Diocese says it must end all state-funded adoption, foster services

[Father Heathen]

You do realize that the Church did not create marraige, right?

Right. It was originally polygamous in nature. Do you support polygamy? If not, how is making marriage strictly monogamous not "redefining" it? Also, the concept of marriage didn't originate from Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

[kepha31]

Should private hospitals be forced to offer abortions in cases where the mother's life is not in danger?

Good question, Kathyrn. Should tax payers dollars go towards killing innocent life as a means of birth control? Gay couples made a stink about Catholic Charities policies and went elsewhere anyway. There are no naked hungry children crying on street corners. The issue is the right of the Church to define mairrage as it pertains to adoption, not the "government funding" drum beat that has been going on in this thread. "Govenrment funding" is not the issue.

 

[Oneatatime]

Should private hospitals be forced to offer abortions in cases where the mother's life is not in danger?

First of all this is a loaded question which ignored the complexity of the abortion debate. There are instances where a mothers life isn't in danger but where I would consider it acceptable for an abortion to be carried out but this thread is not about abortion.

Hospitals exist to provide healthcare to people which includes if necessary providing facilities and expertise for abortions. Its not for health care institutions or health staff to give or withold medical prodecures on the basis of whether they personally find a procedure distasteful. If an individual member of staff is unable to partake, irrespective of their religious beliefs, then they need to find someone else who will do it.

To move a less emotive subject should a Catholic hospital be allowed to deny people advice on family planning and access to contraception because it runs counter to their religious beliefs? Clearly its not in the publics interest for this to be the case so yes all hospitals, irrespective of their religious inclination, should have to include this. Of course the same is true of sexual eduation in religious schools which are generally reluctant to teach it, let alone encourage the use of contraception which no doubt contributes to number of women and teenages wanting abortions even if the pregnancy isn't a threat to their physical health.

Basically don't set yourself up as a provider of health or education and then expect to be able to opt out of the responsibilities that run counter to your religious beliefs, especially when its not in the best interests of the public.

 

[Kathryn]

First of all this is a loaded question which ignored the complexity of the abortion debate. There are instances where a mothers life isn't in danger but where I would consider it acceptable for an abortion to be carried out but this thread is not about abortion.

Hospitals exist to provide healthcare to people which includes if necessary providing facilities and expertise for abortions. Its not for health care institutions or health staff to give or withold medical prodecures on the basis of whether they personally find a procedure distasteful. If an individual member of staff is unable to partake, irrespective of their religious beliefs, then they need to find someone else who will do it.

To move a less emotive subject should a Catholic hospital be allowed to deny people advice on family planning and access to contraception because it runs counter to their religious beliefs? Clearly its not in the publics interest for this to be the case so yes all hospitals, irrespective of their religious inclination, should have to include this. Of course the same is true of sexual eduation in religious schools which are generally reluctant to teach it, let alone encourage the use of contraception which no doubt contributes to number of women and teenages wanting abortions even if the pregnancy isn't a threat to their physical health.

Basically don't set yourself up as a provider of health or education and then expect to be able to opt out of the responsibilities that run counter to your religious beliefs, especially when its not in the best interests of the public.

Back to the adoption issue. It's against the law to discriminate based on age - and yet all sorts of adoption agencies screen people out based on their age.

Overweight people can't be flight attendants. People over 35 can't join the military without a waiver, which is difficult to get.

Using your line of reasoning, even if they are receiving no government funds, a private Mennonite school could not choose to hire only Mennonite teachers.

Using your line of reasoning, I'd have to let anyone rent my garage apartment - anyone, regardless of race, creed, sex,handicap, etc. because it's against the law to discriminate based on those things.

I actually was faced with that dilemma one time. I had a garage apartment to rent, and a caseworker came with a mentally handicapped middle aged client, who had no car. She wanted to let me know that her client would be renting my apartment and she would be paying the rent. The woman obviously - obviously - would have had issues. The bus stop was a good 10 blocks away, and she worked at a facility across town. Also, it was obvious that the client would have needed checking on, on a regular basis. I could see how this could develop and I didn't want the responsibility of a disabled person who I didn't even know living in my backyard, depending on me for rides when it rained, etc, - and it was my choice, since it was my backyard, so I turned down the application and rented it to someone else.

The caseworker was FURIOUS and even threatened to sue me. Note - she wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. But still - who needs that drama?

My point is this - sometimes we have the right to withhold services to others based on our personal convictions and desires.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Say there was an adoption agency which catered specifically to gay couples and placing kids in homes with gay parents. Do you think they would willingly choose to place a child in a home with two pentecostal, fundamentalist parents? Do you think it would be right to force them by law to do so? Or should they be able to favor gay couples when it came to placement?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Should private hospitals be forced to offer abortions in cases where the mother's life is not in danger?

The question in my mind is more whether there should be private hospitals at all. IMO, health care is a vital service like, say, clean drinking water, which even in the US is generally regarded as a responsibility of government.

But back to your question... yes, maybe. If abortion services are freely available in the community some other way, there might not be a need, but I don't think it would necessarily be unreasonable to make abortion services a requirement of certain levels of hospital licences: the same way a hospital has to have certain capabilities to be certified as a Level 1 trauma centre, I think it would be reasonable to have abortion services part of some "full service major hospital" designation.

This is actually a fair bit like the OP's issue. When I was an EIT, I heard something at a seminar that's stuck with me: a professional license (or in the case of a hospital, government accreditation) is a case of artificial scarcity. Not just anyone can offer engineering (or medical) services, so the fact that there is less competition than would naturally occur means that the profession (or hospital) can command higher fees. In return, some sort if societal expectation is expected of the professional (or hospital) over and above what would be required in a pure free market.

 

[Kathryn]

So, using this line of reasoning, a doctor who was opposed to abortion on demand would be forced legally to perform an abortion?

The abortion and the placement of children in homes with gay parents are comparable examples by the way and I'm glad to see you acknowledge this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, using this line of reasoning, a doctor who was opposed to abortion on demand would be forced legally to perform an abortion?

How do you get that out of what I said?

Medicine is a profession with many specialties. If a doctor doesn't want to perform abortions, he or she can choose from any of the many specialties that have nothing to do with abortion. I mean, I'd say that everyone considers cancer care an essential service, but the vast majority of doctors never get involved in administering chemotherapy.

However, if a doctor's job description does include abortion, he or she shouldn't be allowed to unilaterally refuse to do his or her job.

The abortion and the placement of children in homes with gay parents are comparable examples by the way and I'm glad to see you acknowledge this.

I think they're comparable in that if there's a need for private organizations to do either one, then something has gone wrong at the governmental level.

 

[Kathryn]

How do you get that out of what I said?

Medicine is a profession with many specialties. If a doctor doesn't want to perform abortions, he or she can choose from any of the many specialties that have nothing to do with abortion. I mean, I'd say that everyone considers cancer care an essential service, but the vast majority of doctors never get involved in administering chemotherapy.

However, if a doctor's job description does include abortion, he or she shouldn't be allowed to unilaterally refuse to do his or her job.


I think they're comparable in that if there's a need for private organizations to do either one, then something has gone wrong at the governmental level.

This is how I got that out of what you're saying. It seems to me that if a doctor chooses to be an obstetrician, according to your view, he/she has to perform abortions on demand if that's what someone in their community wants. That's no different than demanding that a private hospital offer those services - it's just on a smaller scale. The premise remains the same.

Hey - as a woman, maybe I want to go to a private hospital because maybe I don't want the same doctor who tears limbs off a fetus in one room to wash his hands and come into the next room and take charge of the health of MY unborn child - oh, I'm sorry - fetus.

And some doctors who are also opposed to abortion for convenience specifically choose obstetrics as their specialty because they love the miracle of life. I don't see why they should be forced to do what to them amounts to murder.

By this reasoning, the only people who should be obstetrical doctors and nurses and medical professionals are those who are willing to perform abortions for convenience. Anyone pro life should go find another job, I guess. Just as anyone who prefers to place children within a nuclear family consisting of one man and one woman should get into another profession as well. Wow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is how I got that out of what you're saying. It seems to me that if a doctor chooses to be an obstetrician, according to your view, he/she has to perform abortions on demand if that's what someone in their community wants. That's no different than demanding that a private hospital offer those services - it's just on a smaller scale. The premise remains the same.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. How would this work, exactly? The government lays down an edict saying "all OB-GYNs must offer abortions" with no regard to whether proper facilities exist in their communities to do them? I don't think that's likely to happen.

