371
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Michael and Catherine Burke allege that the state’s Department of Children and Families discriminated against them for their Catholic viewpoints.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 138 points 10 months ago

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!”

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 16 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] Sekoia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 10 months ago

Yeah, that's why I generally prefer "queer". Plus, it's not an acronym, and reclaiming words is always good!

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 107 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 44 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago

And now red states made it legal to kidnapping LGBTQ children from loving homes to traditional homes

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] HotDogFingies@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago

I don't know what to say. I'm so sorry you went through that.

[-] Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml 19 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (26 replies)
[-] Cleverdawny@lemm.ee 97 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net 86 points 10 months ago

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

[-] TheBenCommandments@infosec.pub 11 points 10 months ago

Which is zero children to indoctrinate by way of fear and hate.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world 84 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] lem_dart@lemm.ee 63 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] fear@kbin.social 63 points 10 months ago

They’re asking the court to get rid of that discriminatory denial so that they will not be barred from fostering or adopting children in the future, in Massachusetts or elsewhere.

Stop discriminating against our discrimination! Thanks for the good laugh, Michael and Catherine Burke.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 52 points 10 months ago

This is why conservatives should not be permitted to be foster parents. Child abuse is a foundational principle of conservatism.

[-] name_NULL111653@pawb.social 18 points 10 months ago

As a child of conservatives, I can confirm...

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 48 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

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.

[-] darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee 9 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Wahots@pawb.social 45 points 10 months ago

I agree no child should be placed in a home that would endanger them, but why is this even news? Couple needs to grow a pair and either change their views or just not adopt/foster. Go back to church or golf or whatever. Quit bothering the legal system. Perhaps they could volunteer for an LGBTQ organization and learn why "the T" doesn't make anyone different or lesser.

[-] TheDoctorDonna@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

There are even dozens of Christian adoption and fostering agencies that will completely ignore any and all criminal histories if you are godly enough. In fact, being as hypocritical as possible seems to be a selling point for these agencies. If you preach God's love but have smashed a racists face into the concrete and lost your job over it and then shot your dog in the street while your wife defrauds the public and scams vulnerable people to the point of being sued by the state of Texas then you are exactly who they are looking to foster.

Edit: apologies, my fat fingers bungled it: if you are a racist who smashes black people's faces into the concrete

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 37 points 10 months ago

Yeah, child abuse isn’t an ideal trait to have if you intend to be the legal guardian of children.

[-] SolNine@lemmy.ml 34 points 10 months ago

Good, no child should be placed with parents who may discriminate against them for their natural state of being.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 34 points 10 months ago

Fuck that couple in particular.

[-] HellAwaits@lemm.ee 28 points 10 months ago

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.

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 26 points 10 months ago

"Views", meaning they'll abandon their child if they ever come out or acknowledge that LGBTQ people exist...

[-] tym@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

Sounds like it's God's plan for them to stay the fuck away from children. First sensible thing that asshat's done.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jenniebuckley@lemmy.world 23 points 10 months ago

good? why should children be indoctrinated into bigotry

[-] MicroWave@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

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

[-] JTode@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 13 points 10 months ago

I'll allow it.

[-] xantoxis@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

So:

  1. They expressed bigoted views
  2. The SW passed them through anyway, "with conditions" which likely include "just don't give this couple any gay kids"
  3. They were ultimately denied for reasons not stated
  4. We actually have no other information about what they said apart from they don't like gay or trans kids

I think point 2 kinda invalidates the lawsuit, and point 4 is going to become extremely relevant when we find out they were fine with hitting kids who misbehaved or something.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2023
371 points (94.3% liked)

News

21687 readers
3166 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS