It seems quieter than normal for now, but September is the busy month and we’re still weeks away. I think this year they’ll gather a lot of data about wind shear’s effects on storm development.
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.
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.
After looking at the paper's website, I noticed that they accused the police of knowing that they were giving the drunk driving Karen a pass for diving without a license. This raid was in retaliation for reporting on that, since the idea that the entire paper was committing identity theft and they had to confiscate the staff's personal phones and all computers is ridiculous. Small town corruption, as it is. I'm also not sure that the federal law against what these corrupt cops did actually applies in Kansas (though using police action to crack down on someone independent of the law absolutely is illegal regardless).
I was too hasty to judge the chief of police being insane just because the paper reported on his corruption. They were also investigating him for sexual misconduct allegations. That rep is going to be very very pissed off for dragging their name in the mud for this. https://thehandbasket.substack.com/p/a-conversation-with-the-newspaper
EM: So the backstory that we haven't told, because we don't wanna get in trouble, is that we've been investigating the police chief [Gideon Cody]. When he was named Chief just two months ago, we got an outpouring of calls from his former co-workers making a wide array of allegations against him saying that he was about to be demoted at his previous job and that he retired to avoid demotion and punishment over sexual misconduct charges and other things.
We had half a dozen or more different anonymous sources calling in about that. Well, we never ran that because we never could get any of them to go on the record, and we never could get his personnel file. But the allegations—including the identities of who made the allegations—were on one of the computers that got seized. I may be paranoid that this has anything to do with it, but when people come and seize your computer, you tend to be a little paranoid.
“The survey also found that 87% of Model 3 owners are considering a Tesla for their next vehicles. That means it’s a fairly small percentage of people who are actually walking away from Tesla overall, and only about one in five of those people are doing it because of Musk.
The rest of the survey is quite glowing for the Model 3, as most owners appear to be very happy about their purchase and how their cars are holding up.”
This is why LGBTQ rights is so important. Imagine being a foster kids because of the US failed social safety net, only to be re homed in a religious bigoted house?! That’s what the GOP wants for kids.
“This is why protecting traditional families is so important. Imagine being a foster kids because of the US failed social safety net, only to be re homed in a LGBT groomer house?! That’s what the GOP wants for kids.”
I literally just changed two things and it went 180 degrees on the other extremist side of the spectrum. Do with that info as you wish
You can say anything, that doesn't make it correct. And it's funny how people call themselves out, because I only call people exhibiting bigotry bigots.
If you're being called a bigot, maybe examine your beliefs and actions. After all, if it smells like shit everywhere you go, it's probably you.
If thinking having two halves of a country willing to kill each other to be insane makes people call you a bigot, maybe I’m not the one that stinks after all
I'm telling you to post proof of you being called a bigot because of not wanting Americans to kill each other or whatever your argument is. I want to see what you're saying that makes people think you're a bigot.
Lol, in other words, that never happened. If it did, you'd be showing me just how wrong I am, rather than constantly making empty claims about it.
So again, post your proof if you're not just lying on the Internet about being called a bigot for no reason. Otherwise, I'm probably right to assume you're being called a bigot for entirely warranted reasons.
You mean put it into proper context, look at the stats, and acknowledge you're full of shit? Sure thing! But you won't let facts get in the way of your feelings amirite?
Uhhhh what? One, “traditional families” aren’t anti LGBTQ by default. Second, LGBTQ parents aren’t groomers. (can LGBTQ individuals be terrible humans just like everyone else? Yes!) Third, asking a foster family if they hate LGBTQ people is critical for the safety of foster children because mathematically 10% will be LGBTQ. And since there’s no “Gaydar” to tell you can’t risk putting any child with them!
You didn’t prove anything except how ignorant you are. Do with that info as you wish
See the difference is that being tolerant and accepting of other people’s life choices that don’t impact my life is objectively not monster-esque, whereas imposing your beliefs and codifying hate and fear into laws that control what others can do with their lives is actually behaving like a monster.
Any examples of “imposing beliefs and codifying hate”?
I could definitely say that the constitution is nothing but a bunch of former British upper-class men who owned slaves and just wanted to evade taxes imposing their beliefs upon America and codifying it in a document
Pendantic though it may be… 30 percent is more accurate for children in foster care to be LGBTQIA+. Many lose their homes of origin and support BECAUSE they are LGBTQIA+ so the instance is way higher.
Kind of a no brainer to have homo/transphobic foster parents struck from the rolls. It’s enough to be traumatized once by having your authentic self rejected by a supposed safe haven. Twice is unconscionable.
These boneheads seem to mix up up supportive with grooming. I had a conversation at a bar the other day with some dipshit that said if you support your child coming out as gay or trans, you’re effectively grooming them to be a sexual deviant. They fail to realize that grooming is an active nudge or conditioning in the direction of a desired behavior, whereas being supportive is unconditional love regardless of identity. My buddy’s kid is identifying as a girl atm, and while he and I both think it’s a phase (he’s 15 and just an awkward kid in general), we are supportive of his/her choice.
On the other hand, there are parents out there that actively nudge their kids into being some brand of queer from a young age (not just in providing an open minded atmosphere, but almost to discerning them gay from a stupid young age) that, to me, begins to cross a line. In my mind, let be kids be kids that become teenagers and then adults, and just support them in their choices while guiding them to be the best person they can be.
You changed two things and into something imaginary. There is no such thing as an “LGBT groomer house.” You can’t force a child to be gay or trans no matter how much you want to.
You might as well say “only to be rehomed in a dragon’s den.” It would make about the same amount of sense.
That’s exactly what happened to me as a kid. As a bonus, these religious nutjobs sexually abused their actual kid, and because I was just a foster kid, I wasn’t believed. Thank god my mom was able to get me out of that hell hole, but the trauma it caused me was so deep I didn’t even recognize how deep it was for almost 20 years.
Nah don’t be sorry, just be angry at a system that allows such things, and at a religion that shields such people. I came out okay in the end, because I have a family that loves me and helps support me through my traumas, but I don’t know what happened to their kid, or if they were ever stopped. That’s the part that bothers me. Knowing that those sickos could still be out there presenting themselves as righteous Christians while doing such things.
I’m sure you know this and you’re just a troll. But just as a reference to other readers, I’d like to remind everybody that biology supports LGBT kids, not bigots.
You mean like how religion indoctrinates people and hides actual pedophiles while pointing the finger elsewhere?
And the long history of abuse of children by nuns and priests in children's homes and religious schools/ facilities?
Being LGBT isn't something you just wake up and choose to 'identify' as. You don't wake up and decide, hey I'm gonna be gay! It's just part of who you are.
Religion is a choice and something that can and does indoctrinate people. Maybe look in the right direction and you'll see who the actual bad guys are.
Not to discount your opposition to their point, which should be opposed, but you do know that sexuality is pretty fluid for a vast number of people along the Kinsey scale, right? For a lot of people, they ARE heterosexual because they are indoctrinated that way from an early age. Not everyone capable of being sexually fluid identifies that way.
Could also just change whenever you wanted, if that were the case. But no, I deliberately endured nearly a decade of pain because I ‘chose’ to be bi, in their words, lol.
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
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.
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.
Many just say queer. Or LGBT. Companies and news organizations can’t really settle on one thing to call us. Imo, LGBT+ gets the point across without being excessive.
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
The double-speak is so strong it makes my head spin.
But the prison agency and the Texas attorney general’s office, which has staked its reputation on “defending the unborn” all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court, are arguing the agency shouldn’t be held responsible for the stillbirth because staff didn’t break the law. Plus, they said, it’s not clear that Issa’s fetus had rights as a person.
“Just because several statutes define an individual to include an unborn child does not mean that the Fourteenth Amendment does the same,” the Texas attorney general’s office wrote in a March footnote, referring to the constitutional right to life.
For more than two decades, in legislation passed by lawmakers and defended in court by the attorney general’s office, Texas has insisted “unborn children” be recognized as people starting at fertilization. And although it has traditionally referred to all stages of pregnancy, from fertilized egg to birth, as an unborn child, the state repeatedly referred to Issa’s stillborn baby as a fetus in legal briefings.
It’s a stark shift in tone from the state’s self-proclaimed status as “a nationwide leader in the protection of the unborn” in the anti-abortion fight. A few months after Issa lost her unborn child, now-suspended Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a press release that he would “continue to fight tirelessly for the rights of the unborn.” Paxton had not yet been impeached and was still at the helm of the agency when the state’s motions in Issa’s case were filed.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.