US Supreme Court Watch - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15177363
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Not letting gay people act as foster parents does not help kids.

It simply reduces the number of available foster parents for these kids.

There is no rational reason to do so.

Philadelphia should simply no longer provide funding for the Catholic foster parent organization, and give said funding to a foster parent group in the city that does not use irrational restrictions.



States routinely screw people over. Most don't disclose what they know, and none offer adequate support even if the kid doesn't need extra help.

It's a national disgrace, but we have so many of those now.
By Doug64
#15177375
wat0n wrote:Let me see if I get this straight.

Some States sued because setting the Obamacare tax to $0 damaged them, and the remedy they sought was a complete repeal of the Act?

Isn't this a bit... Inconsistent?

Nope, the states argued that they had been injured by Obamacare, and that reducing the Obamacare tax to $0 made the law as a whole unconstitutional because the individual mandate isn't severable from the rest of the law. Apparently Thomas agreed that the states had failed to show harm and so lacked standing, so this time that actually needs to be taken seriously.

Drlee wrote:It is. It is a warning shot that the court is not going to endorse strong central power but will rather empower states, as it should be.

It's broader than that, this involved a city government. Rather, I'd say it's a signal that the Court isn't going to endorse the use of government power to push religions that you don't agree with out of the public square.

As a religious person I was getting pretty tired of both sides of this argument. The left wants the central government to provide these services "untainted" by religion but they are unwilling to pay for it. The right wants to use public money to pay religious organizations to do this but does not want to accept public control of their money.

I'd say more that relgions insist that if governments are going to distribute funds to private organizations for purposes that churches have long helped fulfill, the churches cannot be denied access to their share of the funds due to religious doctrine. Though in this case I believe the issue isn't just funding but the religious organization's ability to operate in that city at all. which segues into your next point....

As a social libertarian and fiscal conservative (and of course Christian) I support private organizations in their work to provide for social services consistent with whatever religious beliefs they have. I would say to 'the left', "Look guys. If you want us out of this business then pony up the money and embrace every orphan in the country. Start 120 days before they are born."

When I see some progressive whining about (as an example) a Muslim orphanage requiring the little girls to dress IAW their modesty rules I am inclined to say, "well my progressive friend...adopt her and raise her any way you like".

That's pretty much my major problem with those trying to shut down religious adoption and foster care organizations--once they've been shut down, who's going to fill the void? As best I can tell, the answer has been "no one." So the secular fanatics are harming children, in the name of helping the children.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15177378
@Pants-of-dog Philadelphia should simply no longer provide funding for the Catholic foster parent organization, and give said funding to a foster parent group in the city that does not use irrational restrictions.


Ok. No public money to churches at all. Is that what you want? I am for that.

Of course POD, the problem is that there are not sufficient alternatives. How about you put your liberal orthodoxy away for a moment and do what is right for the children. And save me the bullshit about homophobia. Religious beliefs are not homophobia.

Every fucking day I go out in the heat and take care of people. Sometimes I do this at a clinic run by a church. There IS nobody else. Get your progressive folks off their asses and adopt these kids. Start a secular orphanage. If you do I promise you it will be unique.
#15177398
Drlee wrote:Religious beliefs are not homophobia.


Homophobia can be, and often is, religiously based. In this case, it is. This restrictions on rights for gay couples is an example of homophobia, and seems to be based on the Christian religion and its precepts against homosexuality.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15177429
This restrictions on rights for gay couples is an example of homophobia, and seems to be based on the Christian religion and its precepts against homosexuality.


No. It is not. "The Christian religion" is not anti homosexuality. There are a few obscure old testament prohibitions. A great many champions of gay rights are Christian. My own denomination performs same sex marriage.

You should consider the facts POD. You are always asking for them. Here are some:

60% of homosexuals claim they have "made a committment to Jesus Christ".

27% consider themselves evangelicals.

A majority of US Christians believe homosexuality should be accepted.

70% of Roman Catholics believe homosexuality ought to be accepted.

Even nearly 40% of Mormons favor accepting homosexuality.

Even 25% of the ultra conservative Assemblies of God believe it should be accepted.

But you go ahead and blame "Christians". Just remember not to speak up when you hear Muslims condemned for the policies of Islamic governments and Islamic clergy.
#15177518
@Drlee

Are you talking to me?

You quoted my post, but you erased the bit that would notify me that you posted.

So, let me know if that is addressed to me, thanks!
User avatar
By Drlee
#15177552
Nice dodge POD. Answer it. It refutes your claims and you goddam well know it. Stop being a pussy.
#15177610
@Drlee

Please stop being rude. Thank you.

The fact that large percentages of Christian denominations do not accept homosexuality (as your statistics show) does not contradict the fact that excluding gay couples (for no reason other than a religious intolerance for homosexuality) is homophobia.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15177719
As long as you agree that you wish to cast all Christians as homophobic and ignore the great efforts at inclusiveness by a great many Christians and denominations, I will let your post stand.
#15177758
Drlee wrote:As long as you agree that you wish to cast all Christians as homophobic and ignore the great efforts at inclusiveness by a great many Christians and denominations, I will let your post stand.

Looks like @Pants-of-dog suffers from religiophobia. Lol. ;)
#15177780
Drlee wrote:As long as you agree that you wish to cast all Christians as homophobic and ignore the great efforts at inclusiveness by a great many Christians and denominations, I will let your post stand.


If you are talking to me, then you are incorrect about your assessment of my views on Christians.

The fact that my mother is a devout Catholic who also supports equal rights for gay couples does not change the fact that a Christian foster agency is being homophobic when it excludes gay couples as potential foster parents.

————————

Potemkin wrote:Looks like @Pants-of-dog suffers from religiophobia. Lol. ;)


Since I have been found out, I will now be expecting the Spanish Inquisition. :|
#15177786
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I have been found out, I will now be expecting the Spanish Inquisition. :|

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition! Surprise is our weapon!!



:excited:

@Scamp is obsessed with race, because it allows […]

No it is not harsh, they appear to be scum, and if[…]

@ThingkingPanda Are you a party member yoursel[…]

[quote="wat0n"][/quote] Politics_Obse[…]