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

[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.

[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).

[Schiff for Senate]

Though I do admit I don't see how the thread title is correct - the ban is much worse and doesn't apply to just Jews. Non-Christians would be much more accurately describing it.

[Schiff for Senate]

Though I do admit I don't see how the thread title is correct - the ban is much worse and doesn't apply to just Jews. Non-Christians would be much more accurately describing it.

It’s because the couple who was actually banned by the state-funded adoption agency is a Jewish couple.

Ah, I see.

[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.

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.

Honestly, this is exactly what I wanted to articulate with regards to this entire thing about 'religious freedom', but yours is much better written, clear and articulate than mine could have been. Very well written and absolutely correct.

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.

Then they shouldn't be funded with Jewish tax dollars. Personally I'd be fine with the Italian system- everyone has to donate to some religious organization but it can be any religion.

If I was a new parent, I'd want my kids to grow up in a well-educated, wealthy home (which Jewish households usually are, at least moreso than Ww/oC do). If people are insistent upon this then they should sign an agreement with a Christian adoption agency to adopt their child.

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.

Then they shouldn't be funded with Jewish tax dollars. Personally I'd be fine with the Italian system- everyone has to donate to some religious organization but it can be any religion.

If I was a new parent, I'd want my kids to grow up in a well-educated, wealthy home (which Jewish households usually are, at least moreso than Ww/oC do). If people are insistent upon this then they should sign an agreement with a Christian adoption agency to adopt their child.

I don't care what Tennessee (the ninth-most lunahick state) does, but THIS VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, which even if you don't believe it is still in the constitution.

Separation of church and state is literally not in the Constitution.

This is sick. Clearly the 1st Amendment is nothing to you, right? Only the 2nd Amendment matters? Who knows if you even think the 13th Amendment exists? You don't pick and choose what amendments are in the Constitution, and this is fundamental ignorance if you don't know what's in the 1st Amendment (though again, I'm guessing only the 2nd Amendment and a couple more matter to you).

I don't care what Tennessee (the ninth-most lunahick state) does, but THIS VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, which even if you don't believe it is still in the constitution.

I agree with you (at least the entire second paragraph), but it's really a question of a child having a decent home. If a young child is actually such a religious fanatic that they refuse to go with non-Christian parents, as John Dule said, that's their choice (though a very stupid one). Parents don't need to necessarily be wealthy or well-educated as long as they can care for and love their child, but it obviously wouldn't hurt for this to be the case.

Also, I love the bolded part...saying Jews are rich is kind of a stereotype (not sure how it's negative but apparently it is)...and your saying it obviously comes from a place of love (since you are Jewish yourself, unless I'm wrong). It reminds me of when I say Indian-Americans are really wealthy and successful (they are!) or that the Bay Area is great.

[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.

Then they shouldn't be funded with Jewish tax dollars. Personally I'd be fine with the Italian system- everyone has to donate to some religious organization but it can be any religion.

If I was a new parent, I'd want my kids to grow up in a well-educated, wealthy home (which Jewish households usually are, at least moreso than Ww/oC do). If people are insistent upon this then they should sign an agreement with a Christian adoption agency to adopt their child.

I don't care what Tennessee (the ninth-most lunahick state) does, but THIS VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, which even if you don't believe it is still in the constitution.

Separation of church and state is literally not in the Constitution.

Are you blind? It's literally in the 1st Amendment. This displays a fundamental ignorance of the Constitution on your part, and I'd advise you stop talking about the Constitution now if you don't even know about the 1st Amendment. Though frankly, I'd guess only the 2nd Amendment and a few others are the amendments you care about / consider to be in the constitution.

(Though to be more precise, actually separation of church and state on a state level pertains more to the 14th Amendment, according to the constitution, but you might have a problem with it, too. Who knows?)

[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.

Then they shouldn't be funded with Jewish tax dollars. Personally I'd be fine with the Italian system- everyone has to donate to some religious organization but it can be any religion.

If I was a new parent, I'd want my kids to grow up in a well-educated, wealthy home (which Jewish households usually are, at least moreso than Ww/oC do). If people are insistent upon this then they should sign an agreement with a Christian adoption agency to adopt their child.

I don't care what Tennessee (the ninth-most lunahick state) does, but THIS VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, which even if you don't believe it is still in the constitution.

Separation of church and state is literally not in the Constitution.

Are you blind? It's literally in the 1st Amendment. This displays a fundamental ignorance of the Constitution on your part, and I'd advise you stop talking about the Constitution now if you don't even know about the 1st Amendment. Though frankly, I'd guess only the 2nd Amendment and a few others are the amendments you care about / consider to be in the constitution.

(Though to be more precise, actually separation of church and state on a state level pertains more to the 14th Amendment, according to the constitution, but you might have a problem with it, too. Who knows?)

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.

To paraphrase, it says that the government can't favour any religion over another ('establishment of religion') and can't ban the free practice of religion ('or prohibiting the free excercise thereof'). This law does a little bit of both by subsidizing what's clearly a Christian-only adoption agency (the former), and the latter (not really, but it's discriminating against non-Christians and not giving them the right to adopt).

But there's also some moral questions to be asked.
If you were an 8-year-old Christian orphan at an agency, and a non-Christian family that seemed very nice offered to adopt you, would you actually say no and rather remain at that orphanage than live with them?
(Conversely, if a family that seemed shady/suspicious offered to adopt but was Christian, would you agree?)
Moreover, do you think the adoption agency has the right to make that choice for the child (not the child themself)?
Do you think non-Christians are inherently worse parents than Christian parents?
Or that they will force their Christian foster child to conform to their beliefs?

[Schiff for Senate]

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.

This is anethma to ER, which is why it's impossible that it's true, and while though this 'religious liberty' law is unconstitutional, really, it is constitutional because ER supports 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.

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.

Honestly, this is exactly what I wanted to articulate with regards to this entire thing about 'religious freedom', but yours is much better written, clear and articulate than mine could have been. Very well written and absolutely correct.

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.

Then they shouldn't be funded with Jewish tax dollars. Personally I'd be fine with the Italian system- everyone has to donate to some religious organization but it can be any religion.

If I was a new parent, I'd want my kids to grow up in a well-educated, wealthy home (which Jewish households usually are, at least moreso than Ww/oC do). If people are insistent upon this then they should sign an agreement with a Christian adoption agency to adopt their child.

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.

Then they shouldn't be funded with Jewish tax dollars. Personally I'd be fine with the Italian system- everyone has to donate to some religious organization but it can be any religion.

If I was a new parent, I'd want my kids to grow up in a well-educated, wealthy home (which Jewish households usually are, at least moreso than Ww/oC do). If people are insistent upon this then they should sign an agreement with a Christian adoption agency to adopt their child.

I don't care what Tennessee (the ninth-most lunahick state) does, but THIS VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, which even if you don't believe it is still in the constitution.

Separation of church and state is literally not in the Constitution.

This is sick. Clearly the 1st Amendment is nothing to you, right? Only the 2nd Amendment matters? Who knows if you even think the 13th Amendment exists? You don't pick and choose what amendments are in the Constitution, and this is fundamental ignorance if you don't know what's in the 1st Amendment (though again, I'm guessing only the 2nd Amendment and a couple more matter to you).

I don't care what Tennessee (the ninth-most lunahick state) does, but THIS VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, which even if you don't believe it is still in the constitution.

I agree with you (at least the entire second paragraph), but it's really a question of a child having a decent home. If a young child is actually such a religious fanatic that they refuse to go with non-Christian parents, as John Dule said, that's their choice (though a very stupid one). Parents don't need to necessarily be wealthy or well-educated as long as they can care for and love their child, but it obviously wouldn't hurt for this to be the case.

Also, I love the bolded part...saying Jews are rich is kind of a stereotype (not sure how it's negative but apparently it is)...and your saying it obviously comes from a place of love (since you are Jewish yourself, unless I'm wrong). It reminds me of when I say Indian-Americans are really wealthy and successful (they are!) or that the Bay Area is great.

Yeah. I believe ER is a baptist, which has an average household income of $33,000, with only 19% living in households making more than $100,000. Jews have an average income of $117,000 (inflation adjusted from a study decade back), with only 10-12% living in a household making less than the average baptist household.

Not to mention, 81% of Jewish adults have at least some college, behind only Hindus with 85%.

If I was a poor mother, I'd prefer my child was adopted by a couple with at least one bachelor's degree and an income of nearly $120,000 rather than a couple making $33,000 without a college degree.

Happy to see the bolded. Don't want to brag but us Indian-Americans also have the highest average income - $132,000.

Still, let's not discuss that.

The point is quite simply, religion should not be a factor one way or another, in deciding who adopts an orphan (unless that orphan actually wants it to be a factor, which I highly doubt to be the case most of the time). Case closed.

[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.

