It should beO.K. In the religious community .I mean Phish should be able to adopt Phish orphans. O m i s h . My tablet will not allow me to write this sects name.

Starting with the fact that religious indoctrination is child abuse any parents who claim to want to indoctrinate their children with any religious beliefs prior to the age of consent should be barred from adoption as they would be if any other form of possible abuse was suspected. Any agency should consider potential parents for their financial ability to take on a child as well as their stability. Single parents, gay parents, straight parents should be accorded equal consideration based solely on their practical abilities to rear children and keep them safe from mental or physical abuse in a loving home.

I've been thinking about this tax-exempt status issue with "religions". (I've been watching Leah Remini: Scientology And The Aftermath" ) "Churches" are tax exempt; so that means EVERY tax payer agrees to put up part of the taxes that the churches would if they weren't tax exempt. Perhaps the non-religious citizens should have a say about how adoptions are done.

I have a very good friend with a masters in social work, who works for the province in child welfare, I put this question to her. Her answer was this: "No Fuck No!". Apparently about 50% of the children see has to apprehend are from what she refers to as, weird christian fundamentalist homes where molestation and abuse are rampant, she removes far less children from home because of substance abuse and use.

I don’t believe the idea of stopping adoptions based on religious dogma is right. The child’s welfare should always be the first priority.

This is a tough one. Many kids would be without a loving family. Strict oversight. As twisted as it seems many religious people are caring.

It should be based on an extensive survey.

I don't think they should exist, but I know that will probably never happen so I voted for strict oversight.
The agency should have no say in the religious beliefs of the applicants, only that they meet the requirements for adoption.
The parents will raise that child with or without religion as they see fit.

This story and the Supreme Court case about the baker make me wonder if such businesses should have to be classed as churches, with all the limitations that entails, which I'm sure includes no funding from the state and federal governments, as well as restrictions on revenue.

The child welfare is the no. 1 concern. The 2 important factors; 1. can they be financially be cared for, and 2. will they be free from abusive behavior [criminal, sexual, physical, mental, drugs etc.]
Ideology is the least important.

If they are to exist-every religion has had or has them-even Judaism-they should be regulated with strict oversight vs. such discrimination.

I don't mind if religious adoptions agencies exist, but I don't think religion should be a criterion for adoption.

There is a false assumption that Christians are good people... ROFL