Following up on their threat, Catholic Charities of Rockford, IL, have voluntarily ended all their adoption and foster care services rather than comply with the civil unions law that will take effect next week. In doing so, the organization terminated $7.5 million in state contracts, fired 58 workers, and likely displaced 350 foster children.
Despite claims of religious freedom, this is what it’s really about:
But the decision had nothing to do with the children (who will do just fine with same-sex families) and nothing to do with religious liberty. It was a blatant choice to prefer discrimination and stigmatization of gays and lesbians over the ability to do important, charitable work.
Pro-life, from conception to birth.
They pick up the game again towards the end of life, preventing people with terminal illnesses from a choice in dying on their own terms.
In between, they are not so pro-life, but pro-control.
In between, they are not so pro-life, but pro-control. FTFY.
So where are the humanistic non religious agencies ready to pick up 7.5 million in state contracts. Sounds like a good opportunity to me.
Gotta change the headline. It’s not the *right* to hate that they prefer; they’ve had that all along. It’s hatred itself they prefer to children.
Is it just me, or is that $21,428.57/child?
One caution: it’s very likely (if a similar event in MA is any guide) that the decision was not made by Catholic Charities, but rather by the local diocesan hierarchy, quite possibly (as in MA) over the objection of CC’s administration.
The Catholic hierarchy and advocates in this country seems, as far as I can tell, to have gone totally wingnut. As in deciding they had to press the wingnut line hook, line, and sinker. Check out this Catholic takedown on support for Ryan’s “plan.”
ebohlman: I didn’t know that (I’m in MA), but then I haven’t been following much for many years.
Boring rabble rousing.
It’s not like they’re all going to go “Ah well, we put a lot of time into adoption, now lets just put our feet up” – there is plenty of other voluntary and charitable work they can be getting on with while they are not able to organise adoptions the way they want.
After all, if the law said you had to do something you objected to, say discriminating against recent immigrants, would you just grin and bear it and keep on working under the new conditions? Nah, you’d be out of there like a shot – and all the people opposing you would be like “Look at how evil he is, abandoning all those adoptees when he could just obey the law and keep working with them, terrible terrible” and they would be idiotic and wrong: you would surely (being such a good person) be investing your time and money in other charitable work of which, I’m sure you agree, there is plenty.
So, tempest in a teacup. An obvious response to something they disagree with. If you care so much about the ‘abandoned’ people the charity was working with, then get out there and arrange your own charity. Of course, you don’t care that much, you only care enough to complain that the voluntary workers chose not to continue working under the new conditions. As is their right, and as is totally moral, as it was a voluntary occupation to begin with. I collect trash from the greenbelt round here in a group, I am under no moral obligation to keep contributing, and will stop if they make a law about it that I do not agree with.
Sonuçta, dedi, eğer yasa sen olur, göçmenlere karşı, ayrımcılık söylemek son itiraz yapmanız bir şey vardı sen sadece katlanmak ve koşullar yeni altında tutmaya çalışıyor? Nah, sen atış gibi orada dışarı ediyorum olabilir – ve olur gibi tüm muhalif insanlar “korkunç korkunç onları Bak, birlikte çalışmaya devam olabilir sadece itaat de nasıl terk kötü, o bütün o adoptees olanlar ve hukuk” ve onlar yanlış ve aptalca olur: Eğer yaptığınız kesinlikle iyi (olmanın böyle bir kişi para ve yatırım olmak zaman) diğer çalışma hayır, kabul ediyorum seni eminim vardır bol orada.
how come the catholic church and the American religious right nutz are sooooo obsessed with anal sex i.e gays…. yet are silent when it comes to the issue of bisexuality? don’t bi’s do something similar to gays when together?