Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    06 Mar '18 20:37
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gay-adoption-georgia-georgia-law-marriage-vote-allow-discrimination-lgbt-a8229821.html

    The Georgia Senate has approved a bill that would give adoption agencies the ability to decide not to work with LGBTQ couples.

    The measure was approved by a 35-19 vote last week after an hours’ worth of contentious debate, according to the Associated Press.

    The bill, which was introduced by Republican state Sen William Ligon, would also apply to adoption agencies that receive taxpayer funding.

    Supporters of the measure cited religious concerns to explain why they had thrown their support against a bill that opponents say amounts to state-sanctioned discrimination.

    “Just because you are a faith-based organisation, doesn’t mean you have to check your faith at the door and cannot participate in government programmes,” Mr Ligon told local media.

    Democratic state Sen Nan Orrock, who represents an Atlanta district, said that the proposed legislation is a backward attempt at discrimination that will hurt children who are hoping to be housed with caring families.

    The bill falls in line with a variety of attempts to curb LGBT rights after the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality in 2015. That has included attempts to shield private organizations from a responsibility to provide services for gay couples getting married, including efforts to allow private bakeries to refuse to make cakes for a gay wedding.

    That case was argued before the Supreme Court in December, and but justices have not yet released an opinion on the matter.
  2. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    06 Mar '18 20:38
    Georgia's on a roll here. First they punish Delta for not giving discounts to the NRA, now they're punishing couples for being gay.
  3. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20341
    06 Mar '18 23:27
    Very deceptive title -- exceedingly so.

    This deals with the rights of a private organization to work within the ideals that they have.

    So, a Catholic or Islamic adoption agency does not have to arrange an adoption for a gay couple.

    You would prefer a scenario where a local adoption agency, which perhaps even largley operates as a charity, is forced to do this sort of business?
  4. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35902
    06 Mar '18 23:39
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    Very deceptive title -- exceedingly so.

    This deals with the rights of a private organization to work within the ideals that they have.

    So, a Catholic or Islamic adoption agency does not have to arrange an adoption for a gay couple.

    You would prefer a scenario where a local adoption agency, which perhaps even largley operates as a charity, is forced to do this sort of business?
    Please, explain to us, just what, exactly, is this sort of business?
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    07 Mar '18 00:06
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    Very deceptive title -- exceedingly so.

    This deals with the rights of a private organization to work within the ideals that they have.

    So, a Catholic or Islamic adoption agency does not have to arrange an adoption for a gay couple.

    You would prefer a scenario where a local adoption agency, which perhaps even largley operates as a charity, is forced to do this sort of business?
    Apparently these agencies both charge a fee for their services AND receive government funding.

    Why should they be able to discriminate against people who pay them directly or indirectly in what is a commercial enterprise?
  6. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20341
    07 Mar '18 01:34
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Apparently these agencies both charge a fee for their services AND receive government funding.

    Why should they be able to discriminate against people who pay them directly or indirectly in what is a commercial enterprise?
    This is pretty hilarious when you think about it...

    Presumably, the Catholic adoption service receives some amount of subsidies because it provides a social good by putting children with loving homes, and thus it receives some form of reimbursement and keeps its doors open through a mix of both. It seems like it si a sort of non-profit.

    I have a question... Should an organization that specifically provides services to LGBTQ people be barred from receiving taxpayer funding because it doesn't provide services to straight people?

    Should a shelter that only houses women (and "transwomen"😉 also be forbidden from receiving funds because it has no facilities for men?

    Should a charity that focuses on providing services exclusively to low income persons also have funding takena way because it discriminates against people who do not meet the qualification of being low-income?
  7. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20341
    07 Mar '18 01:37
    I support giving funds to any charity that is deemed to be beneficial to the society and not worrying particularly if it is servicing everything...

    For instance, giving $10,000 to the local Buddhist Temple or Jewish community center to help defray the costs of building a new facility for their community (that is designed to service the Buddhists or Jews of the area) isn't really something I'd ever be upset about. Nor would I be upset if there was spending earmarked to specifically help black Americans or mixed race Koreans.

    I think the ramifications of "constitutionality" are interesting but like... I'll care about that when the constitution is universally a relevant document and not just cherrypicked to benefit the pet projects of politicains.
  8. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20341
    07 Mar '18 01:38
    Originally posted by @suzianne
    Please, explain to us, just what, exactly, is this sort of business?
    You know what that business is, Suzianne. 🙂

    It's in the thread title.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    07 Mar '18 01:49
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    This is pretty hilarious when you think about it...

