Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Hairy Lime]

A childless Massachusetts couple , Mike and Catherine Burke,sought to be foster parents.
 Mike, a former Marine, was stationed in Iraq. Mrs. Burke is a former paraprofessional for kids with special needs. They are devout Catholics and not only attend church with regular frequency, they both also work for local churches as musicians The Burkes were willing to accept children of any race, culture or ethnicity, as well as some special needs


Massachusetts noted the couples strengths but denied their petition to be foster parents.

The author of their license study took care to note that the Burkes are lovely people.But with regard to LGBT issues, she also said their faith is not supportive and neither are they.

William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal used the Burke case to note the preciousness of Samuel Alito in his dissent to the SCOTUS same sex marriage case(Obergefell v. Hodges,2015)


..it will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy.  In the course of its opinion, the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment for African-Americans and women. . . . The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.

RICO!

Also worth noting... well, in addition to imaging a shriveled up RedDick saying, my precious ... that the obligation to take and care for any child has been a requirement of being a foster parent long before Onergfell. The State is not going to have a foster family that cannot offer support for an LGBT child because it has to consider the good of the children in foster care. It has nothing to do with some bull shit right wing op ed about enforcing orthodoxy. The Burkes can continue to hatefully misunderstand the teaching of their church. But they cannot act as foster parents for a child they refuse to emotionally support.

[Espnthree]

The State is not going to have a foster family that cannot offer support for an LGBT child because it has to consider the good of the children in foster care.

Except the state bureaucrats are denying Catholics a chance to be foster parents to ANY child.

It has nothing to do with some bull shit right wing op ed about enforcing orthodoxy.

There was no OpEd involved only a dissenting SCOTUS opinion warning of the consequences of overlooking religious liberty.  The fact the Burkes are Catholic and do not endorse same sex marriage has nothing to with raising a child.

The Burkes can continue to hatefully misunderstand the teaching of their church. But they cannot act as foster parents for a child they refuse to emotionally support.

That statement is blatant ignorance of the facts of the case.

[facilitatorn]

I think it is not impossible that a court would find that Catholics make unhealthy parents, but this is a messy spot Massachusetts has gotten itself into following its obligation to protect the interests of foster children.

Own goals cannot all be on the republican side.

[Hairy Lime]

The State is not going to have a foster family that cannot offer support for an LGBT child because it has to consider the good of the children in foster care.

Except the state bureaucrats are denying Catholics a chance to be foster parents to ANY child.

No, not Catholics. One Catholic family that indicated they could not offer a supportive environment to every child who might be placed with them. Just as they would deny placements to someone who indicated that their faith would not allow them to offer support to a Jewish or Muslim or African American child. There is no, Yeah but Gay! exception to the requirement to offer a supportive home.

It has nothing to do with some bull shit right wing op ed about enforcing orthodoxy.

There was no OpEd involved only a dissenting SCOTUS opinion warning of the consequences of overlooking religious liberty.  The fact the Burkes are Catholic and do not endorse same sex marriage has nothing to with raising a child.

You quoted the op ed from the WSJ, you intellectually dishonest poltroon. And their refusal to offer a supportive environment has very much to do with raising a child, should that child be LGBT.

The Burkes can continue to hatefully misunderstand the teaching of their church. But they cannot act as foster parents for a child they refuse to emotionally support.

That statement is blatant ignorance of the facts of the case.

No, it is not. That state's duty is the welfare of the child, regardless of things like race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

[Hairy Lime]

I think it is not impossible that a court would find that Catholics make unhealthy parents, but this is a messy spot Massachusetts has gotten itself into following its obligation to protect the interests of foster children.

Own goals cannot all be on the republican side.

Plenty of Catholics do not interpret their faith as hatefully as the Burkes, including me and Pope Francis.

[Espnthree]

I think it is not impossible that a court would find that Catholics make unhealthy parents, but this is a messy spot Massachusetts has gotten itself into following its obligation to protect the interests of foster children.

Own goals cannot all be on the republican side.

Plenty of Catholics do not interpret their faith as hatefully as the Burkes, including me and Pope Francis.

The Burkes interpret their faith hatefully?

Massachusetts gave only one reason for denying a foster child license to the couple:
they would not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA.
That is blatant discrimination based on none of the business of the state which ignores the US constitutional protection of religious freedom.
In addition state adoption regulations, as well as the Massachusetts Foster Parent Bill of Rights, bar religious discrimination against possible foster parents?

[Hairy Lime]

I think it is not impossible that a court would find that Catholics make unhealthy parents, but this is a messy spot Massachusetts has gotten itself into following its obligation to protect the interests of foster children.

Own goals cannot all be on the republican side.

Plenty of Catholics do not interpret their faith as hatefully as the Burkes, including me and Pope Francis.

The Burkes interpret their faith hatefully?
According to you who know nothing as much as I do about the case?

Yes. And fify.

[Oilcandide]

Except the state bureaucrats are denying Catholics a chance to be foster parents to ANY child.

Liar.

Foster parents cannot pick and choose based on their prejudices.  All that one couple had to do to qualify as foster parents was not declare a need to weed out alphabet children.  How would your shipost have gone if they'd preemptively said No Blacks.   Would you be here justifying why people declaring they can't love a black child should still be foster parents?

[Espnthree]

The State is not going to have a foster family that cannot offer support for an LGBT child because it has to consider the good of the children in foster care.

The state has no evidence that the Burkes cannot offer support for a LBGT child.The state bureaucrats are denying Catholics a chance to be foster parents to ANY child.

No, not Catholics. One Catholic family that indicated they could not offer a supportive environment to every child who might be placed with them just as they would deny placements to someone who indicated that their faith would not allow them to offer support to a Jewish or Muslim or African American child. There is no, Yeah but Gay! exception to the requirement to offer a supportive home.

Except no Muslim, or people of other faiths that have similar objections as Catholics have never been denied foster children licenses.

It has nothing to do with some bull shit right wing op ed about enforcing orthodoxy.

There was no OpEd involved only a dissenting SCOTUS opinion warning of the consequences of overlooking religious liberty.  The fact the Burkes are Catholic and do not endorse same sex marriage has nothing to with raising a child.

You quoted the op ed from the WSJ, you intellectually dishonest poltroon.

I did not.I quoted Justice Alito and identified where I got the quote.

And their refusal to offer a supportive environment has very much to do with raising a child, should that child be LGBT.[/ quote]Because a bigot like you says so? [guote] The Burkes can continue to hatefully misunderstand the teaching of their church.

Which they do not

But they cannot act as foster parents for a child they refuse to emotionally support.

Which is a wanton made up distortion of the statements of the Burkes. 
That statement is blatant ignorance of the facts of the case.

[Espnthree]

Except the state bureaucrats are denying Catholics a chance to be foster parents to ANY child.

Liar.

Foster parents cannot pick and choose based on their prejudices.

The Burkes said they had NO desire to pick annd choose, read the facts.

  All that one couple had to do to qualify as foster parents was not declare a need to weed out alphabet children.

Which the Burkes did not.

   How would your shipost have gone if they'd preemptively said No Blacks.

They made no distinctions

Would you be here justifying why people declaring they can't love a black child should still be foster parents?

You are embarrassing yourself.

[LarryB!]

Except the state bureaucrats are denying Catholics a chance to be foster parents to ANY child.

Liar.

Foster parents cannot pick and choose based on their prejudices.

The Burkes said they had NO desire to pick annd choose, read the facts.

  All that one couple had to do to qualify as foster parents was not declare a need to weed out alphabet children.

Which the Burkes did not.

   How would your shipost have gone if they'd preemptively said No Blacks.

They made no distinctions

Would you be here justifying why people declaring they can't love a black child should still be foster parents?

You are embarrassing yourself.

If the prospective parents cannot raise a child who may be LBGTQ to what other latent prejudices will they fall prey?

Reminds me of the late seventies when White people were rushing to adopt Vietnamese orphans and then racism set in.

Goddamn, Margo! What in the hell we got here? Aint her eyes ever gonna round out?

[Espnthree]

Except the state bureaucrats are denying Catholics a chance to be foster parents to ANY child.

Liar.

Foster parents cannot pick and choose based on their prejudices.

That is Certainly not what the Burkes are doing.

[Oilcandide]

From NBC report (quote marks replaced with parentheses due to infamous Elba glitch)

A social workers report attached to the complaint said the couple was asked how they would feel if a child in their care identified as LGBTQ or struggled with their gender identity. Kitty Burke responded by saying (lets take the T out of it) and called gender affirming care (chemical castration) according to the report. She also said  that the child (would need to live a chaste life.)  Both Kitty and Michael Burke expressed hesitation around using a transgender or nonbinary persons preferred pronouns, the social workers report noted...     

This is open admission (I appreciate their honesty in the screening process, FWIW) that they would not provide the support that  such a child would need.  Pretty much any medical professional trained in treatment of gender dysphoria could verify the negative effects of the Burke's ignorant attitudes. 

[Hairy Lime]

Except the state bureaucrats are denying Catholics a chance to be foster parents to ANY child.

Liar.

Foster parents cannot pick and choose based on their prejudices.

The Burkes said they had NO desire to pick annd choose, read the facts.

  All that one couple had to do to qualify as foster parents was not declare a need to weed out alphabet children.

Which the Burkes did not.

   How would your shipost have gone if they'd preemptively said No Blacks.

They made no distinctions

Would you be here justifying why people declaring they can't love a black child should still be foster parents?

You are embarrassing yourself.

Saying "But with regard to LGBT issues, she also said their faith is not supportive and neither are they" is picking and choosing. Not that you will be honest enough to admit that. He'll, you are not even honest enough to admit that copying a quote that was used by an Op Ed to make the same argument you are making is not citing that Op Ed. But then you have always been an intellectually dishonest PROVEN LIAR.

The Burkes made themselves unfit to serve as foster parents by saying their faith is not supportive of some children. You may not like the way that decision by the Burkes gets rephrased, but it is accurate. And the analogy to someone saying their faith would not be supportive of African American chosen is apt. State child services is charged with protecting children not coddling people who hide hate behind religion.

[Espnthree]

From NBC report (quote marks replaced with parentheses due to infamous Elba glitch)

A social workers report attached to the complaint said the couple was asked how they would feel if a child in their care identified as LGBTQ or struggled with their gender identity. Kitty Burke responded by saying (lets take the T out of it) and called gender affirming care (chemical castration) according to the report. She also said  that the child (would need to live a chaste life.)  Both Kitty and Michael Burke expressed hesitation around using a transgender or nonbinary persons preferred pronouns, the social workers report noted...     

This is open admission (I appreciate their honesty in the screening process, FWIW) that they would not provide the support that  such a child would need.  Pretty much any medical professional trained in treatment of gender dysphoria could verify the negative effects of the Burke's ignorant attitudes.

So. A Massachussetts bureaucrat supercedes parental responsibilities and declares a state policy on
dealing with a condition that has yet to be determined anywhere? 
The   Burkes who are eminentlly qualifed to raise children except, in the eyes of unelected pencil pushers, if the child faces doubt about its gender. This should never stand in a free society who protects the individual and religious liberty.
The  Burkes are appealing and will likely prevail.
Just like homosexual couples prevailed in being allowed to adopt.


a parental decision and declares a policy