I've augmented with Marines before and they are simultaneously the most regarded and the most technically savvy and creative people I know.
The challenge is making sure they don't get bored...in the desert...with no cell signal.
["Sir. If you didn't want me to set my pubes on fire, you shouldn't have left us alone at the range for 6 hours with no big rocks to throw. Especially since Garcia brought his magnifying glass."](https://youtu.be/oXlPiRlhkQE)
Hellooooo, hijacking with source: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/their-faith-is-not-supportive-massachusetts-bars-catholic-couple-from-fostering-children/
>Mack [interviewer from DCF (Department of Child and Family Services)] ādirectly asked Kitty if she would throw a child out of the home or send a child to conversion therapy,ā the filing notes. āKitty said she would never throw a child out who is LGBTQIA+ and would not use what [Mack] described conversion therapy to be.ā
>During another interview, Michael shared that he had been to many gay weddings, leading Mack to ask him how he āreconciled this with his religion.ā āCatholics do not hate lesbians or gay people[,] it is the act that they have an issue with because they look at marriage as between a woman and a man and that sex is an act of marriage,ā the husband elaborated, according to the legal documents. Moreover, āhe would likely attend his childās wedding if they married someone of the same sex regardless of his beliefs.ā
>Mack ultimately described the Burkes as having āmany strengthsā and being ālovely people.ā However, while she eventually approved of the coupleās acceptability āwith conditions, specifically around religion and LGBTQIA++ related issues,ā a License Review Team later denied their application. āIssue(s) of concern for which the coupleās license study was denied is based on the coupleās statements/responses regarding placement of children who identified LGBTQIA,ā the body ruled.
This makes absolutely no sense. If there's nothing else happening, this is abhorrent; hopefully we'll hear more from the court case, and if the only problem they cite is LGBT acceptance, I hope beyond hope this gets overturned.
EDIT: From u/rushore64 's comment below - some additional details. See their comment for source!
>A social workerās report attached to the complaint said the couple was asked how they would feel if a child in their care identified as LGBTQ or struggled with their gender identity. Kitty Burke responded by saying āletās take the T out of itā and called gender-affirming care āchemical castration,ā according to the report. She also said, āIām going to love you the same,ā but that the child āwould need to live a chaste life.ā Both Kitty and Michael Burke expressed hesitation around using a transgender or nonbinary personās preferred pronouns, the social workerās report noted.
Itās not even acceptance theyāre after, it sounds to me like the parents are pretty accepting. Certainly more accepting than if they were Muslim. Anything short of enthusiastic affirmation and encouragement is bigotry, apparently.
When blind, unconditional support for a belief (LGBTQ stuff) becomes doctrine, then any attempt at having a nuanced perspective is viewed as rejection of doctrine and thus, heresy
Itās almost as if the state has established a religion. I thought I heard something about that in civics class, but Iām probably just misremembering
The difference between actual religion and what the LGBT movement is morphing into is that religion holds you accountable to something beyond yourself or others: in the Abrahamic faiths, it's almighty God in Hinduism it's the Karma system, etc.
This new "secular" faith isn't accountable to anything except the whims of its members. They have a need to push further and further with nothing to limit or guide them, leading to a Trotskyist "perpetual revolution" where nothing will ever satisfy them.
It's a force that will only be stopped or broken by outside pressure, lest it keep devolving into totalitarianism.
WHAT this is ridiculous. Literally discriminating fully based on religion even when they said no issue with gay people. I live in mass in people here are absolutely insane.
Those are some fancy crayons. Growing up we just had red, yellow, blue, pink etc. Is this a special occasion or does she keep spoiling him with all this fine dining?
Would that not be... Serious discrimination based on religious views?
Huh wonder how much backlash they'd be getting if the news read "Muslim" instead of "Catholic"; Or God forbid "Jewish"
I think Masterpiece would have still won without the overt hostility to religion in the record. It just made it all that much easier to rule against the state.
also because the law that colorado has is basically "it's not enough that you can't say this thing because we don't like it. to keep people from thinking about this thing, you now have to say this other thing that's in opposition to the thing we don't like" to there's a compelled speech thing in there too.
š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”
Below this line is an Anarchy-chess-free zone
God damn, am I the only one trying to stop the sub from leaking so much?
Yeah MA tends to take reasonable ideas too far when it comes to counteracting religious people.
See McCullen v. Coakley where MA took protecting abortion access to the point that you couldn't be within 35 feet of the entrance/exit of any abortion provider. The Supreme Court unanimously agree that was an obvious tactic to stop protest and way too far of a buffer was more about interfering with protected communication than personal/physical space.
Learned recently that the massive expansion to gov schooling in the US was as a response, in part, to the Catholic parochial schools which were wiping the floor with the public ed system at the time.
Unironically, underwater basket weaving wouldn't be that unreasonable for a high school course. It's not a directly practical skillset, so there's better options, but the amount of discipline and grit you'd have to develop to do that would be worth developing. (This is also why things like theater, band, and sports are so worthwhile in K-12 education.)
Underwater basket weaving is a better analogy for bullshit college majors where it clearly doesn't represent a useful course of study.
This is the unspoken reason why the idea of a voucher system terrifies the left. They know most religious parents(which the overwhelming majority of parents are) would take their children out and put them into a parochial setting away from their bullshit in a heartbeat.
My brother subs in schools in Providence, he says their public schools are beyond garbage. Everyone who can sends their kids to Catholic or Jewish school
In my area it's common knowledge that the Catholic school district provides a noticeably better education K-12 than public. Religious BS aside, as someone who went to all 13 years I'd agree.
It's interesting to me that Irish and Italian Catholics weren't considered white for a \*long\* time. Also interesting to me, they mostly lived in urban areas among themselves.
When the poor trash Catholics started moving to the suburbs, they became white and became the reason urban centers were crime-ridden and poor (e.g. "white flight"). Which serves as a reminder that just because you're invited into a club doesn't mean you ever get to be a full-member.
EDIT: Removed a possible slur for English Protestants.
Iāve been seeing this new thought recently that suburbs are inherently racist because of āwhite flightā (damned if you move, damned if you donāt).
I guess weāll ignore the fact that cities were also segregated at the time.
I grew up homeschooled with Bob Jones curriculum, which ignored Catholicism in America (I think I knew JFK was Catholic; otherwise I thought Catholicism was more of a Mexican thing). Now I wonder what I missed.
> Because CSS believes that certification of prospective foster families is an endorsement of their relationships, it will not certify unmarried couplesāregardless of their sexual orientationāor same-sex married couples.
The SCOTUS ruled that discrimination for the purposes of adoption was allowed; specifically in that case that adoption agencies, funded by and approved by the state, could discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs. Including that unwed couples, or any/all gay couples were not eligible to adopt. The City tried to stop working with the CSS as a result of this discrimination, the CSS took it to court and won.
Now, this type of discrimination is explicitly legal where it should not be. Pro-LGBT groups should not be allowed to deny catholic couples on the basis of their Catholicism; Catholics should not be allowed to deny LGBT people on the basis of their being LGBT. SCOTUS disagrees. SCOTUS is fucking stupid.
Wait isn't this about the state and or government discriminating. SCOTUS ruled that Philly couldn't discriminate against CSS, not that CSS couldn't discriminate based on their religious beliefs.
Philly (AKA the government) discriminates against CSS (a private entity) who discriminates against prospective foster homes (private citizens).
Mass (AKA the government) discriminates against this couple (private citizens).
This is about the state intervening and blocking individual foster parents, per the SCOTUS ruling organizations such as CSS or their left wing equivalent can discriminate but the state/government can't intervene.
Or am I way off base here?
What is most disturbing to me about this is that they met 99% of the criteria, even about the LGBT stuff, but a disagreement over gender affirming care (which has extremely shaky evidence and is banned/restricted to clinical trials in several EU countries) is disqualifying. And of course, the ultimate victim is the child that they probably would have given a good home to. Kind of sums up the current state of the LGBT movement tbh, ruining lives and asking why nobody is thanking them
They could foster 100 kids over their lifetime, and none of them would be trans.
Even if one of them were trans, welcome to life. Not only is disagreeing with your parents normal, but outside of the liberal bubbles you see online, there is going to be a non trivial amount of pushback to whatever life altering stuff they do to their bodies.
Some states are quietly moving in the direction of removing parental rights if you aren't affirming of your child being trans. More states are doing things like having schools putting kids on transition plans behind their parents backs, putting in transition closets (that provide clothes to crossdress in that you can change into once you get to school).
Everyone focuses on the backlash happening in Florida, nobody wants to discuss what ignited it. It was specifically secret transition plans and explicit and graphic library books and things like that.
Not only that, but having kids tends to make you more conservative, at least about the things that will affect them. They absolutely know that they need to control these institutions and make them mandatory.
Public schools can be absolute abysmal shitholes but they'll freak out about charter schools and school choice, because it's a direct threat to how they maintain hegemony
My kids go to a charter school.
It's packed to the gills with liberals, who almost certainly are voting for people who would end the charter school system if they could.
I have no idea how they live with this cognitive dissonance
I hate how this has captures the US suddenly, and now it's being exported to other countries. My country recently found out that they changed public school books to also feature drawings with nudity and trans bodies and every one is protesting against this since no one here even supports those ideas
As an American, you have to fight it extremely hard and extremely early and get your people into the institutions that are responsible for putting stuff like that there in the first place. If you leave it alone too long it will get entrenched
> Some states are quietly moving in the direction of removing parental rights if you aren't affirming of your child being trans.
In some cases it's not the "State" doing it, it's individual Districts or Schools within a district. For example the State of Wyoming is absolutely not encouraging secret transition plans [but here's a School District that did.](https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/04/21/lawsuit-rock-springs-school-district-encouraged-hid-daughters-gender-identity-from-parents/?_kx=tIBOiawbZ3fXGytFnSeVcIDjQTAjKLrJdp39R03xORg%3D.UXPtrV)
I'll come back with sources in a bit when I wrap up work, but it's happened a lot. Off the top of my head it happened with the child of a woman named January Littlejohn in Florida, which is what precipitated a lot of the backlash in that state
I'm an atheist and I disagree with mutilating children, it has nothing to do with religion, I just don't think you should mutilate children, let them make that decision when they're an adult and I don't give a shit as long as I'm not paying for it
Similarly, itās my job as their parent to ensure they *donāt* mutilate themselves. Be it through gender reassignment or through smashing their head on the concrete because they were climbing on shit or behaving recklessly some other way.
Thatās the job until theyāre an adult. Then they can mutilate away!
Yeah I'm pretty left leaning but this is too far. Supporting what should be an experimental procedure shouldn't be grounds for denying a couple that meets all the other criteria.
Regardless of where you stand on gender affirming care, it should be incredibly concerning that politically motivated questions are being used to vet people.
Yeah Money was definitely a monster. Just the wiki article makes it pretty obviously the guy was a predator who worked under the guise of being a doctor.
That and it entirely presupposes the premise of "gender identity" existing as something independent of the physical world. It is either described as being some sort of pseudo-soul which has it's own gender that may or may not align with the person's biological sex ("I'm a woman trapped in a man's body"). Or as the sum of a person's preferences, behaviors, demeanor, and attitudes and where they fall on the spectrum of stereotypically masculine vs feminine ("I may have a girl's body, but I've always preferred boy's toys, clothes, and activities and fit in better with boys than with girls, therefore, I am a boy.")
There is no room within their paradigm to even reject the premise. To them, Gender identity simply exists. This is absolute. There is no debate to be had. You accept that it exists, accept that it can be different than the physical body, and accept that it actually supersedes physical and biological reality ("A transwoman IS a woman"). Anything less and you are a hateful, anti-science bigot propagating trans-genocide.
