Yo, beeg dawg…

[rjnwmill]

What’s up in Oregon?  Is this public policy that is supported by voters?  They want the authors of this bull shit on the public payroll?

https://thefederalist.com/2023/04/17/oregons-ban-on-christians-adopting-violates-the-first-amendment-and-good-sense/

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[Legend]

I’m not that old, but sometimes I feel old. This is one of those times.

I never thought I would see a world where NOT allowing your kid to chemically and physically alter their body could be considered child abuse.

 

____________________________________________________________
Sic transit gloria mundi (so shut up and get back to work)

[rjnwmill]

Addendum:

A Very Brief History of LGBTQ Parenting

A brief history of LGBTQ adoption. Over the course of 50 years social science has determined that the sexual orientation of parents does not negatively impact the environment for the raising of kids.

Now they argue religion impacts that environment negatively?  WTF. Our leaders have us? THE STATE hip deep in the genital mutilation business.

Is it appropriate to assert that “this is not who we are”?  To ask who is driving this change?

Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long

[Beeg_Dawg]

This is an interesting case.

Oregon’s adoption laws require that adoption agencies and foster care providers do not discriminate against prospective adoptive or foster parents based on their religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation. In theory, no one can be excluded or rejected from the adoption process solely based on their religious beliefs.

The case was filed in US District Court in Eastern Oregon, Pendleton Division, which includes Harney county.  If you recall, a district judge in Harney county ruled to place a hold on Oregon’s new anti 2A gun laws.  Like California, thinking is pretty conservative the further east you get from I5.

Seems clear to me the defendants will argue this is not about religion but is really about what is best for the child.  Problem is, in this case what is best for the child is determined solely by the  by the Dept of Human Services. Pretty easy to see how this decision is made.

DHS rules dictates minimum standards for foster parents.  She appears to meet all of the requirements save one- rejecting her faith.

Not sure how this one turns out, but it is another power grab by the nanny state to groom future progressives.

[Author]

Posts