LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

They wouldn't be conflicting with their beliefs, they could still place kids only with strait couples, they would just have to also then follow the bit in the Bible about rendering under Ceaser.

Edit: I could just feel the page topper coming.

edited 3rd Feb '14 8:28:28 AM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I already asked him that. In his eyes, personal opinions come first, no matter how dumb or blatantly wrong they are.

edited 3rd Feb '14 8:29:14 AM by Elfive

In layman's terms what is render under Ceaser?

Thanks

edited 3rd Feb '14 8:39:12 AM by KingNick1995

Presenting!

I'm not sure either side in this particular story would disagree. What they disagree on is what constitutes "substantive harm"—the government believes it's keeping the charity from inflicting it upon their charges, and the charity believes the government is insisting upon inflicting it.

It's a reference to the bit of the Bible that tells you to pay your taxes.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Just don't give licenses to adoption agency that discriminate against certain people. That's not that hard. If they want to participate in society, religions have to adhere to the laws of society.

Adoption agencies discriminate against & among applicants all the time. In fact, it'd be malpractice not to; some applicants are manifestly better suited than others, and many aren't suited at all. The main problem seems to be, there's no ironclad public consensus on whether being a same-sex couple is a legitimately disqualifying or, at least, undesirable trait in adoption applicants. Most bien-pensants would have it otherwise, but there simply isn't. It's a legal and ethical grey area at the moment.

edited 3rd Feb '14 8:46:57 AM by Jhimmibhob

I think what bothers me most (second to how the kids might be affected, they should be top priority) is how the agency paints itself as an innocent victim of the big, bad government. Though I'm sure they really do see themselves that way.

I meant discrimination on issues that don't play a role and are actually protected by the law. Discriminating against same-sex couples is sexism. It denies adoption on the basis of the parents sex.

Perhaps in the US, but in Europe I think you'll find almost as solid a concuss as you will for things like being Christian or being black. In that the people screaming against may be loud but they are very much a minority.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Yup. Which is why I was all confused: you should know the anti-discrimination laws and guidelines in the EU and UK if you work in them. And, you shouldn't act all martyred when you break 'em and face the consequences. <_<

If it was really about the children first, they wouldn't even be considering closing over shifting their stance to adapt. -_-

edited 3rd Feb '14 9:09:03 AM by Euodiachloris

I think public consensus is a very poor metric to go by in issues that largely affect minorities.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

I'll have to take your word on that one, and concede that Europe and N.A. are very much different beasts on several such issues. On the other hand ... even if the charity is indeed "very much a minority":

This thread moved very fast. Suffice to say, I think people have the right to raise their kids in a way different from me and encourage others to do the same.

That still doesn't answer the questuion that I (and I believe others) asked. It is a reasonable thing to say that you believe that adoption agencies should be largely unregulated in what qualities they feel makes someone a good parent? If so, why?

Also why do you believe they should be tax exempt when doing so?

Edit:

I still want to know why they should be awarded charitable status while doing so. Do you have an answer?

edited 3rd Feb '14 12:11:57 PM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Because they're engaged in charitable activities?

I'm not comfortable with the idea that charities should be free to discriminate as they please and be rewarded for it by the government. (Assuming that's what's being said, and if not I retract my statement.)

Charitable activities and bigotry if you don't let gay couples adopt for being gay. If your company encourages bigotry like that then you don't deserve to be exempt from taxes. Your helping people you like and not everyone who deserves it.

Well, depending on the government and legal system, that might or might not be a valid reason for withholding support, or revoking tax-exempt status. As already pointed out, discrimination on several grounds isn't merely advisable when placing adoptees—it's essential. And if the discrimination doesn't involve a legally-defined protected category of persons, the agency might be on still firmer ground.

What are your legal grounds for saying so?

edited 3rd Feb '14 12:31:26 PM by Jhimmibhob

I'm pretty sure LGBT people are a protected class in the UK, so yeah it's discrimination against a protected group.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Discriminating against peoples sex is a legally protected category in most western countries.

@Jhim:What are your legal grounds for saying same-sex couples shouldn't be a protected class?

Hint: There aren't any.

edited 3rd Feb '14 12:37:26 PM by Wildcard

Others beat me to it.

How is it not about orientation? I can see arguing that it is also sexism, if that's what you intended.

edited 3rd Feb '14 12:43:10 PM by Morgikit

It's not even about sexual orientation. Saying that a couple cannot adopt children because one of them should have another sex is discrimination based on sex.

Sorry, I missed the question.

"It is a reasonable thing to say that you believe that adoption agencies should be largely unregulated in what qualities they feel makes someone a good parent? If so, why?"

In my imaginary world, the government sets the minimum standards for adoption. Ex. "A felon can't adopt unless they fill out form 131-b." or some such stuff. A private organization is then free to restrict that farther. A government adoption agency only follows the minimum standards. I feel like this is a good compromise between government getting it's interest in having good parents filled and the private interest in getting parents who agree with certain moral values filled as well.

"Also why do you believe they should be tax exempt when doing so?"

In terms of tax exempt status, I have no strong feelings if they should or not. I'd say that any private adoption agency should be given the same treatment as any other organization. If you want to be a not for profit, you do have to follow the same rules all the others do. If I'm sounding dodgy, it's because I can see both secular and religious profit and non-profit adoption agencies. However, under the law a secular and a religious adoption agencies should be treated the same.

In the specific question, I think it is allowed in Scotland for adoption agencies to be non-profit. Therefore, this adoption agency should be a non-profit. However, if a otherwise non-religious adoption agency does not get the tax exempt status, neither should they.