'Judge Won't Hear Gay Adoptions Because They're Not in a Child's 'Best Interest'"

[Bob the Unbeliever]

In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). Section 703 (a) made it unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

Maybe we are talking about two different things.

No-- we are not. Due to religious bigotry, the law you cited, was ignored for gay people-- including deliberate discrimination in marriage, adoption and even medical decisions-- in that a gay partner was not given access, let alone the power of attorney (which is automatically granted to straight partners) for medical decisions.

It took deliberate and separate actions by the courts, to force religious bigots to recognize that gay people are a class of sex-- and thereby protected from discrimination.

I think we are speaking of the same issue.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

This was said by you without support and without even knowing him.

Definition of bigotry:
n.
1. extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

You have exemplified an example of the same.

Really? I'm simply pointing out the religious bigotry of Gorchsish (or however you spell this bigot's name-- I cannot be bothered to care).

I see that you suffer from the same class of bigotry: You do not consider homosexuality as a genuine sexual orientation, but rather, you (likely) pretend it's a "choice" or some such bull-exhaust.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). Section 703 (a) made it unlawful for an employer to "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

Maybe we are talking about two different things.

Maybe the rest of us don't base our personal definitions of bigotry on current United States law.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sounds like a recipe for abuse and neglect. How do you force people to be loving, committed, and competent?

I don't think these things are significant factors for somebody who holds that mindset. Everything amounts to little more than punishment, regardless of who it affects, or how. It's ironic how many "Christians," hold such a worldview and attitude.

 

[Kenny]

No-- we are not. Due to religious bigotry, the law you cited, was ignored for gay people-- including deliberate discrimination in marriage, adoption and even medical decisions-- in that a gay partner was not given access, let alone the power of attorney (which is automatically granted to straight partners) for medical decisions.

It took deliberate and separate actions by the courts, to force religious bigots to recognize that gay people are a class of sex-- and thereby protected from discrimination.

I think we are speaking of the same issue.

I thought it was due to science

 

[gnomon]

"Judge W. Mitchell Nance, who begins court each day by requiring everyone to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, said in an order this week that he would recuse himself from all adoptions involving gay people.

Nance cited a judicial ethics rule that says a judge must disqualify himself when he has a personal bias or prejudice.

He said in the order issued Thursday that “as a matter of conscience” he believes that “under no circumstance” would “the best interest of the child be promoted by the adoption by a practicing homosexual." Kentucky state law allows gay couples to adopt, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that all states must permit same-sex marriage."
source
​

Regardless of the judge's asinine view of homosexuals and adoption, at least he had brains enough to recuse himself. That said, I have to agree with what Chris Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign [which isn't explained] said, “If he can’t do the job, he shouldn’t have the job.”

Thoughts?

​

.

It's simple. This judge should lose their job.

It's apparent this judge cannot fulfill his duty to the State and to the People.

His inability to fulfill his duty to the State and the People shows that he is incapable of fulfilling his duties. His bias, even if it is religious based, shows that he is incapable of fulfilling his duty to the State as well as recognizing his failure in understanding the welfare of children.

By recusing himself he admits he does not understand what actually matters to the welfare of a child, is incapable of fulfilling his duties, and bases his decision upon an unscientific foundation and cannot make appropriate decisions therewise. Forbid he must hear other cases involving his "personal biases".

This judge is incapable of fulfilling his duties. I think he should be removed from his position.