State funded adoption agency; won't allow a Jewish couple to complete training with them because of their faith.
Court even made up an excuse for them that was outside of the reason given...
Christian Shariah laws are taking hold...
- Thread starter Joes Place
- Start date
State funded adoption agency; won't allow a Jewish couple to complete training with them because of their faith.
Court even made up an excuse for them that was outside of the reason given...
Actually sharia law is significantly more liberal on abortion rights than what these Christian fascists have tried to impose on the supermajority that believes in women’s rights and freedom of choice.
Women under the Taliban in Afghanistan right now have more abortion rights than women in half the states of the United States.
Women under the Taliban in Afghanistan right now have more abortion rights than women in half the states of the United States.
Are abortion bans like Sharia? Not even close, say Muslims
Alabama or Afghanistan? Abortion laws are more lenient under the Taliban than in some American states. A local Sharia expert explains.
www.northjersey.com
Last edited:
So Democrat abortion policy aligns with Sharia law…🤣Actually sharia law is significantly more liberal on abortion rights than what these Christian fascists have tried to impose on the supermajority that believes in women’s rights and freedom of choice.
Women under the Taliban in Afghanistan right now have more abortion rights than women in half the states of the United States.
Are abortion bans like Sharia? Not even close, say Muslims
Alabama or Afghanistan? Abortion laws are more lenient under the Taliban than in some American states. A local Sharia expert explains.www.northjersey.com
Seems like a new Matt Gaetz commercial in the making right there.
Actually, even LESS restrictive.
In the order of individual reproductive freedom:
Dems > Sharia > Christian Conservatives
I wouldn't call that "funny", I'd call it "pretty concerning".
Someone posts something (no link to article) and everyone freaks. So then I have to go find the facts…
“The judges found that the services the couple sought would not have been state-funded, saying the scope of Holston’s contract with the state is for services for children “in the custody of the State of Tennessee.”
Now, back to fact-free outrage…
“The judges found that the services the couple sought would not have been state-funded, saying the scope of Holston’s contract with the state is for services for children “in the custody of the State of Tennessee.”
Now, back to fact-free outrage…
Last edited:
Which is what I'd posted for you.
That WAS NOT the reason the agency denied them access. The Court MADE THAT UP for them. The agency EXPLICITLY denied access due to their religious faith. FULL STOP.
But isn’t the court’s LEGAL reasoning sound: That it is not illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion with private funds? It is okay to have a finding for a different reason than the plaintiffs posted, right?
(Side note: I do not accept this oft-used argument about “monies being separate”. Money is fungible. If an org can use public money for this, then it frees private money for other (possibly nefarious) uses. So I think the court-created reason for its finding is improper. But, the court did NOT say “You’re Jews, so no PUBLIC money for you”)
No.
The Court allowed the religious reasoning by the Christian agency to stand.
They STILL put (essentially) "No Jews" on their doors.
If I'm on that couple's legal team, I dig around and identify where a Christian couple who did exactly the same thing (other state "excuse") WAS served, because I'd bet that has happened there and the state did not care.
