Monday, July 23, 2018

The Federalist pits Democrats against children to justify the stealing of LGBT tax dollars

The LGBT community should not have to pay for the 'courtesy' of being discriminated against.

The right-wing publication The Federalist is attempting to justify using religion as a weapon for discrimination against the LGBT community. In a Monday piece published by the publication entitled  Democrats Prove Willing To Make Orphans Casualties In Their War Against Religion, authors Jon Schweppe and Paul Dupont manufacture a war on children to stifle the concerns of LGBTs as taxpayers and prospective parents.

First, a little background

GOP in Congress and  their allies on the right are pushing something they call The Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act. They claim bill would:

 protect faith-based adoption agencies and foster care providers from state and local governments’ discrimination against their services solely because of their religious mission to place children in loving homes with both a mother and a father. The bill sought to counteract a growing trend of invidious discrimination on the basis of faith.

 That's nice way of saying that the bill would allow adoption agencies and foster care providers which discriminate against gays to still receive tax dollars. The bill also punishes LGBT states.

Schweppe and DuPont decide to not focus on these points, but instead brand Democrats and LGBT community as selfish for opposing the bill.

The bill has been accused of being a “license to discriminate” against LGBT couples, but it does nothing to inhibit the ability of LGBT couples to adopt children, nor does it reduce access to adoption for LGBT couples. The Inclusion Act merely discourages states from discriminating against faith-based providers and ensures that as many pipelines as possible remain open to connect children with loving homes.  
 Consider how the child welfare system works. The state works with adoption agencies and foster care providers to place children in homes. The providers recruit families to adopt or foster the children. 
 Different providers recruit different types of families. For example, Christian providers, which often work directly with churches or other faith-based charities, usually recruit Christian families. If you get rid of some of the providers, you get rid of some of the families. The fewer providers doing the work of recruitment, the fewer homes for children. Simple enough, right?  
Yet the Left obfuscates by claiming LGBT couples should have a right to force providers to violate their faith or go out of business, while showing no concern for children in desperate need of families.
. . . . The Inclusion Act would draw a line in the sand, not only protecting faith-based child welfare providers but also laying the groundwork to protect other religious institutions. As evidenced above, however, failing to pass this bill would continue to allow leftist persecution of faith-based groups, with far-reaching implications, especially for the neediest and most voiceless in our society. Passing the Inclusion Act and signing it into law could be the best remaining opportunity for Americans to defend their religious freedom against a tidal wave of religious discrimination that harms American children and families. We would be wise to take it.

The entire piece simply drips with entitlement and evasion. Neither the Democrats nor LGBTs who oppose this bill hate religion. Nor are they attempting a war on religion. Nor are they attempting to sacrifice the needs of children needing good homes. It's simply about fairness. While I don't agree with the idea (because same-sex households have proven themselves to be able to raise children quite well), if these adoption and foster care agencies want to place children in a home which embraces their religious standards, more power to them. BUT why should LGBTs have to foot the bill via our taxes if we are going to be discriminated by theses agencies?

It's a nasty game that Schweppe and Dupont plays in attempting to pit the rights of the LGBT community against the needs of a child needing a home simply to distract from the fact they think that their religious belief entitles them to unfettered access to tax dollars.

No comments: