Religious liberty should not be used as a cover for homophobia. Do Catholic adoption agencies also seek to exclude couples who are Jewish or Protestant? They too are not "following church teaching," in one case by not believing in Jesus. Why focus only on same-sex couples?...
https://twitter.com/carolmaczim/status/1323978628510658565
To be clear: Catholic institutions and agencies have the right to require their employees to follow church teachings, and the right to decide whom they serve and under what conditions. But increasingly "religious liberty" exemptions are focused only on LGBT people...
...and the only "church teaching" that seems to matter has to do with same-sex marriage. There are many other important church teachings that adoptive couples are probably not following, and there is no exemption sought by Catholic social service agencies.
The same selectivity applies when LGBT employees are fired for not "supporting or conveying church teaching" (in the words of one archdiocese). Yet many church employees do not "support or convey church teaching," in other areas, and are not similarly targeted or fired.
As a thought exercise: When it comes to adoptions, why don't Catholic agencies seek a legal exemption so as not to be required to place children with Jewish couples? I am not arguing for that at all, just pointing out the inconsistency in the application of "church teaching."
It raises the question: Is believing in Jesus Christ not as an important a value for families? No, increasingly the only "religious liberty" issue in these cases seems to be the freedom to target, exclude and discriminate against LGBT people, whether in employment or adoption.
This selectivity of application of "church teaching" seems clearly discriminatory.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
