Another Religious Win...

[seer]

At least for the moment...

A Catholic adoption agency will not have to abandon its beliefs on marriage and the family in order to continue working with the state of Michigan for the time being, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

"This case is not about whether same-sex couples can be great parents," District Judge Robert Jonker wrote in his ruling granting an injunction against new state rules. "What this case is about is whether St. Vincent [Catholic Charities] may continue to do this work and still profess and promote the traditional Catholic belief that marriage as ordained by God is for one man and one woman."

The ruling bars Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel from acting on the terms of a legal settlement with the ACLU reached back in March that would have forced faith-based organizations that work with the state to place children in same-sex households, regardless of any deeply held religious beliefs. Michigan, like many other states, contracts with private adoption agencies to place foster children in new homes, and the ACLU sued in 2017 saying that prospective LGBT parents had been turned away by christian organizations.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/federa...-adoption-case

[carpedm9587]

At least for the moment...

Hopefully, only for the moment...

[seer]

Hopefully, only for the moment...

Why? Why not allow different adoptions agencies, with somewhat different criterion? Where is the harm? Must you leftists force everyone to conform to your beliefs?

[Teallaura]

Hopefully, only for the moment...

Hopefully forever - sane organizations should continue to protect their charges from the state's insane experimentation.

[carpedm9587]

Why? Why not allow different adoptions agencies, with somewhat different criterion? Where is the harm? Must you leftists force everyone to conform to your beliefs?

Because I don't think any person should be discriminated against on the basis of their personal identity.

And I'm not looking to debate it. We do not have the common ground to make that debate useful.

[Teallaura]

Because I don't think any person should be discriminated against on the basis of their personal identity.

And I'm not looking to debate it. We do not have the common ground to make that debate useful.

That's really sad - to define a person by their sexual predilections.

Also, supporting discrimination against religious beliefs is still bigotry.

[carpedm9587]

That's really sad - to define a person by their sexual predilections.

I define people by the terms they use to define themselves. And both gender identity and sexual orientation are more than mere "sexual predelictions," unless you want to also suggest that heterosexuality is merely a "sexual predeliction?"

Also, supporting discrimination against religious beliefs is still bigotry.

Religion is not a valid refuge for justifying discrimination. At least not in my moral framework. What happens within the religion is completely up to the adherents of that religion. What happens when that religion intersects with the rest of society is no longer an internal consideration, and those of us affected by it will seek to place limits on what the religion can do in the public sphere when the religion advocates for actions we consider immoral and/or unhealthy.

[carpedm9587]

I'm going to withdraw before this devolves into yet another mud-slinging fest. I'll leave the last word to ya'll. As I noted, there is little common ground by which to pursue a moral discussion.

[seer]

Because I don't think any person should be discriminated against on the basis of their personal identity.

And I'm not looking to debate it. We do not have the common ground to make that debate useful.

But it is OK for the state to discriminate against an organization who is doing good work based on religion. And it's not like there are not other agencies to fulfill the role you would like.

[Teallaura]

I define people by the terms they use to define themselves. And both gender identity and sexual orientation are more than mere "sexual predelictions," unless you want to also suggest that heterosexuality is merely a "sexual predeliction?"

Even more pathetic.

Religion is not a valid refuge for justifying discrimination. At least not in my moral framework.

So it's okay to discriminate against those who believe in God because you say so- but those who believe they are something that can be objectively proven false should be protected from reality.

What happens within the religion is completely up to the adherents of that religion. What happens when that religion intersects with the rest of society is no longer an internal consideration, and those of us affected by it will seek to place limits on what the religion can do in the public sphere when the religion advocates for actions we consider immoral and/or unhealthy.

Except freedom of religion and protection from discrimination on that basis are constitutionally and legally protected - but you say we should disregard those protections because you don't agree with them.

Your bigotry is showing.

[NorrinRadd]

I'm going to withdraw before this devolves into yet another mud-slinging fest. I'll leave the last word to ya'll. As I noted, there is little common ground by which to pursue a moral discussion.

You are undeniably correct. Light has no commonality with darkness, and death has no commonality with life. The amazing thing is that we are ever able to have any meaningful interactions.

And yes, I'm aware this could be considered "mud slinging."

[firstfloor]

I was chatting to a Catholic colleague the other day who takes the traditional view that the word ‘family’ only applies to male/female parents. But, I said, it used to be that voters were men, so why are women allowed to call themselves ’voters’.

It should not matter to a Catholic that married gays think of themselves as family. The language is elastic.

[demi-conservative]

And I'm not looking to debate it. We do not have the common ground to make that debate useful.

I'll do it. Even though there should be no need to explain it.

Carped's view is really standard and normal for a liberal secular state. Equality is one of the Big Values, so religions must conform to it. Religions therefore must be forced to be 'privatised' whenever they conflict with the Big Values of the state. Sure, that puts inhibitions on religions, but a secular state always has to do that anyway as an intrinsic part of being secular.

In such a situation, freedom of religions means that you can choose whatever privatised religion you want, but the religious can't do whatever they want to do in public because the liberal Big Values win there.

You conservatives don't have to agree with this view, but if you don't understand this extremely basic, extremely common viewpoint of liberals then you have a problem.

Also, yelling 'Dems R The Real [s]Raci[/s] Bigots' doesn't change this basic fundamental liberal view point. This is Liberalism 101, not some way out unusual view of carped's.

[demi-conservative]

In a liberal secular state the religions must be constrained. In religious states other religions are constrained. This is normal and Society 101, with the most famous example in the US being Mormons and polygamy.

[demi-conservative]

In reality, freedoms are restricted in a certain space. We all know the saying 'the freedom of my fist stops at your face'.

How this works out for freedom of exercise of religion is that this freedom stops or is limited in the public space, particularly where it conflicts with the Big Values or important law.