Hey - as a woman, maybe I want to go to a private hospital because maybe I don't want the same doctor who tears limbs off a fetus in one room to wash his hands and come into the next room and take charge of the health of MY unborn child - oh, I'm sorry - fetus.

And I'm sure that there are Jehovah's Witnesses who would rather not go to a doctor who performs blood transfusions. Why should your aesthetic preferences get special accommodation while theirs don't?

And some doctors who are also opposed to abortion for convenience specifically choose obstetrics as their specialty because they love the miracle of life. I don't see why they should be forced to do what to them amounts to murder.

Who says they would be?

By this reasoning, the only people who should be obstetrical doctors and nurses and medical professionals are those who are willing to perform abortions for convenience. Anyone pro life should go find another job, I guess. Just as anyone who prefers to place children within a nuclear family consisting of one man and one woman should get into another profession as well. Wow.

Every job's requirements change over time. If you're looking for a profession where you can be sure that its regulations never change at all, or only ever change in ways that you like, you're welcome to do it, but I don't think that such a profession exists.

A few generations ago (and more recently in a few places), the law in some places allowed restaurants to discriminate against their prospective clientele on the basis of race. I'm sure there are people who started working as wait staff or restaurant owners who are still in the working world who never thought that the government would tell them, in their "private restaurant", that if they wanted to offer food to the public, they'd have to serve black people. Should we indulge these people's attitudes?

 

[Oneatatime]

Back to the adoption issue. It's against the law to discriminate based on age - and yet all sorts of adoption agencies screen people out based on their age.

Overweight people can't be flight attendants. People over 35 can't join the military without a waiver, which is difficult to get.

Using your line of reasoning, even if they are receiving no government funds, a private Mennonite school could not choose to hire only Mennonite teachers.

Using your line of reasoning, I'd have to let anyone rent my garage apartment - anyone, regardless of race, creed, sex,handicap, etc. because it's against the law to discriminate based on those things.

I actually was faced with that dilemma one time. I had a garage apartment to rent, and a caseworker came with a mentally handicapped middle aged client, who had no car. She wanted to let me know that her client would be renting my apartment and she would be paying the rent. The woman obviously - obviously - would have had issues. The bus stop was a good 10 blocks away, and she worked at a facility across town. Also, it was obvious that the client would have needed checking on, on a regular basis. I could see how this could develop and I didn't want the responsibility of a disabled person who I didn't even know living in my backyard, depending on me for rides when it rained, etc, - and it was my choice, since it was my backyard, so I turned down the application and rented it to someone else.

The caseworker was FURIOUS and even threatened to sue me. Note - she wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. But still - who needs that drama?

My point is this - sometimes we have the right to withhold services to others based on our personal convictions and desires.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot for a moment. Say there was an adoption agency which catered specifically to gay couples and placing kids in homes with gay parents. Do you think they would willingly choose to place a child in a home with two pentecostal, fundamentalist parents? Do you think it would be right to force them by law to do so? Or should they be able to favor gay couples when it came to placement?

Discrimination is justified where reasonably practicable (Its a word trust me) efforts have been made to accomodate someone but they are still unable to fullfil the requirements of a position. For examples its not discrimination to refuse someone entry into the the army as infantry if they blind because such a person wouldn't be able to carry out their duties and may put other lives at risk. Another example would be a person who insists on having certain days of during the week because of their religion but can't because the employer can't accomodate this and it would also be unfair to other staff.

In the example you gave of the disabled person while I appreciate your concern if you're setting yourself up as a landlord then you are running a business and can't discriminate against people in that manner. If they wish to live that far away from public transport then that is their choice and equally its their responsibility to to deal with any problems that arise as a result, not yours. If they realised that it wasn't working then they would have to give their notice and find somewhere else. A big problem faced by people with learning difficulties is that they are often denied the right to make decisions in how they wish to live their life. Obviously they are vulnerabe and therefore need support but they should be allowed as much independence as possible. People without learning difficulties make poor decisions or misjudgements all the time yet we don't attempt to run their lives for them.

If you are unable to set aside your personal views/convictions when running a business or any organisation for that matter then you shouldn't be running it. A couple runnig a B&B in the UK found that out the hardway when they refused to let a homosexual couple share the same bed because they didn't want that kind of stuff in their house. There was a big uproar from the tabloids and various Christian groups but in the end you can't discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality and expect to get away with it simply because its religously inspired.

