is the Foster to Adopt route. And this is typically older children in the foster care system who have no one and their birth parent has lost or given up their parental rights.

So same sex couples typically do not go the normal adoption route through an agency. They go through ones like my wife’s who place foster kids that have been deemed un-adoptable due to severe trauma and/or developmental delays caused by drug use en utero. These are wealthy people too. One of my wife’s clients in LA was a board member at Marvel Studios…

for this SCOTUS case-

I read the briefings. Basically, to my uneducated mind, they said “you might have a case, just not the one you brought.”

my personal opinion is, if they don’t take tax payer funds for this adoption operation, then they have a real religious leg to stand on. If they do take funds, then they need to serve the community that pays for it.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I’m just wondering where in the Bible it mentions adoptions and LGBTQ+ specifically. I must have missed that day in my vacation Bible schools.

this is my continuing question on these religious (christian) rights cases - why is there no onus to prove the religious position?
if you claim to be christian, show in the gospels were jesus said gay dudes couldn't adopt
i'm pretty sure you can't stone a cheating wife and claim religious exemption
no one can sue a seafood restaurant closed
how can this religious claim stand up to scrutiny?

 

[CoolBrees]

Much like the government’s intrusion into women’s health, it doesn’t stand up to real scrutiny.

if you remove the religious element, there is no standing for denial of a women’s rights or a same sex couple.

we always hear from the persecuted about how they are under attack. Please.

Freedom FROM (a specific) religion is under attack in this country and has been since we got here.

 

[SystemShock]

Agree with the last two posts.

That being said I find interesting the concept being pushed by the alleged religious right that the left doesn’t want religion “in the public square”. The religious right actually does not want religion in the public square. to have religion in the public square must mean, imo, that dogma must be debated. That is not what they want. They want their dogma protected and also allowed to impact policy making as they wish. So, as an example, there is nothing in scripture about trans. Yes, there is commentary (it is an abomination, for example, regard man lying with man). So, what we have is evolution over time of dogma proclaimed “God’s will” (read: inshallah which would piss off the religious right) that they want imposed on those who believe differently or not at all.

No, they most certainly do not want religion in the public square where it can actually be debated.

There is nothing in scripture specifically about trans, but it wouldn't be; I doubt any significant number of people would declare themselves trans in an ancient society of peasants in which deviating from the binary gender model was punishable with death by stoning; it wouldn't get to a point where they had a word for it.

 

[SystemShock]

if you claim to be christian, show in the gospels were jesus said gay dudes couldn't adopt

Kind of hard to adopt after you've been stoned to death.

 

[bird]

There is nothing in scripture specifically about trans, but it wouldn't be; I doubt any significant number of people would declare themselves trans in an ancient society of peasants in which deviating from the binary gender model was punishable with death by stoning; it wouldn't get to a point where they had a word for it.

Absolutely. The purpose was social control. In those times I would not have been surprised that there were cross-dressers but it is highly likely they kept themselves hidden.

 

[wardorican]

Here's another one. Also too close to home. I'm literally dropping my kid off to go with his friend to this. I've walked in this parade before and been to the area and evwnt multiple times. If it weren't for covid, I'd probably be there.

Definitely a targeted attack. Possibly even going after Debbie Wasserman Schultz, since the two victims were right behind her.

Police: 1 dead, 1 hospitalized after truck hits pedestrians at Stonewall Pride Parade; driver in custody - WSVN 7News | Miami News, Weather, Sports | Fort Lauderdale

WILTON MANORS, FLA. (WSVN) - A night of celebration turned into a night of tragedy when, police said, a truck driver ran over two pedestrians<a class="excerpt-read-more"...

wsvn.com