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.
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?
Sure, you can work at the Post Office and teach your own children that LGBT people are going to burn in hell, as long as you do not discriminate against LGBT co-workers or customers on the job. This is because the role of the post office is to deliver mail, and not to raise children who are wards of the state. If you are a foster parent, you work and get paid by the state to raise children, who legally belong to the state. The state is legally responsible for the care of foster children, whose parents have had their parental rights terminated, or suspended. Some of the children in the foster care system are LGBT, and the state has determined that they are best served by foster parents who are not openly hostile to their existence.
That's just more spin (and further evidence that some reporters can't quit grasp what certain legal documents are saying).
Here is the Complaint. Keep in mind most of it was written by Mike and Kitty Burke's lawyers and the State of Massachusetts has not yet responded (their Answer is due August 28th).
The interesting facts are in the attached exhibits which reveal that the articles about this lawsuit are not very accurate in certain places.
Sure, you can work at the Post Office and teach your own children that LGBT people are going to burn in hell, as long as you do not discriminate against LGBT co-workers or customers on the job. This is because the role of the post office is to deliver mail, and not to raise children who are wards of the state. If you are a foster parent, you work and get paid by the state to raise children, who legally belong to the state. The state is legally responsible for the care of foster children, whose parents have had their parental rights terminated, or suspended. Some of the children in the foster care system are LGBT, and the state has determined that they are best served by foster parents who are not openly hostile to their existence.
But not affirming someone's identity or sexual preferences is not the same thing as being openly hostile. Why not just demand that foster parents remain neutral. Who is to say that what a child needs is to be "affirmed" in their beliefs? All of their criteria SHOULD be based on research based best outcomes, not political fads. But research based best outcomes in this case contradict the majority of the states political affiliation.
What the state is saying is "if your child believes they are trans, you will affirm this belief" which is insane. What if the child actually isn't trans, but believes they are because the parent only affirmed the child's belief, instead of challenging that belief and offering perspective, which is the role of every (good) parent.
If you read the Exhibits attached to the underlying Complaint, you can see Mike and Kitty Burke got denied for (1) Mike has PTSD (he's whacked), (2) they flat out stated that they would not support a gay kid's right to be gay, and would subject him or her to whatever exorcisms the Catholic church utilizes these days and (3) they said they do not recognize same-sex marriage which, unfortunately for them, the state of Massachusetts that they want to foster in, does by law.
So they need to learn to lie better on their application and in interviews, or they should move to Alabama or Utah and do the foster care ($) gig there.
That's right. They were rejected not because they are Christians, but because they have proven they would not be suitable parents. They are wackjobs.
And they were determined to "not be suitable" because they are Christians.
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?
Sure, you can work at the Post Office and teach your own children that LGBT people are going to burn in hell, as long as you do not discriminate against LGBT co-workers or customers on the job. This is because the role of the post office is to deliver mail, and not to raise children who are wards of the state. If you are a foster parent, you work and get paid by the state to raise children, who legally belong to the state. The state is legally responsible for the care of foster children, whose parents have had their parental rights terminated, or suspended. Some of the children in the foster care system are LGBT, and the state has determined that they are best served by foster parents who are not openly hostile to their existence.
Sure, you can work at the Post Office and teach your own children that LGBT people are going to burn in hell, as long as you do not discriminate against LGBT co-workers or customers on the job. This is because the role of the post office is to deliver mail, and not to raise children who are wards of the state. If you are a foster parent, you work and get paid by the state to raise children, who legally belong to the state. The state is legally responsible for the care of foster children, whose parents have had their parental rights terminated, or suspended. Some of the children in the foster care system are LGBT, and the state has determined that they are best served by foster parents who are not openly hostile to their existence.
But not affirming someone's identity or sexual preferences is not the same thing as being openly hostile. Why not just demand that foster parents remain neutral. Who is to say that what a child needs is to be "affirmed" in their beliefs? All of their criteria SHOULD be based on research based best outcomes, not political fads. But research based best outcomes in this case contradict the majority of the states political affiliation.
What the state is saying is "if your child believes they are trans, you will affirm this belief" which is insane. What if the child actually isn't trans, but believes they are because the parent only affirmed the child's belief, instead of challenging that belief and offering perspective, which is the role of every (good) parent.
I don't have the time to read the entire 132 page complaint, but based on what I have read in the report, the decision was made because a huge part of the couple's belief system was based around the notion that LGBTQ people are sinners. The specific Catholic church that they were heavily involved in actively espoused the belief that LGBTQ people are sinful and the couple, despite trying to say the "right things" without completely lying to DCF workers about their beliefs, consider LGBTQ people to be sinners who will burn in hell.
I did not get the sense from what I read in the complaint that potential foster parents in the state of MA need to be active political supporters of LGBT rights in order to be approved. They could have said that they didn't have much knowledge about LGBT identities, but that they would be willing to help their foster child explore their gender/sexuality and seek out counseling services with the guidance of their case worker, and their foster child's therapist. In fact, I imagine that they could have said that they grew up in a family that considered LGBT people to be sinful, but that they would be willing to learn more to try to understand their child etc.
Affirming a child's gender identity does not mean that foster parent's would immediately support their child's medical transition. In fact, as foster parents, they do not have the right to make any type of medical decision without the approval of DCF, working in partnership with the child's existing therapist, and pediatrician. Affirming a child's gender identity would mean supporting the child's exploration of their gender and helping them get support without forcing the child to be actively involved in a church that rejects them and considers them a sinner for feeling how they feel.
Sure, you can work at the Post Office and teach your own children that LGBT people are going to burn in hell, as long as you do not discriminate against LGBT co-workers or customers on the job. This is because the role of the post office is to deliver mail, and not to raise children who are wards of the state. If you are a foster parent, you work and get paid by the state to raise children, who legally belong to the state. The state is legally responsible for the care of foster children, whose parents have had their parental rights terminated, or suspended. Some of the children in the foster care system are LGBT, and the state has determined that they are best served by foster parents who are not openly hostile to their existence.
So Catholics cannot adopt?
How about Jews?
Their application for becoming foster parents was denied because they actively believe that LGBT people are going to burn in hell. Since there are LGBT children in the foster care system, teaching your potentially LGBT foster child that they will burn in hell because of who they are, will further traumatize an already traumatized child. There are plenty of Christians who attend church regularly, and who are pro-life, who are supportive of, or open to understanding LGBT people. That is where the line is drawn in the state of MA. The couple could have been atheists who opposed LGBT people and have been denied. The issue is their attitude towards LGBT people, not the fact that they believe Jesus to be their Lord and savior. DCF would have denied an anti LGBT Orthodox Jewish couple, or Muslim couple as well.
But not affirming someone's identity or sexual preferences is not the same thing as being openly hostile. Why not just demand that foster parents remain neutral. Who is to say that what a child needs is to be "affirmed" in their beliefs? All of their criteria SHOULD be based on research based best outcomes, not political fads. But research based best outcomes in this case contradict the majority of the states political affiliation.
What the state is saying is "if your child believes they are trans, you will affirm this belief" which is insane. What if the child actually isn't trans, but believes they are because the parent only affirmed the child's belief, instead of challenging that belief and offering perspective, which is the role of every (good) parent.
I don't have the time to read the entire 132 page complaint, but based on what I have read in the report, the decision was made because a huge part of the couple's belief system was based around the notion that LGBTQ people are sinners.
Only Maryland is worse. It's run by far left authoritarian Democrats who hate normal people
So Maryland/ Baltimore is a lawless cesspool, yet at the same time is ruled with an iron fist by authoritarian democrats?
Christian beliefs center on love and forgiveness, yet it is ok to hate in the name of the religion for sexual orientation, race, or even political stance.
This is a sticky issue. If you view organized religions as cults—kind of touchy right there—then you mix in some lgbqxxx ingredients and try to view them through the lens of Constitutional rights?? No wonder opinion is so divided. We will never be free from religion or superstition or divided opinions, and will never find common ground. We’re only human.
The entire purpose of the lgbt movement from the beginning ( the reason why it was invented) was to be an anti christian movement.
That is the essence. It's to punish, disassemble, and divide Christianity.
The target of the movement was never for securing anybody's rights. The target of the movement was to attack and marginalize Christians from the get go.
"Pro LGBT" is a code for anti- Christian.
That's not accurate. The whole purpose of the LGBT movement is to be gay. The whole purpose of the Christian movement is to get into heaven in the afterlife, thereby avoiding Satan and the lake of fire and all that stuff. So they are at cross-purposes.
I'm interested to know more about the fires of Hell and the endless torture for sinners. Why is God so freaking cruel that he would send people there?
That's not accurate. The whole purpose of the LGBT movement is to be gay. The whole purpose of the Christian movement is to get into heaven in the afterlife, thereby avoiding Satan and the lake of fire and all that stuff. So they are at cross-purposes.
I'm interested to know more about the fires of Hell and the endless torture for sinners. Why is God so freaking cruel that he would send people there?
The people who made this stuff up were sickos and wanted to control people
There are millions of LGBTG+ Christians, moran. Try again.
I hate to point out spelling errors because they're petty
However, it is ironic that you spelled the word moron with an a. If you're gonna call someone a moron at least spell it right, or you look like a moron
And yes, there are many homosexuals who are Christians.
that doesn't give a green light to homosexuality.
it just means that Christians are sinners. but everybody knew that already. There is no christian who is without sin. But that's not endursement of sin.
Get a Brain! Morans is an exploitable photograph of a man seen at a protest outside a Boeing plant in St Charles, Missouri in 2003. The infamously misspelled sign came to embody the “proud to be ignorant” stereotype sometimes...
I don't have the time to read the entire 132 page complaint, but based on what I have read in the report, the decision was made because a huge part of the couple's belief system was based around the notion that LGBTQ people are sinners.
So what? That's their religious belief.
It doesn't matter what religion they are following, or whether or not they are religious. The only thing that matters is whether or not they are actively hostile to LGBT people when they could have a foster child who is potentially LGBT. Since the couple was clearly hostile towards LGBT people (in this case because of their religious beliefs) they did not meet the state's criteria for being foster parents. Being a foster parent is a job paid for by the state. If you were applying for a job as an elementary school teacher, but you had a long track record of being actively hostile towards children with disabilities, you would likely also be denied that position.
You have the right to believe that gay people are sinners that are going to burn in hell. You have the right to attend a church that believes homosexuals are going to burn in hell. You also have the right to have your own biological children, use a sperm donor, or a surrogate, or pursue a private adoption. However, the state's role is to protect children, including children who might be LGBT, who are under their care. Why would you want a couple who is steadfast in their belief that LGBT people are going to hell, to parent a child who is potentially gay when it has been well established that having unsupportive parents, or growing up in a household that teaches that LGBT people are sinners, is extremely detrimental to their well-being?
I don't have the time to read the entire 132 page complaint, but based on what I have read in the report, the decision was made because a huge part of the couple's belief system was based around the notion that LGBTQ people are sinners.
So what? That's their religious belief.
That's not how it works, nitwit. The law does not allow you to say or do anything you want and get a pass because you claim it's a "religious belief." As Justice Scalia said: "Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
But just to be safe, my religion tells me that you are a rather disgusting troll and mindless idiot who never posts anything of value. Now if this post gets deleted, I can start crying that the moderators censored my deeply held religious beliefs.
It doesn't matter what religion they are following, or whether or not they are religious. The only thing that matters is whether or not they are actively hostile to LGBT people when they could have a foster child who is potentially LGBT. Since the couple was clearly hostile towards LGBT people (in this case because of their religious beliefs) they did not meet the state's criteria for being foster parents. Being a foster parent is a job paid for by the state. If you were applying for a job as an elementary school teacher, but you had a long track record of being actively hostile towards children with disabilities, you would likely also be denied that position.
You have the right to believe that gay people are sinners that are going to burn in hell. You have the right to attend a church that believes homosexuals are going to burn in hell. You also have the right to have your own biological children, use a sperm donor, or a surrogate, or pursue a private adoption. However, the state's role is to protect children, including children who might be LGBT, who are under their care. Why would you want a couple who is steadfast in their belief that LGBT people are going to hell, to parent a child who is potentially gay when it has been well established that having unsupportive parents, or growing up in a household that teaches that LGBT people are sinners, is extremely detrimental to their well-being?
If the states role was to protect children, then why do they allow same sex couples to adopt given the outcome discrepancy between hetero-parent and same sex parent children outcomes as it relates to depression, drug use, and suicide? The state doesn't care about children at all.
If the states role was to protect children, then why do they allow same sex couples to adopt given the outcome discrepancy between hetero-parent and same sex parent children outcomes as it relates to depression, drug use, and suicide? The state doesn't care about children at all.
They care a lot before the child is born. It's only after that they stop giving af.
