Oaks on religious freedom

[Jeff Lebowski]

Catholics forced out of the adoption business in England:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...n-Britain.html

The article has a heavy "I told you so" angle which is to be expected from the DesNews, especially when written by Michael De Groote. But it is an interesting development.

[UtahDan]

Catholics forced out of the adoption business in England:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...n-Britain.html

The article has a heavy "I told you so" angle which is to be expected from the DesNews, especially when written by Michael De Groote. But it is an interesting development.

I was thinking of starting up a white to white only adoption agency (Brigham Young would approve), but you know damn well the second I do they are going to start persecuting me for my religious beliefs.

That is not directed at you Jeff, but the quotes at the end of the article make me gag. The argument seems to be "if you didn't think same sex marriage was bad before, just think of these poor children being raised by people who have the gay!" What is the thought here, that they are going to catch it? The gay parents obviously didn't catch "the straight" from their folks. People can believe that God abhors homosexuality if they want to, but what is the argument that little babies are not better off in a home where they are wanted and will be loved? Don't people watch Modern Family? Sheesh.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I was thinking of starting up a white to white only adoption agency (Brigham Young would approve), but you know damn well the second I do they are going to start persecuting me for my religious beliefs.

That is not directed at you Jeff, but the quotes at the end of the article make me gag. The argument seems to be "if you didn't think same sex marriage was bad before, just think of these poor children being raised by people who have the gay!" What is the thought here, that they are going to catch it? The gay parents obviously didn't catch "the straight" from their folks. People can believe that God abhors homosexuality if they want to, but what is the argument that little babies are not better off in a home where they are wanted and will be loved? Don't people watch Modern Family? Sheesh.

Yes, and the comparison with the Massachusetts case is dubious since that case involved state funding.

[UtahDan]

Yes, and the comparison with the Massachusetts case is dubious since that case involved state funding.

I'm not necessarily saying it couldn't happen here. I can see a state saying "we are going to regulate all adoption and you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation." It would then be up to the courts to decide whether it is like the peyote case (you can't do something otherwise illegal just because it is also religious) or whether it impermissibly impinges on religious freedom.

I'm just trying to get at the heart of why people care. What is it they are worried about.

[TripletDaddy]

Yes, and the comparison with the Massachusetts case is dubious since that case involved state funding.

I would be interested in the language outlining the exemption. There is clearly a possibility of exemption but what are the requirements? I know the article hinted at it somewhat (public service vs private practice) but I would think there would be more specific guidance somewhere.

Also, do we know whether this Catholic adoption service was partially subsidized by the UK government? There may be more parallels to Mass than may be apparent on the surface.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I would be interested in the language outlining the exemption. There is clearly a possibility of exemption but what are the requirements? I know the article hinted at it somewhat (public service vs private practice) but I would think there would be more specific guidance somewhere.

Also, do we know whether this Catholic adoption service was partially subsidized by the UK government? There may be more parallels to Mass than may be apparent on the surface.

I had the same questions. If there is a religious exemption in British law, how does it work?

Poorly written article.

[Northwestcoug]

That matches my experience.

That's sort of true for me. I am not sure I am getting more socially liberal, but I am definitely more tolerant and forgiving of things I don't approve of. IOW in the past I thought I was right and I wanted everyone to agree with me. I still think I am right but I don't care very much if most people disagree. Live and let live.

Another version is:

"If you are young and not a liberal, you don't have a heart. If you are old and not a conservative, you don't have a brain."

Winston Churchill?

Same with me, although I have always been politically conservative, I was more of a Rockefeller Republican once. I think we naturally become more compassionate and less judgmental with time as we realize life isn't as cut and dried as we may have thought in our youth, good people make bad decisions, and so forth. Having children just adds a dimension to one's perspective, and it grows as your children grow, and you see the things that imperil them differently.

Not the main thrust of this thread, but this is where I'm at also. I'm also finding more and more members who are shifting left socially. The church membership is not immune to the global shift.

A little late, but I will also echo tooblue's points. I have family in Canada and have a weird obsession with Canadian politics. Hate speech (and by extension, religious speech) can and has been prosecuted there. I doubt we will see it prosecuted to that degree in the United States, though.

[pellegrino]

I had the same questions. If there is a religious exemption in British law, how does it work?

Poorly written article.

No, No, Jeff, it was a very well written article, given the target audience. He found and used all the correct evidence to come to his foregone conclusion.

[LA Ute]

I'm not necessarily saying it couldn't happen here. I can see a state saying "we are going to regulate all adoption and you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation." It would then be up to the courts to decide whether it is like the peyote case (you can't do something otherwise illegal just because it is also religious) or whether it impermissibly impinges on religious freedom.

I'm just trying to get at the heart of why people care. What is it they are worried about.

A broad-brush reply: I'm not worried so much about the outcome in the adoption agency cases as I am with the precedent.