Another casualty of the gay agenda --- Catholic Charities of Boston

[Mr. P]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I guess it can be argued that this law violates the first amendment, but I think it’s weak at best. I don’t believe the operation of an adoption agency is part of the Catholic religion, I may be wrong.

If argued successfully, I’m moving to Utah and becoming Mormon.
Wives, wives…yep! Polygamy, Pffffffffft its part of my Religion, okay.
They have a case if anyone does. The U.S. Congress made the practice illegal in U.S. Territories in 1862…A direct violation of the first amendment. Tsk,Tsk..
Or maybe I’ll become Hindu and raise a herd of “Holy” cows that freely roam my neighborhood. Screw the zoning and health laws; this is about practicing MY Religion.
Lets not even consider the Wiccan or Satanism Religion.

The point is no Religion should be allowed to operate outside of societal laws, regardless of the players. I know all of you support law that prevents such activity in the name of Religion, up until it affects your beliefs anyway.

Now, lets have a BIG AMEN and get to what’s important for these kids.

PS. Before anyone jumps on it, I know the Mormons do not (for the most part) practice polygamy anymore.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Right, let's force all religions to accept gays whether they want to or not. As far as I know, killing people is against Islam. Where is the separation of church and state here?


White supremacism isn't a religion. It seems to me that you equate the Catholic Church to White Supremacy.

You are too far down the rabbit hole, friend.

 

[MissileMan]

Right, let's force all religions to accept gays whether they want to or not. As far as I know, killing people is against Islam. Where is the separation of church and state here?

I thought that was sane peoples' beef with the Koran, that it openly calls for the eradication of infidels.

White supremacism isn't a religion. It seems to me that you equate the Catholic Church to White Supremacy.

No, I was not calling the Catholic Church a white supremacist organization. I'm trying to further my argument that noone is above the law, not even churches.

 

[Avatar4321]

MM.... read my cyber lips..... the Massachussets law VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT!!!!!

And the Diocese of Boston isn't breaking the law. It asked for an exemption based on moral grounds.... like a conscientious objecter does during war time. When it didn't get the exemption, it obeyed the law both of the State of Massachussetts and of the Catholic Church.

Of course, the Catholic Church should sue the State of Massachussets for violating its First Amendment rights.

If Massachusssets passed a law that barred women from voting or reinsituted slavery, should everyone follow it? By your line of thinking the answer is "yes.. and gladly!!!!"

I completely agree. I think the political aspect is interesting too. Governor Mitt Romney is fighting to allow the Catholic Church to be exempted from this state requirement and it could set him up in a good position for the primaries in 08. Too early to tell though. but it is interesting to watch.

 

[GotZoom]

One could make the claim that those states who seek to ban gay couples from adopting are guilty of the same crime.

Using your argument, if the goal is just to place kids in homes then they should just get rid of all background checks/investigations for possible adoptive parents. Forget financial stability, if there is a criminal past, work stability, etc.

 

[Emmett]

Just this subject makes one think , How much more difficult would it be if there was no ROE!

Talk about dropping our standards on adoption. It's hard to have cake and eat it too. Unless we are prepared to drop our standards way, way, way down (such as suggested by the Zoomer) then we may have to givew on gay adoption and other less than desireable ways to rectify the numbers. They won't be going down you know when we reverse Roe!

Sometimes you have to be careful what you ask for folks! :bangheads

 

[archangel]

See ACLU vs Boy Scouts of America...on the right to ban openly gay leaders..
The Catholic church has the same rights per SCOTUS...If they choose to denie gay adoption based on their beliefs so be it...The gay community gave up this right when they chose perverted sex(A fetish)...it cannot achieve the ultimate goal of sexual encounter by pro-creation to produce a child!...they cannot conceive a child in this manner...so nolo contender is a fact that is [present]...and if the Catholic church prefers to make adoptions to those who take the faith seriously so be it...no violation of law is present..it is a private organization no? See Scotus!

 

[Gem]

I feel that this is an issue where we as a nation have clearly just taken common sense and chucked it in the toilet of political correctness.

This organization was doing really wonderful work. Was it worth it to force a Catholic charity to choose between its Catholic faith and continuing to place some of the most difficult to place children in loving, supportive homes? Of course the organization was going to choose what it did...how could it choose otherwise? To do so would be to invalidate the teachings of the Catholic church, it isn't at all surprising that they chose the direction they did.

The organization always referred homosexuals to numerous other agencies that worked with gay couples...they were not the ONLY adoption agency in Boston.

I completely understand people who are stating that relgious organizations must follow the laws of the land, so to speak. However, I feel that a completely black-and-white reading of this, as some here are doing, is demostrating that "political correctness overcoming common sense" tone that has taken over this country.

If we used our common sense, religious organizations would be able to petition the gov't for the religious exemptions. Petitions such as, "We, a Catholic adoption agency that has been doing amazing work for a decade with placing hard-to-place children with loving families would like to continue to do this AMAZINGLY WONDERFUL work, without having to violate our Catholic beliefs," would be allowed to do so - especially if they agree to refer homosexual couples to agencies that will work with them - like this agency did. While religions petitioning for rights like - oh, say KILLING INFIDELS - would be denied because it was not a compatible coexistance between the state and religion.

I refuse to believe that it has to be as complicated as - either violate your religious beliefs that really hurt no one in this situation (offending people does not count as hurt - there are other adoption agencies in Boston that work with gay couples), or stop doing work that truly helps society.

Come on, people. We aren't that far gone yet, are we?

Are we?

 

[Mr. P]

I feel that this is an issue where we as a nation have clearly just taken common sense and chucked it in the toilet of political correctness.

This organization was doing really wonderful work. Was it worth it to force a Catholic charity to choose between its Catholic faith and continuing to place some of the most difficult to place children in loving, supportive homes? Of course the organization was going to choose what it did...how could it choose otherwise? To do so would be to invalidate the teachings of the Catholic church, it isn't at all surprising that they chose the direction they did.

The organization always referred homosexuals to numerous other agencies that worked with gay couples...they were not the ONLY adoption agency in Boston.

I completely understand people who are stating that relgious organizations must follow the laws of the land, so to speak. However, I feel that a completely black-and-white reading of this, as some here are doing, is demostrating that "political correctness overcoming common sense" tone that has taken over this country.

If we used our common sense, religious organizations would be able to petition the gov't for the religious exemptions. Petitions such as, "We, a Catholic adoption agency that has been doing amazing work for a decade with placing hard-to-place children with loving families would like to continue to do this AMAZINGLY WONDERFUL work, without having to violate our Catholic beliefs," would be allowed to do so - especially if they agree to refer homosexual couples to agencies that will work with them - like this agency did. While religions petitioning for rights like - oh, say KILLING INFIDELS - would be denied because it was not a compatible coexistance between the state and religion.

I refuse to believe that it has to be as complicated as - either violate your religious beliefs that really hurt no one in this situation (offending people does not count as hurt - there are other adoption agencies in Boston that work with gay couples), or stop doing work that truly helps society.

Come on, people. We aren't that far gone yet, are we?

Are we?

I'm afraid we may be.

Good post, kid!

 

[archangel]

I'm afraid we may be.

Good post, kid!

Mr.P has put down his banjo and saw the light....!

 

[Mr. P]

Mr.P has put down his banjo and saw the light....!

WTF are you talking about? I can't play a banjo!

 

[archangel]

WTF are you talking about? I can't play a banjo!

but ya are singing the song non the less...gay is okay...religion is poo poo!

 

[Mr. P]

but ya are singing the song non the less...gay is okay...religion is poo poo!

No, you're way of base. How odd.

 

[archangel]

No, you're way of base. How odd.

I am on third base waiting to run for "Home" base...I like ya but you fell off base...Please explain all of your support for the gay movement in all your past comments...I am at a loss for words! :cof:

 

[Mr. P]

I am on third base waiting to run for "Home" base...I like ya but you fell off base...Please explain all of your support for the gay movement in all your past comments...I am at a loss for words! :cof:

Go read em.

 

[MissileMan]

See ACLU vs Boy Scouts of America...on the right to ban openly gay leaders..
The Catholic church has the same rights per SCOTUS...If they choose to denie gay adoption based on their beliefs so be it...The gay community gave up this right when they chose perverted sex(A fetish)...it cannot achieve the ultimate goal of sexual encounter by pro-creation to produce a child!...they cannot conceive a child in this manner...so nolo contender is a fact that is [present]...and if the Catholic church prefers to make adoptions to those who take the faith seriously so be it...no violation of law is present..it is a private organization no? See Scotus!

The Catholic Church is perfectly within its right to put a sign on every church, "We don't minister to gays" or "Gays stay out!" or to make a policy that homosexuals are not permitted to be priests. Those are religious matters.

Operating an adoption agency isn't a religious matter, but a civil one and is subject to local, state, and federal laws including those dealing with discrimination.

 

[archangel]

The Catholic Church is perfectly within its right to put a sign on every church, "We don't minister to gays" or "Gays stay out!" or to make a policy that homosexuals are not permitted to be priests. Those are religious matters.

Operating an adoption agency isn't a religious matter, but a civil one and is subject to local, state, and federal laws including those dealing with discrimination.

If the church takes in these children,cares for them,food,clothing,medical,emotional etc...then they have every right to place them where they see fit...This is a private organization not receiving public assistance...do you have a problem with this?

 

[Gem]

MissileMan Wrote:

Operating an adoption agency isn't a religious matter, but a civil one and is subject to local, state, and federal laws including those dealing with discrimination.

So basically, you would rather have an agency that placed the most difficult to place children in loving, supportive homes closed forever than simply allow them to apply for a religious exemption?

Come on, Missleman, you can not honestly believe this. How can it be better to leave children in need without help simply to prove a point?

When are we going to grow the f*ck up, admit that the world isn't black and white, and do what really is best, even if it ruffles a few feathers.

The Catholic Charities should be able to continue to do their good work - even if it upsets gays and their supporters. As the law permits in Massachussettes, gay couples should be able to adopt from adoption agencies that either a) have decided to support them or b) are run by the state or receive money from the state.

What would have been wrong with that compromise? Its common freaking sense. You don't cut off your nose to spite your face, you don't stop an agency that does wonderful work for children in need to pacify an incredibly small number of people who can get the exact same services elsewhere.

I'm sorry, I'm ranting now...but sweet jesus, to quote a great movie - Doesn't anyone else see it? I feel like I'm taking CRAZY PILLS!

 

[MissileMan]

If the church takes in these children,cares for them,food,clothing,medical,emotional etc...then they have every right to place them where they see fit...This is a private organization not receiving public assistance...do you have a problem with this?

As usual, you're wrong.

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v16/i05/05002801.htm

we are right at that intersection because about 62 percent of our budget is drawn from federal, state, or county resources.

 

[GotZoom]

As usual, you're wrong.

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v16/i05/05002801.htm

Careful.

He has connections.