What A Blessing: Texas Adoption Agencies Could Ban Jews, Gays, And Muslims

[RealDave]

Great Breaking News:

Alabama follows Texas denying child predators AKA homosexuals from adopting.


Bill allowing adoption agencies to turn away gay couples signed into law
www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/bill_allowing_adoption_agencie_1.html

Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality.

You are dumber than shit.

Homosexuals are pedophiles. It's a fact.

Not a fact at all. One an attraction to the same sex. The other is a sexual attraction to children.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Great Breaking News:

Alabama follows Texas denying child predators AKA homosexuals from adopting.


Bill allowing adoption agencies to turn away gay couples signed into law
www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/bill_allowing_adoption_agencie_1.html

Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality.

You are dumber than shit.

Homosexuals are pedophiles. It's a fact.

Only in your mind. It is most certainly NOT a fact in the real world.

Oh they absolutely are. 66 percent of child rapists are in fact homosexuals and they are only about 3 to 5 percent at best of the population. Homosexuals are four times more likely to rape children. That makes them a complete danger to society and especially our children.

 

[WinterBorn]

Great Breaking News:

Alabama follows Texas denying child predators AKA homosexuals from adopting.


Bill allowing adoption agencies to turn away gay couples signed into law
www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/bill_allowing_adoption_agencie_1.html

Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality.

You are dumber than shit.

Homosexuals are pedophiles. It's a fact.

Only in your mind. It is most certainly NOT a fact in the real world.

Oh they absolutely are. 66 percent of child rapists are in fact homosexuals and they are only about 3 to 5 percent at best of the population. Homosexuals are four times more likely to rape children. That makes them a complete danger to society and especially our children.

The people who rape prepubescent children, whether the victim is of the same gender or not, are not homosexuals. If you don't believe me, check with the FBI.

Oh, and Stevie, even if your figures were correct, that does not mean all homosexuals are pedophiles. Perhaps if you had paid attention in math class in middle school, you would know this.

Oh, and by your logic, white males are serial killers. I mean, something like 99% of the serial killers in this country are white males, right?

 

[IResist]

Allowing discrimination against gay adoption will not change the fact kids are neglected, beaten, sexual abused and even murdered by heterosexual parents, sometimes in the name of God/Jesus.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Though it doesn't allow them to discriminate based on race, keeping white children out of Jewish, Gay, and Muslim homes is at least something needed. It's the moral Christian thing to do. It's the right thing to do.


Texas adoption agencies could ban Jews, gays, Muslims

It would appear that you have been shut down and run off your own thread since you have been unable to respond to the criticism of your nonsense and bigotry. You can't deal with the overwhelming evidence that your OP is pure bunk. All that you are able to do is to spew hate and stupidity


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Political Junky]

Though it doesn't allow them to discriminate based on race, keeping white children out of Jewish, Gay, and Muslim homes is at least something needed. It's the moral Christian thing to do. It's the right thing to do.


Texas adoption agencies could ban Jews, gays, Muslims

A KKK dream.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Though it doesn't allow them to discriminate based on race, keeping white children out of Jewish, Gay, and Muslim homes is at least something needed. It's the moral Christian thing to do. It's the right thing to do.


Texas adoption agencies could ban Jews, gays, Muslims

Should ban the catholics....we know all about them *wink *wink

We know all about you faggots and dikes too.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Great Breaking News:

Alabama follows Texas denying child predators AKA homosexuals from adopting.


Bill allowing adoption agencies to turn away gay couples signed into law
www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/bill_allowing_adoption_agencie_1.html

Pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality.

You are dumber than shit.

Homosexuals are pedophiles. It's a fact.

Only in your mind. It is most certainly NOT a fact in the real world.

Oh they absolutely are. 66 percent of child rapists are in fact homosexuals and they are only about 3 to 5 percent at best of the population. Homosexuals are four times more likely to rape children. That makes them a complete danger to society and especially our children.

They are human trash with no value whatsoever.

 

[WinterBorn]

Though it doesn't allow them to discriminate based on race, keeping white children out of Jewish, Gay, and Muslim homes is at least something needed. It's the moral Christian thing to do. It's the right thing to do.


Texas adoption agencies could ban Jews, gays, Muslims

Should ban the catholics....we know all about them *wink *wink

We know all about you faggots and dikes too.

Apparently not.

 

[Marianne]

It's so good to see this conversation has been so civil and not degraded into a racist bigoted free for all.