    Presumably, the Catholic adoption service receives some amount of subsidies because it provides a social good by putting children with loving homes, and thus it receives some form of reimbursement and keeps its doors open through a mix of both. It seems like it si a sort of non-profit.

    I have a ...[text shortened]... y because it discriminates against people who do not meet the qualification of being low-income?
    This is a case of invidious discrimination i.e. Treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging. It is based on irrational prejudice.

    The examples you give are providing services to groups who would otherwise be disadvantaged for some reason or another.

    See the apple, see the orange.
  10. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20341
    07 Mar '18 01:55
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    This is a case of invidious discrimination i.e. Treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging. It is based on irrational prejudice.

    The examples you give are providing services to groups who would otherwise be disadvantaged for some reason or another.

    See the apple, see the orange.
    Right, but just as you would not be discriminating against a single mother for not giving her a child because she is not an adequate family, you are not discriminating against a gay couple because they are likewise not an adequate family.

    LGBTQ people by the definition of many Americans and particularly of Catholics (and most other Christians, at least, all Bible affirming Christian groups) are morally defective and inadequate for raising children. They cannot, in good conscience, place a child in such a home.

    This would have been fully approved of by the bulk of Americans and American psychologists just a few decades ago.

    However, due to political reasons, opinion has shifted.

    You only "win" from this perspective because of rapidly changing political opinion.
  11. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    07 Mar '18 02:07
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    Right, but just as you would not be discriminating against a single mother for not giving her a child because she is not an adequate family, you are not discriminating against a gay couple because they are likewise not an adequate family.

    LGBTQ people by the definition of many Americans and particularly of Catholics (and most other Christians, at lea ...[text shortened]... shifted.

    You only "win" from this perspective because of rapidly changing political opinion.
    The irrational, prejudicial beliefs of some persons are entitled to zero government recognization. Those that have entered into the commercial realm and/or accepted government funding should be barred from invidious discrimination.
  12. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20341
    07 Mar '18 02:15
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    The irrational, prejudicial beliefs of some persons are entitled to zero government recognization. Those that have entered into the commercial realm and/or accepted government funding should be barred from invidious discrimination.
    Sure, you have a basis for arguing that, definitely: the government has officially rejected the viewpoint that they once embraced and has totally changed in the course of a couple decades. There is zero means of appeal to the classic, traditional standard because not only has the Christian perspective diminished its influence on politicians but the judiciary has actively worked hard to expunge it from the political life where it once used to be influential.

    Moreover, the APA and other organizations have reversed their positions on many things that used to be considered mental illnesses.

    There is no ammunition for the traditionalists within the legal or medical fields that have pulled a reversal.

    However, the views are not irrational, and they are only "prejudicial" by some cartoon definition of it. "Prejudicial" in the way that you simply dismiss everything you dislike as prejudiced and bigoted.

    But yeah, sure, we've been totally removed from poltiical influence and the society has been revolutionized successfully by the left.

    it doesn't make it right, though, and it's not an argument.

    So what do you expect? Of course we will still try to fight for our right to exist and to have autonomy over our own organizations.
  13. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20341
    07 Mar '18 02:16
    See, the problem is, Marauder, that what you are saying is just an appeal to the authority and the prevalence of the opinion plus some platitudes about discrimination.

    You haven't persuaded anyone or presented anything of substance.

    You're just working from within the prejudices of your own time.
  14. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    07 Mar '18 02:281 edit
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    See, the problem is, Marauder, that what you are saying is just an appeal to the authority and the prevalence of the opinion plus some platitudes about discrimination.

    You haven't persuaded anyone or presented anything of substance.

    You're just working from within the prejudices of your own time.
    I have no hope of persuading an ignorant bigot like yourself that invidious discrimination is wrong. Your lack of any type of moral compass has been made quite clear. But government should not be in the business of supporting such ignorant prejudices and the fact that it once did because it dominated by people who held such irrational, hate filled beliefs against their own fellow citizens is no reason to tolerate such support now. As slavery and segregation were recognized eventually as the moral wrongs they always were, so has discrimination against gays become so.

    It is amusing to have someone who bases their prejudices on some ancient writings to accuse someone else of an "appeal to authority".
  15. Joined
    15 Dec '03
    Moves
    282412
    07 Mar '18 02:56
    Originally posted by @vivify
    Georgia's on a roll here. First they punish Delta for not giving discounts to the NRA, now they're punishing couples for being gay.
    Good.
Back to Top