Jewish couple sues Tennessee for funding anti-semitic children's home

Originally published at: Jewish couple sues Tennessee for funding anti-semitic children's home | Boing Boing


Love the “Enemy Mine” reference…


The anti-Semites at Houston Home can require clients to believe in whatever stupid fairy tale they want but they shouldn’t get one dime from the state. I just hope the judge isn’t a Federalist Society hack who uses the case to further GOP political aims.


Fuckers not only want to discriminate- they want people to pay the fuckers to discriminate against them.

Besides the obvious inequity in the government paying people to engage in unlawful discrimination - I thought money was protected speech? Don’t use my money to send this message.


Their intolerance towards others is a sign that no one in the management of the children’s home is qualified to care for children.


But what if the child isn’t from a Christian background?

Oh right, silly question. (And I suspect that their definition of Christian isn’t very ecumenical.)


I’m an adoptive parent over here in Scotland, and the more I learn about the various models and procedures around adoption which exist or have existied over the years and around the world, including right here, of course, the more horrified I become. Plenty of the time it’s the financial aspects of it that disturb me, but there’s a special bile-like taste of disgust which arrives whenever I read about religion and adoption. I need to learn more so I can help to educate myself, my kids, and the wider world, but my goodness… it can be pretty nasty sometimes.

(edited to add another link)


I’ll answer your silly question, because I used to consult with an adoption clinic (medical, after the fact) so I do know the answer: it’s better if they weren’t born to Christian parents, because then the adoptive parents get extra brownie points in their church for taking a heathen and turning them into a ‘good Christian’. I wish I were kidding. It’s actually the sort of thing pushed from the pulpit during sermons in some churches, so it’s not subtle at all.


Beer Ok GIF by Busch


Ugh - I hear the adoption process is horrible when things go right. Sorry you had to work with garbage people at first. :confused:

But yes, extra likes for the Enemy Mine reference.


I don’t think I agree, They should not be able to discriminate against a protected group because they made up an imaginary friend that told them it was ok.

Maybe our government should not even recognize religions that discriminate, since it is clear that they do not provide a societal good, which I think is why we say we encourage religion?


For what it’s worth- here’s the link to the 990 for this org.

It’s not registered as a church. It receives something like $10 million in government funds yearly. Has $25 million in assets and the ED receives about $220,000 in total compensation.

I haven’t had the chance to look at whether there are related entities that do business with the nonprofit that are associated with the ED or his family.

But I’ve often seen those types of transactions- like management contracts or the nonprofit renting its facilities from a company that is owned by staff family or board members etc.


From a moral and ethical viewpoint I agree with you. I was talking about it from the American legal viewpoint, where the Establishment Clause cuts both ways. Apart from criminal activity being involved, it’s best if the state stays out of the business of the church and vice-versa.


I know. I think that we need to change the interpretation of the establishment clause to match the way it is written. Not allowed to establish a state religion or preference any in any way. We should still tax them equally to any other enterprise and they should be subjected to the same laws. If they can’t operate without getting exemptions to the law they are obviously not a public good.

ETA: “Apart from criminal activity being involved” - Discrimination on the basis of religion is a crime, so…


The supreme court seems to like proselytizing with state funds.


For joining their club? Sure. For adoption services? Hard no. It’s not just the prospective parents here that are harmed but also the children in need of adoption who are not able to advocate for their own best interests.


Again, they can from a legal standpoint and not from a moral or ethical one, where I agree with you.


I think we can all agree that the state should not be allowed to contract with a business that engages in discriminatory practices. That is the real problem here.


Not from a legal standpoint either. They are taking on a government role in foster child placement and taking government funding.