Utah Judge Removes Foster Child (pending adoption) From Home Because Parents are Lesbian

a reply to: stuthealien

The child's Birthmother wanted her to be with these women! So to you it is better to remove her from a loving family? Yeah, you are really thinking about the child.

Aren't you a rude little thing.......Well I couldn't have "sucked from my mother's teat" but she was 100% my mother. Next.........

i have no bias ,its you with the bias.

you again stated "its two mums trying to get their daughter back" the child is not their daughter fact!!!
whats with your constant deception?
why are you wording your posts to constantly imply false hoods?

when i see a child being fought over for political or religious reasons of course i am going to state my opinion.

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: Gryphon66

its clearly not the childs mum ,as this child would not been of able to suck from her teat,this is you trying to state that she is the mum,so now i am correcting you.
its clear this child is being used as a pro-lgbt rights case ,that is unfair on the child and you really should be ashamed of yourselfs.
and again they are not the mum or mums of this child.

1. They were the foster parents, and had the biological mothers permission to adopt. The child was with them for quite some time, and formed a bond.
2. It is the judge who turned this into an LGBT case. Not the couple doing the adopting.

Gryphon is right. This is getting embarrassing.

originally posted by: stuthealien
i have no bias ,its you with the bias.

you again stated "its two mums trying to get their daughter back" the child is not their daughter fact!!!
whats with your constant deception?
why are you wording your posts to constantly imply false hoods?

when i see a child being fought over for political or religious reasons of course i am going to state my opinion.

Ah ... the equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"

LOL

They are the little girl's two moms. They were in the process of adopting the girl ONCE AGAIN with the blessing of the birth mother.

You don't think that adopted kids should call their new mom(s) "Mom"?

Yes, evidently you are going to state your opinion, but your opinion, in this case has no basis in the facts of the matter and you show no sign of adjusting to the facts of the matter because ... well ... because.

It's certainly not your "concern" for the baby girl.

Try not to get spittle on your screen. It's undignified. Best.

a reply to: Martin75

we can not be sure of the birth mothers past or present history!
she could well be a crack addict or a prostitute !
she may have been payed by the couple !

we are missing so much information that it is difficult to ascertain the true history as to why this has come to be,
the only thing that really matters is the child and that being the subject of multiple court cases is not good.

anyway i have said my piece you lot can keep arguing about the life of a child.

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: Martin75

we can not be sure of the birth mothers past or present history!
she could well be a crack addict or a prostitute !
she may have been payed by the couple !

we are missing so much information that it is difficult to ascertain the true history as to why this has come to be,
the only thing that really matters is the child and that being the subject of multiple court cases is not good.

anyway i have said my piece you lot can keep arguing about the life of a child.

You are making things up. The judge didn't cite the mothers' history for why he is taking custody of the children of the two. He SPECIFICALLY mentioned their homosexuality for why he was removing care of the child from them.

You are REALLY starting to reach for straws here. Is it REALLY so hard to just say that the judge was in the wrong?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

His "research" is probably his own personal opinion which should stay out of his courtroom. It is discrimination against homosexuals. Utah doesn't seem to be a very promising state for gay rights, especially with the Mormon church declaring married gay couples "apostates" and not allowing the children of any gay couple to participate in the Mormon church.

a reply to: stuthealien

You were making up your history to fit your story you are just as bad as the judge

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

not allowing the children of any gay couple to participate in the Mormon church.

Boy... That'll show 'em !

LOL

a reply to: stuthealien

The only thing that matters is people are continuing to break Laws and abuse power and hide behind things as "Religion" and "Moral Values" and "political Ideology"

ok crazyshot the judge was wrong ,i still believe there's more to this story than just black and white but i have declared the judge guilty for you.
now i will casually walk away shaking my head






(for all we know the judge might be the dad and the mum a street hooker who got paid by the two who wanted to adopt)

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And it's not the first time he's imposed his personal opinion onto the people he "serves".

Oh, it bothers you when people do that? I guess the left can do it but no one else?

You mad, bro?

I think you're missing her point. A judges personal "opinion" does not belong behind the bench. They are to interpret the law, and apply it to the case at hand. Nothing more. They can give their personal opinion, but they aren't supposed to rule from it. A bit different than what you're talking about.

Ah, got it. The law is open to interpretation by a left-leaning judge, but not by a right-leaning one. Understood.

Perhaps the issue is that you support judges curtailing individual liberties. In the US, that is generally frowned upon by any real American, whereas judges who rule based on a protection of liberties are favored. So, are you saying that it is ok for a "right-leaning judge" to interpret law in such a way as to protect the rights and equality of individuals, or are you saying it should be ok for a "right-leaning judge" to curtail individuals' rights based on his personal opinion?

I don't see this as an example of a "right-leaning judge" protecting individual freedom, I see it as a judge who is blaspheming the Constitution of the United States of America and every man and woman who has ever served in the military, imposing his own personal opinion in the process of curtailing individual liberties.

I do feel as though I may have it backward though – I mean, you are referring to a judge who believes it is government’s business to curtail the rights and freedoms of individuals as a “right-leaning judge.” I thought “Conservative” meant government should not interfere in the lives of private citizens. This judge strikes me more as a deep, hardcore left-wing, big-government ultra-liberal, with social-conservative leanings.

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And it's not the first time he's imposed his personal opinion onto the people he "serves".

Oh, it bothers you when people do that? I guess the left can do it but no one else?

You mad, bro?

I think you're missing her point. A judges personal "opinion" does not belong behind the bench. They are to interpret the law, and apply it to the case at hand. Nothing more. They can give their personal opinion, but they aren't supposed to rule from it. A bit different than what you're talking about.

Ah, got it. The law is open to interpretation by a left-leaning judge, but not by a right-leaning one. Understood.

Perhaps the issue is that you support judges curtailing individual liberties. In the US, that is generally frowned upon by any real American, whereas judges who rule based on a protection of liberties are favored. So, are you saying that it is ok for a "right-leaning judge" to interpret law in such a way as to protect the rights and equality of individuals, or are you saying it should be ok for a "right-leaning judge" to curtail individuals' rights based on his personal opinion?

I don't see this as an example of a "right-leaning judge" protecting individual freedom, I see it as a judge who is blaspheming the Constitution of the United States of America and every man and woman who has ever served in the military, imposing his own personal opinion in the process of curtailing individual liberties.

I do feel as though I may have it backward though – I mean, you are referring to a judge who believes it is government’s business to curtail the rights and freedoms of individuals as a “right-leaning judge.” I thought “Conservative” meant government should not interfere in the lives of private citizens. This judge strikes me more as a deep, hardcore left-wing, big-government ultra-liberal, with social-conservative leanings.

I am saying that all people should be equal in the eyes of the law, and currently they are not. The "protected classes" that the left have created get more legal latitude than everyone else. It is true and you know damn well it is.

Of course I expect yo to deflect and say something like "What does that have to do with THIS case?"

If you notice, I never said I thought the judge was right or wrong. I just asked the OP how it feels to have someone jam their opinion down your throat. Ask the owners of the bakery who was awarded to pay some ridiculous amount for honoring their religion. Oh, tolerance is just dandy as long as you don't piss off some gays or trannies.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And it's not the first time he's imposed his personal opinion onto the people he "serves".

Oh, it bothers you when people do that? I guess the left can do it but no one else?

You mad, bro?

I think you're missing her point. A judges personal "opinion" does not belong behind the bench. They are to interpret the law, and apply it to the case at hand. Nothing more. They can give their personal opinion, but they aren't supposed to rule from it. A bit different than what you're talking about.

Ah, got it. The law is open to interpretation by a left-leaning judge, but not by a right-leaning one. Understood.

Note what I said: It is the judges job to interpret the law in relation to the case at hand. Whether he is left or right leaning is irrelevant if he is doing his job properly.

Agreed, but it doesn't always work that way, does it?

When the SCOTUS decides a case, what is the result called? An OPINION.

It's actually a DECISION. The opinion is written to explain the decision. Because opinions don't carry actual legal weight, whereas decisions, orders, etc do.

Semantics and such.

Also should add that justices that vote against the majority will write opinions as well explaining the counter arguements.

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: HighDesertPatriot
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And it's not the first time he's imposed his personal opinion onto the people he "serves".

Oh, it bothers you when people do that? I guess the left can do it but no one else?

You mad, bro?

I think you're missing her point. A judges personal "opinion" does not belong behind the bench. They are to interpret the law, and apply it to the case at hand. Nothing more. They can give their personal opinion, but they aren't supposed to rule from it. A bit different than what you're talking about.

Ah, got it. The law is open to interpretation by a left-leaning judge, but not by a right-leaning one. Understood.

Perhaps the issue is that you support judges curtailing individual liberties. In the US, that is generally frowned upon by any real American, whereas judges who rule based on a protection of liberties are favored. So, are you saying that it is ok for a "right-leaning judge" to interpret law in such a way as to protect the rights and equality of individuals, or are you saying it should be ok for a "right-leaning judge" to curtail individuals' rights based on his personal opinion?

I don't see this as an example of a "right-leaning judge" protecting individual freedom, I see it as a judge who is blaspheming the Constitution of the United States of America and every man and woman who has ever served in the military, imposing his own personal opinion in the process of curtailing individual liberties.

I do feel as though I may have it backward though – I mean, you are referring to a judge who believes it is government’s business to curtail the rights and freedoms of individuals as a “right-leaning judge.” I thought “Conservative” meant government should not interfere in the lives of private citizens. This judge strikes me more as a deep, hardcore left-wing, big-government ultra-liberal, with social-conservative leanings.

I am saying that all people should be equal in the eyes of the law, and currently they are not. The "protected classes" that the left have created get more legal latitude than everyone else. It is true and you know damn well it is.

Of course I expect yo to deflect and say something like "What does that have to do with THIS case?"

You're arguments regarding states rights are null and void once states start opening marriage towards same sex couples. Marriage as far as it is recognized by the goverment is a contract and falls in the same boat as interstate commerce. That contract cannot and should not become void moving from one state to the next. Hence, it is a federal and not a states rights issue.

Regardless of Partisanship, this judge is abusing his power to make a political statement, violating a supreme court ruling.

If you notice, I never said I thought the judge was right or wrong. I just asked the OP how it feels to have someone jam their opinion down your throat. Ask the owners of the bakery who was awarded to pay some ridiculous amount for honoring their religion. Oh, tolerance is just dandy as long as you don't piss off some gays or trannies.

Its pretty clear from your posts where you stand. Secondly, the bakery lost because it used religion as an excuse to make a political statement including descrimination. The clerk case (and imo worse because she is an elected servant who refuse to perform her oath of office) is the same in Kentucky.

a reply to: HighDesertPatriot

Enough with the derogatory "Tranny".. i'm so tired of seeing that slur being tossed around with a hateful intent...

Second: Stop with the Bakery, he operated in a State that had Anti-Discrimination laws that included Sexual-Orientation and Gender-Identity, he broke the law and got punished, his "Religious Liberties" had nothing to do with it.

a reply to: stuthealien

Text(for all we know the judge might be the dad and the mum a street hooker who got paid by the two who wanted to adopt)

and if he was ,would that disqualify him of the office of Judge ? what are the perimeters we need to put on such positions as a society ?

a reply to: Annee

And kudos to the birth mom for recognizing a loving family and choosing happiness for her child.

too bad the mom fell short on the basics of raising a child but cudo's for her other ability to recognize" love" ..something is missing to this case that we may not be privy to ,I suspect .

So much for letting people be free to love each other, regardless of whether we like their personal choices or not.

I feel sad for the family, especially the little girl.

I also feel sorry for the ignorant people that think they know what's best for other people.

Take care of your own house and we will take care of ours.