Everything is bigger in Texas, so one is Texian and the other is normal Murican.

He went from Connecticut to Padre Island for vacation? That's almost as effed up as his behavior in the video. There's a lot of nice beaches closer to Connecticut than SPI.

Edit: typo

+1

Your argument amounts to who has the leverage, and that the leveraged position must yield.

It doesn't have the slightest thing to do with leverage. It has to do with whether or not the compelling interest the state is actually seeking to serve is the welfare of the children.

Using that logic, there's no end to the terms, be they rational or not, or beneficial to the child or not, that they should be free to impose.

Fine. So what?

In my hypothetical there are 100 special needs kids, 85 of whom are placed in good homes by existing adoption agencies. That leaves 15 kids without homes. I decide I want to do something about that, and so I open up my own adoption agency. I eccentric, though- I require an eye exam before I'll work with an adopting couple, and I won't work with them if one of them is color blind. Is it rational? No. But most people aren't color blind, and I manage to place 10 more kids in good homes. I turn away two or three color blind people. They, of course, remain free to go to any other adoption agency. It's not like I can impose my weird requirement on all the other adoption agencies out there, or on all couples looking to adopt. I just won't work with color blind people myself.

It's in the best interests of the kids to allow me to operate, right? You might think my requirement is crazy, and maybe it is, but it doesn't place any children at risk, and the result is that more kids are placed in good homes. If you don't allow me to exercise that requirement, I'm not going to remain in the adoption business. You can't really argue that making me choose between the two is in the best interest of the children. It's clearly not. It's not even substantively in the interest of the color blind- because they are free to adopt through another agency. The only reason to insist that I can't use that requirement is to prove a point, at the expense of those children.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'm American, and even I can figure this out. The scale on the left is metric, and the numbers you see on the left represent 1.x meters: the 1 is not shown. Thus, (1.)70m on the left is ~67 inches, which corresponds to the Imperial scale on the right.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Religious organizations have been working to place kids for adoption and foster care for years. Interestingly, the science and evidence-based people are arguing here for a change in public policy have done so without citation, so far, to a single fact and figure. (Well actually there was a figure in the OP suggesting a backlog in number kids waiting foster care -- a fact that does not support the argument for reducing the number of folks working on placement.)

I wonder if any of those that favor stopping the services of Christian groups that don't place to gay households have researched any of the following statistics in their states:

- number of children historically placed by religious/Christian organizations
- number of children placed by government operated organizations
- outcome metrics for children placed by religious/Christian organizations and state agencies
- current backlog for foster care and for adoption
- number (and percentage of total) of same sex couples seeking to adopt or be foster parents
- waiting times for same sex couples vs. hetersexual couples

If researching facts and figures to form an evidenced-based opinion is too much, where are the expert opinions from child placement professionals regarding placement by religious organizations?

Or is this thread just more evidence of the fact that we humans form opinions and beliefs with little or no knowledge.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

Everyone here is fixated on sexual orientation, while this bill will allow *any* parents whose lifestyle, religion, or hair color that doesn't comport with that of the sincerely held religious views of the agency to be refused the opportunity to be foster parents. Atheists, take note.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

You make a compelling argument. My knowledge of the innerworkings of these services is limited, however I maintain the opinion that no private entity should retain exclusive rights over the placement of children with capable couples, or individuals, who are looking to foster or adopt.

Say a Catholic charity refuses to place a child with a same sex couple, for that reason. Is that couple capable of fostering or adopting that child through an alternate service?

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I was not aware of that. Please explain how that can happen? Does the bill allow private agencies the authority to blacklist people such that they are then unable to be foster or adoptive parent through some other agency?

[deleted polemic question]

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I maintain the opinion that no private entity should retain exclusive rights over the placement of children with capable couples, or individuals, who are looking to foster or adopt.

But they don't and never have retained "exclusive right over the placement of children."

If Catholic Charities won't adopt to a homosexual couple, or to a single parent, or to brunettes, that doesn't mean that homosexuals, singles, and brunettes can't adopt, or that children can't be placed with those prospective parents. It's not like religious groups said, "If the state allows those types of people to adopt, we're getting out of the adoption biz." This wasn't a religious organization trying to impose its own standards on anyone else- it was a religious organization simply trying to maintain its own standards, and letting others do the same.


Say a Catholic charity refuses to place a child with a same sex couple, for that reason. Is that couple capable of fostering or adopting that child through an alternate service?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. That couple is entirely free to go to some other adoption service. What happened is that religious groups were given the choice of adopting to homosexual couples or getting out of adoption. It had nothing to do with whether or not other agencies were allowed to adopt to homosexual couples- they were. And religious groups were fine with that as long as they themselves weren't forced to do so. That wasn't satisfactory.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

According to the bill, the state cannot do anything "adverse" because of the above.

I have no idea how these programs function to be able to speak to how many such agencies have the opportunity to place a given child.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Everyone here is fixated on sexual orientation, while this bill will allow *any* parents whose lifestyle, religion, or hair color that doesn't comport with that of the sincerely held religious views of the agency to be refused the opportunity to be foster parents- through that particular agency, not altogether.

I say again, so what?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Ok, here are a two things we should consider (me too I'm no expert).

The purpose of the bill is to maintain status quo, i.e., Catholic Charities can choose whether to place with same sex couple. So, has this been a problem in the past in some way?

Placing children is a personal process. For instance, a pregnant woman goes to Church where she is comfortable and seeks assistance, gets counseling, has a baby and places it up for adoption. Other agencies may lack the relationship. Cut out the Church and the woman goes to Planned Parenthood and has an abortion and there is no baby for anyone to adopt.

Lot of other things to consider too. My question is simply: has there been a problem with religious adoptive services such that a change, like in Boston, is warranted?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I don't think you guys understand these aren't adoption agencies. These are private companies employed by the state to so the work of child protective services.

I understand the agencies. They're private agencies who sometimes receive part of their funding from the state in order to place children in good homes.

They partner with the state, because they have overlapping goals with the state.

What's your point?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

My point? None.

Is there good swimming, biking, and running in Tibbslandia?

---

DFL > DNF > DNS

It's like Italy with better denim.

Even with overlapping goals, I think you can understand why people who are denied service because of their sexual orientation might object to their tax dollars funding that discriminatory organization, just as you could imagine Catholics objecting to their tax dollars funding a Muslim organization that explicitly discriminates against Christians, regardless of whether the net result is more, rather than fewer, children being matched with parents.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I can understand and imagine people getting upset over lots of things, especially in this age of snowflakes. As a Catholic I have no problem with tax dollars funding, e.g., a Muslim adoption agency that has a policy that Muslim children be placed with Muslim families.

Is this a big practical problem for same sex couples? How many seek to adopt? Do they have trouble solely because they are same sex? If a problem, are there other solutions besides closing Catholic adoption agencies?

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

I think you can understand why people who are denied service because of their sexual orientation might object to their tax dollars funding that discriminatory organization

I've been thinking about this, and I have a considered response. But first I think I'd like to hear what your opinion on that is. Do you think it's a reasonable objection on their part?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Is it reasonable to hold that objection? Of course.

Is it reasonable to demand that the charity adopt the secular standard or be cut off from tax funding? That depends. People's tax dollars are routinely used for purposes that individuals oppose; that's just the cost of doing business in a pluralistic society. I suppose it depends on whether that charity constitutes a functional monopoly on that service. There are a few other variables I'd add, but that's the gist of my concerns.

I'm not aware of any reports of same-sex couples being denied the opportunity to foster or adopt, so I presume it's not really an unreasonable burden on them to use an alternate service, as it would be to force a Catholic organization to violate their constitutionally protected practice of religion.

So, if that is indeed the case, I would have to side with the Catholic organizations.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W