Tennessee religious liberty law allows publicly funded adoption agencies to ban Jewish parents

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Let’s see how the conservative legal movement defends this. I know for some people you can do whatever you want, as long as God tells you to, and the government can’t stop you no matter how much it affects other people.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home. 

No, it shouldn't. Adoption should be about finding a good home for a kid, above anything else. A family's religion should not a determining factor in whether or not they're suitable to adopt. There are plenty of non-Christian families with good homes who want to adopt and care for a kid — to make a kid wait longer to find a Christian home than they could've had to wait if non-Christians were allowed is a policy that should disqualify someone from running an adoption agency.

Some people believe that a Christian home is a good home. Maybe you disagree, but you can’t bully people into following your beliefs with the law.

This is such a laughable strawman that I decided why not argue what you want me to argue and give you the rush of victimization you crave? I know lots of people who were harmed by being raised in Christian homes.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  

No, it shouldn't. Adoption should be about finding a good home for a kid, above anything else. A family's religion should not a determining factor in whether or not they're suitable to adopt. There are plenty of non-Christian families with good homes who want to adopt and care for a kid — to make a kid wait longer to find a Christian home than they could've had to wait if non-Christians were allowed is a policy that should disqualify someone from running an adoption agency.

Some people believe that a Christian home is a good home. Maybe you disagree, but you can’t bully people into following your beliefs with the law.

This is such a laughable strawman that I decided why not argue what you want me to argue and give you the rush of victimization you crave? I know lots of people who were harmed by being raised in Christian homes.

And there are many people who are harmed in non-Christian homes, lmao. What’s your point?

I said “by”, as in their Christian parents rejected their sexuality or gender because of their religion. OTOH, I’ve never met anyone kicked out of their secular home for being gay. Lmao.

And you’ve still not said anything to defend the idea that state money - Jewish Tennesseans’ tax dollars - should go towards a blatantly discriminatory organization. How does that fit in with the Establishment Clause?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Of course it should be an option to want to place a kid in a Christian home.  It's disingenuous to say that this is about Jewish parents in particular, when the same interest would apply to any non-Christian home.  It doesn't matter if it's a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or secular home.

The question is whether the government should be funding agencies who discriminate on the basis of religion. I’m sure some Americans feel as you do, but it raises some constitutional issues.

A challenge is that the free exercise of some religions (such as evangelical Christianity) requires evangelism of those who don't share that religion.  If you believe that every non-Christian is going to Hell,  then intentionally putting a child in an environment where he or she would not be raised Christian is risking eternal damnation for that child.  I'd argue that doing this is part of the free exercise of religion for the adoption organization.

The free exercise clause does not give individuals the power to make decisions for other individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs. Adoption agencies, especially taxpayer-funded ones, are mere facilitators for establishing a relationship between the interested parties (children and adoptive parents). If the children did not want to go to non-Christian households, that would be an entirely different matter, and the free exercise clause would apply-- but it does not apply to the agents of the organization facilitating the exchange. If a person's worldview is so warped and deranged that they cannot imagine a child receiving a decent upbringing in a household of a different faith tradition from their own, I would argue that they have no business working in adoption-- or with children at all.

This is a (purposeful?) misconstruction of the Free Exercise clause.  Raising and instructing children in a religious tradition is an integral part of religious practice.  Free Exercise guarantees the right of parents to insist on a religious education for their children, for example.  This is pretty basic Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1L-type stuff, lol.     

An adoption agency that insists on only working with Christian parents is likewise protected in doing so under the First Amendment.  The only constitutional issue here is whether they get to use public funds to do so. 

All you've done here is demonstrate your unseriousness with the issue while attempting to assassinate the character of anyone with possible sincere religious beliefs (i.e., typical JD bull-$#^&)

The problem with that line of reasoning is that there’s no such thing as an adoption that doesn’t involve the government.

I hardly see how letting religious parents adopt is some intractable entanglement between church and state lol

Literally nobody is trying to keep religious parents from adopting children.

Literally the adoption agency turned down a couple because they were Jewish. They don’t want Jews (or Muslims, or Hindus, etc) adopting children.