Connect with us

Red Pill

News

Identity Politics

Bill that would ban LGBTQ’s from adopting children passes Georgia Senate

It would protect faith based organizations from being forced to violate their faith and mission statements

Published

on

0 Views

A new Georgia bill essentially provides faith-based child placing agencies the legal right to follow their own faith in the services they render. It means that they would also have the right to decline services that would violate the mandates of their faith without any backlash from the state Human Services Department.

Opponents of the bill, however, claim that this is a “hateful” practice and is “not in the best interests” of the children in their care. Christian News Network reports:

The Georgia Senate passed a bill on Friday that protects the religious convictions of faith-based foster and adoption agencies.

S.B. 375 was approved 35-19 along party lines, without a single Democrat voting in favor of the legislation.

“To the extent allowed by federal law, including compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a child-placing agency may decline to accept a referral for foster care or adoption services under a contract with the department based on the child-placing agency’s sincerely-held religious beliefs,” the bill reads in part.

“For services not referred under a contract with the department, a child-placing agency may decline to perform any service that conflicts with the child-placing agency’s sincerely-held religious beliefs, and the department shall not cause any adverse action against such child-placing agency for declining to perform such service,” it states.

Read the bill in full here.

Supporters of the bill say that the measure would encourage more faith-based nonprofits to serve as foster placement agencies.

“The goal is to open as many doors as possible for those children that are in need of homes, and this bill will do that,” author Sen. William Ligon, R-Brunswick, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

“We think faith-based agencies deserve to have the constitutional protection that they need in order to carry out their mission statements,” also explained Mike Griffin of the Georgia Baptist Mission Board, who serves as a lobbyist.

Co-sponsors of S.B. 375 include Sens. Jesse Stone, R-Waynesboro; Steve Gooch, R-Dahlonega; David Schafer, R-Duluth; Greg Kirk, R-Americus; Jeff Mullis, R-Chickamauga; Bill Heath, R-Bremen; and Marty Harbin, R-Tyrone, among others.

Opponents of the legislation assert that the bill is unnecessary and is discriminatory toward homosexuals.

“Why in the world do we need this statute?” Sen. Jen Jordan, D-Atlanta, remarked. “The language of the statute … tends to put these adoption agencies before the best interests of the child.”

“I don’t know why an entire political party wants to proudly carry the brand of being hateful,” Sen. Nan Orrock, D-Atlanta, and the Democratic Caucus secretary, claimed.

Some also posit that the move could hurt the state economy as corporations that support homosexual causes might not want to do business in Georgia as a result.

The bill will now move to the House for consideration. It is not yet known whether Republican Gov. Nathan Deal will sign the legislation. As previously reported, in 2016, Deal, who attends a Baptist church, vetoed a similar religious liberty bill that provided conscience protections for pastors and nonprofit faith-based organizations, stating that the protections provided under the First Amendment are sufficient.

“[The Founding Fathers] had previously proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that man’s Creator had endowed all men ‘with certain unalienable rights,’ including ‘liberty,’ which embraces religious liberty,” he said. “They made it clear that those liberties were given by God and not by man’s government. Therefore, it was unnecessary to enumerate in statute or constitution what those liberties included.”

The party lines narrative carries its flag at full mast in this case as the bill claims its support exclusively from republican legislators while not a single democrat voted in its favor.

Democrats continue to identify with identity politics regardless of the religious rights of the population to decide how and with whom they deal with. Then again, as we’ve seen with regards to the way bakers, caterers, photographers, wedding planners, etc. have been treated relative to serving the LGBTQ demographic, this perspective steps right in line.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

This Man’s Incredible Story Proves Why Due Process Matters In The Kavanaugh Case

Accused of rape by a fellow student, Brian Banks accepted a plea deal and went to prison on his 18th birthday. Years later he was exonerated.

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by James Miller of The Political Insider:


Somewhere between the creation of the Magna Carta and now, leftists have forgotten why due process matters; and in some cases, such as that of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, they choose to outright ignore the judicial and civil rights put in place by the U.S. Constitution.

In this age of social media justice mobs, the accused are often convicted in the court of (liberal) public opinion long before any substantial evidence emerges to warrant an investigation or trial. This is certainly true for Kavanaugh. His accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, cannot recall the date of the alleged assault and has no supporting witnesses, yet law professors are ready to ruin his entire life and career. Not because they genuinely believe he’s guilty, but because he’s a pro-life Trump nominee for the Supreme Court.

It goes without saying: to “sink Kavanaugh even if” Ford’s allegation is untrue is unethical, unconstitutional, and undemocratic. He has a right to due process, and before liberals sharpen their pitchforks any further they would do well to remember what happened to Brian Banks.

In the summer of 2002, Banks was a highly recruited 16-year-old linebacker at Polytechnic High School in California with plans to play football on a full scholarship to the University of Southern California. However, those plans were destroyed when Banks’s classmate, Wanetta Gibson, claimed that Banks had dragged her into a stairway at their high school and raped her.

Gibson’s claim was false, but it was Banks’s word against hers. Banks had two options: go to trial and risk spending 41 years-to-life in prison, or take a plea deal that included five years in prison, five years probation, and registering as a sex offender. Banks accepted the plea deal under the counsel of his lawyer, who told him that he stood no chance at trial because the all-white jury would “automatically assume” he was guilty because he was a “big, black teenager.”

Gibson and her mother subsequently sued the Long Beach Unified School District and won a $1.5 million settlement. It wasn’t until nearly a decade later, long after Banks’s promising football career had already been tanked, that Gibson admitted she’d fabricated the entire story.

Following Gibson’s confession, Banks was exonerated with the help of the California Innocence Project. Hopeful to get his life back on track, he played for Las Vegas Locomotives of the now-defunct United Football League in 2012 and signed with the Atlanta Falcons in 2013. But while Banks finally received justice, he will never get back the years or the prospective pro football career that Gibson selfishly stole from him.

Banks’ story is timely, and it serves as a powerful warning to anyone too eager to condemn those accused of sexual assault. In fact, a film about Banks’s ordeal, Brian Banks, is set to premiere at the Los Angeles Film Festival next week.

Perhaps all the #MeToo Hollywood elites and their liberal friends should attend the screening – and keep Kavanaugh in their minds as they watch.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Kavanaugh Accuser’s Classmate Backs Off Claims She Heard About Alleged Assault

“That it happened or not, I have no idea,” Cristina King Miranda told NPR’s Nina Totenberg. “I can’t say that it did or didn’t.”

The Duran

Published

on

Authored by Amber Athey via The Daily Caller:


A classmate of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is backing off of claims that she knew anything about an alleged sexual assault committed by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Cristina King Miranda, who attended high school with Ford, wrote on Facebook this week that she heard school rumors about an incident involving Kavanaugh and Ford back in the 1980s. Miranda later deleted the post and said she did not want to talk to the media about her claims.

However, Miranda spoke to NPR on Thursday and clarified that she has no information about an alleged assault.

“That it happened or not, I have no idea,” Cristina King Miranda told NPR’s Nina Totenberg. “I can’t say that it did or didn’t.”

Miranda’s new statement directly contradicts her Facebook post, in which she wrote, “The incident DID happen, many of us heard about it in school.”

“In my post, I was empowered and I was sure it probably did [happen],” Miranda told NPR this morning. “I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over MSNBC news and Twitter.”

Miranda said the Senate Judiciary Committee reached out to her after her post but that she would not testify if asked.

Dr. Ford previously said she had not told anyone about the incident until a therapist meeting in 2012. Ford also said the incident happened during the summer, contradicting Miranda’s assertion that she heard rumors about it in school.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending