...does what it says on the tin. Adoption agencies : comments.
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|||
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25 |
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
If "personal conscience" is more important than preventing discrimination, then that should be a reason for these discrimination laws not to exist at all for the provision of goods and services - for all people (not just Catholic adoption agencies), and for all forms of discrimination (remembering that the law also covers discrimination based on belief, and that there are already laws for race and disability).
Otherwise, there needs to be a compelling argument (a) why adoption agencies should be different, and (b) why discriminating on sexual orientation is different.
I can potentially see an argument for (a), in that it would not be unreasonable to only have this law for some businesses (e.g., I think it's more of a problem if someone is refused accomodation for being gay, compared to something more trivial), but I've yet to see anyone making that argument, instead we just see "Wah, it's unfair we have to follow a law if we disagree with it!"
By that logic, we should scrap all laws, because someone's "personal conscience" might not be okay with it. E.g., since we allow doctors "freedom of conscience", we should allow people "freedom of conscience" to murder people ... sure, this may not be the same as murder, but you've got to show why one law is good, and this law is bad.
And I've yet to hear anyone make a justification for (b).
I'm also curious that people have been talking in terms of "conscience" and "belief" rather than "religion" which is what we usually hear when people want an exemption. I'm not sure if this is good (in that it's accepting at last that any personal belief or conscience should be treated the same as that of organised religion) or misleading (in that it still basically means religion, in that it seems doubtful that any opt-out will extend to anyone who doesn't want to follow it, since that would make the law useless, and we never hear of people being given opt-outs for anything other than religious beliefs).
(no subject)
Similarly, in an individual employee of an adoption agency doesn't want to handle cases with same sex parents, then I've no problem with that, but this is about agencies as a whole.
(no subject)
There's also the fact that these are agencies which work closely with local authorities, and receive payment from public funds for their work. If they can't or won't comply with public policy and the law, they should be closed down.
(no subject)
Surely the answer to that part is fairly clear? Adoption is not a good or service provided to the adoptive parents, or at least not primarily. It's done first and foremost for the good of the child. So the arguments need to centre around whether or not the good of a child is served by having that child adopted by a gay couple. Indeed, the RC side's arguments do centre around this (AIUI); and I worry that by spending so much time talking about "discrimination" against gay would-be adoptive parents (as if the sole or primary concern is their right to enjoy the company of a child) and so little time talking about how actually gay parents can bring up a child just as well as straight ones, the non-RC side of the debate has shot itself in the foot a bit.
(no subject)
I also agree that if the RC side is saying that gay couples adopting is not in the child's best interest, then that should be countered (presumably people have countered this argument in the past when the topic of same-sex couples adopting has come up).
I guess the thing is that it seems the argument based on "personal belief" has been given much greater publicity, so I guess that's why more people have responded to that part in particular. This argument suggests to me that no matter how much evidence could be presented that same sex couple adoption is not harmful for children, it would still allow an agency to disagree with it (especially if "personal belief" is "being gay is sinful" rather than "same sex couples adopting is harmful for the child"). (Of course it would still be good to try to persuade agencies that there is nothing wrong with same sex couple adoption, but I don't know if it would make any difference to the Government with respect to this law?)