In regards to your example a foster couple in the UK have been taken of the local authorities list because of their homophobia which was religiously inspired. Under such circumstances there is sufficient cause to refuse a couple adoption because its not the chids best interests to be raised by parents who discriminate against homosexuals. I'm typing this response on my Wii so I can't check on pentecostal fundamentalists but I'm guessing that they are of the homophobic type therefore irrespective of whether an adoption agency is intended to assist homosexuals in adoption or not there is a clear case for such people not being able to adopt on the basis of their homophobia.

It would be very difficult to force any organisation into putting a chlid into the care of people unsuitable to be that childs guardians. Your hypothetical situation just wouldn't happen (In the UK at least) because such homophobic parents, if they are open about their beliefs, wouldn't or shouldn't be accepted as potential adoptive parents.

This is how it should be and if the religious have a problem with this then they should look at and try to comprehend why they are unsuitable. I accept that such self-reflection is unlikely to change religiosly institutionalised homophobia.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Fair enough, but the government suddenly changed the rules and refused exemptions for Catholic Charities, and the First Amendment got violated.

No, the First Amendment did not "get violated".

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Telling the Church that in order to receive funds collected by taxes from the public, it must follow certain non-discriminatory practices is not a violation of the First Amendment.

Nor is telling any adoption/foster agency that contracts with the state to look after the welfare of wards of the state that it must follow the rules of the state a violation of any part of the Constitution.

However, giving preferential treatment to religious organizations by excusing them from following those non-discriminatory practices while they receive sate and/or federal funding IS a violation of the Establishment Clause..

The love between one man and one womanis the foundation of civilization, and much is at stake with this issue. Marraige is sacred to Catholics and it's not negotiable with cultural dictators.

No, the "Foundation of Civilization" is Societal Cooperation.

 

[waitasec]

is adoption a right?
is health care a right?
is getting your meds a right?

if it is a right for some it is a right for all...granted there are standards that need to be met to ensure the position to the rite of passage...but those standards are to be void of discrimination based on opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Marraige is sacred to Catholics and it's not negotiable with cultural dictators.

Marriage is sacred to me, too. That's a big part of why I support same-sex marriage. Marriage is an expression of love, not just a breeding arrangement. IMO, when we restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, we demean marriage as an institution.

 

[Draka]

Marriage is sacred to me, too. That's a big part of why I support same-sex marriage. Marriage is an expression of love, not just a breeding arrangement. IMO, when we restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, we demean marriage as an institution.

:clap
Exactly.

 

[waitasec]

Marriage is sacred to me, too. That's a big part of why I support same-sex marriage. Marriage is an expression of love, not just a breeding arrangement. IMO, when we restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, we demean marriage as an institution.

:cigar:

 

[Kathryn]

.

In the example you gave of the disabled person while I appreciate your concern if you're setting yourself up as a landlord then you are running a business and can't discriminate against people in that manner. If they wish to live that far away from public transport then that is their choice and equally its their responsibility to to deal with any problems that arise as a result, not yours. If they realised that it wasn't working then they would have to give their notice and find somewhere else. A big problem faced by people with learning difficulties is that they are often denied the right to make decisions in how they wish to live their life. Obviously they are vulnerabe and therefore need support but they should be allowed as much independence as possible. People without learning difficulties make poor decisions or misjudgements all the time yet we don't attempt to run their lives for them.

Actually, the law was in my favor on this one. I have complete control and freedom of choice to determine who lives in my backyard - and if I don't want Asians, or people with red hair, or people ages 20-40 -whatever, I can choose with no fear of legal ramifications. That's because it is in my BACKYARD and the unit is less than six units.

Discrimination is justified where reasonably practicable (Its a word trust me) efforts have been made to accomodate someone but they are still unable to fullfil the requirements of a position. For examples its not discrimination to refuse someone entry into the the army as infantry if they blind because such a person wouldn't be able to carry out their duties and may put other lives at risk. Another example would be a person who insists on having certain days of during the week because of their religion but can't because the employer can't accomodate this and it would also be unfair to other staff.

For starters - yes, I know that the word "practicable" is a word. My professional background is developing and implementing HR policies for companies, so I'm familiar with reasonable accommodation laws as well.

If you are unable to set aside your personal views/convictions when running a business or any organisation for that matter then you shouldn't be running it. A couple runnig a B&B in the UK found that out the hardway when they refused to let a homosexual couple share the same bed because they didn't want that kind of stuff in their house. There was a big uproar from the tabloids and various Christian groups but in the end you can't discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality and expect to get away with it simply because its religously inspired.

