Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Illinois probing Catholic groups for adoption discrimination {Disc against gays...}
Reuters ^ | 7 Jun 2011 | James B. Kelleher

Posted on 06/08/2011 2:05:57 AM PDT by Cronos

The state of Illinois is looking into allegations that several Catholic groups providing adoption services for the state illegally discriminate against unmarried and gay couples, a lawsuit filed on Tuesday showed.

In a March 8 letter to the charitable arm of the Diocese of Springfield, the Illinois attorney general's office said it was investigating reports the group "discriminates against Illinois citizens based on race, marital status and sexual orientation in its provision of foster care services."

The letter, which was included as an exhibit in a lawsuit filed by the charitable arms of the dioceses of Springfield, Peoria and Joliet, warned that such policies violated the Illinois Human Rights Act, a statute that bars discrimination, harassment or retaliation based on marital status or sexual orientation, among other things.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events
KEYWORDS: catholic; discrimination; homonaziagenda; homosexualagenda; homotyranny; illinois; indiscriminate; pedophilia; religiousfreedom; religiousliberty
Discrimination!! If the Church does not let gays adopt, then they won't be allowed by Ill. to be in "the adoption business"....
1 posted on 06/08/2011 2:06:01 AM PDT by Cronos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Well, if they take the state’s money, the state will call the tune. Surprise, surprise!


2 posted on 06/08/2011 2:42:24 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
We need to take back the vocabulary: "discrimination" is a good word for what is in most contexts a positive concept. When your sister/daughter is asked out by the creepy stalker, she discriminates (one would hope) against that person. When we look for someone to watch oir children for the evening while both parents go out on a date, we discriminate against those on the sex offender registry. When we place children in a home for adoption, we have a moral obligation to the child to discriminate against home with serious problems and to find the best available home. The far left fringe will claim that being gay is not a serious problem, but we need to stand by our values, point out that the free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment, so we are entitled to use that religious consideration in adoption, and gather data on the adoptive placements done by the liberals into gay homes to see whether the data support God's word or the liberal policy of indiscriminate placement.

It's both a long-term issue of saving western culture and an immediate issue of protecting these children. We have to oppose the far left fringe immediately and energetically.

3 posted on 06/08/2011 2:43:42 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

It looks like Florida, Mississippi and Utah explicity prohibit homosexuals from adopting...


4 posted on 06/08/2011 2:47:01 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (Huguenot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Do read the article. It’s not the money — you can’t be in, as Reuters calls it “the adoption business” in Illinois if you “discriminate against gays”


5 posted on 06/08/2011 3:28:16 AM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

My sentiments exactly! Just title everything “discrimination” and it makes whatever your individual convictions are wrong!

“Righteousness discriminates against Unrighteousness”
“Life discriminates against Death”
“Godliness discriminates against Satanism”
“Good discriminates against evil”
“Lies discriminate against Truth”

Proverbs 16:6 has become one of my favorite verses: “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.”


6 posted on 06/08/2011 3:30:07 AM PDT by LetMarch (If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward. (Anonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

I don’t feel bad for them. This is morally wrong, but the Catholic Church, at least in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois stood by as it’s parishioners voted in corrupt politicians whose views were diametrically opposed to Catholic teachings.

Catholics in Illinois politics (and apparently elsewhere) always seem to vote for the Big Government Solution to every problem. They seem to enjoy the ‘white lies’ of government corruption, the political favors for insiders and the hobnobbing with the elected powers.

You reap what you sow.


7 posted on 06/08/2011 3:54:02 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Then get out of the adoption business. Do NOT compromise because the stste says so.

Too bad so sad for the kids. But they are right to set a standard of married heterosexual couples as worthy to adopt. Thats just whats best for the kids.

Otherwise just corral the kids at a farmers market and let anyone come in and buy one.

This is the triumph of stupidity. The Church should have no more dealings with it.


8 posted on 06/08/2011 4:15:28 AM PDT by Adder (Say NO to the O in 2 oh 12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Adder

“Then get out of the adoption business”.

I am a little confused with this. If a girl/woman wants to surrender her child for adoption, she has the option of picking/choosing the couple. I don’t know if the Catholic adoption agencies have the children surrendered to them first and then they pick the parents. Perhaps if they went the “open” adoption route, this would take care of itself. A birth mother (and father, when available) can pick a family with a certain income, no other children, must have children, must be a stay at home Mom, etc..


9 posted on 06/08/2011 4:22:15 AM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
I don’t feel bad for them.

Why should you? The harm is not to the agency, but to children who will be deliberately placed in psychologically unhealthy home environments in order to make a political statement.

10 posted on 06/08/2011 4:29:53 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("WWSP?" - What Would Sionnsar Post?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: momtothree
A birth mother (and father, when available) can pick a family with a certain income, no other children, must have children, must be a stay at home Mom, etc.

If the states are successful in demanding that social-service agencies place children with single adults, cohabiting couples, or homosexuals, they'll go after privately-negotiated adoption placements next. It'll be a set-up, as with the photography business in New Mexico that didn't want to photograph a lesbian "wedding," or the church and fraternal halls that have attempted to avoid renting for homosexual festivities.

They'll use racial discrimination litigation as a model.

11 posted on 06/08/2011 4:33:30 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("WWSP?" - What Would Sionnsar Post?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Slippery slope! A birth mother should be able to list out the traits/characteristics etc... for her child. Know what makes me mad? Instead of allowing a young woman to have a say in the parents that will raise the child she is giving birth to... she is punished for what? Not aborting? Surrendering a child for adoption is a selfless act. The young woman realizes that she can’t provide the best life for that child and does something unbelievably selfless... chooses to allow other people to become that child’s parents. This absolutely infuriates me!


12 posted on 06/08/2011 4:41:37 AM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

You are exactly correct and ‘Catholic’ politicians and voters created this situation in large part. Had the Catholic Church held strong to its values decades ago, Illinois wouldn’t be the cesspool it is today.


13 posted on 06/08/2011 4:45:35 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

This is ridiculous.

Putting a child into an “alternate” lifestyle home can have severe emotional consequences for that child. Kids know if their family is “different” and this affects how they perceive themselves, adjust to school, and so forth.

Giving gays (etc.) a “right” to adopt children is giving the children the status of property, not human beings.


14 posted on 06/08/2011 4:50:13 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Good Post.

If the State of Illinois wants to get in the adoption business and pass out kids to anyone who comes and picks one out , they are going about it the right way

An adoption agency must discriminate. They must try to find the child a suitable home. They must look into the background of the couple who is to receive these children.

If a man on the pervert registry come to get a young boy is it not discriminatory to refuse him? That’s a stretch maybe, but what is the difference when two homosexual perverts come to get a male child? To me there is no difference.Is it really smart to give a black child to a white couple? Wouldn’t that child be better off raised by it’s own race?

If the Catholic Church cannot run their orphanages the way they see fit, they should close down.


15 posted on 06/08/2011 4:51:12 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

I agree. The whole premise of adoption is that the child will be placed in a situation more conducive to a healthy life than the situation of his birth. Why would an unmarried mother want her child placed with another unmarried woman, or with homosexuals?


16 posted on 06/08/2011 4:54:41 AM PDT by Tax-chick ("WWSP?" - What Would Sionnsar Post?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Unless I read the article wrong, the state provides some funds to the agencies and thus can dictate “no discrimination”.
The AG said, ‘Organizations that receive taxpayer funding had to comply with the law’.

As I see it...If they take the states money, the state will be there to dictate how the agency is run.
The law pretty obviously targets the Catholic supported adoption agencies. It's going to be ‘submit or quit’ time and that is apparently what the state wants.

17 posted on 06/08/2011 4:59:53 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

“Why would an unmarried mother want her child placed with another unmarried woman, or with homosexuals?”

I agree. We have neighbors that adopted fifteen years ago and the birth mother was very specific about the type of couple she wanted. They had to be married for at least five years, they had to be Christian of some form, a good income, and owned a home. It simply had to do with what she wanted for her child i.e. stability of a married couple and the better things in life that she couldn’t provide. I’m not talking about wealth but she wanted a couple who could send this child to college, feed her and had the income to provide ballet lessons or something like that. I figure she wanted what she couldn’t provide and she didn’t have growing up.

What will also be included next is foreign adoptions. Many countries do NOT allow homosexuals period. Some countries don’t allow singles to adopt either. I am guessing that these will be banned as well.


18 posted on 06/08/2011 5:11:58 AM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
The law pretty obviously targets the Catholic supported adoption agencies

it's not only the Catholic agencies -- the Lutheran and another denomination (can't remember off hand) are also affected. The Catholics are just the biggest target and hence in the papers.

19 posted on 06/08/2011 5:30:22 AM PDT by Cronos (Palin, Cain, Jindal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: momtothree

My cousins adopted through Catholic Charities about 16 years ago. Catholic Charities is the go between, between birth mothers and adoptive parents. The mother gets to approve the adoptive parents.


20 posted on 06/08/2011 6:45:44 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

A late congratulations to your cousins! Thanks for the answer. I personally believe if a young woman has made the honorable decision to carry the pregnancy, realizes that she can’t provide the type of life that she would want for that child then she (and the birth father when he is in the picture) should be the ones who feel comfortable with the people that are chosen. It is obvious if they go through Catholic Charities that they want religious people. Why in the world should they be told that their child HAS to go to a gay couple, a single woman etc...


21 posted on 06/08/2011 7:34:14 AM PDT by momtothree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
The State of Illinois can cut the cost of adoption screening:

As kids enter the system they should simply be assigned to whomever took the next number. No waiting on the part of the kids, and no discrimination at all. What could go wrong?

22 posted on 06/08/2011 9:11:15 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Adder

**Then get out of the adoption business. Do NOT compromise because the stste says so.**

I don’t think the Catholic Church will compromise on this issue.

They are the one church that has stood firmly against same-sex unions, euthanasia, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, contraception.

The Catholic Church is for life. Period. Just as Christ was for life!


23 posted on 06/08/2011 12:12:15 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

So are you saying you approve of two men raising a child?

Are you saying you believe in homosexuality which the Bible definitely says is wrong?


24 posted on 06/08/2011 12:14:58 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I saw his post as sarcasm.


25 posted on 06/08/2011 2:50:04 PM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Please read my post again. See if you detect the sarcasm that lastchance mentioned (although I’ll admit that today’s liberals are so absurd that it’s often impossible to distinguish them from a comedian’s parody).


26 posted on 06/08/2011 3:16:31 PM PDT by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson