Adoption? Not if your Jewish !

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Gardener

Gardener

Senior member
Nov 22, 1999
767
549
136
Fenixgoon said:
HTF can you have a state-sponsored religious agency in the first place? Isn't that a clear 1A violation?
Click to expand...
Many religiously affiliated groups live off tax dollars for services paid through DSS, the courts, and government grants. I worked for an agency which received 95% of its funding from the state, yet required all of its employees to be christians, and actively proselytized its clients.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: Leeea, hal2kilo, Pohemi and 1 other person
I

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,026
2,879
136
The issue here is the state sponsorship and legal challenge to the new law which, like many of the abortion laws, are attempts to screw real people in order to shred SCOTUS precedent with the new conservative majority. I don't think it should be constitutional under 1A grounds.

If it were a fully private agency, I support their right to discriminate on religious grounds despite opposing their choice to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11
B

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,601
30,117
136
interchange said:
The issue here is the state sponsorship and legal challenge to the new law which, like many of the abortion laws, are attempts to screw real people in order to shred SCOTUS precedent with the new conservative majority. I don't think it should be constitutional under 1A grounds.

If it were a fully private agency, I support their right to discriminate on religious grounds despite opposing their choice to do so.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS has already ruled that government agencies can't require religious entities acting in roles like the one this article to be non-discriminatory in order to receive state funding.
 
Sunburn74

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,076
2,635
136
brycejones said:
SCOTUS has already ruled that government agencies can't require religious entities acting in roles like the one this article to be non-discriminatory in order to receive state funding.
Click to expand...
Did they though? My understanding is they issued some very narrow rulings in favor of these sorts of arrangements but nothing broad and all encompassing. There's also the angle of racial discrimination here because being Jewish could be seen as both a religious and racial descriptor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo
B

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,601
30,117
136
Sunburn74 said:
Did they though? My understanding is they issued some very narrow rulings in favor of these sorts of arrangements but nothing broad and all encompassing. There's also the angle of racial discrimination here because being Jewish could be seen as both a religious and racial descriptor.
Click to expand...
Without a change of the makeup the court it's just a matter of incrementally expanding those rulings with each new case. This court has shown no intent to do otherwise.
 
G

gothuevos

Diamond Member
Jul 28, 2010
3,356
2,371
136
This is the religious right's ultimate goal, is it not?

Refusing any and all services based on "religious freedom." And we're not talking about wedding cakes or adoption agencies. Imagine being denied housing, utilities, medical care etc based on "religious freedom."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franz316, sandorski and hal2kilo
MtnMan

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
9,382
8,743
136
Amol S. said:
What I am surprised about is how no one is bringing this up to the supreme court.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS used to rule based solely on the Constitution and the law. Now it is allegiance to the party that put them on the court holds far too much sway.

The bible beaters that plague this country use the bible like normal people use the dictionary. The words to express what they want are in the bible, they just have to cherry-pick the right parts and put them in the correct order. Not really different from I can find these words in a dictionary, just gotta get them in the correct order.

SCOTUS is leaning toward the same practice with the Constitution and law books.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo, KMFJD, sandorski and 1 other person
L

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,799
5,566
136
Amol S. said:
What I am surprised about is how no one is bringing this up to the supreme court.
Click to expand...
The supreme court is stacked with criminals and has become just another tool of racist oppression.

There is no justice to be found in the legal system.
 
A

Amol S.

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,577
780
136
Someone should start a case, "People of the United States vs. Conservative Supreme Court Justice decions in 2020 cycle" with the dispute that their decions was done with the intentions of violating the "seperation of state and church clause in the declaration of independence."
 
pcgeek11

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,254
4,940
136
Amol S. said:
Someone should start a case, "People of the United States vs. Conservative Supreme Court Justice decions in 2020 cycle" with the dispute that their decions was done with the intentions of violating the "seperation of state and church clause in the declaration of independence."
Click to expand...


Go for it!

I do however think that this is BS and the adoption agency and the state are wrong on this one. I hope they win their law suit.
 
trenchfoot

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,673
8,212
136
Who knew that Christians desire to spread the word by spreading the hate. Can't have Jews raising adopted children to appreciate any other religion than the one and only "real" religion don'cha know? I can't imagine that this is the kind of people their God wants them to be like.

It's like for many Christians here in America if you ain't Christian then you somehow ain't a real American. lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo
cytg111

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
25,827
15,296
136
Its almost like Christians are regular people too. Subject to brainwash and whatnot like everyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom