Michael and Catherine Burke allege that the state’s Department of Children and Families discriminated against them for their Catholic viewpoints.
This is why LGBTQ rights is so important. Imagine being a foster kids because of the US failed social safety net, only to be re homed in a religious bigoted house?! That’s what the GOP wants for kids.
“This is why protecting traditional families is so important. Imagine being a foster kids because of the US failed social safety net, only to be re homed in a LGBT groomer house?! That’s what the GOP wants for kids.”
I literally just changed two things and it went 180 degrees on the other extremist side of the spectrum. Do with that info as you wish
And with such a simple change, you turned it into a disgusting and bigoted lie, when the person you responded to was completely accurate.
Do with that info as you wish
You mean put it into proper context, look at the stats, and acknowledge you’re full of shit? Sure thing! But you won’t let facts get in the way of your feelings amirite?
Yeah, you can make anything sound bad when you just lie and make shit up.
Could say the same of you calling everyone that points out the dangers of dehumanising “bigots”
You can say anything, that doesn’t make it correct. And it’s funny how people call themselves out, because I only call people exhibiting bigotry bigots.
If you’re being called a bigot, maybe examine your beliefs and actions. After all, if it smells like shit everywhere you go, it’s probably you.
If thinking having two halves of a country willing to kill each other to be insane makes people call you a bigot, maybe I’m not the one that stinks after all
No one thinks you’re a bigot for that belief, climb down off your cross or just be honest about your actions.
Yet I’m being called one for it
Given that the vast majority of child exploitation happens in heterosexual, traditional families… I’m going to call bullshit. Changing words does not change the reality of child exploitation, nor does it excuse your hiding behind a bigoted little stance because something something tradition.
If tradition involves bigotry or hate, tradition can fuck all of the way off, forever.
Uhhhh what? One, “traditional families” aren’t anti LGBTQ by default. Second, LGBTQ parents aren’t groomers. (can LGBTQ individuals be terrible humans just like everyone else? Yes!) Third, asking a foster family if they hate LGBTQ people is critical for the safety of foster children because mathematically 10% will be LGBTQ. And since there’s no “Gaydar” to tell you can’t risk putting any child with them!
You didn’t prove anything except how ignorant you are. Do with that info as you wish
Pendantic though it may be… 30 percent is more accurate for children in foster care to be LGBTQIA+. Many lose their homes of origin and support BECAUSE they are LGBTQIA+ so the instance is way higher.
Kind of a no brainer to have homo/transphobic foster parents struck from the rolls. It’s enough to be traumatized once by having your authentic self rejected by a supposed safe haven. Twice is unconscionable.
You changed two things and into something imaginary. There is no such thing as an “LGBT groomer house.” You can’t force a child to be gay or trans no matter how much you want to.
You might as well say “only to be rehomed in a dragon’s den.” It would make about the same amount of sense.
Have fun having your comments being removed bigot
Removed by mod
Sounds like the kinda family that if their teenager says they’re gay, will abuse and abandon them.
So yeah, they can go suck an egg.
Thank goodness the system works. Michael is an absolute scumbag.
They’re asking the court to get rid of that discriminatory denial so that they will not be barred from fostering or adopting children in the future, in Massachusetts or elsewhere.
Stop discriminating against our discrimination! Thanks for the good laugh, Michael and Catherine Burke.
deleted by creator
Becket previously represented Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch in Fulton v. Philadelphia, a 2021 Supreme Court case that unanimously ruled in favor of a Catholic adoption agency’s right to refuse to place children with LGBTQ couples.
This highlights the hypocrisy that is endemic in the Catholic church these days. The couple feels they were discriminated against in the approval process due to their anti-Trans views, yet they are using a lawyer who was happy to take the opposite view when a Catholic adoption agency wanted to discriminate against LGBTQ couples.
Unfortunately, a key difference is that it’s the State doing it in this case, and a private agency before. That may end up being the difference here. It still doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic Church seems much more Interested in politics and litigating than actually helping people.
Or America is really just fucked up
Yeah, child abuse isn’t an ideal trait to have if you intend to be the legal guardian of children.
Sounds like it’s God’s plan for them to stay the fuck away from children. First sensible thing that asshat’s done.
deleted by creator
good? why should children be indoctrinated into bigotry
I think that until the church does a few strong demonstrations that they are not fiddling with children anymore - like, say, a public commitment to turn all allegations of child abuse over to secular authorities, like Biden just did with the military - that they should not be allowed access to children that they don’t produce themselves.
Cat: They shouldn’t even be allowed access to the children they do make themselves.
That’s a much more difficult one to defend, from a legal or ethical or moral stance.
My opinion is that teaching a child religion as the only truth is child abuse, without telling the child that there are also people who believe there are no supernatural phenomena in the universe and explaining their best arguments for their viewpoint. It’s no different than existing in a society of hunters and not teaching the kid to hunt. We win by knowing more, not by being stronger or tougher or purer in dog’s eyes or whatever.
But my opinion is no basis for passing laws and such. When you’re talking about who should take care of orphans, or of kids who have been subject to treatment that the law agrees is abuse, the mere having of bad viewpoints which are nonetheless legal is not sufficient grounds, if you ask me. Many religious people would consider my above opinion to be bad at best and hate speech at worst, for instance, but I think my wife and I would do alright taking care of a kid, if we had the time and resources to give.
But IF the people proposing to take a child into their care are regular attendees of the meetings of an organization that is known to protect pedophiles, that is definitely grounds to turn down that application on very solid legal footing, if you ask me.
Cat: If someone can’t be trusted to treat an adopted kid right, they can’t be trusted to treat any kid right. End of story.
Well, I’m already on the record as to my view of what constitutes child abuse; the fact of the matter is that we have to live with a lot of people doing a lot of things that we don’t like to children in a free society in 2023.
What is kinda good from my 50-odd year perspective is that people are not quite so entitled now as they were when I was a kid.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
The state cannot start being allowed to make determinations about what religious groups may and may not adopt children. Thats fundamentally on so many levels not fucking ok.
We can and should as long as it’s based on relevant behavior not religious affiliation. If you don’t believe in using proscribed antibiotics you should not be caring for kids, for example. I don’t care if it’s because your god told you they were evil or because you think your healing crystals are better.
the determination should be based on your ability to care for the child emotionally, physically and psychologically. if you can’t do all 3, then you’re unfit to be a parent.
So:
- They expressed bigoted views
- The SW passed them through anyway, “with conditions” which likely include “just don’t give this couple any gay kids”
- They were ultimately denied for reasons not stated
- We actually have no other information about what they said apart from they don’t like gay or trans kids
I think point 2 kinda invalidates the lawsuit, and point 4 is going to become extremely relevant when we find out they were fine with hitting kids who misbehaved or something.
The article calls this a “complaint” rather than a “lawsuit” so I guess this is moot.
The couple seems to think people have the right to foster by default, and the regulation sets out conditions for when this right can be revoked.
I’m not sure of the actual law, but it seems to me that the right to foster should be granted on a case by case basis. Regulation should set the necessary requirements, but the department should have the final say on the sufficient requirements. And the department should be allowed to revoke an application for any reason or even no (stated) reason.
Like, you shouldn’t just have the right to foster by default.
