Va. House Approves Anti- Gay Adoption Rule

Apparently those legislators can't tell the difference between a church, a business, and a non-profit/not-for-profit which is given it's tax exempt status on condition of the public trust.

They are selling out the First Amendment.

Shame on them.

snyper wrote:

Apparently those legislators can't tell the difference between a church, a business, and a non-profit/not-for-profit which is given it's tax exempt status on condition of the public trust.
They are selling out the First Amendment.
Shame on them.

Freedom of religion is clearly spelled out in the Constitution while gay rights are not. Taking away tax exempt status from churches would require the more gay friendly churches to lose their exemption as well. Be careful what you wish for.

I wonder how they'd feel about a catholic run adoption agency refusing to place kids in a baptists home based on their "religious beliefs"? Or an athiest run adoption agency refusing to place kids in a protestant home based on their "moral beliefs"? Or a white run adoption agency refusing to place kids in a black home based on their "moral beliefs"?

Oh wait, it's Virginia, so I guess they'd have no problem with that last one.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Freedom of religion is clearly spelled out in the Constitution while gay rights are not. Taking away tax exempt status from churches would require the more gay friendly churches to lose their exemption as well. Be careful what you wish for.

Freedom of religion cuts both ways, so any religious gay person is being denied their religious freedom by refusing to allow them to adopt.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Freedom of religion cuts both ways, so any religious gay person is being denied their religious freedom by refusing to allow them to adopt.

Mothers and fathers bring different essential abilities to the table that same sex couples can't.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Freedom of religion is clearly spelled out in the Constitution while gay rights are not. Taking away tax exempt status from churches would require the more gay friendly churches to lose their exemption as well. Be careful what you wish for.

But that isn't the issue ... the tax-exempt status of churches.

IRS and State tax codes define several types of tax-emption. Religious fellowships are just one. Non and not-for profits are others. A hospital or social services agency is not a religion, regardless of it's motivation for doing what they do.

Further, the creation of a tax-exempt corporation (that IS what they are) is understood in the Codes of most States to be one of the Public Trust ... that is that they are granted this exemption, and the privilege to hold assets IN TRUST for the people of the State to carry out the purposes, UNDER LAW, stated in their Charter documents. In California, and six other States that I know of, this means that non-profits (for short) hold their property in trust for the benefit of the People of the State; i.e. it really belongs to the People of the State, but they get to administer it along the guidelines agreed upon in their non-profit charter and by-laws.

(evil snicker ... church property really belongs to the People of the State, and the church gets to use it according to the rules)

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
But that isn't the issue ... the tax-exempt status of churches.
IRS and State tax codes define several types of tax-emption. Religious fellowships are just one. Non and not-for profits are others. A hospital or social services agency is not a religion, regardless of it's motivation for doing what they do.
Further, the creation of a tax-exempt corporation (that IS what they are) is understood in the Codes of most States to be one of the Public Trust ... that is that they are granted this exemption, and the privilege to hold assets IN TRUST for the people of the State to carry out the purposes, UNDER LAW, stated in their Charter documents. In California, and six other States that I know of, this means that non-profits (for short) hold their property in trust for the benefit of the People of the State; i.e. it really belongs to the People of the State, but they get to administer it along the guidelines agreed upon in their non-profit charter and by-laws.
(evil snicker ... church property really belongs to the People of the State, and the church gets to use it according to the rules)

We are starting to get into hair splitting technicalities which not nearly everybody shares your opinion on how the hairs should be split if at all.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>We are starting to get into hair splitting technicalities which not nearly everybody shares your opinion on how the hairs should be split if at all.

The State of California can take custody of every paperclip of any non-profit/not-for-profit within it's borders. It has done so on several occasions when it has been determined that they have violated State laws, including non-discrimination. Usually it's for some financial irregularities, but not always. On one occasion, the State of California put a Church into receivership for the financial malfeasance of it's leaders. The legal issues were clearly discussed in Appeal, and both State and Federal Appeals Courts found for the State. Similar cases have occurred in 14 other States with similar results.

Say a bunch of Jains want to get together and run an adoption agency ... fine. The moment they file for tax-exempt status at State and Federal levels, they are signing onto Federal regulations the same as any other business ... EEO, OSHA, etc.. An exception is made for Churches, unless they receive Federal/State monies. Compliance with such standards are ALWAYS part of any contract with Government. Some allowances have been allowed for Churches, but an agency or business is not churches.

The Catholic Church, for example may be exempt, but "Catholic Charities, Inc." is NOT the Catholic Church. It has it's own legal existence, and it's own 501 number. Even then it can be relatively immune to non-discrimination regulations IF it doesn't enter into any contracts with Government. It's been that way for a long time.

If, just for discussion, CathCharInc wanted to start discriminating against blacks, the Govt. would be required to terminate further business with them. So sorry.

This is NOT hairsplitting. It's quite plain.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Mothers and fathers bring different essential abilities to the table that same sex couples can't.

Once again you offer nothing but your own biased opinion, which isn't a constitutional justification to deny adoption to gays or lesbians.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Mothers and fathers bring different essential abilities to the table that same sex couples can't.

Wrong.. Very wrong..Many studies have proved this to be wrong...wrong...Did I tell you this is wrong???

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again you offer nothing but your own biased opinion, which isn't a constitutional justification to deny adoption to gays or lesbians.

I am thankful I was not raised by a same sex couple.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>I am thankful I was not raised by a same sex couple.

That's your feeling, and you're entitled to it.

That said, millions of children are thankful to have been raised by LOVING parents, regardless of their gender.

Gay Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong.. Very wrong..Many studies have proved this to be wrong...wrong...Did I tell you this is wrong???

Whose studies? Those sponsored by the politically correct crowd? My mother was more nurturing than my father and my father taught me masculine type skills that mothers usually know little about. It was apparent to me that mothers and fathers had different, but equally important things to teach me. Men and women are certainly wired in a different manner emotionally and tests have concluded that male and female brains often react differently to the same exact stimuli, not withstanding the rants by the radical feminists who think men and women are absolutely interchangeable except for their roles in reproduction.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Whose studies? Those sponsored by the politically correct crowd? My mother was more nurturing than my father and my father taught me masculine type skills that mothers usually know little about. It was apparent to me that mothers and fathers had different, but equally important things to teach me. Men and women are certainly wired in a different manner emotionally and tests have concluded that male and female brains often react differently to the same exact stimuli, not withstanding the rants by the radical feminists who think men and women are absolutely interchangeable except for their roles in reproduction.

These are still all opinions. There have been many studies by many groups. Just because you don't like the conclusions, you malign the supposed creators. I'll bet you never googled one of these studies, or the latest research which brought together the results of multiple studies, which the APA now uses. This is your choice, but don't expect respect for your opinions when you act this way.

Gay Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
These are still all opinions. There have been many studies by many groups. Just because you don't like the conclusions, you malign the supposed creators. I'll bet you never googled one of these studies, or the latest research which brought together the results of multiple studies, which the APA now uses. This is your choice, but don't expect respect for your opinions when you act this way.

Are your conclusions any less than an opinion? The APA has been caving to political correctness in recent years and has been changing nearly every theory on mental health that reflects negatively on the GLTB that was previouisly believed.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Whose studies? Those sponsored by the politically correct crowd? My mother was more nurturing than my father and my father taught me masculine type skills that mothers usually know little about. It was apparent to me that mothers and fathers had different, but equally important things to teach me. Men and women are certainly wired in a different manner emotionally and tests have concluded that male and female brains often react differently to the same exact stimuli, not withstanding the rants by the radical feminists who think men and women are absolutely interchangeable except for their roles in reproduction.

And yet every study done shows kids raised by 2 moms or 2 dads do just as well in every measure as kids raised by an opposite sex couple.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Are your conclusions any less than an opinion? The APA has been caving to political correctness in recent years and has been changing nearly every theory on mental health that reflects negatively on the GLTB that was previouisly believed.

That is not an opinion, but a misstatement based on hearsay. It is in fact not true. For your information, the AMA also agrees, as do other national groups. Google this, don't hide. It makes you seem uneducated, and we know that's not true.

Gay Mom wrote:

<quoted text>
That is not an opinion, but a misstatement based on hearsay. It is in fact not true. For your information, the AMA also agrees, as do other national groups. Google this, don't hide. It makes you seem uneducated, and we know that's not true.

Studies are still all over the place with their conclusions about same sex parenting. Your opinion is no better than anybody else's.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Studies are still all over the place with their conclusions about same sex parenting. Your opinion is no better than anybody else's.

Not my opinion, research. Stay uninformed. Your choice.

flbadcatowner wrote:

<quoted text>Studies are still all over the place with their conclusions about same sex parenting. Your opinion is no better than anybody else's.

No actually the studies aren't all over the place, the greater majority find that children who are raised by same-sex parents do as well and in many cases better than their similarly situated peers with opposite sex parents. The ONLY studies which find something different are those with anti-gay agenda driven backing. An INFORMED Opinion is better than the opinion of someone who is uninformed or willfully ignorant of the subject.