On Catholic Charities, Ryan T. Anderson is being either disingenuous or deceptive; wrong either way
Catholic Charities accepts state funds which is why Catholic Charities must follow state nondiscrimination law. If Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, Illinois, and elsewhere did not want to enjoy the privileges that come from public money/state contracts, then Catholic Charities would not be bound by state policies.
Now check the following Twitter exchange in which the far-right's suddenly omnipresent "young person" commentator, Ryan T. Anderson, completely (and willfully?) obfuscates the truth in order to drive home the "religious freedom" narrative that the far-right has decided (i.e. movement thinkers have gotten together in rooms and determined that this is the messaging they will all use; yes, it really works that way) will be its message going forward:
LIES! Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. Even faith-driven untruths are still (especially?) untruthful.
The fact is that Catholic Charities chose—CHOSE, CHOSE, CHOSE, CHOSE, CHOSE!—to close down adoption services rather than serve gay and lesbian residents. In Boston, Catholic Charities had already been serving gays and lesbians in some cases, but when Massachusetts' marriage law brought the whole thing into light, they made the choice—CHOICE, CHOICE, CHOICE, CHOICE, CHOICE!—to stop serving anyone at all. Rather than comply, as all agencies of the state must do (the Boston CC contracted with the state's Department of Social Services), Catholic Charities decided—DECIDED, DECIDED, DECIDED, DECIDED!—to get out of the adoption game altogether—going against the unanimous wishes of its own board! This pullout happened in Illinois as well, and again in D.C, where CC decided to stop offering spousal benefits rather than offer them to married gays. And at root, these choices had every thing to do—EVERY. LAST. THING. TO. DO!—with the public funding/contracts that Catholic Charities receives/maintains!
Just because Ryan T. Anderson has followed the reliably biased track that his mentor, Robert George, put him on at Princeton doesn't make his claims any more valid. I mean, considering he admitted in his college newspaper that celibacy is the only option he sees for gay people, I'm not surprised that the Heritage Foundation staffer considers discrimination against certain kinds of taxpayers (i.e. gays and lesbians) to be "eminently reasonable." However, the states that have chosen to adopt nondiscrimination laws disagree with him. If he wants to change that, then he must change the nondiscrimination laws. His bearing of false witness will not do the job.
comments powered by Disqus