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

That's a very gross misrepresentation of this. This is telling kids that religion is key and making the decision for them between a two-parent, happy household and living in an orphanage because muh Christianity.

This discriminates against all non-Christians, and it's really hurting those orphans who will be stuck in orphanages because of fanatics like you and ER. It's not your, ER's or the adoption agency's choice what the religion is of the person who adopts an orphan. What matters is their character and if they can support the child. At the very least, this disgusting, shameful, discriminatory and I daresay un-Christian practice shouldn't be funded by taxpayers, not unless only Christian taxpayers are paying (since clearly everything should be separated by religion). I want to ask you the same questions I asked ER, and hope I'll get more than static back from you at least (though in honesty, some of these questions were really specific to ER since he's the one who really has defended this monstrosity of a law) -

If you were an 8-year-old Christian orphan at an agency, and a non-Christian family that seemed very nice offered to adopt you, would you actually say no and rather remain at that orphanage than live with them?
(Conversely, if a family that seemed shady/suspicious offered to adopt but was Christian, would you agree?)
Moreover, do you think the adoption agency has the right to make that choice for the child (not the child themself)?
Do you think non-Christians are inherently worse parents than Christian parents?
Or that they will force their Christian foster child to conform to their beliefs?

[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.

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

That's a very gross misrepresentation of this. This is telling kids that religion is key and making the decision for them between a two-parent, happy household and living in an orphanage because muh Christianity.

This discriminates against all non-Christians, and it's really hurting those orphans who will be stuck in orphanages because of fanatics like you and ER. It's not your, ER's or the adoption agency's choice what the religion is of the person who adopts an orphan. What matters is their character and if they can support the child. At the very least, this disgusting, shameful, discriminatory and I daresay un-Christian practice shouldn't be funded by taxpayers, not unless only Christian taxpayers are paying (since clearly everything should be separated by religion). I want to ask you the same questions I asked ER, and hope I'll get more than static back from you at least (though in honesty, some of these questions were really specific to ER since he's the one who really has defended this monstrosity of a law) -

If you were an 8-year-old Christian orphan at an agency, and a non-Christian family that seemed very nice offered to adopt you, would you actually say no and rather remain at that orphanage than live with them?
(Conversely, if a family that seemed shady/suspicious offered to adopt but was Christian, would you agree?)
Moreover, do you think the adoption agency has the right to make that choice for the child (not the child themself)?
Do you think non-Christians are inherently worse parents than Christian parents?
Or that they will force their Christian foster child to conform to their beliefs?

Sorry- let me answer your questions as best as I can.  What I would want as an 8-year old isn't super relevant to me right now.  I'm sure life might be more comfortable in a wealthy non-Christian home than in an orphanage or in a poor Christian home.  But, eternal Salvation is more important than Earthly comfort.  If I were a teenager and had strong faith, I could see an argument for going to the non-Christian home to witness to them, but very few 8 year olds have that strong of faith.

I wouldn't say that non-Christian parents are worse parents by Earthly standards.  My mom is an atheist and gave me what the world would call a good and comfortable upbringing.  With that said, the role of a parent is not just to get your kid to college at 18 physically safe and capable of doing the work.  The most important role of a parent is to lead their child spiritually.

I would also add that the rights of the birth parents are relevant here.  I could easily imagine a scenario where parents want to give their biological child up for adoption but want to be certain that their child will be raised in a Christian home.  That's where faith-based adoption agencies come in.  Likewise, I wouldn't be angry if a Jewish adoption agency refused to place children with non-Jewish couples.

I agree with your point about parents deciding (though you'd have to be a terrible parent to first decide to put your kid up for adoption and then refuse to let them get adopted by certain people because of your prejudices). But I have two other problems - one, when the parent isn't deciding (i.e., they're dead and the kid is an orphan) and the kid has no choice but to go to this adoption centre, and then some other moralist makes that choice of orphanage over non-Christian parents for them (I have not much problem if the kid themself is so religious they'll only go with a Christian, but that's their choice or the choice of their parents, not of the adoption agency), and two (and more importantly), the state funding any such institutions (if there are any that discriminate against non-Jews, or non-Hindus, or non-Buddhists, or non-Muslims, or non-any other religion, those shouldn't be funded, either), since it violates the separation of church and state (which, like it or not, is in the Constitution - 1st Amendment, in fact - though not literally written as 'separation of church and state', and even if somehow not in the constitution, is still a pretty obvious idea that shouldn't be violated).