Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Catholic Charity Closed

InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 9:32:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
They were denying homosexuals access to adoption. That part was unfair, but my views on it are similar to my views on gay marriage; each organization should be able to decide for themselves whether to allow gays to adopt(or marry if it's a religious institution) or not.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 9:34:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The denied gays adoption. To resolve the problem, government made sure they denied everyone adoption. Makes perfect sense.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 9:36:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:34:42 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
The denied gays adoption. To resolve the problem, government made sure they denied everyone adoption. Makes perfect sense.

So would you agree that minsters,Priests, Pastor ect should be forced to marry homosexuals?

Or should the government force Churches to allow any oe to be clergy and teach what ever they want?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 9:39:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:28:49 PM, jharry wrote:
http://www.adamsmith.org...

What do you think about this? Right? Wrong? Perfect?

I believe any organization considered a charity that denies access to those in need of the charity are not actually charities and should not remain open.
I believe if they were going to close just because they were forced to be equal they shouldn't have been open in the first place.

As an adoption agency the first priority should be taking care of children and finding them loving homes, which may belong to one or two adults, maybe even more, the adults may have other children, they may be sterile, or unwilling to have children of their own, they may just want to help needy children. Sexuality should not have a role in deciding unless they were attracted to children.

If the *state* was forcing them to marry homosexuals within the church, I would be against the *state*, but since they are just forcing them to allow options for all people, to help children, the church is in the wrong. Especially since they recieved payment from the feds for their service.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 9:41:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:36:58 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:34:42 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
The denied gays adoption. To resolve the problem, government made sure they denied everyone adoption. Makes perfect sense.

So would you agree that minsters,Priests, Pastor ect should be forced to marry homosexuals?

Or should the government force Churches to allow any oe to be clergy and teach what ever they want?

Nobody should be forced to marry anybody. It should be up to the individual congregation. There are some liberal churches that will wed gays. If they don't want a religious ceremony they could just get a civil union instead.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 9:41:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:28:49 PM, jharry wrote:
http://www.adamsmith.org...

What do you think about this? Right? Wrong? Perfect?

wrong.

If there were only a few kids up for adoption or whatnot... then I could see if the Kids were "Wards of the State" the state not looking to In Any Way favor one group over another for Adoptions, which regularly participating in placing the kids through such an agency might have the effect of doing....

but being that there're many kids needing homes... turning away such agencies, or outlawing them operating generally, is going to have a negative impact on those children who could use homes getting Placed in good homes...

and, regardless of whether or not the state participates with This charity Gay couples will not be significantly be negatively affected in their ability to adopt... There'll still be plenty of kids for anybody who would care to help.

IF and ONLY IF the kids were NOT Negatively affected by The State ceasing it's cooperation with this charity would ceasing cooperation with this charity be ok... and Only if there was good reason to think that the state's Cooperation with the Charity was in some way Dis-advantaging Gay couples ability to adopt.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 9:42:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:39:24 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:28:49 PM, jharry wrote:
http://www.adamsmith.org...

What do you think about this? Right? Wrong? Perfect?

I believe any organization considered a charity that denies access to those in need of the charity are not actually charities and should not remain open.
I believe if they were going to close just because they were forced to be equal they shouldn't have been open in the first place.

As an adoption agency the first priority should be taking care of children and finding them loving homes, which may belong to one or two adults, maybe even more, the adults may have other children, they may be sterile, or unwilling to have children of their own, they may just want to help needy children. Sexuality should not have a role in deciding unless they were attracted to children.

If the *state* was forcing them to marry homosexuals within the church, I would be against the *state*, but since they are just forcing them to allow options for all people, to help children, the church is in the wrong. Especially since they recieved payment from the feds for their service.

Who received money?

State allowing options. Do you know how people twist laws. If a law was passed with that type of "wording" I know several semantic lovers here that could probably turn into killing all religious.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 9:45:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:36:58 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:34:42 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
The denied gays adoption. To resolve the problem, government made sure they denied everyone adoption. Makes perfect sense.

So would you agree that minsters,Priests, Pastor ect should be forced to marry homosexuals?

Or should the government force Churches to allow any oe to be clergy and teach what ever they want?

I was being sarcastic. No, I don't think priests, pastors, rabbis, witch doctors, or anyone else for that matter should be forced to marry anyone.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 9:49:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:42:41 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:39:24 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:28:49 PM, jharry wrote:
http://www.adamsmith.org...

What do you think about this? Right? Wrong? Perfect?

I believe any organization considered a charity that denies access to those in need of the charity are not actually charities and should not remain open.
I believe if they were going to close just because they were forced to be equal they shouldn't have been open in the first place.

As an adoption agency the first priority should be taking care of children and finding them loving homes, which may belong to one or two adults, maybe even more, the adults may have other children, they may be sterile, or unwilling to have children of their own, they may just want to help needy children. Sexuality should not have a role in deciding unless they were attracted to children.

If the *state* was forcing them to marry homosexuals within the church, I would be against the *state*, but since they are just forcing them to allow options for all people, to help children, the church is in the wrong. Especially since they recieved payment from the feds for their service.

Who received money?


The adoption agency run by the church, last time I checked.

State allowing options. Do you know how people twist laws. If a law was passed with that type of "wording" I know several semantic lovers here that could probably turn into killing all religious.

How is it twisting laws? Why should one group deny another to help the people the first group are supposed to be trying to help.
Its clear the church was NOT doing it for the children, but instead to spread their faith. Hell they prolly make the children growing up in their care practice catholicism.

I understand they may not aprove of homosexuality, but point is, they are supposed tohelping children get off the streets and into homes. Not indocrtine them.
Lol I wouldn't be surpirsed to find out that some such organization was behind killing parents and/or napping to spread their faith.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 9:54:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:45:18 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:36:58 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:34:42 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
The denied gays adoption. To resolve the problem, government made sure they denied everyone adoption. Makes perfect sense.

So would you agree that minsters,Priests, Pastor ect should be forced to marry homosexuals?

Or should the government force Churches to allow any oe to be clergy and teach what ever they want?

I was being sarcastic. No, I don't think priests, pastors, rabbis, witch doctors, or anyone else for that matter should be forced to marry anyone.

So yo agree the forcing of a religious institute to allow whatever the government wants is wrong?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2010 9:56:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:49:27 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:42:41 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:39:24 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:28:49 PM, jharry wrote:
http://www.adamsmith.org...

What do you think about this? Right? Wrong? Perfect?

I believe any organization considered a charity that denies access to those in need of the charity are not actually charities and should not remain open.
I believe if they were going to close just because they were forced to be equal they shouldn't have been open in the first place.

As an adoption agency the first priority should be taking care of children and finding them loving homes, which may belong to one or two adults, maybe even more, the adults may have other children, they may be sterile, or unwilling to have children of their own, they may just want to help needy children. Sexuality should not have a role in deciding unless they were attracted to children.

If the *state* was forcing them to marry homosexuals within the church, I would be against the *state*, but since they are just forcing them to allow options for all people, to help children, the church is in the wrong. Especially since they recieved payment from the feds for their service.

Who received money?


The adoption agency run by the church, last time I checked.

So how are they excepting fed money?

State allowing options. Do you know how people twist laws. If a law was passed with that type of "wording" I know several semantic lovers here that could probably turn into killing all religious.

How is it twisting laws? Why should one group deny another to help the people the first group are supposed to be trying to help.
Its clear the church was NOT doing it for the children, but instead to spread their faith. Hell they prolly make the children growing up in their care practice catholicism.

I understand they may not aprove of homosexuality, but point is, they are supposed tohelping children get off the streets and into homes. Not indocrtine them.
Lol I wouldn't be surpirsed to find out that some such organization was behind killing parents and/or napping to spread their faith.

AS far as I'm concerned this has nothing to do with homosexuals. This is about the government over stepping it's bounds.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 7:45:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Religion is a private hobby, it should be accorded no more status that stamp collecting or wargaming. Maybe slightly more respect as people are liable to be less offended by disparaging remarks on their stamp collection or minature collection than they are their God.

Anyway, Religious groups are private associations. Private associations should be permitted to discriminate. Private associations do discminate, the womens institute, female only swimming groups, muslim female only swiming groups, Churches who do not allow gay/female/black/white/atheist Preachers.

However an adoption agency/charity does receive Government sanction, therefore it is subject to the secular laws of the land. Don't like it, then don't accept Government support.

In addition Children without guardians are wards of the state, so should probably be subjected to the laws of the state which should be secular and non-discriminatory.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 7:54:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:56:29 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:49:27 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:42:41 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:39:24 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:28:49 PM, jharry wrote:
http://www.adamsmith.org...

What do you think about this? Right? Wrong? Perfect?

I believe any organization considered a charity that denies access to those in need of the charity are not actually charities and should not remain open.
I believe if they were going to close just because they were forced to be equal they shouldn't have been open in the first place.

As an adoption agency the first priority should be taking care of children and finding them loving homes, which may belong to one or two adults, maybe even more, the adults may have other children, they may be sterile, or unwilling to have children of their own, they may just want to help needy children. Sexuality should not have a role in deciding unless they were attracted to children.

If the *state* was forcing them to marry homosexuals within the church, I would be against the *state*, but since they are just forcing them to allow options for all people, to help children, the church is in the wrong. Especially since they recieved payment from the feds for their service.

Who received money?


The adoption agency run by the church, last time I checked.

So how are they excepting fed money?


Accepting. By the government funding it.

State allowing options. Do you know how people twist laws. If a law was passed with that type of "wording" I know several semantic lovers here that could probably turn into killing all religious.

How is it twisting laws? Why should one group deny another to help the people the first group are supposed to be trying to help.
Its clear the church was NOT doing it for the children, but instead to spread their faith. Hell they prolly make the children growing up in their care practice catholicism.

I understand they may not aprove of homosexuality, but point is, they are supposed tohelping children get off the streets and into homes. Not indocrtine them.
Lol I wouldn't be surpirsed to find out that some such organization was behind killing parents and/or napping to spread their faith.

AS far as I'm concerned this has nothing to do with homosexuals. This is about the government over stepping it's bounds.

They did not overstep. I agree with C_N
"An adoption agency/charity does receive Government sanction, therefore it is subject to the secular laws of the land. Don't like it, then don't accept Government support.

In addition Children without guardians are wards of the state, so should probably be subjected to the laws of the state which should be secular and non-discriminatory."
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 3:28:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 7:54:41 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:56:29 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:49:27 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:42:41 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:39:24 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:28:49 PM, jharry wrote:
http://www.adamsmith.org...

What do you think about this? Right? Wrong? Perfect?

I believe any organization considered a charity that denies access to those in need of the charity are not actually charities and should not remain open.
I believe if they were going to close just because they were forced to be equal they shouldn't have been open in the first place.

As an adoption agency the first priority should be taking care of children and finding them loving homes, which may belong to one or two adults, maybe even more, the adults may have other children, they may be sterile, or unwilling to have children of their own, they may just want to help needy children. Sexuality should not have a role in deciding unless they were attracted to children.

If the *state* was forcing them to marry homosexuals within the church, I would be against the *state*, but since they are just forcing them to allow options for all people, to help children, the church is in the wrong. Especially since they recieved payment from the feds for their service.

Who received money?


The adoption agency run by the church, last time I checked.

So how are they excepting fed money?


Accepting. By the government funding it.

State allowing options. Do you know how people twist laws. If a law was passed with that type of "wording" I know several semantic lovers here that could probably turn into killing all religious.

How is it twisting laws? Why should one group deny another to help the people the first group are supposed to be trying to help.
Its clear the church was NOT doing it for the children, but instead to spread their faith. Hell they prolly make the children growing up in their care practice catholicism.

I understand they may not aprove of homosexuality, but point is, they are supposed tohelping children get off the streets and into homes. Not indocrtine them.
Lol I wouldn't be surpirsed to find out that some such organization was behind killing parents and/or napping to spread their faith.

AS far as I'm concerned this has nothing to do with homosexuals. This is about the government over stepping it's bounds.

They did not overstep. I agree with C_N
"An adoption agency/charity does receive Government sanction, therefore it is subject to the secular laws of the land. Don't like it, then don't accept Government support.

In addition Children without guardians are wards of the state, so should probably be subjected to the laws of the state which should be secular and non-discriminatory."

I will try to explain why C_N is wrong, yet again.

First some facts.

1. Catholic Care wasn't funded by government. Even if they received some funding (which they didn't) it wouldn't matter. They operate on money from the Church.

2. The children weren't wards of Catholic Charity. They were wards of the State.

3. C_N is most likely a child molester.

Let's say C_N has a car lot. I gather and send customers his way at my own expense. Through my "charity" he is able to sell 10 extra cars a month. He has the cars, they are in his custody. I simply set up and arrange the deal between C_N and the customer. Without me being open cars will still be sold. Now let's say C_N sees the value in my charity and he starts giving me money to help me bring him more customers. Now here is the catch. I won't send child molesters to his car lot. They are more then able and have every right to go straight to his car lot or use another charity or agency. Now C_N finds out that I won't deal with child molester and then makes him mad at me, since he is most likely a child molester himself. So now he quits giving me any money but I can continue to operate without his funding. Now if I solely relied on his funding then of course he could tell me to send everyone to his car lot. So where does C_N get the right to tell me I can no longer be in business only because I won't deal with his brother child molester, most likely?

I know you can use semantics to try and pick apart this example but I hope you can see what I'm talking about.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 4:16:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:28:49 PM, jharry wrote:
http://www.adamsmith.org...

What do you think about this? Right? Wrong? Perfect?:

Indifferent.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 9:12:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
In 2007, they passed a law which made it "unlawful to discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation in the provision of goods or services to the public." So, the charity was breaking the law, ergo it deserved to be shut down.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 9:14:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 9:12:42 PM, annhasle wrote:
In 2007, they passed a law which made it "unlawful to discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation in the provision of goods or services to the public." So, the charity was breaking the law, ergo it deserved to be shut down.

Legalism fail.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 9:15:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 9:14:03 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/16/2010 9:12:42 PM, annhasle wrote:
In 2007, they passed a law which made it "unlawful to discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation in the provision of goods or services to the public." So, the charity was breaking the law, ergo it deserved to be shut down.

Legalism fail.

That's besides the point. It doesn't matter if the people agree with the law or not, it's instated. And the charity either follows the law and continues to run their adoption agency, or they can break the law and be shut down. They chose the latter.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 9:16:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 9:15:58 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 9/16/2010 9:14:03 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/16/2010 9:12:42 PM, annhasle wrote:
In 2007, they passed a law which made it "unlawful to discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation in the provision of goods or services to the public." So, the charity was breaking the law, ergo it deserved to be shut down.

Legalism fail.

That's besides the point. It doesn't matter if the people agree with the law or not, it's instated. And the charity either follows the law and continues to run their adoption agency, or they can break the law and be shut down. They chose the latter.

That doesn't mean they deserve to be shut down.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 9:22:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
First some facts.

Okay

1. Catholic Care wasn't funded by government. Even if they received some funding (which they didn't) it wouldn't matter. They operate on money from the Church.

Some funding = funding.

2. The children weren't wards of Catholic Charity. They were wards of the State.

Exactly.

3. C_N is most likely a child molester.

You get that info...?

Let's say C_N has a car lot. I gather and send customers his way at my own expense. Through my "charity" he is able to sell 10 extra cars a month. He has the cars, they are in his custody. I simply set up and arrange the deal between C_N and the customer. Without me being open cars will still be sold. Now let's say C_N sees the value in my charity and he starts giving me money to help me bring him more customers. Now here is the catch. I won't send child molesters to his car lot. They are more then able and have every right to go straight to his car lot or use another charity or agency. Now C_N finds out that I won't deal with child molester and then makes him mad at me, since he is most likely a child molester himself. So now he quits giving me any money but I can continue to operate without his funding. Now if I solely relied on his funding then of course he could tell me to send everyone to his car lot. So where does C_N get the right to tell me I can no longer be in business only because I won't deal with his brother child molester, most likely?

No where does it say you must seel to child molesters that wish to sell. Furthermore it would be more like you stop giving him funding because he decided not to sell to the child molesters. Which adds to the fact that come on, its cars, its not like your selling ice cream trucks, or unmarked vans. I'd much prefer them in a convertable, much easier for people to tell if something illegal is happening.

I know you can use semantics to try and pick apart this example but I hope you can see what I'm talking about.

I hope I didn't use semantics, just pointed out the most obvious flaws I could.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 9:30:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 9:22:11 PM, lovelife wrote:
First some facts.

Okay

1. Catholic Care wasn't funded by government. Even if they received some funding (which they didn't) it wouldn't matter. They operate on money from the Church.

Some funding = funding.

2. The children weren't wards of Catholic Charity. They were wards of the State.

Exactly.

3. C_N is most likely a child molester.

You get that info...?

Let's say C_N has a car lot. I gather and send customers his way at my own expense. Through my "charity" he is able to sell 10 extra cars a month. He has the cars, they are in his custody. I simply set up and arrange the deal between C_N and the customer. Without me being open cars will still be sold. Now let's say C_N sees the value in my charity and he starts giving me money to help me bring him more customers. Now here is the catch. I won't send child molesters to his car lot. They are more then able and have every right to go straight to his car lot or use another charity or agency. Now C_N finds out that I won't deal with child molester and then makes him mad at me, since he is most likely a child molester himself. So now he quits giving me any money but I can continue to operate without his funding. Now if I solely relied on his funding then of course he could tell me to send everyone to his car lot. So where does C_N get the right to tell me I can no longer be in business only because I won't deal with his brother child molester, most likely?


No where does it say you must seel to child molesters that wish to sell. Furthermore it would be more like you stop giving him funding because he decided not to sell to the child molesters. Which adds to the fact that come on, its cars, its not like your selling ice cream trucks, or unmarked vans. I'd much prefer them in a convertable, much easier for people to tell if something illegal is happening.

I know you can use semantics to try and pick apart this example but I hope you can see what I'm talking about.

I hope I didn't use semantics, just pointed out the most obvious flaws I could.

Yes, your entire argument was basically nothing. Actually it was utterly useless. I can't even comment on it because there is nothing to comment on. You began talking about different kind of cars and you even said some funding=funding. The point is funding can be taken away. Just because a government gives some funding doesn't mean they can control the agency. They can remove the funding and if the agency relied on that funding then it would close. That is how a government can close something.

Catholic Care wasn't a government agency. It was private. Even if it did receive some funding the government didn't own the charity. And they didn't receive funding anyway. Catholic Care helped to place children at it's own expense. Just like if I helped to sell cars. C_N is perfectly with in his rights to sell to child molesters, but I don't have too. Unless the government forces me too.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 9:40:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 9:16:58 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/16/2010 9:15:58 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 9/16/2010 9:14:03 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 9/16/2010 9:12:42 PM, annhasle wrote:
In 2007, they passed a law which made it "unlawful to discriminate on the ground of sexual orientation in the provision of goods or services to the public." So, the charity was breaking the law, ergo it deserved to be shut down.

Legalism fail.

That's besides the point. It doesn't matter if the people agree with the law or not, it's instated. And the charity either follows the law and continues to run their adoption agency, or they can break the law and be shut down. They chose the latter.

That doesn't mean they deserve to be shut down.

Fine, let me re-word it because it came out a little stronger than I meant to. I should have said, "So the charity was breaking the law, ergo the government did what is expected of them."
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 9:42:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 9:30:37 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/16/2010 9:22:11 PM, lovelife wrote:
First some facts.

Okay

1. Catholic Care wasn't funded by government. Even if they received some funding (which they didn't) it wouldn't matter. They operate on money from the Church.

Some funding = funding.

2. The children weren't wards of Catholic Charity. They were wards of the State.

Exactly.

3. C_N is most likely a child molester.

You get that info...?

Let's say C_N has a car lot. I gather and send customers his way at my own expense. Through my "charity" he is able to sell 10 extra cars a month. He has the cars, they are in his custody. I simply set up and arrange the deal between C_N and the customer. Without me being open cars will still be sold. Now let's say C_N sees the value in my charity and he starts giving me money to help me bring him more customers. Now here is the catch. I won't send child molesters to his car lot. They are more then able and have every right to go straight to his car lot or use another charity or agency. Now C_N finds out that I won't deal with child molester and then makes him mad at me, since he is most likely a child molester himself. So now he quits giving me any money but I can continue to operate without his funding. Now if I solely relied on his funding then of course he could tell me to send everyone to his car lot. So where does C_N get the right to tell me I can no longer be in business only because I won't deal with his brother child molester, most likely?


No where does it say you must seel to child molesters that wish to sell. Furthermore it would be more like you stop giving him funding because he decided not to sell to the child molesters. Which adds to the fact that come on, its cars, its not like your selling ice cream trucks, or unmarked vans. I'd much prefer them in a convertable, much easier for people to tell if something illegal is happening.

I know you can use semantics to try and pick apart this example but I hope you can see what I'm talking about.

I hope I didn't use semantics, just pointed out the most obvious flaws I could.

Yes, your entire argument was basically nothing. Actually it was utterly useless. I can't even comment on it because there is nothing to comment on. You began talking about different kind of cars and you even said some funding=funding. The point is funding can be taken away. Just because a government gives some funding doesn't mean they can control the agency. They can remove the funding and if the agency relied on that funding then it would close. That is how a government can close something.

Catholic Care wasn't a government agency. It was private. Even if it did receive some funding the government didn't own the charity. And they didn't receive funding anyway. Catholic Care helped to place children at it's own expense. Just like if I helped to sell cars. C_N is perfectly with in his rights to sell to child molesters, but I don't have too. Unless the government forces me too.

But the government *did* force you/the adoption agency.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 9:49:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 9:42:45 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 9/16/2010 9:30:37 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/16/2010 9:22:11 PM, lovelife wrote:
First some facts.

Okay

1. Catholic Care wasn't funded by government. Even if they received some funding (which they didn't) it wouldn't matter. They operate on money from the Church.

Some funding = funding.

2. The children weren't wards of Catholic Charity. They were wards of the State.

Exactly.

3. C_N is most likely a child molester.

You get that info...?

Let's say C_N has a car lot. I gather and send customers his way at my own expense. Through my "charity" he is able to sell 10 extra cars a month. He has the cars, they are in his custody. I simply set up and arrange the deal between C_N and the customer. Without me being open cars will still be sold. Now let's say C_N sees the value in my charity and he starts giving me money to help me bring him more customers. Now here is the catch. I won't send child molesters to his car lot. They are more then able and have every right to go straight to his car lot or use another charity or agency. Now C_N finds out that I won't deal with child molester and then makes him mad at me, since he is most likely a child molester himself. So now he quits giving me any money but I can continue to operate without his funding. Now if I solely relied on his funding then of course he could tell me to send everyone to his car lot. So where does C_N get the right to tell me I can no longer be in business only because I won't deal with his brother child molester, most likely?


No where does it say you must seel to child molesters that wish to sell. Furthermore it would be more like you stop giving him funding because he decided not to sell to the child molesters. Which adds to the fact that come on, its cars, its not like your selling ice cream trucks, or unmarked vans. I'd much prefer them in a convertable, much easier for people to tell if something illegal is happening.

I know you can use semantics to try and pick apart this example but I hope you can see what I'm talking about.

I hope I didn't use semantics, just pointed out the most obvious flaws I could.

Yes, your entire argument was basically nothing. Actually it was utterly useless. I can't even comment on it because there is nothing to comment on. You began talking about different kind of cars and you even said some funding=funding. The point is funding can be taken away. Just because a government gives some funding doesn't mean they can control the agency. They can remove the funding and if the agency relied on that funding then it would close. That is how a government can close something.

Catholic Care wasn't a government agency. It was private. Even if it did receive some funding the government didn't own the charity. And they didn't receive funding anyway. Catholic Care helped to place children at it's own expense. Just like if I helped to sell cars. C_N is perfectly with in his rights to sell to child molesters, but I don't have too. Unless the government forces me too.

But the government *did* force you/the adoption agency.

I know, that is why it is wrong in so many ways. Took away the chance of so many children being placed for political agenda, this is becoming a sad sad world. innocents suffering because some people want to enforce what they believe is right or wrong.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 10:09:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/15/2010 9:36:58 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:34:42 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
The denied gays adoption. To resolve the problem, government made sure they denied everyone adoption. Makes perfect sense.

So would you agree that minsters,Priests, Pastor ect should be forced to marry homosexuals?

I think I've told you this before, but priests can't legally marry people in the way that you think they can.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 10:10:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 10:09:37 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:36:58 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:34:42 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
The denied gays adoption. To resolve the problem, government made sure they denied everyone adoption. Makes perfect sense.

So would you agree that minsters,Priests, Pastor ect should be forced to marry homosexuals?

I think I've told you this before, but priests can't legally marry people in the way that you think they can.

What do you mean, legally?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 10:15:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 10:10:33 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/16/2010 10:09:37 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:36:58 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:34:42 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
The denied gays adoption. To resolve the problem, government made sure they denied everyone adoption. Makes perfect sense.

So would you agree that minsters,Priests, Pastor ect should be forced to marry homosexuals?

I think I've told you this before, but priests can't legally marry people in the way that you think they can.

What do you mean, legally?

The marriage ceremony in a church has no legal significance. It's a private transaction between two parties that is legally meaningless. However, priests are one of the MANY, MANY professions that can act as an officiate to declare a marriage legal by signing the marriage certificate.

/Off-Topic
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 10:50:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 10:15:55 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 9/16/2010 10:10:33 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/16/2010 10:09:37 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:36:58 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:34:42 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
The denied gays adoption. To resolve the problem, government made sure they denied everyone adoption. Makes perfect sense.

So would you agree that minsters,Priests, Pastor ect should be forced to marry homosexuals?

I think I've told you this before, but priests can't legally marry people in the way that you think they can.

What do you mean, legally?

The marriage ceremony in a church has no legal significance. It's a private transaction between two parties that is legally meaningless. However, priests are one of the MANY, MANY professions that can act as an officiate to declare a marriage legal by signing the marriage certificate.

/Off-Topic

Oh, yeah I know that. I'm talking about forcing them to marry people against their will. I know you say that could never happen. I don't think it can happen over night either. It takes small small steps to get to that point. Take away the shock a little at a time so when it finally does come then most people won't even notice.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2010 11:17:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/16/2010 10:50:48 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/16/2010 10:15:55 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 9/16/2010 10:10:33 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/16/2010 10:09:37 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:36:58 PM, jharry wrote:
At 9/15/2010 9:34:42 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
The denied gays adoption. To resolve the problem, government made sure they denied everyone adoption. Makes perfect sense.

So would you agree that minsters,Priests, Pastor ect should be forced to marry homosexuals?

I think I've told you this before, but priests can't legally marry people in the way that you think they can.

What do you mean, legally?

The marriage ceremony in a church has no legal significance. It's a private transaction between two parties that is legally meaningless. However, priests are one of the MANY, MANY professions that can act as an officiate to declare a marriage legal by signing the marriage certificate.

/Off-Topic

Oh, yeah I know that. I'm talking about forcing them to marry people against their will. I know you say that could never happen. I don't think it can happen over night either. It takes small small steps to get to that point. Take away the shock a little at a time so when it finally does come then most people won't even notice.

It WON'T ever happen, because there is no NEED for it to happen.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown