VOX The fight over whether religion is a license to discriminate is back before the Supreme Court Fulton v. City of Philadelphia is likely to deal a severe blow to LGBTQ rights.
Usually I side with the Religious Cake Makers against the LGBT+ folks.
However in this case I side with the City of Philadelphia and the LGBT+ folks against the service providers who have a religious objection. I see no reason that the city should be forced to do business with a religious organization who is unwilling to do business per the city's rules?
Have we lost our MINDS... It just amazes me how both the Far Left and Far Right want to force people to associate who really are not aligned.
It reminds of the airport cabbies who were unwilling to carry customers with alcohol... If you don't want the business, then go find different customers...
The irony of course is that I suppose it allow people of all religions to resist laws and rules as noted in this sad but hilarious comic.
Usually I side with the Religious Cake Makers against the LGBT+ folks.
However in this case I side with the City of Philadelphia and the LGBT+ folks against the service providers who have a religious objection. I see no reason that the city should be forced to do business with a religious organization who is unwilling to do business per the city's rules?
Have we lost our MINDS... It just amazes me how both the Far Left and Far Right want to force people to associate who really are not aligned.
It reminds of the airport cabbies who were unwilling to carry customers with alcohol... If you don't want the business, then go find different customers...
The irony of course is that I suppose it allow people of all religions to resist laws and rules as noted in this sad but hilarious comic.
66 comments:
Shouldn't the city be the one finding new "customers"? The more people working to place adopted children (I assume the "business" in question) the better. If one handles the non-LG??? placements and another the LG????????+++ placements, isn't that a good thing?
And here's a question for you: If we divide 125 genders by 3 bathrooms, how much Climate Change to we get?
Usually the service provider does not get to tell the customer....
- You will hire me
- And you can not tell me what to do
So, you assume that government is the customer. I assume that the child is the customer, and cares only that the service be delivered. It's like education. The government should care only that the service-- education-- is provided up to some standard, so refusing to fund the CHILD to get that education should not be dependent on who the provider is.
They are missing that “up to some standard part”.
Denying a child a good home because of one’s religious bias is not acceptable.
Denying a child a good home because of the government's religious bias is outrageous.
There are a lot of good service providers out there that are not as particular / fundamentalist as the Catholic Church...
Philadelphia like most organizations should be free to hire and associate with who they choose.
The government is not showing a religious bias... They are insisting that the service organization treat all citizens equally...
It is the Catholic church who is life style biased.
It is odd that the Church is blinded to the fact that there are a lot of poor male / female foster parent couples.
Just as there are likely many excellent male / male or female / female foster parent couples.
To apply some antiquated filter due to their religious bias is not in the best interest of kids.
Another good reason Luther left those backwoods pedophiles behind… :-)
" there are likely many excellent male / male or female / female foster parent couples." According to WHOM? Millenia of human experience? Scientific research saying children need opposite-sex role models? Or are you simply spouting more politically-correct nonsense?
And you continue to miss the point. Or maybe you actually MAKE the point, that what government provides, government controls, arbitrarily, without regard for the supposed benefit provided. Like education, the benefit of state funding is that all children receive an education. But the iron chains of control that come with that end up actually denying the benefit sought, to many of them. Same thing here. If Catholic Charities can place a child in a normal home, why should government interfere or prevent that?
Jerry,
Children need caring, capable, responsible, etc caregivers. penis or vagina optional.
I am sure Philadelphia found another qualified service provider like Lutheran Social Services who is happy to place kids in good homes regardless of their penis / vagina count.
You miss the point. I'm sure Catholic services could have found caring, capable heterosexual couples to care for these kids and if not, Lutherans could have placed them with a couple they THINK might do as well (one presumes the Lutherans may ALSO be allowed to serve heterosexual couples, unless government decides to disallow it totally-- merely reductio ad absurdum aka politically correct). The whole point of multiple providers is that parents (and kids, the ultimate customer, theoretically) can deal with whomever will help, and the government should have no say in it.
In this case the city / state identifies children who need foster parents.
The city / state pays the service provider for assistance.
The parent(s) have been deemed to be neglecting or abusing the kids.
The city / state are the responsible guardians of the children.
No sense paying an organization that will not follow their rules which were determined via the voters / tax payers through the representative government.
