Quote:Christians have a long history of caring for children in need. The Christian apologist St. Basil the Great opened what is regarded as one of the first orphanages in the fourth century. He dedicated a wing of his monastery to raising and educating orphans where the monastics acted as “surrogate parents.” And here, in what would later become America, some of the first orphanages were founded in the early 18th century by Catholic nuns and Lutherans.

Now, Christians are being shut out of child welfare programs altogether — simply because of their beliefs about the body and our human identities.

That’s what happened to Jessica Bates, and that’s why my firm, Alliance Defending Freedom, is standing with her to challenge an unconstitutional Oregon policy in court.

Jessica is a mother of five children, a part-time ultrasound technician, and a devout Christian. She’s also a widow. Her late husband died in a car wreck several years ago. Then, after hearing a broadcast about one man’s adoption story, she felt convicted. The Bible describes God as a Father to the fatherless and a protector of widows. He had provided for her. Now she felt called to extend that same love to a child in need.

But when Jessica applied to Oregon’s Department of Human Services, the state put her through an ideological litmus test — one that ferrets out people of faith who disagree with the state’s views on the metaphysical differences between men and women.

Violating Christians’ Rights
Specifically, state regulations require prospective caregivers to demonstrate that they will “accept” and “support” a child’s sexual orientation and so-called gender identity and expression. This means caregivers must agree to use preferred pronouns, take their children to events such as LGBT pride parades, and even take young children to receive hormone shots as part of what the left calls “gender transition.” When Jessica explained that she would love any child, but she just couldn’t do anything that went against her Christian faith, the state turned her away. According to Oregon, people with traditional religious beliefs about our sexual differences are unfit to care for children.

This policy violates the First Amendment. It categorically excludes entire religious communities from the adoption and foster-care process, violating our constitutional protections for religious liberty. It also violates our rights to free speech by compelling Jessica to affirm by word and deed her beliefs in the state’s ideology.

Policy Hurts Children
Some may argue Oregon is just trying to protect children. Far from it. Forcing Jessica to agree to use preferred pronouns or take a child to get wrong-sex hormones is entirely hypothetical — meant to test Jessica’s fealty to the state’s views. Jessica even asked if she could be considered for children who did not struggle with gender dysphoria, but still the state said no.

Moreover, the state excludes people of faith not just from adoption but from all of its child welfare programs. That means an Orthodox Jewish family can’t adopt a Jewish child who attends their temple. And a devout Catholic family can’t provide respite care for newborns who don’t have any concept of so-called gender identity. Oregon seeks to enforce its ideology on everyone, no matter how speculative its concerns are.

Not only is Oregon’s policy illegal, but it’s also unjust and hurtful. Nearly 8,000 children touched Oregon’s foster-care system last year, and for hundreds of these children, reunification was not an option. The state needs caregivers like Jessica.

Christians have been caring for orphans long before there were departments of human services. And even today, practicing Christians are twice as likely as the general public to adopt children. Oregon may believe it can get along without such Christians now. But do the children in Oregon’s system agree?

Link

Of course it violates the First Amendment. I was at a funeral for a man today, who as the pastor said, was "chosen" by his Christian parents. Someone made the choice to give him up, but by the grace of God, he was chosen to be these parents' child. He was an amazing man, flawed as we all are, but for three hours a stream of people came through to give respects to his wife, who is one of my dearest friends, and his only child. In fact, the funeral home staff at the church had to stop the stream of people coming in, in order to start the service. And there were over 300 people in attendance today for the 55 year old adopted kid, meaning he must have been raised right, and he made a heck a contribution to society.

Oregon and Washington State can fall into the ocean for all I care.

Agreed it sounds like a bad law but this also sounds like the start of a legal long game. If you can’t block one group of people from adopting then you can’t ban another.

In other words, yes, they are coming for your religion.

You can't spew hate against Christians like the Left does & not expect people to get elected to try to suppress it.

(04-17-2023 10:28 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Agreed it sounds like a bad law but this also sounds like the start of a legal long game. If you can’t block one group of people from adopting then you can’t ban another.

You cant ban it on religious belief, something protected in the constitution.

You can ban it because of mental health (chicks with a dick) or any other propensity to want to groom and have sex with the kids you adopt. Much to your shagrin.

(04-18-2023 08:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:28 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Agreed it sounds like a bad law but this also sounds like the start of a legal long game. If you can’t block one group of people from adopting then you can’t ban another.

You cant ban it on religious belief, something protected in the constitution.

You can ban it because of mental health (chicks with a dick) or any other propensity to want to groom and have sex with the kids you adopt. Much to your shagrin.

Much to my chagrin is the evidence showing that straight men are more of a danger to kids by a wide margin.

It's a terrible law. As long as a loving family has a viable income that can support the child (food, clothes, education yada yada), IDGAF what religion parents may or may not have. Prohibiting Christians from adopting is just as dumb as prohibiting a Muslim, atheist or some random pagan religion.