IMHO If an organization is a Catholic adoption agency then they should place the kids with Catholic's, if Muslim then the kid should be placed with Muslims, if public than the kids should be placed with whatever family they can get. Unfortunate fact is if it goes to the SCOTUS( and it probably will) it will most likely be labeled discrimination and therefore unconstitutional due to the current climate in the USA. This of course could lead to less adoptions and more welfare mothers. I can see where someone might not want to give up a daughter if they knew that the adoptive family might be Muslim and force her to cover herself from head to toe just because she's a woman. A Jew might not want a Muslim family or a Muslim might not want a Jewish family and a Christian might not want an atheist family. Hell a Christian baker can't even turn down making a gay wedding cake so I have little hope that religious adoption agency's will be able to continue unobstructed on the grounds of religious freedom.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

It's so good to see this conversation has been so civil and not degraded into a racist bigoted free for all.

IMHO If an organization is a Catholic adoption agency then they should place the kids with Catholic's, if Muslim then the kid should be placed with Muslims, if public than the kids should be placed with whatever family they can get. Unfortunate fact is if it goes to the SCOTUS( and it probably will) it will most likely be labeled discrimination and therefore unconstitutional due to the current climate in the USA. This of course could lead to less adoptions and more welfare mothers. I can see where someone might not want to give up a daughter if they knew that the adoptive family might be Muslim and force her to cover herself from head to toe just because she's a woman. A Jew might not want a Muslim family or a Muslim might not want a Jewish family and a Christian might not want an atheist family. Hell a Christian baker can't even turn down making a gay wedding cake so I have little hope that religious adoption agency's will be able to continue unobstructed on the grounds of religious freedom.

Adoption is much different than baking cakes. Apples and oranges.

 

[Marianne]

It's so good to see this conversation has been so civil and not degraded into a racist bigoted free for all.

IMHO If an organization is a Catholic adoption agency then they should place the kids with Catholic's, if Muslim then the kid should be placed with Muslims, if public than the kids should be placed with whatever family they can get. Unfortunate fact is if it goes to the SCOTUS( and it probably will) it will most likely be labeled discrimination and therefore unconstitutional due to the current climate in the USA. This of course could lead to less adoptions and more welfare mothers. I can see where someone might not want to give up a daughter if they knew that the adoptive family might be Muslim and force her to cover herself from head to toe just because she's a woman. A Jew might not want a Muslim family or a Muslim might not want a Jewish family and a Christian might not want an atheist family. Hell a Christian baker can't even turn down making a gay wedding cake so I have little hope that religious adoption agency's will be able to continue unobstructed on the grounds of religious freedom.

Adoption is much different than baking cakes. Apples and oranges.

"Apples and oranges"? Religious adoption and Christian bakery's aren't so different as they both fall under religious freedom and are therefore both fruit. It's also unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom but the left doesn't seem to understand that.

"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."

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

It's so good to see this conversation has been so civil and not degraded into a racist bigoted free for all.

IMHO If an organization is a Catholic adoption agency then they should place the kids with Catholic's, if Muslim then the kid should be placed with Muslims, if public than the kids should be placed with whatever family they can get. Unfortunate fact is if it goes to the SCOTUS( and it probably will) it will most likely be labeled discrimination and therefore unconstitutional due to the current climate in the USA. This of course could lead to less adoptions and more welfare mothers. I can see where someone might not want to give up a daughter if they knew that the adoptive family might be Muslim and force her to cover herself from head to toe just because she's a woman. A Jew might not want a Muslim family or a Muslim might not want a Jewish family and a Christian might not want an atheist family. Hell a Christian baker can't even turn down making a gay wedding cake so I have little hope that religious adoption agency's will be able to continue unobstructed on the grounds of religious freedom.

Adoption is much different than baking cakes. Apples and oranges.

"Apples and oranges"? Religious adoption and Christian bakery's aren't so different as they both fall under religious freedom and are therefore both fruit. It's also unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom but the left doesn't seem to understand that.

"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 am on your side, I'm just saying they aren't moral equivalents. Baking a cake for a faggot wedding is a far cry from adopting a child.

 

[Marianne]

It's so good to see this conversation has been so civil and not degraded into a racist bigoted free for all.

IMHO If an organization is a Catholic adoption agency then they should place the kids with Catholic's, if Muslim then the kid should be placed with Muslims, if public than the kids should be placed with whatever family they can get. Unfortunate fact is if it goes to the SCOTUS( and it probably will) it will most likely be labeled discrimination and therefore unconstitutional due to the current climate in the USA. This of course could lead to less adoptions and more welfare mothers. I can see where someone might not want to give up a daughter if they knew that the adoptive family might be Muslim and force her to cover herself from head to toe just because she's a woman. A Jew might not want a Muslim family or a Muslim might not want a Jewish family and a Christian might not want an atheist family. Hell a Christian baker can't even turn down making a gay wedding cake so I have little hope that religious adoption agency's will be able to continue unobstructed on the grounds of religious freedom.

Adoption is much different than baking cakes. Apples and oranges.

"Apples and oranges"? Religious adoption and Christian bakery's aren't so different as they both fall under religious freedom and are therefore both fruit. It's also unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom but the left doesn't seem to understand that.

"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 am on your side, I'm just saying they aren't moral equivalents. Baking a cake for a faggot wedding is a far cry from adopting a child.

Granted children are more important than cakes but they both still fall under religious freedom. The left however don't see it that way.

 

[Political Junky]

Though it doesn't allow them to discriminate based on race, keeping white children out of Jewish, Gay, and Muslim homes is at least something needed. It's the moral Christian thing to do. It's the right thing to do.


Texas adoption agencies could ban Jews, gays, Muslims

Can you get any more pathetic than using religion to justify your racism.

The KKK always claimed to do God's work.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's so good to see this conversation has been so civil and not degraded into a racist bigoted free for all.

IMHO If an organization is a Catholic adoption agency then they should place the kids with Catholic's, if Muslim then the kid should be placed with Muslims, if public than the kids should be placed with whatever family they can get. Unfortunate fact is if it goes to the SCOTUS( and it probably will) it will most likely be labeled discrimination and therefore unconstitutional due to the current climate in the USA. This of course could lead to less adoptions and more welfare mothers. I can see where someone might not want to give up a daughter if they knew that the adoptive family might be Muslim and force her to cover herself from head to toe just because she's a woman. A Jew might not want a Muslim family or a Muslim might not want a Jewish family and a Christian might not want an atheist family. Hell a Christian baker can't even turn down making a gay wedding cake so I have little hope that religious adoption agency's will be able to continue unobstructed on the grounds of religious freedom.

Adoption is much different than baking cakes. Apples and oranges.

"Apples and oranges"? Religious adoption and Christian bakery's aren't so different as they both fall under religious freedom and are therefore both fruit. It's also unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom but the left doesn't seem to understand that.

"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."

What the left does understand, and that you don't seem to understand, is that the concept of religious freedom has been distorted, bastardized and weaponized by the religious right. It is only in recent history that it has become an excuse to discriminate.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

It's so good to see this conversation has been so civil and not degraded into a racist bigoted free for all.

IMHO If an organization is a Catholic adoption agency then they should place the kids with Catholic's, if Muslim then the kid should be placed with Muslims, if public than the kids should be placed with whatever family they can get. Unfortunate fact is if it goes to the SCOTUS( and it probably will) it will most likely be labeled discrimination and therefore unconstitutional due to the current climate in the USA. This of course could lead to less adoptions and more welfare mothers. I can see where someone might not want to give up a daughter if they knew that the adoptive family might be Muslim and force her to cover herself from head to toe just because she's a woman. A Jew might not want a Muslim family or a Muslim might not want a Jewish family and a Christian might not want an atheist family. Hell a Christian baker can't even turn down making a gay wedding cake so I have little hope that religious adoption agency's will be able to continue unobstructed on the grounds of religious freedom.

Adoption is much different than baking cakes. Apples and oranges.

"Apples and oranges"? Religious adoption and Christian bakery's aren't so different as they both fall under religious freedom and are therefore both fruit. It's also unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom but the left doesn't seem to understand that.

"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."

What the left does understand, and that you don't seem to understand, is that the concept of religious freedom has been distorted, bastardized and weaponized by the religious right. It is only in recent history that it has become an excuse to discriminate.

Lol....just like the homos have weaponized the government against people of faith. Don't cry when your tactics backfire on you. And remember, your side has always been the aggressor...you wanted to change society and force people to accept your lifestyle...and when the people were asked to vote on fag 'marriage' in the States... You lost the vast majority of times.

 

[Marianne]

It's so good to see this conversation has been so civil and not degraded into a racist bigoted free for all.

IMHO If an organization is a Catholic adoption agency then they should place the kids with Catholic's, if Muslim then the kid should be placed with Muslims, if public than the kids should be placed with whatever family they can get. Unfortunate fact is if it goes to the SCOTUS( and it probably will) it will most likely be labeled discrimination and therefore unconstitutional due to the current climate in the USA. This of course could lead to less adoptions and more welfare mothers. I can see where someone might not want to give up a daughter if they knew that the adoptive family might be Muslim and force her to cover herself from head to toe just because she's a woman. A Jew might not want a Muslim family or a Muslim might not want a Jewish family and a Christian might not want an atheist family. Hell a Christian baker can't even turn down making a gay wedding cake so I have little hope that religious adoption agency's will be able to continue unobstructed on the grounds of religious freedom.

Adoption is much different than baking cakes. Apples and oranges.