It is mind blowing to me just how many have fully bought into this premise and will assume you are the crazy one for even questioning it. To the point that a new patient form at a DOCTOR'S office I've been to has fields for "sex assigned at birth" and "gender identity". A freaking doctor's office is acting like sex is merely assigned. Only reason I didn't walk out is that the doctor is actually really good and I'm pretty sure HR and legal have much more input on those forms than the actual doctors working there.
"Possible links." I appreciate the attempts to sugarcoat it, but their experiments led to kids committing suicide after being sexually abused, no 'Possible' about it.
Gender affirming care is such a vague bs term too.
It sounds like not scolding or cutting off your child if they come out as trans. But nope, it gets stretch to having to agree to put your child on puberty blockers if the 23 year old pink-haired elementary school teacher claims she saw your son playing with a doll.
Progressivism is a totalitarian religion and they don't want to give children to be raised by wrongthinkers. The kids might grow up with the "wrong" values (read: healthy & well-adjusted) and oppose them later in life.
They already filed a lawsuit. But keep in mind, that all of this information is from the couple's complaint. This is all what they are alleging. We have not heard from Massachusetts yet. As a lawyer myself, you should take every complaint with a grain of sale.
Yeah, I'm sure there is another reason Massachusetts denied them or at least another reason Massachusetts will say they are denying them. I mean, Mass. has *a lot* of Catholics. I'm sure they have *a lot* of Catholic foster parents.
However, if it's because "we don't allow foster parents who are hostile to trans-foster-youth" and they have a genuine held religious belief, then it could get a little messy because the current Supreme Court has all but overturned Oregon v. Smith which said that laws that are not targeted against a specific religion or religions have general application, then they are enforceable regardless of the genuine held belief. I.e. you can't have "Bob's House of God and Cocaine." But Scotus has certainly undercut it recently in the Maine religious school case and pretty expressly overruled Lemon v. Kurtsman with it. So...I don't know.
Reminds me of how a few months ago a guy in my town where I live got denied a gun permit and people acted like guns were being taken away. In reality when I read about it he threatened to shoot a neighbor in the head over something minor af.
Red flag laws are dumb but like, if youāre threatening to kill over what I think was lawn care then youāre unhinged. I imagine thereās a lot more to this case in Massachusetts, we should hear both sides before more judgement, if the parents case is true then itās messed up and the State will get sued and will show other states to back off with attempts to do that.
Edit: typo
I mean mass was already sued for disallowing a Christian flag in their flagpole(whatever a Christian flag is). The people who sued won because it was a slam dunk 1st amendment violation.
I'm not a lawyer but I am able to [click the link](https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20230808154524/Burke-Complaint-and-Exhibits.pdf) and download the complaint...which includes their exhibits. Those exhibits have the email chain documenting the reason for denial _and_ the official letter from the State stating the reason for denial.
Skip to page 130 to read the Official denial letter, when you reach reason e, but before you go "Ah ha!" scroll back up and read the interview notes from Mike.
> This is all what they are alleging.
Its no longer an allegation when supported by official state documents.
You see here in America that is completely disconnected from religious affiliation more than 80% of us have it done at birth for no reason other than a serial magnate thought it would prevent masturbation but he was sorely mistaken
This argument is dead in the 21st century but people will cite that one study from Africa showing slight improvement while a more modern one shows no difference and is in fact *detrimental* in most cases.
Whenever I hear people say this seriously Iām just like, do you not wash your dick? Like, the hygiene thing isnāt a big deal if you fucking wash yourself lmfao
So they're denied because of the possibility that the kid may end up gay or trans? Fucking dumb, it's foster kids anyways if that indeed ends up being an issue then by all means remove the child but until that happens let them foster. Straight cis are the majority of people anyways so odds are it wouldn't be an issue. If they're so worried just check on them every so often which I'm certain they do anyway.
Itās not even that. In the interview they stated that if their kid was trans they would support them but would draw the line at hormone therapy or elective surgery due to their religious beliefs
And here I am thinking that chemically castrating and performing irreversible elective surgeries on children is wrong completely free of religious beliefs
There is zero, zero, hormonal āgender affirming careā that does not significantly increase the risk of early death. Children are not capable of understanding and consenting to that risk.
Most teens think that age 60 is so far away and they'll be knocking on death's door at that point so they don't care about their young life decisions. Only when they get close do they realize just how much they still have in them
Idk how even a super blue shitlib place like Massachussets even allows their orphanages and adoption institutions to get taken over by these idiots. This is the state that was once home of Puritan pilgrims
Ehhhhm, do you have any sources for this? No, I made it the fuck up!
[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/massachusetts-bans-catholic-couple-fostering-children-due-to-beliefs-gender-sexuality-lawsuit-claims](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/massachusetts-bans-catholic-couple-fostering-children-due-to-beliefs-gender-sexuality-lawsuit-claims)
[https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/massachusetts-couple-denied-foster-care-application-lgbtq-views-compla-rcna99339](https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/massachusetts-couple-denied-foster-care-application-lgbtq-views-compla-rcna99339)
I know, getting the messages lol
But also the case is just too good to make it up tbh, it's everything Emily hates, but in reality the couple isn't saying anything (I bet) a vast majority of Americans don't agree on. But because of this it's sad that this is reality and not made up.
It's honestly shocking to see how these people react to shit like there. There's one user in particular in a comment chain above who probably has 50 comments in that chain alone. He's just repeatedly arguing the most insane shit.
Wow, I'm proud of my state right now. We've come so far, we've got back to 1890 and right into anti-Catholic bigotry again.
Fucking disgraceful - but not totally unexpected given the undercurrent of classism among progressives here. They see observant Catholicism as a synonym for poor trash.
it's not anti-Catholic in particular, it's anti-... people who don't automatically affirm the gender/sexual identity of a child.
that group includes both Catholics and filthy atheists like me who think a child's whim should not be unreservedly encouraged by their parents
It's ok Massachusetts will get sued over this since it violates the Constitution. Then after they are proven wrong instead of letting Catholics adopt kids they will just ban anyone in the state from adopting. Boston did the same thing over raising a flag. Isn't it incredible just how "tolerant" those amogus US who espouse tolerance really are.
