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

[Del Tachi]

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-$#^&)

[Del Tachi]

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.

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

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

[Del Tachi]

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

[Del Tachi]

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 rights of the child and the rights of taxpayers are involved here, too. The world doesn’t revolve around the preferences of an org which chooses to accept state funding and i don’t understand why their interests outweigh those of the children or the First Amendment.

For the record, I don't think an adoption agency using public funds this way should be able to discriminate against non-Christian parents.

But the whole line of reasoning permeating this thread that religious adoption agencies invalidate an invented "right" of children to a secular or religious upbringing of their choosing is fancifully contrived and irrelevant.  The injured party in this case is the Jewish parents, not any of the adopted kids. 

[Del Tachi]

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.

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. 

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.

[Del Tachi]

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) -

No one in this thread really seems to know what adoption agencies do.  Adoption agencies cannot force certain kids onto certain parents.  Adoption agencies may put birth parents and would-be adoptive parents in contact and help them (together or separately) navigate the legal process, but the finalization of a child's placement happens in court.  No child is denied an opportunity to be adopted because an adoption agency chooses to only work with Christian parents.

It also should be said that minor children are not party to their own adoption.  The youngest age at which a few states require a child to consent to his own adoption is 12.  A court determines what's in the best interest of the child as a ward of the state, not an adoption agency or child himself. 

[Del Tachi]

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.

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.

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.

There is no Free Exercise issue for either the children being adopted or the would-be Jewish parents in this case.  The Jewish parents can argue they're subject to illegal religious discrimination, and the defense brought up by the adoption agency (hopefully unsuccessfully) will be a Free Exercise claim, lol