"Apples and oranges"? Religious adoption and Christian bakery's aren't so different as they both fall under religious freedom and are therefore both fruit. It's also unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom but the left doesn't seem to understand that.

"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."

What the left does understand, and that you don't seem to understand, is that the concept of religious freedom has been distorted, bastardized and weaponized by the religious right. It is only in recent history that it has become an excuse to discriminate.

IDK I think it's pretty clearly defined in the Constitution, that"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is fairly self explanatory. It's the left who can't seem to understand that there's not a * at the end of that statement that says

* unless I don't agree with you.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

It's so good to see this conversation has been so civil and not degraded into a racist bigoted free for all.

IMHO If an organization is a Catholic adoption agency then they should place the kids with Catholic's, if Muslim then the kid should be placed with Muslims, if public than the kids should be placed with whatever family they can get. Unfortunate fact is if it goes to the SCOTUS( and it probably will) it will most likely be labeled discrimination and therefore unconstitutional due to the current climate in the USA. This of course could lead to less adoptions and more welfare mothers. I can see where someone might not want to give up a daughter if they knew that the adoptive family might be Muslim and force her to cover herself from head to toe just because she's a woman. A Jew might not want a Muslim family or a Muslim might not want a Jewish family and a Christian might not want an atheist family. Hell a Christian baker can't even turn down making a gay wedding cake so I have little hope that religious adoption agency's will be able to continue unobstructed on the grounds of religious freedom.

Adoption is much different than baking cakes. Apples and oranges.

"Apples and oranges"? Religious adoption and Christian bakery's aren't so different as they both fall under religious freedom and are therefore both fruit. It's also unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom but the left doesn't seem to understand that.

"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."

What the left does understand, and that you don't seem to understand, is that the concept of religious freedom has been distorted, bastardized and weaponized by the religious right. It is only in recent history that it has become an excuse to discriminate.

IDK I think it's pretty clearly defined in the Constitution, that"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is fairly self explanatory. It's the left who can't seem to understand that there's not a * at the end of that statement that says

* unless I don't agree with you.

That's correct.

 

[Marianne]

It's so good to see this conversation has been so civil and not degraded into a racist bigoted free for all.

IMHO If an organization is a Catholic adoption agency then they should place the kids with Catholic's, if Muslim then the kid should be placed with Muslims, if public than the kids should be placed with whatever family they can get. Unfortunate fact is if it goes to the SCOTUS( and it probably will) it will most likely be labeled discrimination and therefore unconstitutional due to the current climate in the USA. This of course could lead to less adoptions and more welfare mothers. I can see where someone might not want to give up a daughter if they knew that the adoptive family might be Muslim and force her to cover herself from head to toe just because she's a woman. A Jew might not want a Muslim family or a Muslim might not want a Jewish family and a Christian might not want an atheist family. Hell a Christian baker can't even turn down making a gay wedding cake so I have little hope that religious adoption agency's will be able to continue unobstructed on the grounds of religious freedom.

Adoption is much different than baking cakes. Apples and oranges.

"Apples and oranges"? Religious adoption and Christian bakery's aren't so different as they both fall under religious freedom and are therefore both fruit. It's also unconstitutional to restrict religious freedom but the left doesn't seem to understand that.

"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."

What the left does understand, and that you don't seem to understand, is that the concept of religious freedom has been distorted, bastardized and weaponized by the religious right. It is only in recent history that it has become an excuse to discriminate.

Lol....just like the homos have weaponized the government against people of faith. Don't cry when your tactics backfire on you. And remember, your side has always been the aggressor...you wanted to change society and force people to accept your lifestyle...and when the people were asked to vote on fag 'marriage' in the States... You lost the vast majority of times.

That's true. If it had been left up to the individual states you'd still have a majority that would not allow gay marriage. Now I personally think under the Constitution gays have a right to live their lifestyle. That said I don't think gays have a right to ram their lifestyle down everybody's throat who doesn't approve anymore than I.E. Catholic's can insist you abide by the Pope and follow Catholic traditions and policy's. And yes LGBT for the most part it is a lifestyle and not something you're born with or biological. Very few of the LGBT are actually born gay. This is evidenced by the who they choose as partners. I.E.If a lesbian hooks up with a lesbian who looks like a man( and most of them that i've seen do) than obviously they don't have a problem being attracted to men. It's a sexual preference not a biological thing. You can't force someone to accept your sexual preference. This means that a good portion of the LGBT is sexual preference and forcing people to accept their lifestyle should be unconstitutional. Sex change is mostly a mental issue and again people should not be legally forced accept it anymore than you guys should be forced to abide by my diagnosed germaphobe obsessive cleaning OCD.