Tennessee bills would allow adoption agencies to deny LGBT couples

Freedom of Religion had to be added as an afterthought. Homosexuality did not have to be added for protection as there was an understanding of it's natural nature.

What was not commonplace was gays marrying and adopting children.

The Founding fathers and the architects of the US Constitution new very many fine upstanding gay men.

 

Your opinion on why it was added means nothing. Its there regardless of it.

Occurring in nature doesn't make it natural anymore than cannibalism or rape is natural because it occurs in nature. You need to work on your arguments.

Once again another meaningless and unproven claim. It doesn't change the reality that freedom of religion is in the Constitution and homosexuality is not.

 

sure it does...it set the whole contention refuting you claim that religion is some higher mark.

If you have to add a protection for it means it was under attack as we all know was the reason many sects came to America.

You are just re-iterating my point on the natural nature of homosexuality.

Homosexuals were not treated as cannibals or rapist were in those days.


You want to give religion some sanctum in the Constitution it does not have. Religion...all Religions are protected..not just the religion of Jesus, Joseph and Mary.

 

It doesn't change what the Constitution says so its meaningless.

Its called the amendment process. Look into it. The founders specifically put it in law to add rights. You just don't want to acknowledge it because you don't have the votes for it.

And they still aren't considered natural. Strike 2.

That's right and this is a religion in the OP if you've forgotten that already. Homosexualoity still doesn't exist in the Constitution no matter how many opinions you have on it.[/quote]

 

Then that goes against your argument. It was you that tried to make the point that since religion protected in the Constitution that is was a better qualifier that being a homosexual.


Secondly...since you don't see homosexuality as normal or natural is on you


Just because Homosexuality is not protected in the body text of the Constitution does not mean Homosexuals do not retain some rights of protection.

It's true homosexuals do not yet enjoy protected status on federal anti-discrimination laws. But that will change as well....just as it did for religion.

 

Everything else being equal, a child is better off being raised in a heterosexual home than a homosexual home. This is a fact.

But I can't see banning all homosexual adoptions.

 

Bad try.

In the US, orphans without guardians are few and far between; and a child with only a guardian is better off than a child with homosexual "parents" because the former is not subject to a perverted parental construct created by two people who think they love but don't - not that there are not loveless parents in traditional marriages, but in a "gay marriage", it cannot be otherwise.

Dunno where you get that idea, but it's noteworthy that Jefferson's idea of liberalizing Virginia's sodomy law was to have sodomites castrated rather than hung.

Sure, just as it will presumably change for pedophiles as well.

 

My position on this is, if they're private, yes, if they receive one dime of state money, no.

Cant see why this needs a bill though? Just seems like a cynical politician trying to whip up social conservative voters. Again!

 

Depends what you mean by "mentioning" Jesus. You can say that the religious leader of people who believe in the New Testament of the Bible is called Jesus. You can talk about Jesus all you want in a religious studies or history class.

What you can't do is say, imply or infer that a belief in Jesus (or any other religion) is preferred, superior or mandatory.

This wasn't uncommon until fairly recently but it is a clear violation of the 1st amendment in the context of an open, public amenity funded by persons of all religions and none.

I'll bet (I know) a lot of people really want to do this or even think they are compelled under the tenets of their religion. No doubt some think they are "saving the souls" of non-believers. Many feel oppressed that they're not allow to do that anymore.

Maybe they should become Sunday School teachers instead?

 

I’d take a loving home over being stuck in the system, any day of the week. But, that’s just me.

 

this is actually not true at all. Studies show children raised by same sex parents do as well or better than in opposite sex homes.

 

You don't know is correct. Sodomy is a boy-girl thing as well. Did you know that?

And to further make my overall point...there is no ban on butt sex or head in the US Constitution. Nor does the US Constitution ban those that partake in butt sex and head jobs too immoral to adopt children.

 

The only reason Tennessee gets to discriminate against Homosexual couples as adoptive parents is Homosexuals have not been added to the list of protected individuals in federal anti-discrimination laws.

It is still lawful not to rent to homosexuals based on their sexuality and it is also still lawful to fire homosexuals based on their sexuality in many states.

 

so forcing a student to recite a Christian prayer would be a violation?
But not a Muslim prayer correct?

 

If teachers were forcing students to recite passages from the Koran the right wing would have a complete meltdown, not being able to force Christian values on others and suddenly it’s a violation of their religious freedom...

 

Your point being...?

Nor is there a ban on child molestation in the Constitution, or on adoption by pedophiles; so what the hell's your point?

 

so you believe it hasn't happened that it wasn't part of a school curriculum to have students learn about the Muslim faith and part of the assignment was to recite a Muslim prayer?

have a read
https://www.wftv.com/news/local/9-i...islamic-lessons-school/69473209#__federated=1

would you liberals allow a student to be assigned to learn and recite the Christian lords prayer?
you know dam well if a teacher says todays assignment is learning and reciting the lords prayer that teacher would be yanked out of that class so fast your head would spin and the school sued

 

This is true....and its awful

 

I support the right for private business to be conducted (or refused) in a voluntary manner.

I would also support anyone standing out front of the place with a sign that read 'this place would rather babies be aborted than live with gay people.'

Shame on them.

 

Your own story says interviews with students said they did not have to recite any prayer. This is what I am talking about — even learning about other religions is a threat to some Christians. I have no problem with students being taught about religion, it’s when it turned into teaching religion the issue arises. All religious belief should be treated the same and not one given special exception.

I don’t think most people would have a problem with students reading the Lord’s Prayer — it’s an important part of the Christian religion — as long as it is read alongside Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish, (and several others) texts.

Depending on the context you could be correct or incorrect. As part of a broad religious history teaching probably not, if they were just pushing Christian ideology then rightfully so.

 

SMH.

 

Was the question complicated or embarrassing?

 

No, just obivously posed to divert attention from a question you presumably found embarassing.

 

So what?

The moral argument against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation may be compelling, however, there is no credible case that Congress has outlawed it. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed at a time when no one in Congress would publicly have advocated such a ban. The language of the Act refers to “sex” not “sexual orientation”.

In Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Company, Judge James Ho, Fifth Circuit, wrote an opinion that destroys the claim that Title VII protects individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and the like. Judge Ho wrote separately to take on the issue of whether Title VII protects the plaintiff at all. His conclusion that it doesn’t was not necessary to decide the case before him. However, the Chai Feldblum EEOC asked the court to address this issue. Judge Ho obliged, with great clarity.

Title VII prohibits “discriminating” against any individual with respect to employment “because of such individual’s . . . sex.” Judge Ho identified three reasons why this language cannot fairly be deemed to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identification.

First, no one seriously contends — nor can one — that, at the time of enactment, the public meaning and understanding of Title VII included sexual orientation or transgender discrimination. Even those courts that have found Title VII to extend that far don’t make this claim.

Moreover, the original understanding of Title VII held for four decades. During that time, every federal circuit to address the issue rejected attempts to construe Title VII to prohibit discrimination on the basis of either sexual orientation or transgender status.

As Judge Ho says, “If the first forty years of uniform circuit precedent nationwide somehow got the original understanding of Title VII wrong, no one has explained how.”

Second, other established principles of statutory construction undermine the case for finding that Title VII bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status. The Supreme Court has said that Congress “does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague or ancillary provisions—it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.”

The Court typically invokes this “elephants in mouseholes” canon when asked to construe an ambiguous statute to reach a matter of great policy consequence. As Judge Ho says, “no one could seriously dispute the importance of the issues presented in this case, as reflected by the amicus and en banc attention these issues have attracted in other circuits.” For the left, protecting the LGBTQ community from discrimination is at the forefront of the battle for social justice.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/02/judge-ho-crushes-it.php

If the State of TN wants to pass this law, there is nothing in Federal Law preventing them from doing so.

 

You think I was embarrassed by what you suggested about me as a parent in your response to my post? LOL, Wow. Now back to you. You are the Christian here, not me. Do you have kids that you abused?