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

[Brittain33]

A new Tennessee law allowing taxpayer-funded adoption agencies to discriminate on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs is being used to make sure a child isn’t inadvertently placed with Jews.

https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/20/holston-united-methodist-home-for-children-adoption-tennessee-refused-family-jewish/6582864001/

[100% pro-life no matter what]

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.

[Brittain33]

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.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

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.

[PSOL]

Sheer insanity.

[Gass3268]

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.

Then they shouldn't get state funds.

[GeorgiaModerate]

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.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

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.

[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.

[TheReckoning]

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.

[Mr. Reactionary]

If this is bad then repeal the Indian Adoption Act

[afleitch]

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.

Fine. But they shouldn't receive public funds.

[John Dule]

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.

[Klobmentum Mutilated Herself]

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.

You have a really low threshold for what constitutes bullying if sharing an opinion on a message board is bullying.

The United States Constitution makes separation between church and state the law. I don't think that any private adoption agency should exist if they limit adoptions to families of a certain demographic, but that's my personal view. This law allows taxpayer-funded adoption agencies to discriminate by religion; that is not constitutional.

Is the Constitution bullying?

[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.

[TheReckoning]

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?

[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?

[Schiff for Senate]

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.

True. Separation of church and state. These kids are orphans, and barely have anything to begin with in a lot of cases. Don't turn them away because of their religion and instill in Christian orphans religious bigotry at a young age. It's just wrong to even sort out orphans by their religion, but if it must be done, I'm sickened to see TN will subsidize it.

[Schiff for Senate]

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.

Whatever. Then how about only Christian taxpayers fund these all-Christian adoption agencies? This is nothing short of discrimination, man.
Don't want to be rude but you're a portrait of literally everything wrong with the religious right - the judgementality, the hypocrisy, the discrimination under the guise of religion.

[Schiff for Senate]

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.

Then they shouldn't get state funds.

Or have only Christian taxpayers pay for it, since clearly religion and religious 'purity' is everything to ER.

[Schiff for Senate]

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.

THANK you. These kids have close to nothing and because you are a religious fanatic you want them to spend less time with actual parents so they can get Christian parents? Possibly at an age when the child knows/cares little about religion? All you are doing is creating orphans who are deprived of two parents (contradictory, it would seem, to the religious right mantra of a two-parent household) and teaching them that they should be religious fanatics.

[Ferguson97]

A) Receive state funds

B) Have discriminatory practices

Pick one. You can't do both.

[Schiff for Senate]

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.

Then let the kids choose. Don't let adults (clearly Christian fanatics) choose for them religion over a home with two parents.

A) Receive state funds

B) Have discriminatory practices

Pick one. You can't do both.

Pretty much agree, but even the very idea of orphanages/adoption agencies discriminating based on a kid's religion is very wrong to me and seems un-Christian (moreover, it seems immoral).

[KaiserDave]

I should be obvious that any organization that receives state funds should not be engaging in obvious religious referencing and discrimination.

Just....of course.

[Pink Panther]

This is quite clearly discrimination. As others have stated in this thread, non-Christians can still be loving and caring parents, and Christian Parents be abusive and neglectful. Private agencies are fine, I guess, but the idea that they receive public funds from a supposed secular body of government is ludicrous, in my opinion.