25 January 2007
Catholic adoption agencies demand exemption from serving gay couples
The head of the Roman Catholic Church in the UK wrote to PM Tony Blair over the Equality Act, threatening to close Catholic adoption agencies rather than serve gay couples as required by the non-discrimination provisions of the new law. Full essay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Would you consider the UK Catholic Church request reasonable if the stated agencies do not accept any government funds but only private donations.
I must say that I did think from the onset (ie, on reading the headline) that the exemption was reasonable, but you've argued against it very convincingly. You do however rely on viewing adoption agencies (catholic or otherwise) as entities serving the public, like B&Bs and taxis. If instead adoption agencies were viewed as entities serving the people who want to give their children away, and if those people would prefer their children to be brought up in a certain way, would "discrimination" not be reasonable? Extending this to other "services" provided by religious organisations, like shelters or food, they are not being paid by those who consume the services, surely the organisation or their donors should be free to choose who they want to offer the services to.
anonymous 15:26 -
If the adoption agency does not take any public funds, then I think an exception can be made. There may be others who will argue that so long as they benefit from the state in the form of certification or licensing, (thus imparting trustworthiness) they should not be exempted.
I take the view that licensing is a relatively low-cost matter, and thus one can be reasonable.
However, there are certain licences which the state limits, e.g. telecommunication licences, and they are a different proposition. Typically, a state gives out only a handful of such licences, no more than, say, five. In that case, the state can insist that every licensee must comply with public service standards. Even if one licensee refuses to serve, say, senior citizens, because not profitable, that would significantly reduce the options available to such a segment of the demographic. The state would be failing in its duty of equal care to its citizens if it allowed such discrimination by its licensees.
However, I do not think licences for adoption agencies are limited in number and thus a similar rule need not be applied to them.
anonymous 20:32 -
I think most adoption agencies, as a matter of ethics, would take into consideration the wishes of the giving parent, as well as issues of ethnicity and religion when it comes to deciding what's best for the child. It is not, and should not be, a lottery. I have no problem with adoption agencies taking a host of considerations into account. They should.
As for free donations by religious can charity organisations, let's not forget the state helps them raise funds by giving them tax-exempt status, which might be seen as a some sort of subsidy from the public purse. The very fact that they are licencsed charities also means a certain imprimatur by the state (why else is Singapore's commissioner of charities so busy nowadays?) giving out the message to the donating public that they are worthy, well-run causes.
I therefore will object if they use their state-given advantages to pursue a policy that is contrary to state and societal principles.
YB
You had initially stated a reasonable reply when if no government funds were involved that the organisation in line with its principles follows as such.
However, you than contradicted it by saying just because it is licenced as a charity,they should than be forced to abrogate its initial charter principles.
Please note that the charities are required to be licensed similiar to a licence Raj in India.What state imprimatur are you refering to? This organisation is than forced to be unlicensed although its activities are not for profit and further requests for funds are undertaken by its own adherents.
Further, in UK, your inclined parties are free to set up organisations such to cater to such inclined parties.
Well, it just shows that denominator being refered by YB not to the principles being accepted but it shows to be imposed.
YB than claims that since state and society principles are violated , they should be objected.
Fine, the argument also follows that you do not wish to follow the local society norms when it does not match your ideas.
Anon 15:26
I don't agree that if no state fund is involved, anti-discrimination laws should be exempted.
A restaurant is most likely to be privately owned with no state funding. Can a PRIVATE restaurant than refuse to serve a customer based on discrimination of race, gender or sexuality, if such discrimination is against state laws?
Just to open up the debate, in the US, some states have gender equality laws that require private social clubs that are MEN only to allow women to join IF it is shown that BUSINESS dealings occur in the private clubs. If it is purely a social club they are exempted. I read that some clubs where sucessfully sued and forced to allow women in when it is shown that members do discuss business in the clubs. The idea is that there should be equality in business opportunity.
I think the above idea can be extended to equal opportunity for all to adopt children to form a family.
Post a Comment