Rockford Catholic Charities of Illinois – a non-profit (NP) dealing with adoption and foster care was not happy when civil union legislation was approved in IL. The NP petitioned, falling back on freedom of religion, to be allowed to discriminate against SS couples.
But the NP was denied as it accepts Federal and State taxpayer funds to be in business. So they quit – turned over 350 kids to the state without concern for what would happen to them now.

Were they ever really concerned? What was the purpose of the NP? We might conclude that they sought to DENY freedom of religion to the children in their care. Obviously since gay couples CANNOT be practicing Catholics then they should not be allowed to raise children.

It makes perfect sense that the Rockford Diocese would only be willing to care for those children who had the best chance of being INDOCTRINATED into the Catholic faith. It’s much easier to oversee that kind of thing when you are the one determining who gets adopt and raise the children.

The irony is that the Rockford Diocese, probably the whole Catholic church, is crying foul as they stand behind freedom of religion even suggesting that some people’s interpretation is against them because is seems more like ‘freedom FROM religion’. Yet to them, they have made no offense to the same freedom of religious expression when they are the ones doing the discriminating.

http://beaconnews.suntimes.com/news/5626920-418/in-objection-to-gay-rights-law-diocese-ends-adoptions-work.html

It occurred to me that Catholics also tend to be voiceful supporters of anti-abortion efforts everywhere. What did they think they would do with over 800,000 unwanted children born each year if abortion is made impossible to have access to? I suppose, like many other cults, they were thinking about a mass indoctrination agenda. (hey they think we have a gay agenda – so I can think they have and indoctrinations agenda).

What do YOU think?

Organizations that are anti-abortion should have to prove they really do care about the lives of the unborn by taking care of the unwanted children that result, otherwise they should have no say in trying to change the abortion laws and they should just shut the hell up and stop contributing to the problem.

everyone has a right to their own opinion... but what about the kids... do they want to be with an SS couple? i always here about gay rights, but do the kids have any rights and freedoms in this matter?

Christians find SS couples offensive and that is something people have to accept, just like everyone is supposed to accept gays. A road that goes two ways is a bi-sexual road apparently and I have no idea what I'm sayin!

they live by their bible, and their bible says it is wrong, to not do it... a sin... so they are supposed to abandon their beliefs to accept SS marriages because they gays say so?

^^^Is that what I was saying, because I still have no idea LOL

i think so.. i'm not very sure either

I think , if they did not agree with the terms of the law which they would have to abide by to run their business, they did right to turn over the business

its better than keeping the business and disobeying the law, its a personal choice to run a business or not,,,,I dont see the issue honestly,,

the civil servant who did not want to marry an interracial couple not too long ago, by what I understand, left his post,,,

as much as I didnt agree with his position on interracial marriage, I feel he made a move of integrity to remove himself knowing he could not abide by the expectations of his post,,,or that he would not abandon his belief(right or wrong) to abide by the expectations

I am opposed to children smoking weed for example, if the laws turned to make it legal to provide it to children and I were running a home for children looking for families, finding myself forced to also give these children to homes where the law said it was perfectly acceptable practice,, I would have to get out of the business of looking for homes for those children in order to not be in disobedience to the law, or my own personal beliefs,,,

The Catholic Church is VERY much against any gay relationship. It is against their faith. A sin against God.

For the state to tell them they must do something that is contrary to their stated beliefs is the state telling a faith group what they are allowed to believe.

To continue to operate as a nonprofit that would do this would be to sacrifice a fundamental belief they hold.

Why is anyone surprised.

Rather than being upset with the church for refusing to to something against their faith, you should be upset with the state for trying to regulate their faith.

I have to respectfully disagree with this. We often hear the sentiment from people of what the 'state' shouldnt do to them with little aknowledgement of what the state actually DOES do for them. Because the business is receiving funds FROM the state, the state should absolutely reserve the right to determine the guidelines under which those funds can be received.

I think it was the honest thing to do to not disobey the laws and to turn the business over so as not to have to neglect their faith.

The argument is that since the government gives money to them they have a right to tell them how to use that money.

The government is fully aware of the Catholic stance on this issue.

The real question is, what was the government trying to do by forcing this issue. The Catholic church had two choices. Swallow this terrible pill or close. If they close you knew you would get reactions like the OP. "How dare they close. Obviously they don't care about these kids."

Is that what the government wanted to accomplish here? Make Catholic charities look bad by forcing them to make a terrible choice.

I think the government was allowing its constituents to make a choice of what they wanted and the majority in THAT STATE decided they wanted to do it that way. Its not always what we want as citizens, but in a democracy , the people are supposed to have some say and in this case more said yes than no and so it went.

i suppose we could toss out the first amendment so somebody can decide who "should just shut the hell up". i think the supremes got roe v wade right as a legal and social matter, the fourteenth amendment assures equal due process for all regardless of sex. what a woman chooses to do with her body is no place for the government to intervene. but as a moral and ethical issue i'm a hard line anti-abortionist for any abortion other than the health of the woman. that a child is unwanted is not the fault of the fetus so why should it pay with it's life when adoption is an alternative?

sure the kids have rights, but those rights are limited until the age of eighteen, even twenty one where alcohol is involved. for the most part, our rights are limited to equal due process meaning that laws restricting our rights, of which there are many, apply equally to all persons. all persons must have reached the age of eighteen to be considered adults and have the right to vote. all persons in a given state must be sixteen to drive. all person's have the right at age eighteen to determine who will perform parenting duties.

So, a kid that is being adopted by a homosexual couple that REALLY doesn't want to go has no choice but to be taken by them?

According to this, a 17 year old that has a child has no say in what happens in their kids life either.

The issue in this case is what WAS their mission in the first place?
Was it to make sure that all those children were being raised in the Catholic faith? What is a mission of mercy to assist children in finding a loving, nurturning environment in which to grow and develop?

It seems to me their mission should not have changed all that much, at least, not if the well-being of the children was their main concern. Every couple/ person undergoes the same rigerous review process to determine their ability and capabiltiy to care for a child.

The child is already here, as long as there is a safe and caring environemnt for that child to be in, shouldn't the mission be to place the child there? Instead, they seem to be admitting that the state can care for and place these kids as well as they could without discriminating.

So why was funding granted to this charity when it could have just as easily gone to the state effort which would have employed many people without regard for their religious beliefs.

In other words, all the time that the Catholic chariety was receiveing Federal or State funding - our tax dollars were being used to support and recognize people specifically becasue they were Catholic - becasue the only employees were all Catholic.

Now we find that this charity feels they were no better at what they did than the State - except perhaps that they were able to place children predominently with Catholic guardians.

NOW they are complaining that they are being denied their right to practice their religious freedoms. HUH? THEY took our tax dollars and discriminated against other religious people and non-religious, forced that religion onto the children in their care at OUR expense and then when they are told they cannot discriminate agains SS couples THEY are the ones who were wronged?????

There are deeply disturbing thought patterns in many religious minds but this example is striking.

acting according to your beliefs is wrong?

Well it's one thing to act on your beliefs for something that is only gonna effect you, but when you're talking about thousands of kids being effected as well, you have to do what's best for them too. Sometimes in order to do that, you have to put your own bias aside IMO.

It's not the government who complies - it's the government who creates the paperwork and it was the Catholic Charity who AGREED to the stipulations.

The government is not FORCING the issue - the Constitution is.

I perfectly happy with the charity closing down, now maybe the state can hire more personel and get receive the extra dollars and likely more kids can be place without the rigid adharence to placement with Catholic parents and guardiens of opposite sex only.

There are literally thousands of homes available to these kids, and with the new Civil Union legislation more will SS couples will qualify as both adoptive and foster parents.

It's the kids who are important not a religioun, not a religious belief. Kids have been raised in homes filled with sinful parents since the word sin was 'devolved'. Many have turned out pretty good, but if the Charity is more conceren about their DOGMA than about these kids, they shouldn't have been in the busines in the first place.

i see your point, but i have no idea if thats what the case was...is there any evidence of this? or is it like msharmony says, they are just acting on faith... it stands to reason they would want to help the catholic church, but wouldn't that be against the law, if say a jewish couple came in and they didn't want to give them a kid? but the kids should have some kind of say in the matter, not just thrown to the first couple that comes along...