HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Texas adoption agencies c...

Sat May 6, 2017, 06:03 PM

Texas adoption agencies could reject Jewish, Muslim, gay or single parents

Source: Associated Press


Republican sponsors of bill set to be debated in state legislature next week say it supports the religious freedom of adoption agencies and foster care providers

Associated Press in Austin, Texas
Saturday 6 May 2017 17.51 EDT


Parents seeking to adopt children in Texas could be rejected by state-funded or private agencies with religious objections to them being Jewish, Muslim, gay, single, or interfaith couples, under a proposal in the Republican-controlled state legislature.


Five states have passed similar laws protecting faith-based adoption organizations that refuse to place children with gay parents or other households on religious grounds. The proposed Texas rule would extend to state-funded agencies. Only South Dakota’s measure is similarly sweeping.

The bill was scheduled for debate and approval on Saturday in the Texas state house, but lawmakers became bogged down with other matters. It now is expected to come up next week.

Republican sponsors of the Texas bill say it is designed to support the religious freedom of adoption agencies and foster care providers. Many such agencies are private and faith-based but receive state funds.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/06/texas-adoption-agencies-ban-jewish-muslim-gay-or-single-couples

12 replies, 4479 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat May 6, 2017, 06:06 PM

1. Republicans are worthless, motherfucking scum...

...and the "religious freedom" debate proves it. This is the most Orwellian of all their slogans. I sincerely hope that they all rot in Hell. (And I wonder why they don't include Catholics in their little list... Well, no, I guess I don't, after all. They need the Catholics. For now.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat May 6, 2017, 06:10 PM

2. Bastidges

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat May 6, 2017, 06:36 PM

3. republican law makers suck soooooooooooooooooo bad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat May 6, 2017, 06:37 PM

4. Looks like the Rethugs have a hard time hiding their anti-semitism ever since the alt-right...I mean

Neo-Nazis joined their fold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat May 6, 2017, 07:24 PM

5. Oh come on, they may as go all the way..!!

Just only allow Ultra right wingers as parents, No blacks, no Hispanics, No Asians! JUST WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHO CAN indoctrinate their kids to be great NAZI's!!




Ya know...
stupid bastards....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat May 6, 2017, 07:35 PM

6. There's very little difference between the taliban and our republicans

Both are nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat May 6, 2017, 10:21 PM

7. Religious freedom? ... Who decides for whom?

Religious freedom? ... Who decides for whom?

Religious freedom? ...

Cool: I must / cannot do it because of my religious beliefs.
..... I decide for myself.

Cool?: You must / cannot do it because of my religious beliefs.
..... I decide for you.

Uncool?: I must / cannot do it because of your religious beliefs.
..... You decide for me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun May 7, 2017, 04:44 AM

8. children should NOT BE RAISED BY BIGOTS

the people voting for this kind of garbage are EXACTLY the kind of people who should NOT BE PARENTS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon May 8, 2017, 07:34 AM

9. It's probably against their religion to be a Democrat too

because their preacher tells them who to vote for. They better start adopting a lot of kids. Or build some orphanages like Newt wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon May 8, 2017, 12:48 PM

10. Or any non-Christian parents. Or parents that were previously divorced, or had been arrested.

Basically, Texas adoption agencies can now deny any applicants for any specious reason, "saving" any attractive kids for their friends and fellow travelers - or for a better price - and call it a religious reason, despite any effort to address the well-being of the child.
They can collect kids and shuffle them off to the religiously-based child adoption mills that will adopt kids for the tax deductions, subsidies, and to work around the house or "family businesses/farms" until they're old enough to be disposed of (kicked out of the house when they're no longer tax deductible). This is preferable to risking CPS services checking up on the increasing number of foster families that collect kids without parental protection for their own monetary/tax deduction/government services purposes.

I've known of at least four couples that used foster and adopted children to subsidize their lifestyle over the years; they all claimed to be good, "churchgoing" folk - who always seemed to have problems with those kids that "forced" the parents/guardians to abandon them - once there was no more financial benefit to keeping them.
Two of those couples were busted by the secular law and ended up in jail - on tax purposes, but the other two left at least six damaged young adults that I know of abandoned to the streets once those "children" became inconvenient without any repercussion either legal or within their own church.

So forgive me if I've got a huge problem with state-funded adoption or placement agencies that are allowed to discriminate on "religious" grounds, rather than on reality-based reasons (such as drug abuse, ability to maintain a stable and involved household, or prior violence based criminal records)

Haele

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon May 8, 2017, 12:58 PM

11. Not to be the naysayer to the naysayers

It's a bit more complicated that is being reported.

Most importantly, certain charities exist as part of their religion. A Roman Catholic girl who gives her baby to a Roman Catholic Adoption Agency would be reasonable to request that the adoptive parents be Roman Catholic. Same for Islamic, Jewish, or whatever. I'm not terribly offended by that. I lost many a Jewish cousin to adoptive Christian families after WWII. Occasionally, I get rather upset that they know nothing of their heritage.

Similarly, a black mother might prefer her child be raised by a black family, in that the family would almost certainly be more in tune with the problems of growing up black in the USA.

So, yes, this law has some problems and could obviously be abused, but there is a legitimate issue here.

And I specifically note there are secular adoption agencies where at least religion is not an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Tue May 9, 2017, 02:43 PM

12. Only religiously affiliated adoption agencies should have

the right to discriminate on religious grounds (and, yes, they should). But they should not receive federal funds.

We'll get to watch how this plays out. Most of these wing-nut state laws don't get passed or if they do are stopped by the courts. Our founding principles are a bit battered but are still very much alive.

Interesting times, though...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread