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

[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.

[John Dule]

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.

First line of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

This has historically been construed to (A) Apply to all state and local governments (as do all Constitutional amendments), and (B) Preclude governments from adopting policies calculated to specifically advantage one faith tradition over another. You are free to disagree with this interpretation, but to do so is to ignore centuries of legal precedent and legal thought. Such a gross dismissal of the law (both in letter and in intent) is analogous to, say, arguing that the right to privacy grants women a federal right to abortion.

[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.

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-$#^&)

Wisconsin v. Yoder grants parents the right to make choices for their children based on their religious tradition. The adoption agencies here do not have that right because they are not the children's legal guardians.

[John Dule]

You said the Free Exercise clause does not "give individuals the power to make decisions for other individuals."  Cases like Yoder clearly demonstrate otherwise.

Yoder applied only to the rights of parents, and is inapplicable to a case involving people who are not children's legal guardians. Obviously if you are someone's legal guardian or custodian, you are given an explicit legal right to make decisions for that person. This is not the case here, so everything you're saying is a non-sequitur. You can stop bringing it up now.

What you're suggesting doesn't even make any sense.  Adoption agencies cannot unilaterally "place" children with whomever they please.  Adoption is a legal process, overseen by courts.  An adoption agency assisting this process only for Christian parents does not implicate the religious upbringing of the child any more than a Christian couple using a secular adoption agency.

An agency that receives public funding cannot unilaterally decide that it will only serve customers of one faith tradition. This would be analogous to UC Berkeley (an institution that receives only a small portion of its funding from the state) banning non-Buddhist students from its classes.

Is your suggestion that courts not let religious parents adopt at all?  lol

No one suggested that, you know that no one suggested that, and your attempt to bring such an absurd proposal into this conversation demonstrates your complete inability to engage with what other people are saying.

[John Dule]

You're just trying to soften your argument and backtrack on what you said in your OP, which is that an adoption agency has no right to Free Exercise because its role is only in "facilitating the exchange."  You did not limit this characterization to agencies that receive public funding.  Your disdain for people who think it is important that children be raised in a specific religious tradition is explicit.

This conception of the Free Exercise clause as not applying to private individuals or religious organizations working closely with secular legal processes (i.e., adoption) is incorrect and what I take issue with in your OP.  

You will find no backtracking here. I admit my disdain: Christians are ridiculous. However, that does not mean that parents do not have the right to raise their children according to their values. As legal guardians, they are responsible for making these decisions for their children, and no one here has questioned that right. That is the right established in Yoder that you cited.

But adoption agencies do not have such extensive legal rights over the children they serve. They are not the same as orphanages; they are also not state agencies granted guardianship over wards. Because of this, the Yoder precedent you cited is completely and utterly irrelevant. I am still waiting for you to concede this.

A better argument would have been that adoption agencies, like the baker in Masterpiece Cakeshop, are essentially private organizations and can choose to do business with whomever they please by utilizing their rights under the Free Exercise clause. This argument fails here because the agency in question is partially state-funded. And it also fails more broadly because the service provided by a bakery is fundamentally different from the one provided by an adoption agency. Here, the "customer" will be forever affected by the choices the agency makes over the course of providing its service. The modern conception of adoption is that it serves the best interests of the child-- not the interests of the agency facilitating the arrangement. A person who places their own beliefs (whatever those beliefs may be) above the interest of the child in finding a stable and safe family environment has thus violated the cardinal rule of their industry. You might as well have a surgeon who believes in faith healing.

[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.

[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.