Michigan law allows adoption agencies to say no to gays

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
LANSING, Mich. — Faith-based adoption agencies will be allowed to refuse to serve prospective parents, such as same-sex or unmarried couples, if doing so would go against their religious beliefs in a package of bills that Michigan's governor signed Thursday.

Gov. Rick Snyder said the legislation codifies existing state practice for private agencies with contracts to place children and ensures as many organizations as possible are involved in helping kids be adopted.

The Republican-controlled state Senate sent the bill Wednesday to Snyder as the U.S. Supreme Court is on the verge of ruling later this month on whether same-sex marriages should be legal nationwide.

The Senate version included a requirement that faith-based adoption agencies provide referrals to other agencies if they refuse service to prospective parents. So the bill went back to the state House where it received a quick concurrence vote, passing 65-44.

Snyder had been coy about whether he would support the bills. Earlier this year he said the adoption bills would need further review and that he's in favor of children being adopted by "loving families" and "loving parents." He didn't specify whether that included same-sex couples.

Michigan. along with Louisiana and Mississippi, already places restrictions on same-sex couples adopting children, according to the Family Equality Council, a Boston-based nonprofit that says it represents 3 million LGBT parents.

On Wednesday, Snyder spokeswoman Sara Wurfel, had said the governor would carefully review the bills "through the lens of what will ensure that we are taking care of the most Michigan children, and matching them with their forever families."

Critics of the bills derided the legislation as state-sanctioned discrimination — especially because many of the faith-based agencies receive state money. But supporters say the new law will help keep all options open for adoptive parents while not forcing the agencies to compromise their principles for fear of legal retaliation or face closure because of a loss of public money.

In the 2014-15 budget year, $19.9 million in state and federal monies went toward supporting agencies for adoption and foster care services, according to the state Department of Human Services. Nearly $10 million of that total went to faith-based agencies that would be covered under the religious objection bills.

"If they close their doors, I don't know what we'll do with all the children," GOP Sen. Rick Jones of Grand Ledge, Mich., said Wednesday after the state Senate vote. "This is a real threat."

GOP Sen. Tom Casperson of Escanaba, Mich., quoted scripture, saying Jesus told a woman accused of adultery, "'Go and sin no more.' He called it out. He didn't just accept it and say, 'Live however you want.' The creator is pretty clear on certain things."

But opponents said the bills just signed legalize discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities as well as unmarried couples.

"These RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) adoption bills are the most egregious example of religious conservatism run amok in our government," said Sen. Coleman Young, a Detroit Democrat. "Children are in desperate need of stable and loving homes. And today, we're slashing those opportunities because of archaic, closed-minded thinking."

Other Democrats said the timing of the Senate action is clear.

"Similar laws are being passed to push back against the eventual legalization of same-sex marriage," said Sen. Curtis Hertel Jr., a Democrat from East Lansing, Mich. "You're once again on the wrong side of history."

Democrats had tried to get eight amendments passed that would have, among other things:

• Required faith-based agencies to provide their policies in writing to potential clients, on their websites and in their facilities as well as comply with state and federal civil-rights laws

• Prohibited adoption agencies that receive more than $500,000 in state money from being able to use the religious objection argument.

• And allowed for second parent adoptions for unmarried couples.

All of those amendments failed. Only one Republican, GOP Sen. Tory Rocca of Sterling Heights, Mich., voted against the bills.

Snyder has said he would veto a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which caused furor recently in Arkansas and in Indiana, without an expansion of Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to include the LGBT community. But he hasn't made the same promise on the adoption bills.

The religious-freedom bill would provide a legal defense for a business subject to state action for refusing services to individuals based on the owner's religious beliefs.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/11/gay-unmarried-couple-adoption-michigan/71058222/
 

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Gay adoption ban stricken from Florida laws after 4 decades

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- The nearly four-decade-old law that prevents gays from adopting children will disappear from Florida's statutes on July 1.

Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill Thursday that removes the language -- though the ban hasn't been enforced for the past five years.

The bill signed by Scott also promotes adoption, but the original language was changed to include a provision removing the gay adoption ban from state law.

While conservative Republicans objected to the idea, others said that it simply changes the law to reflect reality.

A judge ruled five years ago that the state's ban was unconstitutional.

House Republicans sought to pass legislation that would have allowed private adoption agencies from refusing gay couples, but that effort date late in the regular legislative session that ended last month.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/state/gay-adoption-ban-stricken-from-florida-laws-after-4-decades
 

hoichi

Well-Known Member
LANSING, Mich. — Faith-based adoption agencies will be allowed to refuse to serve prospective parents, such as same-sex or unmarried couples, if doing so would go against their religious beliefs in a package of bills that Michigan's governor signed Thursday.

Gov. Rick Snyder said the legislation codifies existing state practice for private agencies with contracts to place children and ensures as many organizations as possible are involved in helping kids be adopted.

The Republican-controlled state Senate sent the bill Wednesday to Snyder as the U.S. Supreme Court is on the verge of ruling later this month on whether same-sex marriages should be legal nationwide.

The Senate version included a requirement that faith-based adoption agencies provide referrals to other agencies if they refuse service to prospective parents. So the bill went back to the state House where it received a quick concurrence vote, passing 65-44.

Snyder had been coy about whether he would support the bills. Earlier this year he said the adoption bills would need further review and that he's in favor of children being adopted by "loving families" and "loving parents." He didn't specify whether that included same-sex couples.

Michigan. along with Louisiana and Mississippi, already places restrictions on same-sex couples adopting children, according to the Family Equality Council, a Boston-based nonprofit that says it represents 3 million LGBT parents.

On Wednesday, Snyder spokeswoman Sara Wurfel, had said the governor would carefully review the bills "through the lens of what will ensure that we are taking care of the most Michigan children, and matching them with their forever families."

Critics of the bills derided the legislation as state-sanctioned discrimination — especially because many of the faith-based agencies receive state money. But supporters say the new law will help keep all options open for adoptive parents while not forcing the agencies to compromise their principles for fear of legal retaliation or face closure because of a loss of public money.

In the 2014-15 budget year, $19.9 million in state and federal monies went toward supporting agencies for adoption and foster care services, according to the state Department of Human Services. Nearly $10 million of that total went to faith-based agencies that would be covered under the religious objection bills.

"If they close their doors, I don't know what we'll do with all the children," GOP Sen. Rick Jones of Grand Ledge, Mich., said Wednesday after the state Senate vote. "This is a real threat."

GOP Sen. Tom Casperson of Escanaba, Mich., quoted scripture, saying Jesus told a woman accused of adultery, "'Go and sin no more.' He called it out. He didn't just accept it and say, 'Live however you want.' The creator is pretty clear on certain things."

But opponents said the bills just signed legalize discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities as well as unmarried couples.

"These RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) adoption bills are the most egregious example of religious conservatism run amok in our government," said Sen. Coleman Young, a Detroit Democrat. "Children are in desperate need of stable and loving homes. And today, we're slashing those opportunities because of archaic, closed-minded thinking."

Other Democrats said the timing of the Senate action is clear.

"Similar laws are being passed to push back against the eventual legalization of same-sex marriage," said Sen. Curtis Hertel Jr., a Democrat from East Lansing, Mich. "You're once again on the wrong side of history."

Democrats had tried to get eight amendments passed that would have, among other things:

• Required faith-based agencies to provide their policies in writing to potential clients, on their websites and in their facilities as well as comply with state and federal civil-rights laws

• Prohibited adoption agencies that receive more than $500,000 in state money from being able to use the religious objection argument.

• And allowed for second parent adoptions for unmarried couples.

All of those amendments failed. Only one Republican, GOP Sen. Tory Rocca of Sterling Heights, Mich., voted against the bills.

Snyder has said he would veto a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which caused furor recently in Arkansas and in Indiana, without an expansion of Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to include the LGBT community. But he hasn't made the same promise on the adoption bills.

The religious-freedom bill would provide a legal defense for a business subject to state action for refusing services to individuals based on the owner's religious beliefs.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/11/gay-unmarried-couple-adoption-michigan/71058222/
This is good..no one should be forced to go against their religious beliefs..
 

hoichi

Well-Known Member
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- The nearly four-decade-old law that prevents gays from adopting children will disappear from Florida's statutes on July 1.

Republican Gov. Rick Scott signed a bill Thursday that removes the language -- though the ban hasn't been enforced for the past five years.

The bill signed by Scott also promotes adoption, but the original language was changed to include a provision rmoving the gay adoption ban from state law.

While conservative Republicans objected to the idea, others said that it simply changes the law to reflect reality.

A judge ruled five years ago that the state's ban was unconstitutional.

House Republicans sought to pass legislation that would have allowed private adoption agencies from refusing gay couples, but that effort date late in the regular legislative session that ended last month.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/state/gay-adoption-ban-stricken-from-florida-laws-after-4-decades
This is Good.
The state shouldnt prevent people fro, adopting on the basis of sexual orientation...
 

hoichi

Well-Known Member
Hoichi, that's two different opinions you expressed. :hmm:
On two different things...
OnE is a law potecting peopes right to refuse to do soemthing aganst their religious beliefs, the other a law protecting gays from being discriminsted against..
Both sre gokd things...
 

caz

Active Member
On another thread it says children of gay parents do well and encouraging gay parents.Not sure about Jesus telling prostitute got forth and sin no more got anything to do with adopting kids.I would be worried about this sort of attitude.Child needs love and good parenting I think Jesus would be more for that
 

CrazyPaul

Active Member
On two different things...
OnE is a law potecting peopes right to refuse to do soemthing aganst their religious beliefs, the other a law protecting gays from being discriminsted against..
Both sre gokd things...
Alright, for example, you have a religious belief against gay people and I don't have a religious belief but I am against gay people.

I discriminate against gay people and you don't?
 

Jezie

Well-Known Member
Alright, for example, you have a religious belief against gay people and I don't have a religious belief but I am against gay people.

I discriminate against gay people and you don't?
On this I have to agree with hoichi ... it is two separate things.... a business should not be forced to do something they morally or ethically find repulsive.... but at the same time gay or other groups should still be allowed to adopt if they want and should not be held back because of their orientation or aspect that is considered disqualifying by closed mindedness....
 

hoichi

Well-Known Member
On this I have to agree with hoichi ... it is two separate things.... a business should not be forced to do something they morally or ethically find repulsive.... but at the same time gay or other groups should still be allowed to adopt if they want and should not be held back because of their orientation or aspect that is considered disqualifying by closed mindedness....
Yep
 

CrazyPaul

Active Member
On this I have to agree with hoichi ... it is two separate things.... a business should not be forced to do something they morally or ethically find repulsive.... but at the same time gay or other groups should still be allowed to adopt if they want and should not be held back because of their orientation or aspect that is considered disqualifying by closed mindedness....
LOL, as a matter of a fact, religious people are close-minded. FYI, I am not anti-gay, Foxrac knows.

If the religious people who own an adoption business and they have rights to say no to gay parents who want to adopt a child, they are close-minded. That's really very unfortunate. However I predict that the new law won't last long. Just wait and see. Once it's found unconstitutional by Supreme Court, they will give up their businesses just like the well-known anti-gay bakery.
 

Jezie

Well-Known Member
LOL, as a matter of a fact, religious people are close-minded. FYI, I am not anti-gay, Foxrac knows.

If the religious people who own an adoption business and they have rights to say no to gay parents who want to adopt a child, they are close-minded. That's really very unfortunate. However I predict that the new law won't last long. Just wait and see. Once it's found unconstitutional by Supreme Court, they will give up their businesses just like the well-known anti-gay bakery.
Hmm...no, not all religious people are closed minded....heck I cannot even give it to the majority of them...businesses should not be forced to close just because they are anti anything....if it is against thwir moral or religious beliefs they should not have to go against them....
 

CrazyPaul

Active Member
Hmm...no, not all religious people are closed minded....heck I cannot even give it to the majority of them...businesses should not be forced to close just because they are anti anything....if it is against thwir moral or religious beliefs they should not have to go against them....
Right, not all of them, I should say some.

Not forcing to close the business...but if the new law is found unconstitutional, they must obey human rights laws. Otherwise they shouldn't have run the business in the first place. You know very well that America is all about human rights. In other words, human rights beat religion beliefs in America. Don't believe me? How come there are more gay marriages allowed in many states? Human rights at the top and religious beliefs at the bottom.
 

Jezie

Well-Known Member
Right, not all of them, I should say some.

Not forcing to close the business...but if the new law is found unconstitutional, they must obey human rights laws. Otherwise they shouldn't have run the business in the first place. You know very well that America is all about human rights.
And what about the rights of the business? What makes it right to force beliefs onto the businesses.... I do not believe they should be able to use "beliefs" to discriminate.... but a Christian establishment has strong beliefs about it....what's next forcing a Jewish restaurant to serve pork? No...the beliefs of the establishment should be protected and the people that do not like their beliefs should juat not go there....
 

CrazyPaul

Active Member
And what about the rights of the business? What makes it right to force beliefs onto the businesses.... I do not believe they should be able to use "beliefs" to discriminate.... but a Christian establishment has strong beliefs about it....what's next forcing a Jewish restaurant to serve pork? No...the beliefs of the establishment should be protected and the people that do not like their beliefs should juat not go there....
What does that have to do with human rights? For example, some restaurants don't serve hamburgers, they don't violate the laws at all. Honestly, that's getting ridiculous about what they offer. Do you expect KFC to offer lobster dinners?

BTW, I edited my previous post after this post of yours so in case you didn't read my edited post, please re-read it. Thanks.
 

Jezie

Well-Known Member
What does that have to do with human rights? For example, some restaurants don't serve hamburgers, they don't violate the laws at all. Honestly, that's getting ridiculous about what they offer. Do you expect KFC to offer lobster dinners?

BTW, I edited my previous post after this post of yours so in case you didn't read my edited post, please re-read it. Thanks.
What does it have to do with it.... simple, the constitutional rights of the people, in which states among many things the rights of religion and persute of happiness ...this should protect both parties.... just because two men should be allowed to be married...does not mean that a Christian church should be forced to marry them....or a Christian bakery whose beliefs are well known be forced to make their cake.... now if they are just being a bigot then that is another story....but both groups should be protected.
 

caz

Active Member
do this apply to transgender who had the operation.Complicated if mum is already a dad and want to adopt
 

PowerON

Active Member
You know very well that America is all about human rights. In other words, human rights beat religion beliefs in America. Don't believe me? How come there are more gay marriages allowed in many states? Human rights at the top and religious beliefs at the bottom.
Don't be bitter. There are always other adopted agency that allow. They cannot simple fight by focus on one agency. Just lousy one agency. They're act like Dick Moby.
 
Top