Judge rules Michigan adoption agencies can bar LGBTQ couples
Source: CBS News
A judge in Michigan has ruled that religious-based adoption agencies that contract with the state can refuse to place children in LGBTQ homes. State Attorney General Dana Nessel reached a settlement earlier this year barring faith-based agencies from excluding same-sex couples from adoption services, but on Thursday a federal judge in Grand Rapids shot that down.
...snip...
The suit, filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty St. Vincent Catholic Charities, alleges violations of the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It is among more than 90 agencies that receive state funding, according to the complaint. The state often contracts private adoption agencies to place children from troubled homes with new families.
Faith-based agencies argued they would have to shut down their adoption and foster care services rather than violate their religious beliefs. However, Democrats and LGBTQ advocates said restrictions against gay families amounted to a "policy of bigotry."
...snip...
Jonker's ruling said St. Vincent Catholic Charities' longstanding practice of adhering to its religious beliefs and referring same-sex and unmarried couples to other agencies is not discriminatory.
Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/same-sex-couples-adopt-michigan-adoption-agencies-can-now-bar-lgbtq-homes-refuse-to-place-children-with-gay-parents/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=74388214
catbyte
(34,170 posts)Coventina
(26,847 posts)Whenever I go there, the lack of diversity is really unnerving.
I have never been a place that is SO WHITE!!!
jayfish
(10,035 posts)Do not allow religious-based adoption agencies to contract with the state. This in and of itself should be unconstitutional.
sinkingfeeling
(51,276 posts)TomSlick
(11,033 posts)I can live with a religious organization contracting with the state to provide a governmental service. However, it seems to me that if a religious organization does so, it must follow the law applicable to the state. If a religious organization, e.g. a hospital operated by a church, contracts with the state it should be deemed to waive any religious objection to the requirements of the law applicable to the state.
It's a simple choice for the religious organization. Which is more important, religious scruples or state money?
mysteryowl
(7,323 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If a religious group were to try to refer a mixed race couple due to some hurr durr religion bullshit, they'd face a much harder battle.
Pendrench
(1,355 posts)If a couple can provide a child (or children) with love, comfort, stability, and support...what the hell does it matter if they are LGBTQ?
Prior to adopting our children, we had to have a criminal background check, letters of support from friends, and visits by social workers to make sure our home was a safe environment. If LGBTQ couples can do the same, then they should have the same opportunity as any other couple that wants to adopt.
Not only is this ridiculous and discriminatory, it's evil to deny children a chance to have a family due to the bigotry of others.
I'd say this is unbelievable, but sadly that's not the case.
Tim
Behind the Aegis
(53,829 posts)But, a reminder that homophobia is LEGAL in many places and homophobia is WRONG...legal or not!
TomSlick
(11,033 posts)We desperately need a Democratic House, Senate, and President to amend the civil rights laws to make discrimination based on sexual orientation as illegal as discrimination based on race or sex.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)Never mind the fact that a LGBTQ household usually has a higher disposable income than straight ones.
The unadopted kids will end up in foster homes that arent much different than puppy mills. They are a paycheck to many foster homes and are booted out the minute the state checks stop.
lambchopp59
(2,809 posts)Restoring the power to hogtie the FREEDOM anyone who doesn't measure up to their religious/moral yardsticks.
Polybius
(15,238 posts)Figures.