Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.

[theVOID]

Nice quote vortex. I'll try to parse this.

Where? I had one broken quote tag, but that did not create a quote vortex, it resulted in ONE LINE of your post being outside the quote tags with a "[qutoe]" after it.

And now you've broken the context...

I'd already started by the time i saw you fixed the context.

1.) They do when the beliefs can have an adverse effect on a ward of the state.

You're just asserting that these beliefs would have an adverse effect on the child, the only adverse effect possible is that the child says something to offend someone else at a later point in time... Big fucking deal.

2.) I've given you both objective & subjective principles. Please quit trying to move the goalposts on me.

How and where did I attempt to do that? Disagreeing with your principle and thinking you are applying them inconsistently, resulting in a double standard, is NOT moving the goal posts.

3.) As I've said, the rights of natural parents supersede the rights of foster parents & potential adopters.

I know you've said that, you haven't explained WHY.

4.) I'm not sure what you are getting at, I've never said anything about anti-religious beliefs. We are talking about protected classes here. You are putting words in my mouth that have little to do with the matter at hand.

"Protected classes" is an arbitrary constraint you are using to mask your double standard. You believe that we should prevent people who are homophobic or racist from fostering or adopting children but not people who are just as hateful towards atheists or religious groups - When asked WHY you come up with the arbitrary "protected classes" you and DvF say something like "can't be otherwise" or "born that way" as if someone's potential not to believe in Islam in some alternative state of affairs entitles them to less protection from bigotry, it's the double standard that you must necessarily have in order not to be seen promoting a situation that would be an absolute detriment to the entire fostering/adoption system, that of letting no person with any bigotry adopt - There aren't enough families willing to foster relative to the number of children in need ALREADY, cracking down on something with such a small impact in the big picture would be detrimental to the welfare of the children.

5.) I am against bigotry period, not sure why you would think otherwise. I've never said anything should or shouldn't apply to people with anti-religious / atheist attitudes. I mentioned they were both protected classes in the workplace. Please stop attributing things to me that I didn't say.

So because Catholics generally would refuse to promote pro-gay attitudes we should prevent them from adopting? That would have a fucking terrible effect on the overall welfare of children needing foster care.

6.) Protected classes. Not sure why you can't understand that. If for some reason you don't think that children are very, very malleable when they are young then you are sorely mistaken.

I'm saying that your "protected classes" are bullshit, either measures to prevent bigotry are to be applied consistently or not at all, using "protected classes" to slice that bigotry blanket is a double standard.

7.) You are saying it's ok to promote racist & homophobic values to a child, I will never agree with you on that point. I will further never agree that the state shouldn't do what is legally in their power to do to prevent that from happening when it is in their ward's best interest. The well being of the ward trumps any privilege that you seem to think the couple in question has.

It's just as okay to promote racist and homophobic values as it is to promote anti-religious/atheist values, are you or are you not for preventing someone who refuses to promote a pro-atheist attitude from adopting?

8.) Yes, that is correct other than we are not talking about adoption.

No idea what the context is here.

9.) Then you wouldn't be allowed to adopt either. Not having free time to care for a child & not making certain things available to a foster child are pretty big issues. I don't expect you to see that since you are way too hung up on the other side of this issue (The "rights" of the foster couple).

I agreed that not having sufficient time to properly care for the child was an acceptable criteria as it has a direct and significant impact on the welfare of the child. Telling them that it's not okay for gays to marry DOES NOT.

Not Rights either, I never said that people have a right to adopt because I don't believe anyone has any rights as far as an "increase" in value is concerned, rights are only concerned with the rights of someone not to have another person "decrease" the value of their life, such as your right to be free from force, coercion, fraud and negligence.

I simply have a problem with your double standard and the implications of being consistent when applying protections against bigotry on the state of the foster system, It will have a far bigger negative effect than positive.

10.) Not sure how I'd feel about that. Men aren't a protected class, but if they were vocal & obvious about it I don't think I'd place a child with them either, if I was the adoption agent.

Again with the "protected classes" bullshit! You absolutely require this double standard to avoid having a position that would have an obvious negative impact on the foster system.