There are different types of laws for different types of businesses and business structures. Not all laws under the Americans With Disabilities Act, or the Family and Medical Leave Act (just to name two) are applicable to all businesses. Even Title 7 - the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - does not apply to ALL businesses in the US.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It would be very difficult to force any organisation into putting a chlid into the care of people unsuitable to be that childs guardians. Your hypothetical situation just wouldn't happen (In the UK at least) because such homophobic parents, if they are open about their beliefs, wouldn't or shouldn't be accepted as potential adoptive parents.

?

I'm not talking about the parents - I'm talking about the private, non government funded adoption agency.

 

[idav]

is adoption a right?
is health care a right?
is getting your meds a right?

if it is a right for some it is a right for all...granted there are standards that need to be met to ensure the position to the rite of passage...but those standards are to be void of discrimination based on opinion.

True. If someones lifestyle is not good for the raising of children it must be proven. And the law has shown that a homosexual couple is just as good as a heterosexual couple when it comes to raising healthy children. Something more would have to be shown to be a problem regardless of sexual orientation or religious affiliation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I actually was faced with that dilemma one time. I had a garage apartment to rent, and a caseworker came with a mentally handicapped middle aged client, who had no car. She wanted to let me know that her client would be renting my apartment and she would be paying the rent. The woman obviously - obviously - would have had issues. The bus stop was a good 10 blocks away, and she worked at a facility across town. Also, it was obvious that the client would have needed checking on, on a regular basis. I could see how this could develop and I didn't want the responsibility of a disabled person who I didn't even know living in my backyard, depending on me for rides when it rained, etc, - and it was my choice, since it was my backyard, so I turned down the application and rented it to someone else.

The caseworker was FURIOUS and even threatened to sue me. Note - she wouldn't have had a leg to stand on. But still - who needs that drama?

One of my grandmother's friends owned a house that they rented out. One day, they had a policewoman come by and apply to rent it. The husband turned her down because he thought that policewomen didn't get paid as much as policemen, so she wouldn't be able to afford the place and she might end up missing rent payments.

Your story reminds me a lot of that.

Interesting epilogue: a little while later, another prospective renter came by who made a great impression with the husband. He offered her the place, and she agreed. A few months later, she was busted by the cops: she was a prostitute who had been using the house as her place of business.

Actually, the law was in my favor on this one. I have complete control and freedom of choice to determine who lives in my backyard - and if I don't want Asians, or people with red hair, or people ages 20-40 -whatever, I can choose with no fear of legal ramifications. That's because it is in my BACKYARD and the unit is less than six units.

That's crazy.

Frankly, you'd never get away with that here. The Ontario Human Rights Code covers all business dealings, and includes provisions like these:

Services
1. Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.

Accommodation
2. (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to the occupancy of accommodation, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.

Harassment in accommodation
(2) Every person who occupies accommodation has a right to freedom from harassment by the landlord or agent of the landlord or by an occupant of the same building because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, age, marital status, family status, disability or the receipt of public assistance.

Contracts
3. Every person having legal capacity has a right to contract on equal terms without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or disability.

A landlord still has the right to keep his or her property free of tenants who he or she dislikes... by not offering it up for rental in the first place.

 

[linwood]

Originally Posted by kepha31
Fair enough, but the government suddenly changed the rules and refused exemptions for Catholic Charities, and the First Amendment got violated.

Many of us feel like those exemptions were a violation to begin with.

It`s now been corrected.

 

[waitasec]

One of my grandmother's friends owned a house that they rented out. One day, they had a policewoman come by and apply to rent it. The husband turned her down because he thought that policewomen didn't get paid as much as policemen, so she wouldn't be able to afford the place and she might end up missing rent payments.

Your story reminds me a lot of that.

Interesting epilogue: a little while later, another prospective renter came by who made a great impression with the husband. He offered her the place, and she agreed. A few months later, she was busted by the cops: she was a prostitute who had been using the house as her place of business.


That's crazy.

Frankly, you'd never get away with that here. The Ontario Human Rights Code covers all business dealings, and includes provisions like these:



A landlord still has the right to keep his or her property free of tenants who he or she dislikes... by not offering it up for rental in the first place.

opcorn: