SD gov signs religious adoption protection to refuse placement with homosexuals

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by slackercruster, Mar 13, 2017.

  1. slackercruster

    slackercruster Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    113
    SD gov signs religious adoption protection to refuse placement with homosexuals

    Published March 10, 2017
    Associated Press

    "South Dakota's governor signed a bill Friday giving broad legal protections to faith-based organizations that refuse based on their religious beliefs to place children in certain households.

    Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard said that he's concerned private child-placement agencies acting in the best interest of a child could be subject to a lawsuit when denying placement to someone in a "protected class," such as members of the LGBT community. He hopes the legislation would forestall that..."

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/10...otections.html

    ----------------------

    Let's hope it help to turn the tide to stop force feeding America the homosexual agenda Obama has set forth. The sane minded states that remain need to adopt this protection as well.
     
    Battle3 and SeaFury like this.
  2. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In my limited though long term experience, gay/lesbian families do a great job raising kids. I can't think of a single example of kids from such families turning out anything less than decent and intelligent.
     
  3. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What legal basis does this law have?
    I missed the "tho shall not allow loving stable homosexuals from adopting unwanted children" in the Bible - can someone point it out for me?

    This will be struck down
     
  4. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's kind of stupid. I doubt orphans are in high demand and low supply.
     
  5. Daggdag

    Daggdag Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    15,668
    Likes Received:
    1,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is quickly be declared unconstitutional. Adoption agencies are not allowed to discriminate, and that includes ones operated by religious organizations.
     
    Polydectes likes this.
  6. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,473
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You mean other than Rosie O'Donnell right?
     
    crank, SeaFury and guavaball like this.
  7. Just_a_Citizen

    Just_a_Citizen Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    9,298
    Likes Received:
    4,133
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seems lame.
     
  8. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Most defiantly. Good god could you imagine being her kid?
     
    crank, vman12 and Just_a_Citizen like this.
  9. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Christian majority states should also not allow children to be adopted by parents who:
    have sex with animals
    allow open sexual relationships with other partners
    have more than one wife or husband
    transgender, someone who imagines themselves to be something other than their DNA defines.
     
    SeaFury likes this.
  10. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When were homosexual couples allowed to wed by Godly Jewish and Christian followers in Biblical times?

    This isn't about Pagans (like today's Progressives) in Greece, Rome, Sodom and Gomorrah---who allowed all kinds of sexual practices.
     
  11. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I never mentioned pagans, I should have because Christians stole many practices of it but that's another question.

    Maybe you didn't understand the question, what legal basis is there to exclude an entire population group from adoption while prohibiting it for others?

    If it is your religious belief to deny homosexuals the ability to adopt you must present legal fact - if you proclaim the first amendment (which is strictly limited to congress) you must produce the direct translation from your version of your religion that commands it.

    Ready, set, go...
     
  12. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Like a christofacist version of Sharia law?
    Fascinating

    What else should your religion dictate?
     
  13. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you couldn't answer the question on homosexuals being accepted by the early synagogues and churches.

    Homosexuality is a perversion and behavioral disorder. That is why they should be excluded from adoption, like polygamists, beastaphiles and other similar sexually questionable persons.

    If the 1st Amendment REALLY meant that homosexuals could adopt children, then the Founders, who wrote it, and who were and still are the absolute experts on the law---would have allowed homosexual adoptions after 1789.
     
    SeaFury likes this.
  14. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Try reading a study Bible. The more you know, the more you can grow.
     
  15. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't care of ancient examples of homosexuality and their relationship to the various religious preferences. There is no legal reason to exclude homosexuals from adoption - that's why you refuse to even attempt to post legal justification.

    Homosexuality does not fit the definition of a perversion and no medical association has it classified as a behavioral issues, your opinions mean zero to case law. Try again.

    Intent is irrelivant to what a law does, the language of the law is all that matters. If we follow the original constitution and its intent then the word god would not exist on our currency nor would slavery ever been allowed to become unconstitutional.


    The first amendment does not let homosexuals adopt children - it lest you practice your version of your chosen religion without interference from congress and prohibits state sponsorship of a religion. The XIV however....
     
  16. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pass, I prefer non-fiction
     
    WittySocrates likes this.
  17. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    8,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I stoned a prostitute to death just the other day after I read about it in the Bible...
     
    crank, WittySocrates and Polydectes like this.
  18. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,251
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Read the first amendment. It forbids states from making laws that respect the establishment of a religon. The bible is irrelevant on the subject of law and science for that matter.
     
  19. WittySocrates

    WittySocrates Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2016
    Messages:
    274
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    28
    These absolute experts you speak of also defined slaves as three fifths of a person so maybe they don't know that much.
     
  20. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What other nations or people groups on the planet in 1789, besides Western, Christian nations, outlawed slavery or human servitude?

    Who else knew better, and had more individual rights for citizens back in 1789?
     
    SeaFury likes this.
  21. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Psychology Industry is now swayed by politics more than science.

    First published in 1968, DSM-II (the American classiifcation of mental disorders) listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In this, the DSM followed in a long tradition in medicine and psychiatry, which in the 19th century appropriated homosexuality from the Church and, in an élan of enlightenment, transformed it from sin to mental disorder.

    In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members attending its convention to vote on whether they believed homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain it.

    The APA then compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it, in effect, with "sexual orientation disturbance" for people "in conflict with" their sexual orientation. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM.


    Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) only removed homosexuality from its ICD classification with the publication of ICD-10 in 1992, although ICD-10 still carries the construct of "ego-dystonic sexual orientation". In this condition, the person is not in doubt about his or her sexual preference, but "wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders".
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...n-homosexuality-stopped-being-mental-disorder

    I one looks at the political agenda of the APA and those who write the DSM, they state their objective is to promote LGBT causes and behaviors.
    http://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/lgbt/index.aspx

    Psuedo Science. And you complain about the Bible.
     
  22. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    8,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well they use a modern version manual now..
     
    Polydectes likes this.
  23. Colombine

    Colombine Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    5,233
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have the Governor and his legal advisers pledged to pay the defense costs of this bill through its inevitable losses at the District and Appellate Court level?

    The public funding provision practically guarantees this outcome. They'd have stood a better chance if they'd stuck to private adoption "businesses".

    In reality the cost of that defense will be the taxpayers of South Dakota a number of whom will be the very gay and lesbian people this law discriminates against.

    There should be some provision that lawmakers, themselves, pay personally to defend these "grandstanding" bills they know are destined to fail.
     
    cd8ed likes this.
  24. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who else knew better? That owning a human being was wrong... I guess it was justified by religion so that makes it moral, right?

    The founding fathers, while having many great ideas and convictions were still human and were fallible. It's disturbing that you are trying to elevate them to level that you are.


    In the end it is irrelevant - the 1A does not allow the imposition of religious belief and the 14A makes gay people equal to you and anyone else mentioned in the Constitution, they don't have to be specifically mentioned.
     
  25. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,822
    Likes Received:
    32,492
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They know the bill will be torn apart in the courts but they are burning taxpayer money so they don't mind. They gain bigot votes during the passage of the bill and even more bigot votes once the "nazi anti religious freedom legislation from the bench" courts strike it down.

    Your idea that they be fully or partially financially responsible for any bill found to be unconstitutional is a great idea - one that should be extended all the way up to the Whitehouse
     

Share This Page