Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

The Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court Hold the Record as the World's Most Expensive Whores...
Crime by Ponderer     February 29, 2024 10:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (40 comments) [354 views]


Voters Doubt Biden’s Leadership and Favor Trump, Times/Siena Poll Finds
President by HatetheSwamp     March 3, 2024 4:06 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [7 views]


US says Israel has agreed to the framework for a Gaza cease-fire. Hamas must now decide
Military by HatetheSwamp     March 3, 2024 3:30 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [8 views]


James Comer is not sure an impeachment of Biden is warranted
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 4:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (12 comments) [106 views]


James Comer has been big on promises, short on delivery. MAGA is feeling let down.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 1:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (6 comments) [80 views]


Bad news for the Doddering Old Fool: Polls stagnant since the Hur Report
President by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 4:57 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (4 comments) [28 views]


Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (11 comments) [172 views]


Ex-Jim Biden business partner disputes loan testimony before Congress
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 2, 2024 3:07 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [19 views]


So, Curt, can you still say that there's "NO EVIDENCE" that Joe was involved in the Crime Family?
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (15 comments) [113 views]


Oversight and Judiciary Committees Release Hunter Biden Transcript
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 5:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (13 comments) [100 views]


Government selectors, pages, etc.
Hoping for Curt's inside scoop: Oregon’s Ban On Christians Adopting Violates The First Amendment — And Good Sense
By HatetheSwamp
April 17, 2023 7:20 am
Category: Government

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

...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.


Curt,

I know your refrain, "But pb, pb, rights aren't absolute!"

So, are you a radical Big Brother progressive, a typical Oregonian or, are those two the same thing?

I do wonder how accurate the national reporting is that we're getting. But, if it is accurate, how are y'nes thinking that the Supreme Court won't smash this to smithereens?

What say you?


Cited and related links:

  1. thefederalist.com

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Hoping for Curt's inside scoop: Oregon’s Ban On Christians Adopting Violates The First Amendment — And Good Sense":

  1. by Ponderer on April 17, 2023 7:38 am

    Well, Bill, your side is currently unconstitutionally foisting its religious convictions into our legal system, forcing women to adhere to your particular religious beliefs, ruining their lives or even killing them because your religious dogma is being made the law of the land.

    Why do you believe that your side gets to violate the Constitution, but no one else is allowed to?

    Does it have something to do with how your side believes that none of your political leaders should be held accountable to the law like everyone else is? Or how they should be allowed to commit treasonous and homicidal acts of insurrection against the government without any repercussions at all? Or how sex scandals only count when they are focused on a Democrat? Or how only Republicans are ever elected without any election fraud?

    I have a feeling that all of it stems from your boundless hypocrisy. Which in itself probably stems from the fact that you're all apparently a bunch of shameless, immoral assholes.


  2. by HatetheSwamp on April 17, 2023 7:47 am

    Based on the reporting I've seen, po, you have entirely inverted the facts.

    But, po, even were you not, "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise of religion." -The First Amendment to the US Constitution

    We are a free people. Whether you like it or not.


  3. by Hunter28 on April 17, 2023 7:58 am

    Hater:

    Yes, adoption is fraught with difficulties. You can solve most of these problems with an abortion pill.

    Assuming you have accurately portrayed the issue in Oregon -- which I'm reluctant to do given your past behavior -- I would advise waiting on any kind of legislation like this until we have more of a public consensus on trans issues.

    This probably means we wait until old conservative folks die. This is what happened on the issue of gay marriage. It was really unpopular. Old conservatives died. Young people were OK with it, and public opinion shifted. After a few years, nobody above ground had much of a problem with it. Time is our friend.


  4. by HatetheSwamp on April 17, 2023 8:16 am

    28,

    In my threads, bold print indicates a direct copy and paste from a news source. This is from THE FEDERALIST, not THE NATIONAL ESQUIRER.

    It is an opinion piece so there's that. You may disagree with the opinion but the reporting of fact is trustworthy...still, I am asking Curt, who lives in Oregon.

    The issue here is one of the constitutionality of the law. Unless the reporting is flawed, this is so obvious a violation of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment that it's absurd. So, I'm asking Curt.

    In the real world, I have some background in Supreme Court decisions on the Religion Clauses.

    It's true that, in the Dobbs abortion case, the Court declared abortion to be a matter settled "by the people and their representatives." Still, it's impossible for me to imagine that the Court would endorse so, apparently, obvious a violation of the First Amendment.


  5. by Hunter28 on April 17, 2023 8:41 am

    Hater:

    You really are a precious snowflake.

    First, I didn't realize this was a private love letter between you and Curt. If you're only asking him/her/them a message, send an e-mail or get a room. When you put it on a public forum, you're inviting everyone to chime in.

    Second, so what if the forms require Christian families to abide by an agreement? Atheists don't really trust in god when they have to use money or take an oath that says, "So help me god." We smile and ignore it. The question on the form can easily be ignored. I guess it depends on what's more important to the parents -- adopting or virtue signalling.


  6. by HatetheSwamp on April 17, 2023 8:56 am

    FYI 28,

    Curt owns SS. According to po, he and I have been chatting in his forums for 21 years, and that seems about right. Curt knows a lot of stuff, though we rarely agree about anything. He'll be a more reliable reporter of fact about this than any media source. What he reveals will inform all dialog on this thread.


    As far as the unconstitutional violation of religious freedom is concerned, the state can't impose anything even remotely resembling a belief system on effin ANYONE...according to Supreme Court precedent.

    It's a matter of life in a nation in which citizens are granted extraordinary freedom in the face of governmental interference. My guess is that you oppose Christians being free.


  7. by Curt_Anderson on April 17, 2023 9:11 am
    The story is news to me, so I don’t have any inside information on it. However, in reading a news report about it which I link to below, it’s not that the woman was a Christian. It was her refusal to agree to accept the child’s sexual orientation whatever it may be. As much abuse as there is of foster children, that seems like a reasonable precaution for the state to take before shipping kids off into unknown circumstances.
    kptv.com


  8. by HatetheSwamp on April 17, 2023 9:26 am

    If this is true:

    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.

    As I understand Supreme Court precedent, this is the state discriminating, imposing religious doctrine on a private citizen.

    As I say, unlike po, I'm not a constitutional law professor at an Ivy League school but, from what I see, that blanket regulation violates the First Amendment.

    My prediction is that the regulation will be upheld in the Appeals Court and overturned by the Supreme Court.

    The article Curt linked to tells the same story.


  9. by oldedude on April 17, 2023 10:38 am
    From the lead post.

    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.

    Yeah... if this isn't overturned by the state circuit court, it will in federal. It's a violation of Title XII.

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
    This law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex. The law also makes it illegal to retaliate against a person because the person complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination...

    The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.



    eeoc.gov


Go To Top

Comment on: "Hoping for Curt's inside scoop: Oregon’s Ban On Christians Adopting Violates The First Amendment — And Good Sense"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page