Massachusetts bans couple from having foster children due to their Christian beliefs

just send him over to the local parish orphanage... what could go wrong with Father Dirt in charge?

I wonder if you could be that stup!d in real life. Perhaps this is just a message board act?

How is this not true? the term "homophobe" 99 percent of the time is thrown at Christians for their beliefs. Homophobe is an anti-Christian slur. This very court case in Massachusetts punishes Christians, and you're pretending it doesn't? Homosexuality has become a wedge. "Either disobey your Christian teachings on sex, or be labeled a bigot and suffer all consequences that go along with it". That's the lgbt rules in a nut shell.

They were rejected because of Christian beliefs, as it relates to homosexuality. That is discriminating against religion. The supreme Court doesn't and can't care if a religion discriminates against someone who is gay, but it should and will consider whether the state can discriminate against someone's religious beliefs (whether those beliefs are discriminatory in and of themselves).

Could a school district refuse to hire a teacher who won't "affirm" a students identity based on religious beliefs, even when the students identity isn't based in reality or science? The answer will vary from state to state until the Supreme Court weighs in. You can bet how, with absolutely no evidence that 3 republican judges and 3 liberal judges will vote along party lines, and the 3 judges who use their brains will ultimately decide.

We are a Christian Nation, Many USA Presidentsd have said so, Some say Judeo Christian

Maryland was run by Republican Governor Larry Hogan for 8 years until only recently.

The right of religion is the right to discriminate based on your beliefs. You believe (religiously) that something is a sin, you should be able to

1. Not only abstain from it yourself, but also...

2. Not assist anyone else in it, and not be complicit in it in any way.

The latter means you have every right to teach against it, speak against it, and avoid assisting whatever that sin is, or anything related to it. Not participating in sodomy is not enough. Religious freedom means you do not have to help the sodomy of others, or help promote/praise sodomy in society,. You can do the opposite. You can teach your children that it's a sin and discourage them from participating in that sin.

That's free exercise of religion. Anyone who doesn't agree with this stuff is anti-religious freedom. If that's the way you feel, so be it. But if you oppose this stuff don't turn around and say "well i believe in religious liberty" because that's always followed by a major "but...."

People who do foster care get paid and are effectively working for the government. This is more akin to the lawsuits by county clerks who refused to certify same sex marriages. You cannot use your religion to get around job requirements when you chose to work for/with the government. If you are going to be a foster care provider and take tax payer dollars, you are going to have to provide an environment for the child that conforms to the government's requirements. The government does not want to have foster parents being in conflict with LGBTQ kids and try to convince them that they are committing a sin against God or whatever religious BS they would want to throw at them. Kids in foster care are extremely vulnerable and LGBTQ kids are also often the victims of bullying, discrimination, etc. Put those two together and you have a very precarious situation for a child. The last thing in the world that child needs is a bible thumper foster parent telling them that baby Jesus cries because the kid isn't attracted to the opposite sex or is a girl who feels more like a boy.

This is BS. You are still advocating a system that is not neutral. You want to punish the Christian for being pro-traditional family values, but not punish the couple who is pro lgbt which is the opposite.

Yea kids are vulnerable. YOu want them groomed. If you cared about kids you would want them with Christian parents who will steer them away from sickening perversion like sodomy.

You have no values worth respecting. I would much rather have a kid raised by two nice, well-educated, well-adjusted gay people than a couple of mean-spirited, dimwitted religious wackos like you who spend all their time ranting about sodomy and hellfire.

I'm not a lawyer, but consider myself moderately civically literate, and these don't seem to be legally uncharted territories. Of course the government can deny a foster parent applicant or refuse to hire a teacher if their religious beliefs make them unable to perform those duties in accordance with established standards. This is completely rational and does not violate the first amendment.

No there are not. Practicing Christians who attend church every week is way different than someone who checks a box on a survey.

Religious people shouldn't be allowed to foster children and use their authority to push the old cr*p onto the next generation.

The same goes for alphabet people after the letter B.

Mind viruses left, right and center.

OK, so you really are that stup!d. Got it.

There is a line to be drawn, though. A government agency can't tell employees what to believe or how to raise their children. By your standards, an state run adoption agency could say "parents must be members of the Democratic party", and legally, you would support that, even if you think it's stupid.

what if the state run agency said "children may only be adopted by heterosexual couple, as children raised with a mom and dad have better outcomes", you would lose your liberal mind. Children raised by same sex couples are twice as likely to have depression, among other things. Surely you support better outcomes and science, right?

Neutral with regards to what? The state of Massachusetts does not want foster children, who might potentially be a member of the LGBT community, to be placed in a family that believes gay people are an abomination and who support gay conversion therapy, a practice that has been outlawed. Placing an already traumatized child, who turns out to be gay, in the care of vehemently anti-gay foster home would be gross negligence on behalf of the state. Similarly, if a potential foster couple openly supports using corporal punishment as a way to discipline a child, the state has a right to deny them the ability to become foster parents. You can be a devout Christian and attend church every Sunday, and be a foster parent, you just can't openly advocate for the use of gay conversion therapy, and teach your children that gays are going to burn in hell.

It's not illegal to teach any of those things. So the state shouldn't be discriminating base on any of that. A parent does not have to affirm a child's gender identity, so why is the state requiring that foster parents affirm these things? They are arbitrarily putting in requirements that would gear children to liberal parents.

If you read any data on children raised in LGBT households vs hetero households, it is objectively better outcomes for kids raised in hetero households. Why does the state ignore this data?

It's just political and religious bigotry at its finest on behalf of Massachusetts.