No sense placing children through an organization that wants to uphold the PURPOSE of the city's efforts-- to find good "family" homes. The politically-correct extremism that gets added on top is simply counter to that purpose. At that extreme, the city could simply deny every opposite-sex couple the right to adopt. Is that what you think should happen?
Jerry,
The Catholic Church and it's organizations are free to believe and do as they wish with their efforts and money.
However they are not free to do as they wish with the tax payer's money. If they want to apply for a job they will need to operate within the rules of the job until SCOTUS rules that they can ignore the laws of the community they are operating in while receiving a pay check from that community.
It will be interesting to see how you react when a Muslim organization starts taking advantage of this potential "religious" objection freedom.
Do I object when a Muslim school teaches local children to read, write, cipher and learn actual science (sufficient to pass State Basic Skills tests)? No. I don't object when Baptist schools add Bible study to the curriculum, but otherwise wildly outperform many public schools. I don't object when churches run daycare centers while their parents claim the tax credit. It is simply incomprehensible that you so strenuously object to people doing good things? You seem more eager to reward motivations that have nothing to do with the result achieved.
Is the city paying to put kids into good homes? Then what difference does it make if some get placed by Catholics and others by Lutherans? Are we going to prohibit opposite-sex couples from adoption?
No. It seems the Philadelphia law is pretty clear.
The penis and/or vagina count is immaterial to if the household can care for foster kids.
It is only Catholic Social Services who have a hang up...
More Detail
Any law that a majority favors can be passed. That does not make it moral, logical, reasonable nor productive of its intended purpose. Your argument seems to be unrelated to any of these desirables.
So you are okay if tax dollars are used in a Muslim school to teach the children that "Christianity is incorrect and bad"?
I am mean some Muslims dislike Christianity for very good reasons after the crusades, Iraq war, forceful displacement of the Palestinian people, etc?
If not the democratically passed laws... What would you use as boundaries for the use of tax dollars?
I mean here you are clearly saying that Catholics can teach disapproval of same sex couples. Even though they are well respected in urban areas.
Here is my test: Does the provider provide the service subsidized, to a standard set by the government? Just the same as a highway construction firm. State provides specs and $, but doesn't care about their personal religious convictions. And shouldn't.
Of course they are not performing per the spec or they would not have been fired.
What if the city runs a bus service for the elderly and the Muslim driver refuses to let anyone on the bus who has been drinking or is carrying boos...
I mean we all no that alcohol is bad for us but it is perfectly legal...
Let's not get off on analogies. Question: does precluding Catholic charities from placing adoptive children mean that more or fewer children will be adopted? Should heterosexual couples be prohibited from adopting children? I keep trying to figure out why you want to cram this religious oppression down on the simple problem of children who need adoption.
No.
No.
No Religious Oppression. Catholic Social Services can do as they wish, just not for the city of Philadelphia.
Just as the Muslim driver can do as they wish with their own taxi when they pick up fares away from public government sites.
It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS rules...
And if they rule for the Catholic Church, how the Muslims will use that same freedom going forward...
I would think the anti-Muslim society in America folks should be getting pretty nervous. Soon they may be able to ignore laws and claim religious exception.
Seems to me the fundamental question is whether government can demand a religious test for government contracts.
No religious test required...
Simple question: Are you willing to do the job as expected and defined by the paying party?
I don't understand why you are even arguing this one...
If you hire someone do you expect them to refuse to perform per your expectations and the contract?
If they do, are you ready to roll over and keep paying them?
"no religious test required" Really? That's your view of the subject? "I don't understand why you are even arguing this one." What is the purpose of the contract? Answer: to place children with adoptive parents. The contractee is expected to make some value judgments about the fitness of those parents AS A FUNCTION of their contractual obligations. The Catholics are doing exactly that, yet you want the heavy hand of government to DENY them the authority to do what is clearly required. Are we going to demand children be placed with homeless crack addicts?
The voters made their choice that responsible capable financially same sex households can care for foster kids.
It is not the job of the service provider to oppose their decision.
Dollars to donuts that was NEVER on the ballot. And how is it that EVERY provider must perform every variation of the service? Do we allow state funds to flow to public schools, private schools, and with vouchers, religious and private schools? It is not the job of the government to decide who can provide the essential service.
It is the job of our elected government to determine how the tax dollars will be collected and spent. In fact it is one of their primary roles.
And if we the people do not approve, we then elect different representatives.
It is so strange how you are against people being given money to pay for birth control, and yet you have no problem letting them spend it on religious indoctrination.
The Right and Left love government control... Just in different areas. :-)
Didn't read the article, but the title is correct. The Right likes government to make laws to promote people doing what is right. The left wants government to make laws preventing it.
I am always amazed how self righteous people on the far right and far left are... :-)
They are both absolutely certain everyone should do as they command. :-(
The good news is that we live in a democratic society that works to arbitrate and settle these differences. :-)
Really? The city government simply issues an edict that Catholic charities either forsake their religious beliefs or quit doing their charitable work. What in there is "free and democratic"?
The people of Philadelphia and their government decided that all potential host families must be treated equally with zero regard to their penis and vagina count.
It seems pretty democratic and fair.
Then Catholic Social Services decided they should be paid while ignoring the will of the community. Thus they were fired. The upside is that there are other places where they can serve the community.
"The people of P. and their government" Really? Was this question ever on the ballot, and did the government represent ALL the people in this decision? You are confusing politically correct authoritarianism with "democratic and fair." Sounds to me like religious persecution in furtherance of child abuse.
For better or worse democracies only need to represent 51% of the voters.
And the base of Trump and the electoral system it can represent a minority and be legal.
It is always strange listening to you... You worry about these kids and totally ignore the millions of abused and neglected kids who would be better of off with a stable capable same sex household.
All in the name of your homophobic / religious bias.
So it's bias, now, to believe the scientific truth that kids are generally better off with opposite-sex parents?
Let's take another example of your "fair and democratic." The US House just /rejected/ an amendment to the TSA authorization bill that would bar sex offenders AND TERRORISTS from TSA employment. Sure, it's fair, and done by our elected representatives. But does it make any sense whatsoever?
Sources please.
What difference does the source make? Take it as a hypothetical if you like. Does every government action automatically qualify as "fair, democratic" AND common sense?
Jerry,
You have made claims with no supporting data as is often the case.
Therefore they have ZERO credibility. (ie FAKE News)
As for...
"Does every government action automatically qualify as "fair, democratic" AND common sense?"
"democratic": Yes, because it can and will be over turned at some point if it is not. (ie prohibition)
"fair" and "common sense": That is in the eye of the beholder.
You have a bias against LGBT people / government and a bias for the Religious Right. Of course you will side with the Religious Right organization whether it makes sense or not to the people of Philadelphia.
And you have a fervent bias against those you perceive as being the "religious right," whoever that may be. Log, meet eye.
house votes
I am only against the Religious Right when they lie or are hypocritical.
Prolife while being against free healthcare / food for poor expectant mothers.
Prolife while against free reliable birth control and thorough sex education.
Protect their freedoms while trying to block the freedoms of LGBT+ folks.
I am having a hard time figuring what else was in that amendment that the DEMs would disagree with.
I am guessing that it was likely a duplicate requirement that the GOPers added for political reasons.
Kind of like this political stunt
So, the RR is your go-to straw man argument? You only object when they disagree with you about what is "fair, democratic and sensible"? Can you think of ANY reason to oppose those things you apparently favor, other than religious bigotry? For example, should the Boy Scouts be required to accept pedophile Scout leaders, or is that just bigotry on their part? After all, it only seems "fair"....
Please note that pedophilia driven actions are a crime.
Being Gay is NOT a crime.
A Gay man can care for and lead boys as well as a straight man.
Unless you think that a straight man can not care for a lead activities for young women?
Being forced to work with LGBT+ people is very different from being forced to work with pedophiles.
Unfortunately it is unlikely that you can accept this since you seem to be severely homophobic for some reason.
Can you think of where this extreme bias against and fear to same sex couples came from?
Not the point, is it? At some point, "status" is equivalent to actions, and some discrimination is a GOOD thing. Those who object to gay Scout leaders because they might also be pedophiles are playing the odds and making a SENSIBLE decision. Political correctness almost always overrides sensible.
Just a reminder:
The point of this post is that the Catholic Church is free to be homophobic.
The city of Philly is free to hire only organizations who will perform services by their rules.
This is freedom of association at it's finest.
Just like why Christian Florists should not be forced to work with gay couples.
OK, how about my fear of terrorists? Is that based on some bigotry on my part? And again, you assume my motivations based on no knowledge whatsoever.
The point OUGHT to be that government may not abridge religious liberty without a compelling reason. Forcing religious bakers to bake a cake, when other bakers happily would, is such an abridgement. Forcing an adoption agency to conclude that certain people are proper parents, against their religious (scientific, traditional and logical) principles, when other agencies willingly decide differently, is another.
Without a lot of research that I am not willing to do, I have no idea why DEMs voted no on that amendment. As I noted before, my guess is that terrorists are already not allowed to have those jobs...
Same thing to me. The city has made it's decision, the Church personnel can conform or go volunteer elsewhere.
There are a lot of bakers and needy people out their.
See Page 11 & 12
It sounds that it was found redundant but the GOPers wanted a talking point.
Which is kind of funny since GOPers usually argue there are to many regulations. And here they want to double them. :-)
But then again it is a non-issue since the Senate will do nothing with the bill anyway.
So, thank the non-specific Deity of your choice for Republican control of the Senate, thanks to those Right-Wing Religious Radicals who don't think allowing terrorists to screen for terrorists is defensible Biblically. Now if only we could install such a theocratic regime in Philadelphia, more kids could be placed for adoption.
Did you miss the point that the Senate will never pass the bill?
"more kids could be placed for adoption"
Do you think Catholic Social Services has a monopoly on parent(s) who are willing to foster / adopt troubled kids?
Remember that there are dozens of organizations working with the city of Philly.
I think the only ones losing out are the CSS personnel.
Did you miss the point that the House never should have passed it in the first place?
Since there are dozens of organizations working for Philly, therefore there is lots of room for tolerance of a religious perspective among one of them. Just as there are lots of bakers, only a few of which need the religious liberty to turn away customers. The problem solves itself and does not need government coercion.
Make up your mind... Did you want to block terrorists or not... :-)
In this case it is the city that gets to choose it's service providers.
Just as the baker gets to pick their customers.
The CSS and the LGBT+ folks choose their beliefs and actions.
That does not mean everyone has to associate with them.
It is odd that you want to have it both ways.
I always thought business was a matter of contract. One party provides a good or service that the other wants, in exchange for some price. In the case of the baker, it's easy. The baker does not want the business. You are confusing the Philly case because you believe government is the customer and CSS is refusing to "sell." I claim the kid and adoptive parents are the customer, and if they want to contract it should be their right. Seems completely consistent to me....
The tax payers are paying the bills...
They make the rules of the transaction and approve suppliers who conform to the laws...
They are the "baker" in this example.
Technically the child(ren) are wards of the State / City during this transaction.
As for the prospective parents, they likely can go through CSS to adopt from private parties.
Just not to take on foster children from the state / city program.
I understand the distinction you are trying to make. When the State lets a contract to build a road, they set specs for the result. They MAY require it be done by a minority contractor, but that has nothing to do with the specs for the road and MAY drive up the cost. The "specs" here should be to exercise good judgment and place kids in "good" homes. If the city wishes to substitute their judgment they should just do all the work themselves.
Nope... Just fire the incompetents and rebellious who do not want to and/or can not do the job per the specified standards.
The voters and courts exercised good judgment, the hired hands do not get to second guess their decision. You really would have made a poor supervisor if you would have let all the employees do as they wish and violate documented company rules.
The only reason to hire employees is to get results. If you want to make all the decisions according to your arbitrary biases that have nothing to do with those results, then you don't need employees and your employer doesn't need you. I still find it amazing how you defend arbitrary "standards"-- aka discrimination-- by government, while claiming you want government efficiency and personal freedom and responsibility.
Those in government are free to hold any view of gay "marriage" they want. To impose that view on all employees is religious oppression. How is that not clear to you?
arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
So now the laws, regulations, etc of our cities, states and nation are arbitrary?
You are so amusing.
One more note...
CSS employees in this case are NOT government employees...
They work for the Catholic Social Services and operate under their rules.
Philly is not forcing anyone to do anything... They just won't give a contract to a services provider that will not follow their laws, regulations, etc.
Again, you want the "best" baker to be able to say no to customers or suppliers they disagree with...
And yet you want to force a city to comply with your and the CSS wishes.
That is pretty much a perfect example of hypocritical.
"characterized by behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel"
You either want people to be free to associate with only those who they wish or you do not.
Post a Comment