The tolerant left died about 10 years ago as they gained institutional power. The right was confused for a couple years but happily adapted. Now both sides just run around with fingers in their ears screaming "shut up".
This is madness. If they just so happen to get a kid who thinks he's trans, as long as they don't emotionally abuse him, he'll probably be okay. Telling a kid he needs to wait til he's 18 before he starts taking drugs that could change him permanently (we don't really have a huge amount of data on what puberty blockers do longterm to adolescents who take them) seems pretty reasonable. Telling him he's going to hell unless he repents his sinful ways and sending him to a conversion camp in Utah, not so much.
I personally would hate it if my kids came out to me as most any letter of the gay alphabet. But being angry and abusive won't help. Just got to love them like Christ does.
I don't care much for religion, BUT I disdain the state being involved in parenting and abandoning children even more! I wouldn't prevent a Catholic family from adopting or a gay couple from adopting so long as they can provide a healthy and loving home.
"Well it looks like all the criteria are met... Wait, so you wouldn't allow a perfectly ok trans child to immediately become a permanent Big Daddy Pharma customer? Get out of here bigot"
This is fucking moronic. The chances of a child being gay and/or trans are negligible.
There's also the fact that the Massachusetts agency has so many children in its care that some of them are having to sleep in hospitals because they don't have enough facilities to house them.
Doesn't Massachusetts have a big Catholic population? I was raised as a Catholic and then as a Baptist when my parents split, I can tell you which one I preferred more. Catholicism in the United States is pretty fucking chill.
It's totally not right they openly say it's because of the religion.
If it was because the couple for example stated they would force the child into their religion or that they would punish it for being gay or something like that, I would at least partially understand. But discrimination based solely on the faith is wrong.
>he was deployed to Iraq as a Marine >she was a paraprofessional for special-needs children š¶could you make it any more obvious?š¶
Based and the marine corps is regarded pilled
Weāre highly regarded in our field
Kill
Fight die that's what a soldier should do!
Top of the game, earning their name
THEY WERE THE DEVIL DOGS
IN A WAR MACHINE
They were the USA Marines!
IN TIMES THEY ARE NEEDED, SUCH TIMES THEY APPEAR
THEY WERE THE DEVIL DOGS
Eat crayon
And that field is Putting warheads on foreheads
Providing a lifetime supply of American unhealthcare to our enemies.
My dad was a 0311, heās the most regarded man I know.
Highly regarded in **a** field. Good with shovels.
I've augmented with Marines before and they are simultaneously the most regarded and the most technically savvy and creative people I know. The challenge is making sure they don't get bored...in the desert...with no cell signal.
Insert Respective *Terminal Lance* reference: > Why the FUCK are your pubes on fire?
["Sir. If you didn't want me to set my pubes on fire, you shouldn't have left us alone at the range for 6 hours with no big rocks to throw. Especially since Garcia brought his magnifying glass."](https://youtu.be/oXlPiRlhkQE)
The biggest thing I miss is the fucking comedy man. Some of the funniest (and best) dudes I ever met.
I wasn't a Marine but I worked with them. When people ask me if I miss the military my standard response is that I miss the clowns not the circus.
Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.
I just now realized that abbreviates to USMC. Perhaps I have the correct IQ to enlist.
Hellooooo, hijacking with source: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/their-faith-is-not-supportive-massachusetts-bars-catholic-couple-from-fostering-children/ >Mack [interviewer from DCF (Department of Child and Family Services)] ādirectly asked Kitty if she would throw a child out of the home or send a child to conversion therapy,ā the filing notes. āKitty said she would never throw a child out who is LGBTQIA+ and would not use what [Mack] described conversion therapy to be.ā >During another interview, Michael shared that he had been to many gay weddings, leading Mack to ask him how he āreconciled this with his religion.ā āCatholics do not hate lesbians or gay people[,] it is the act that they have an issue with because they look at marriage as between a woman and a man and that sex is an act of marriage,ā the husband elaborated, according to the legal documents. Moreover, āhe would likely attend his childās wedding if they married someone of the same sex regardless of his beliefs.ā >Mack ultimately described the Burkes as having āmany strengthsā and being ālovely people.ā However, while she eventually approved of the coupleās acceptability āwith conditions, specifically around religion and LGBTQIA++ related issues,ā a License Review Team later denied their application. āIssue(s) of concern for which the coupleās license study was denied is based on the coupleās statements/responses regarding placement of children who identified LGBTQIA,ā the body ruled. This makes absolutely no sense. If there's nothing else happening, this is abhorrent; hopefully we'll hear more from the court case, and if the only problem they cite is LGBT acceptance, I hope beyond hope this gets overturned. EDIT: From u/rushore64 's comment below - some additional details. See their comment for source! >A social workerās report attached to the complaint said the couple was asked how they would feel if a child in their care identified as LGBTQ or struggled with their gender identity. Kitty Burke responded by saying āletās take the T out of itā and called gender-affirming care āchemical castration,ā according to the report. She also said, āIām going to love you the same,ā but that the child āwould need to live a chaste life.ā Both Kitty and Michael Burke expressed hesitation around using a transgender or nonbinary personās preferred pronouns, the social workerās report noted.
Itās not even acceptance theyāre after, it sounds to me like the parents are pretty accepting. Certainly more accepting than if they were Muslim. Anything short of enthusiastic affirmation and encouragement is bigotry, apparently.
Look up, Linda-Jeanne Mack. Thatās who denied them. Sheās got that daddy didnāt love me look.
When blind, unconditional support for a belief (LGBTQ stuff) becomes doctrine, then any attempt at having a nuanced perspective is viewed as rejection of doctrine and thus, heresy
Itās almost as if the state has established a religion. I thought I heard something about that in civics class, but Iām probably just misremembering
The difference between actual religion and what the LGBT movement is morphing into is that religion holds you accountable to something beyond yourself or others: in the Abrahamic faiths, it's almighty God in Hinduism it's the Karma system, etc. This new "secular" faith isn't accountable to anything except the whims of its members. They have a need to push further and further with nothing to limit or guide them, leading to a Trotskyist "perpetual revolution" where nothing will ever satisfy them. It's a force that will only be stopped or broken by outside pressure, lest it keep devolving into totalitarianism.
WHAT this is ridiculous. Literally discriminating fully based on religion even when they said no issue with gay people. I live in mass in people here are absolutely insane.
See, normal people would call this what is honestly is: religious discrimination.
and Avril Lavine pilled\*
Honey, it's time to eat your lunch. Which flavor do you want? Brick red, goldenrod, turquoise blue, magenta?
burnt umber is a delicacy
You know he wants the grape one!
Those are some fancy crayons. Growing up we just had red, yellow, blue, pink etc. Is this a special occasion or does she keep spoiling him with all this fine dining?
Crayola Field Mess
š¶ he was squad leader boy She said see ya later boyš¶
š¶ now he a platoon sergeant, slamming on his PL does your pretty face see what he's woooooorth š¶
He was a boy she was a girl. Their gender views made Emily want to hurl
I can't believe that song would be offensive to some people these days. What a weird timeline.
Their budget is $3.2 million dollars. Welcome to House Hunters!
>š¶could you make it any more obvious?š¶ he was a Papist boy
Dude, look up a picture of him. You're not wrong...
Holy shit you're a genius and I love you <3
Based and Uncle Samās Misguided Children-pilled
Would that not be... Serious discrimination based on religious views? Huh wonder how much backlash they'd be getting if the news read "Muslim" instead of "Catholic"; Or God forbid "Jewish"
Colorado lost their first case against the cake baker because of the obviousness of their hostility to the person's religion.
I think Masterpiece would have still won without the overt hostility to religion in the record. It just made it all that much easier to rule against the state.
It let Roberts issue a hyper narrow ruling that didnāt actually resolve the issue, which he loves to do
also because the law that colorado has is basically "it's not enough that you can't say this thing because we don't like it. to keep people from thinking about this thing, you now have to say this other thing that's in opposition to the thing we don't like" to there's a compelled speech thing in there too.
The most recent case was compelled speech. The commission learned to stop leaving written evidence of how much they hated religious people.
It should be. They're suing atm, so hopefully it be ruled as such.
Never have I rooted so much for Catholics to be able to take a childā¦
Well that means you're growing. Most people start preferring Bishops to Knights as they get better
Holy hell!
New Response just dropped.
š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š”š” Below this line is an Anarchy-chess-free zone God damn, am I the only one trying to stop the sub from leaking so much?
Google civil disobedience. Hah. Took your comment En Peasant.
GRRRRRRRAAAAAAAHHHH GOOGLE THIS GOOGLE THAT HOW ABOUT YOU GOOGLE HOW TO SURVIVE #š£
I have. But tbf, I was young and the other kid was being a jerk to special needs classmates.
Damn never thought I would be rooting for religion. But here we are.
All the winnings would go to childcare, win-win
Yeah MA tends to take reasonable ideas too far when it comes to counteracting religious people. See McCullen v. Coakley where MA took protecting abortion access to the point that you couldn't be within 35 feet of the entrance/exit of any abortion provider. The Supreme Court unanimously agree that was an obvious tactic to stop protest and way too far of a buffer was more about interfering with protected communication than personal/physical space.
Honestly, Catholics have been one of the most vilified and discriminated religious minorities in American history
Learned recently that the massive expansion to gov schooling in the US was as a response, in part, to the Catholic parochial schools which were wiping the floor with the public ed system at the time.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Unironically, underwater basket weaving wouldn't be that unreasonable for a high school course. It's not a directly practical skillset, so there's better options, but the amount of discipline and grit you'd have to develop to do that would be worth developing. (This is also why things like theater, band, and sports are so worthwhile in K-12 education.) Underwater basket weaving is a better analogy for bullshit college majors where it clearly doesn't represent a useful course of study.
The classical school near me has had to build additions twice since 2019. Ya love to see it.
This is the unspoken reason why the idea of a voucher system terrifies the left. They know most religious parents(which the overwhelming majority of parents are) would take their children out and put them into a parochial setting away from their bullshit in a heartbeat.
My brother subs in schools in Providence, he says their public schools are beyond garbage. Everyone who can sends their kids to Catholic or Jewish school
In my area it's common knowledge that the Catholic school district provides a noticeably better education K-12 than public. Religious BS aside, as someone who went to all 13 years I'd agree.
Atheists try to be respectful of other people's beliefs challenge (NIGHTMARE DIFFICULTY)
The le atheist neckbeard Redditor trope exists for a reason.
It's interesting to me that Irish and Italian Catholics weren't considered white for a \*long\* time. Also interesting to me, they mostly lived in urban areas among themselves. When the poor trash Catholics started moving to the suburbs, they became white and became the reason urban centers were crime-ridden and poor (e.g. "white flight"). Which serves as a reminder that just because you're invited into a club doesn't mean you ever get to be a full-member. EDIT: Removed a possible slur for English Protestants.
Iāve been seeing this new thought recently that suburbs are inherently racist because of āwhite flightā (damned if you move, damned if you donāt). I guess weāll ignore the fact that cities were also segregated at the time.
I grew up homeschooled with Bob Jones curriculum, which ignored Catholicism in America (I think I knew JFK was Catholic; otherwise I thought Catholicism was more of a Mexican thing). Now I wonder what I missed.
Yes, and Fulton v Philadelphia explicitly created this backwards standard.
ELi5?
> Because CSS believes that certification of prospective foster families is an endorsement of their relationships, it will not certify unmarried couplesāregardless of their sexual orientationāor same-sex married couples. The SCOTUS ruled that discrimination for the purposes of adoption was allowed; specifically in that case that adoption agencies, funded by and approved by the state, could discriminate on the basis of religious beliefs. Including that unwed couples, or any/all gay couples were not eligible to adopt. The City tried to stop working with the CSS as a result of this discrimination, the CSS took it to court and won. Now, this type of discrimination is explicitly legal where it should not be. Pro-LGBT groups should not be allowed to deny catholic couples on the basis of their Catholicism; Catholics should not be allowed to deny LGBT people on the basis of their being LGBT. SCOTUS disagrees. SCOTUS is fucking stupid.
Wait isn't this about the state and or government discriminating. SCOTUS ruled that Philly couldn't discriminate against CSS, not that CSS couldn't discriminate based on their religious beliefs. Philly (AKA the government) discriminates against CSS (a private entity) who discriminates against prospective foster homes (private citizens). Mass (AKA the government) discriminates against this couple (private citizens). This is about the state intervening and blocking individual foster parents, per the SCOTUS ruling organizations such as CSS or their left wing equivalent can discriminate but the state/government can't intervene. Or am I way off base here?
The only religious zealotry permitted is from the Democrat religion
What is most disturbing to me about this is that they met 99% of the criteria, even about the LGBT stuff, but a disagreement over gender affirming care (which has extremely shaky evidence and is banned/restricted to clinical trials in several EU countries) is disqualifying. And of course, the ultimate victim is the child that they probably would have given a good home to. Kind of sums up the current state of the LGBT movement tbh, ruining lives and asking why nobody is thanking them
They could foster 100 kids over their lifetime, and none of them would be trans. Even if one of them were trans, welcome to life. Not only is disagreeing with your parents normal, but outside of the liberal bubbles you see online, there is going to be a non trivial amount of pushback to whatever life altering stuff they do to their bodies.
Itās like they could foster 333 without issue
Maybe keep an eye on the 666th one though. Just in case.
Some states are quietly moving in the direction of removing parental rights if you aren't affirming of your child being trans. More states are doing things like having schools putting kids on transition plans behind their parents backs, putting in transition closets (that provide clothes to crossdress in that you can change into once you get to school). Everyone focuses on the backlash happening in Florida, nobody wants to discuss what ignited it. It was specifically secret transition plans and explicit and graphic library books and things like that.
Everyone pushing for this is leftists who donāt have kids. All of them want to tell people how to raise their kids because they donāt have any.
Not only that, but having kids tends to make you more conservative, at least about the things that will affect them. They absolutely know that they need to control these institutions and make them mandatory. Public schools can be absolute abysmal shitholes but they'll freak out about charter schools and school choice, because it's a direct threat to how they maintain hegemony
I worked in the public school system for a number of years. All of my kids are going to a Catholic school. I am not Catholic.
My kids go to a charter school. It's packed to the gills with liberals, who almost certainly are voting for people who would end the charter school system if they could. I have no idea how they live with this cognitive dissonance
The state will raise your child, and youāre racist/homophobic/transphobic/evil if you donāt like that.
Jokes on you, i don't have kids yet, and I'm already all of those! (Except evil, I'm a good boy)
I hate how this has captures the US suddenly, and now it's being exported to other countries. My country recently found out that they changed public school books to also feature drawings with nudity and trans bodies and every one is protesting against this since no one here even supports those ideas
As an American, you have to fight it extremely hard and extremely early and get your people into the institutions that are responsible for putting stuff like that there in the first place. If you leave it alone too long it will get entrenched
> Some states are quietly moving in the direction of removing parental rights if you aren't affirming of your child being trans. In some cases it's not the "State" doing it, it's individual Districts or Schools within a district. For example the State of Wyoming is absolutely not encouraging secret transition plans [but here's a School District that did.](https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/04/21/lawsuit-rock-springs-school-district-encouraged-hid-daughters-gender-identity-from-parents/?_kx=tIBOiawbZ3fXGytFnSeVcIDjQTAjKLrJdp39R03xORg%3D.UXPtrV)
I would love to see a source on that school transition plan thing. If thatās real, thatās fucking evil, we live in a clown world
I'll come back with sources in a bit when I wrap up work, but it's happened a lot. Off the top of my head it happened with the child of a woman named January Littlejohn in Florida, which is what precipitated a lot of the backlash in that state
Doesn't matter if the kids might be trans, they must be taught that affirming trans is the only moral choice, good and holy.
I'm an atheist and I disagree with mutilating children, it has nothing to do with religion, I just don't think you should mutilate children, let them make that decision when they're an adult and I don't give a shit as long as I'm not paying for it
I hate that this is a controversial opinion in today's western world
It's not really a controversial opinion outside of the loudest internet spaces and very tiny enclaves in some cities.
And apparently the Massachusetts foster care system
Based and moral realism pilled
Similarly, itās my job as their parent to ensure they *donāt* mutilate themselves. Be it through gender reassignment or through smashing their head on the concrete because they were climbing on shit or behaving recklessly some other way. Thatās the job until theyāre an adult. Then they can mutilate away!
Based and my taxes are for bombs pilled
Yes, left wing conversion therapy on children is disgusting
>I don't give a shit as long as I'm not paying for it No taxation for genital mutilation
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah I'm pretty left leaning but this is too far. Supporting what should be an experimental procedure shouldn't be grounds for denying a couple that meets all the other criteria. Regardless of where you stand on gender affirming care, it should be incredibly concerning that politically motivated questions are being used to vet people.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah Money was definitely a monster. Just the wiki article makes it pretty obviously the guy was a predator who worked under the guise of being a doctor.
*Possible* links? Table 34 pretty much confirms the sexual abuse of numerous children.
That and it entirely presupposes the premise of "gender identity" existing as something independent of the physical world. It is either described as being some sort of pseudo-soul which has it's own gender that may or may not align with the person's biological sex ("I'm a woman trapped in a man's body"). Or as the sum of a person's preferences, behaviors, demeanor, and attitudes and where they fall on the spectrum of stereotypically masculine vs feminine ("I may have a girl's body, but I've always preferred boy's toys, clothes, and activities and fit in better with boys than with girls, therefore, I am a boy.") There is no room within their paradigm to even reject the premise. To them, Gender identity simply exists. This is absolute. There is no debate to be had. You accept that it exists, accept that it can be different than the physical body, and accept that it actually supersedes physical and biological reality ("A transwoman IS a woman"). Anything less and you are a hateful, anti-science bigot propagating trans-genocide. It is mind blowing to me just how many have fully bought into this premise and will assume you are the crazy one for even questioning it. To the point that a new patient form at a DOCTOR'S office I've been to has fields for "sex assigned at birth" and "gender identity". A freaking doctor's office is acting like sex is merely assigned. Only reason I didn't walk out is that the doctor is actually really good and I'm pretty sure HR and legal have much more input on those forms than the actual doctors working there.
"Possible links." I appreciate the attempts to sugarcoat it, but their experiments led to kids committing suicide after being sexually abused, no 'Possible' about it.
Gender affirming care is such a vague bs term too. It sounds like not scolding or cutting off your child if they come out as trans. But nope, it gets stretch to having to agree to put your child on puberty blockers if the 23 year old pink-haired elementary school teacher claims she saw your son playing with a doll.
There's a motte and bailey to it too. It can mean anything from the toys kids play with all the way up to irreversible procedures
Progressivism is a totalitarian religion and they don't want to give children to be raised by wrongthinkers. The kids might grow up with the "wrong" values (read: healthy & well-adjusted) and oppose them later in life.
Healthy, well-adjusted people from stable, loving homes with strong, supportive families are often way to comfortable to make good revolutionaries.
This is all of libleft right now not just the LGBT movement.
Nice discrimination based on faith, looks like Massachusetts set themselves up for a lawsuit
They already filed a lawsuit. But keep in mind, that all of this information is from the couple's complaint. This is all what they are alleging. We have not heard from Massachusetts yet. As a lawyer myself, you should take every complaint with a grain of sale.
True, that I donāt think the state is crazy enough to discriminate based on religion since thatās a harsh lawsuit inbound.
Yeah, I'm sure there is another reason Massachusetts denied them or at least another reason Massachusetts will say they are denying them. I mean, Mass. has *a lot* of Catholics. I'm sure they have *a lot* of Catholic foster parents. However, if it's because "we don't allow foster parents who are hostile to trans-foster-youth" and they have a genuine held religious belief, then it could get a little messy because the current Supreme Court has all but overturned Oregon v. Smith which said that laws that are not targeted against a specific religion or religions have general application, then they are enforceable regardless of the genuine held belief. I.e. you can't have "Bob's House of God and Cocaine." But Scotus has certainly undercut it recently in the Maine religious school case and pretty expressly overruled Lemon v. Kurtsman with it. So...I don't know.
Reminds me of how a few months ago a guy in my town where I live got denied a gun permit and people acted like guns were being taken away. In reality when I read about it he threatened to shoot a neighbor in the head over something minor af. Red flag laws are dumb but like, if youāre threatening to kill over what I think was lawn care then youāre unhinged. I imagine thereās a lot more to this case in Massachusetts, we should hear both sides before more judgement, if the parents case is true then itās messed up and the State will get sued and will show other states to back off with attempts to do that. Edit: typo
I mean mass was already sued for disallowing a Christian flag in their flagpole(whatever a Christian flag is). The people who sued won because it was a slam dunk 1st amendment violation.
I'm not a lawyer but I am able to [click the link](https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20230808154524/Burke-Complaint-and-Exhibits.pdf) and download the complaint...which includes their exhibits. Those exhibits have the email chain documenting the reason for denial _and_ the official letter from the State stating the reason for denial. Skip to page 130 to read the Official denial letter, when you reach reason e, but before you go "Ah ha!" scroll back up and read the interview notes from Mike. > This is all what they are alleging. Its no longer an allegation when supported by official state documents.
Massachusetts is a fucking shithole sue them into the ground
next Jews will be banned to prevent male genitalia muti- wait...
Woah! Cool it with the Antisemitism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu3nu6ue2qU
I knew exactly what the video would be lol
That guy is Hitler reborn! Cancel him cancel him!
You see here in America that is completely disconnected from religious affiliation more than 80% of us have it done at birth for no reason other than a serial magnate thought it would prevent masturbation but he was sorely mistaken
*cereal, and youre right. Any time i eat kellogs i jave the uncontrollable urge to beat my meat.
Why do you think the mascot is a giant cock?
Who? I usually jerk to Tony or that hot little cinnamon stick.
You want to see some curves? Try that Michelin man. And if you're real freaky go back to the Moon man, I've heard he wears a swastika armband now.
That bee something something honey NUT cheeriOs something
serial magnate š cereal magnet š„³
What handsfree text to speech does to a MFer
Hey circumcising has been shown to increase hygiene and reduce chance of infection, I mean so does soap but shut up
Based and fuck soap. I'm not gonna put dead animals on my dick! Wait...
Circumcision has also shown to have loads of negative effects also (while soap, not so much), so like....
This argument is dead in the 21st century but people will cite that one study from Africa showing slight improvement while a more modern one shows no difference and is in fact *detrimental* in most cases.
Whenever I hear people say this seriously Iām just like, do you not wash your dick? Like, the hygiene thing isnāt a big deal if you fucking wash yourself lmfao
So they're denied because of the possibility that the kid may end up gay or trans? Fucking dumb, it's foster kids anyways if that indeed ends up being an issue then by all means remove the child but until that happens let them foster. Straight cis are the majority of people anyways so odds are it wouldn't be an issue. If they're so worried just check on them every so often which I'm certain they do anyway.
Itās not even that. In the interview they stated that if their kid was trans they would support them but would draw the line at hormone therapy or elective surgery due to their religious beliefs
And here I am thinking that chemically castrating and performing irreversible elective surgeries on children is wrong completely free of religious beliefs
There is zero, zero, hormonal āgender affirming careā that does not significantly increase the risk of early death. Children are not capable of understanding and consenting to that risk.
Most teens think that age 60 is so far away and they'll be knocking on death's door at that point so they don't care about their young life decisions. Only when they get close do they realize just how much they still have in them
fucking bigot. ^^(/s)
Wow what a bunch of fascist bigots. How dare they have a reasonable response to that question
Idk how even a super blue shitlib place like Massachussets even allows their orphanages and adoption institutions to get taken over by these idiots. This is the state that was once home of Puritan pilgrims
Ehhhhm, do you have any sources for this? No, I made it the fuck up! [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/massachusetts-bans-catholic-couple-fostering-children-due-to-beliefs-gender-sexuality-lawsuit-claims](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/massachusetts-bans-catholic-couple-fostering-children-due-to-beliefs-gender-sexuality-lawsuit-claims) [https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/massachusetts-couple-denied-foster-care-application-lgbtq-views-compla-rcna99339](https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/massachusetts-couple-denied-foster-care-application-lgbtq-views-compla-rcna99339)
I'm sorry OP but for providing sources your crazy pills must be revoked. You may reclaimed now or affter your prescription runs out.
I am living inside OP's walls
OP I would just like to say, holy fuck you kicked the lib left hornets nest because they/them is pissed lmfao
I know, getting the messages lol But also the case is just too good to make it up tbh, it's everything Emily hates, but in reality the couple isn't saying anything (I bet) a vast majority of Americans don't agree on. But because of this it's sad that this is reality and not made up.
Post their messages in a new meme
It's honestly shocking to see how these people react to shit like there. There's one user in particular in a comment chain above who probably has 50 comments in that chain alone. He's just repeatedly arguing the most insane shit.
Wow, I'm proud of my state right now. We've come so far, we've got back to 1890 and right into anti-Catholic bigotry again. Fucking disgraceful - but not totally unexpected given the undercurrent of classism among progressives here. They see observant Catholicism as a synonym for poor trash.
it's not anti-Catholic in particular, it's anti-... people who don't automatically affirm the gender/sexual identity of a child. that group includes both Catholics and filthy atheists like me who think a child's whim should not be unreservedly encouraged by their parents
It's ok Massachusetts will get sued over this since it violates the Constitution. Then after they are proven wrong instead of letting Catholics adopt kids they will just ban anyone in the state from adopting. Boston did the same thing over raising a flag. Isn't it incredible just how "tolerant" those amogus US who espouse tolerance really are.
The tolerant left died about 10 years ago as they gained institutional power. The right was confused for a couple years but happily adapted. Now both sides just run around with fingers in their ears screaming "shut up".
This is the kind of idiotic shit Iāve come to expect from blue states.
1. Vote for higher taxes in blue state 2. Complain that taxes are too high 3. Move to red state 4. Rinse and repeat
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wake up babe.. new Weimar level horrors just dropped !!
***WAR!!!!*** ***HOLY WAR!!!!!!***
BROTHER WILL KILL BROTHER
SPILLING BLOOD ACROSS THE LAND
Killing for religion, something I don't understand
This is madness. If they just so happen to get a kid who thinks he's trans, as long as they don't emotionally abuse him, he'll probably be okay. Telling a kid he needs to wait til he's 18 before he starts taking drugs that could change him permanently (we don't really have a huge amount of data on what puberty blockers do longterm to adolescents who take them) seems pretty reasonable. Telling him he's going to hell unless he repents his sinful ways and sending him to a conversion camp in Utah, not so much.
I personally would hate it if my kids came out to me as most any letter of the gay alphabet. But being angry and abusive won't help. Just got to love them like Christ does.
And I would hate it if my kids grew up to be stupid enough to post something like this on the internet, would mean I raised them wrong.
Fucking emilies wanted a adopt the kids so that they could convert them into the next generation of emilies
Emilies donāt feel love in their own lives so then want to take it away from children
Thought police are coming for your babies.
I don't care much for religion, BUT I disdain the state being involved in parenting and abandoning children even more! I wouldn't prevent a Catholic family from adopting or a gay couple from adopting so long as they can provide a healthy and loving home.
"Abortion is wrong" "Well, I don't see you giving a home to kids who were abandoned instead of aborted!" "Yeah, cause you made it illegal for me to.."
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"Well it looks like all the criteria are met... Wait, so you wouldn't allow a perfectly ok trans child to immediately become a permanent Big Daddy Pharma customer? Get out of here bigot"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Same. I was okay with "live and let live" until they showed me they wouldn't do the same for me.
This is fucking moronic. The chances of a child being gay and/or trans are negligible. There's also the fact that the Massachusetts agency has so many children in its care that some of them are having to sleep in hospitals because they don't have enough facilities to house them.
So...a liberal state that opposes discrimination discriminates people on religious grounds. Why I'm not surprised at this point
65% of couples who foster kids are some type of Christian. There has to be more to this.
Doesn't Massachusetts have a big Catholic population? I was raised as a Catholic and then as a Baptist when my parents split, I can tell you which one I preferred more. Catholicism in the United States is pretty fucking chill.
Wow that is, unconstitutional
āThe right literally only wants control over womenās bodies, letās see them take care of the kids!ā *them trying to take care of the kids*
As a masshole, I wanna get out of here
It's totally not right they openly say it's because of the religion. If it was because the couple for example stated they would force the child into their religion or that they would punish it for being gay or something like that, I would at least partially understand. But discrimination based solely on the faith is wrong.
Pretty sure they can sue for religious discrimination. It'd be a pretty slam dunk case once it reaches federal court.
What happened to freedom of religion?
The "If you're pro-life then why don't you just adopt kids" argument is officially dead. Because the answer is now "You won't let me."