Michael and Catherine Burke allege that the state’s Department of Children and Families discriminated against them for their Catholic viewpoints.
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.
Michael Burke told the social worker he’d been to gay weddings and would “likely attend” his child’s wedding if they were LGBTQ, according to the report, and the couple said they wouldn’t kick a child out of their home for being LGBTQ or subject them to conversion therapy.
Following the interview, the social worker issued an “approval with conditions, specifically around religion and LGBTQIA++ related issues.” Their application was later denied by the department’s Licensing Review Team, the complaint states.
“If you give me an LGBTQ kid, I’m going to be a horrible parent. Wait, why did you deny my parenting application? This is discrimination!”
I don’t know if I need to provide bonifides for being queer positive and not asking in bad faith, but why are there two pluses in that? It just makes me think of C++ and seems… jokey.
Yeah, that’s why I generally prefer “queer”. Plus, it’s not an acronym, and reclaiming words is always good!
Part of being a foster parent is agreeing to respect the child’s situation, religious views, sexual orientation, etc. If I tell the state that I’m not going to take a kid to church if they’re religious, I’m not getting approved. If I tell the state I’m going to teach potentially gay children that being gay is wrong, I’m not getting approved.
Holy shit. The foster system standing up for kids. Now there’s something that sadly doesn’t happen very often. I hope this couple get what they deserve
Which is zero children to indoctrinate by way of fear and hate.
You know, I didn’t even think of this. I initially just thought “good, they might get a queer kid they’ll abuse/neglect and thus shouldn’t have them” but the whole limiting of the expansion of more shitbirds sure is a nice bonus.
Sounds like the kinda family that if their teenager says they’re gay, will abuse and abandon them.
So yeah, they can go suck an egg.
The nerve of people to cry they were discriminated against for their views as if their views weren’t the original discriminator… It’s just mind boggling.
This is why conservatives should not be permitted to be foster parents. Child abuse is a foundational principle of conservatism.
As a child of conservatives, I can confirm…
Becket previously represented Sharonell Fulton and Toni Simms-Busch in Fulton v. Philadelphia, a 2021 Supreme Court case that unanimously ruled in favor of a Catholic adoption agency’s right to refuse to place children with LGBTQ couples.
This highlights the hypocrisy that is endemic in the Catholic church these days. The couple feels they were discriminated against in the approval process due to their anti-Trans views, yet they are using a lawyer who was happy to take the opposite view when a Catholic adoption agency wanted to discriminate against LGBTQ couples.
Unfortunately, a key difference is that it’s the State doing it in this case, and a private agency before. That may end up being the difference here. It still doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic Church seems much more Interested in politics and litigating than actually helping people.
It’s not hypocrisy, it’s their self-interest. They have a political agenda and are spending their lives doing what they can to enforce it, and that means helping their faction gain a foothold into every aspect of public life, especially raising children which they have said emphatically non-stop is all about forcing younger people who don’t have the ability to reject them logically to adopt their beliefs. They only care about making more Christians and shutting out enemies of what they think constitutes Christianity, especially the LGBTQ+ community.
They’re being entirely consistent in that light.
Yes, it would only be considered hypocritical if they are making the assertion that everyone should be allowed to foster children regardless of their beliefs and whether or not they intend to impose them on the children. But that’s not what they are saying.
Or America is really just fucked up
Yeah, child abuse isn’t an ideal trait to have if you intend to be the legal guardian of children.
Fuck that couple in particular.
Good, no child should be placed with parents who may discriminate against them for their natural state of being.
lol those two shouldn’t be near any kids. They’ll just be control freaks and make their kid exactly what they wanted to avoid.
Stop trying to control every aspect of children lives, conservatives.
“Views”, meaning they’ll abandon their child if they ever come out or acknowledge that LGBTQ people exist…
Sounds like it’s God’s plan for them to stay the fuck away from children. First sensible thing that asshat’s done.
Hahahaha! What a great take.
good? why should children be indoctrinated into bigotry
I think that until the church does a few strong demonstrations that they are not fiddling with children anymore - like, say, a public commitment to turn all allegations of child abuse over to secular authorities, like Biden just did with the military - that they should not be allowed access to children that they don’t produce themselves.
Cat: They shouldn’t even be allowed access to the children they do make themselves.
That’s a much more difficult one to defend, from a legal or ethical or moral stance.
My opinion is that teaching a child religion as the only truth is child abuse, without telling the child that there are also people who believe there are no supernatural phenomena in the universe and explaining their best arguments for their viewpoint. It’s no different than existing in a society of hunters and not teaching the kid to hunt. We win by knowing more, not by being stronger or tougher or purer in dog’s eyes or whatever.
But my opinion is no basis for passing laws and such. When you’re talking about who should take care of orphans, or of kids who have been subject to treatment that the law agrees is abuse, the mere having of bad viewpoints which are nonetheless legal is not sufficient grounds, if you ask me. Many religious people would consider my above opinion to be bad at best and hate speech at worst, for instance, but I think my wife and I would do alright taking care of a kid, if we had the time and resources to give.
But IF the people proposing to take a child into their care are regular attendees of the meetings of an organization that is known to protect pedophiles, that is definitely grounds to turn down that application on very solid legal footing, if you ask me.
Cat: If someone can’t be trusted to treat an adopted kid right, they can’t be trusted to treat any kid right. End of story.
Well, I’m already on the record as to my view of what constitutes child abuse; the fact of the matter is that we have to live with a lot of people doing a lot of things that we don’t like to children in a free society in 2023.
What is kinda good from my 50-odd year perspective is that people are not quite so entitled now as they were when I was a kid.
