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

[Badger]

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.

However, this is clearly discriminatory against non-Christian adoptive parents.  It's functionally equivalent to putting up a sign on the door to a restaurant or hardware store saying "we serve Christians only."  You might argue that the right to discriminate against people of other religions is an inherent part of freedom of one's own religion, but I believe that argument would not hold up in court.

Do you agree that the biological parents should have a say about what kind of  adopting parents they want to choose?

If so, do you agree that the biological parents can choose only Christian parents?

If so, do you agree that the adopting agency can choose to carry out the wishes of the biological parents?

In my opinion, if the adoption agency receiving government funding discriminate based on religion, this is illegal. But if they are just carrying out the individual parents' wish, it should be allowed.

The grey area is if the agency have every biological parents sign a wish to only choose Christian adopting parents. I personally think this is illegal, because the agency is discriminating against clients (in this case biological parents) based on religion.

 I think if a biological parent giving up giving up their child for adoption believe strongly that their child should be Adopted by a Christian family and wishes to place their child for adoption in an organization which will ensure that happens more power too.

But again, as we keep coming back to in this discussion, said organization shouldn't be getting a penny in tax dollars if they are going to engage in such discrimination/ Is exercise of the religious views/however you want to phrase it.

[pbrower2a]

Show me where in the 1st Amendment it says that there is "separation of church and state".  It only protects religion from the government, not the government from religion.

Same energy as "we're not a democracy, we're a republic".

True. There is no question in the practical meaning of the word republic, the word now simply means that there is no monarch even if a figurehead. Example: Pinochet's Chile was a republic in that sense. Apartheid-era South Africa was a republic. Iran is a republic. All Commie states were  or are republics.

So if the cost of maintaining a liberal society should be the maintenance of a constitutional monarch, then I will put up with the constitutional monarch.  Plenty of tyrants have cheapened the meaning of the word republic to include some  regimes that rival that of Ivan the Terrible for sheer horror.

[John Dule]

Read again.  I only brought up Yoder to point out the inaccuracy of you stating the Free Exercise clause "does not give individuals the power to make decisions for others."  Precedents like Yoder clearly demonstrate this conceptualization of Free Exercise as too limiting.  Do you concede this?  I never argued Yoder was particularly relevant in answering under what circumstances religious adoption agencies get to use public money.

And I never denied the precedent set by Yoder. You are arguing a point which no one in this thread has contested, presumably for your own intellectual exercise.

If an agency has a sincere religious belief that being raised by Christian parents is in a child's best interest, the adoption goes before a judge and he agrees to the placement, then who exactly is being wronged?  Not allowing such an agency to work alongside the legal adoption process is the only possible Free Exercise violation imaginable under our system.

It is wrong for people of extremist beliefs to be involved in any capacity in making decisions about the well-being of children. Again, this is an industry that purports itself to serve the interests of children first. While bakers, woodworkers, and basket weavers should be essentially free to do business with whomever they choose, other professionals whose positions have higher social utility-- doctors, lawyers, and those entrusted with the care or rights of children-- should be held to a comparatively higher standard. I would not trust a doctor with a "whites only" sign on his operating table, and a lawyer who refused to represent Jews would likely be disbarred. Why? Because people with discriminatory, racist, and prejudiced views cannot be trusted with the life of a patient or the defense of a person charged with a crime.

People are free to hold whatever views they like in private, but once these views interfere with their work (as has happened here), they cede any right to claim impartiality or professionalism. Their practice thus becomes completely tainted. An adoption agency that places a particular faith tradition at paramount importance cannot be trusted not to overlook abuse, neglect, or other problems that might arise in a potential household so long as that household professes their beliefs. If I were an orphan, I would not want my adoption being facilitated by theocrats who'd rather match me with a family of crack addict Christians than with a middle-class gay couple. Leaving aside any legal arguments here, the people involved in this agency should quite frankly never be allowed anywhere near a kid again.

[Bismarck]

As long as Jewish and other religious groups can also deny Christian parents if they want I don’t see a problem here. It’s not hard to understand why someone who believed faith in Christ was the key to salvation wouldn’t want to give their child to practitioners of a different religion no matter how loving or moral the people might be. Now I don’t agree with this but I understand it.

[John Dule]

As long as Jewish and other religious groups can also deny Christian parents if they want I don�t see a problem here. It�s not hard to understand why someone who believed faith in Christ was the key to salvation wouldn�t want to give their child to practitioners of a different religion no matter how loving or moral the people might be. Now I don�t agree with this but I understand it.

They are not authorized to "give" any children to anyone.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

As long as Jewish and other religious groups can also deny Christian parents if they want I don’t see a problem here. It’s not hard to understand why someone who believed faith in Christ was the key to salvation wouldn’t want to give their child to practitioners of a different religion no matter how loving or moral the people might be. Now I don’t agree with this but I understand it.

You just described the argument for Separate But Equal, congratulations.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Disregarding legal stuff, the only time religious beliefs should be considered when it comes to adoption is when those religious beliefs have the potential to harm the child(eg the parents believing that being gay is wrong, when for all everyone knows the child could be gay). No other circumstances. Denying children a happy, loving home because of religious fanaticism/bigotry is wrong.