A social worker’s 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 “let’s take the T out of it” and called gender-affirming care “chemical castration,” according to the report. She also said, “I’m going to love you the same,” but that the child “would need to live a chaste life.” Both Kitty and Michael Burke expressed hesitation around using a transgender or nonbinary person’s preferred pronouns, the social worker’s report noted.
Good job denying these bigots, Massachusetts. Too bad the Supreme Court full of corrupt bigots will likely overrule it.
Determining how care of the children within a state is handled may be the responsibility of the state only (I’m not certain of this). If it is, then this case would be handled by the state supreme court, and would never be seen by the US supreme court.
The only way I can see this getting out of the state courts is if the prospective foster parents can show that their constitutional rights were infringed. Being a foster parent isn’t a right (you don’t apply for rights), so I don’t see what they could claim.
“My we-ligious fweedoms aw being in-fwinged!”
“… That is the most brilliant legal argument we have ever heard, affirmed.”
e; For real, they’ve gotten dangerously close to this already. Fulton v Philadelphia (2021)
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that a Catholic social services agency in Philadelphia could defy city rules and refuse to work with same-sex couples who apply to take in foster children.
If you’re saying “wtf do you mean unanimous?!!” all I can say is please just keep reading, there is a reason but it’s complicated
The decision, in the latest clash between antidiscrimination principles and claims of conscience, was a setback for gay rights and further evidence that religious groups almost always prevail in the current court.
The court’s surprising consensus on a case that pitted gay rights against religious rights masked deep divisions, with the three most conservative justices issuing caustic concurring opinions criticizing the decision as excessively timid and so narrow as to be meaningless.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for six members of the court, focused narrowly on the terms of the city’s contract with foster care agencies, which forbids discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation. But the contract allows city officials to make exceptions, he wrote, and that doomed the requirement that the Catholic agency must screen same-sex couples.
“The creation of a system of exceptions under the contract undermines the city’s contention that its nondiscrimination policies can brook no departures,” he wrote in the opinion, which was brisk and a little cryptic, suggesting it was the product of extended deliberation and compromise.
The Catholic agency, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else.”
The three most conservative justices cast the decision as a missed opportunity.
“After receiving more than 2,500 pages of briefing and after more than a half-year of postargument cogitation, the court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch. “Those who count on this court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed — as am I.”
The court’s three-member liberal wing — Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — joined the majority opinion, which was a surprise and may have been part of an effort to avoid a broader ruling that might have allowed religious objections to override all sorts of government policies and programs.
They’re claiming their first amendment rights are being violated, and their lawyer has previously gotten the Supreme Court to allow a Catholic adoption agency to discriminate against LGBTQ couples.
Headline of the article is misleading. It should say: “Massachusetts couple denied foster care application over their anti-LGBTQ views”
Bigots complaining about discrimination is just so deliciously ironic.
Not even really their views, either. They told the social worker in clear terms that if it turns out their adopted child is transgender they’re going to emotionally abuse them. Of course that’s disqualifying.
So they admitted they wouldn’t be able to honor a child’s care plan and that their opinion on that particular matter would weigh more than…the kid themselves, their family of origin, their doctor and psychologist and any other medical team member…
Yeah, they shouldn’t even have fundie kids, because who the fuck is to say that the kid’s fundamentalism would like up with their own.
“Will you love and care for this child that needs a home?”
“Yes, of course!”
“What if they happen to be trans?”
“Ew, no.”
If Massachusetts declares that parents strict adherence to Catholicism constitutes child abuse… They’re not wrong.
Unqualified couple denied. Not really news.
deleted by creator
Religion has too much influence in society and they abuse it like this. it’s time we pushed religion out of public life entirely
“let’s take the T out of it” and called gender-affirming care “chemical castration,” according to the report. She also said, “I’m going to love you the same,” but that the child “would need to live a chaste life.”
‘I disagree with chemical castration when enforced celibacy is obviously the answer.’
What a fucking charmer.
So another crazy Christian couple who want to stockpile orphans and foster children to prop up their church ledger? Prepare for indoctrination, brain washing, physical violence, mental violence and the continued effort to prop up extremist church ledgers.
I can put my thumb on the exact issue.
