Ops,

No, they shouldn't.  Birthmothers (in most adoptions) CHOSE who does their adoptions.  Or don't you know how it works? 

Okay, here's how it works from the point of view from someone in the middle of adoption attempts.

MOST Adoptions:

Birth Mother Gets Pregnant and decides to give the baby up.

Birth Mother Contacts (Fill in the Black) Organization and gets required counselling.

Birth Mother decides placement is what she wants and that X Organization is the one she wants to handle the adoption.

Agency works to match child with parents that suit Birth Mother's desires (open vs closed, religious, secular, racial).

Parents pay fees, expenses and court costs.  Adoption is finalized with all involved agreeing to it.

Now, what you are talking about is STATE adoptions.

State adoptions are like this.

Child is taken by Children's Svcs from the parents or becomes ward of the state upon death of parents and lack of relatives to take child.

Parents rights are terminated and child is placed in Foster Care.

Children are placed into homes through Foster Care and then Foster Parents can adopt through the system.

Sometimes (sometimes) Parents are referred to foster care through independent agencies.

So, that being said...

If a birth mother choses to go through Catholic Adoption agencies because she wants a strong christian heterosexual couple to adopt her baby.  Why should the woman be worried that her child will be put to a gay couple?

Why should children suffer because these NON PROFIT agencies no longer have funding to help mother's place these children, leading to rising abortion rates, children in foster care (a financial burden on taxpayers) and underfunded non regulated agencies commiting crimes or mistakes in the adoption process.

The Funding goes to counseling the birthmothers, it goes to their healthcare and to the paperwork and labor that it goes into matching these babies with families.  It is not profit made by a corporation. 

There are plenty of secular adoption agencies that a gay couple could adopt from if the laws in their area permit those kind of adoptions.  Non-profit religious organizations should not be punished because they refuse to go against their beliefs.  Its not going to hurt someone's bottom line.  Its going to hurt the young girls coming to these places and the babies.

If you don't want discrimination, then there are alot of programs that should be reevaluated.  But, fact is, the government gives money to faith groups all the time, here and in England.  Abstinence Only Programs, church camps for troubled teens and drug and addiction treatment facilities. 

My point is, when does discrimination become reverse discrimination.  Why is it that I'm forced to deal with the "rules" of a liberal secular or even atheist society and they don't have to be sensitive to my wants and desires?

Why do I have to watch my tongue and they don't have to watch theirs?  Why do they get special protections, when I'm told that I'm not allowed to practice my faith?

I don't think that an adoption agency that is partially funded by the state and MOSTLY funded by a Church Group should be FORCED to go against their beliefs.  Perhaps, instead, they should have to fully disclose to all birth mothers that they do not adopt to Non-Christians or Non-Muslims or Non-Jewish families.  In the end, if the Birth Mother wants is, it should be available to her.

I don't believe any person paying taxes would want that tax money going some place that will use it to discriminate against them for something they have no business asking about. People should have a right to privacy and if it harms no one else then it is no one else’s business. I don't support what they do but I do support freedom of choice as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. I'm sorry some people are homophobic and can't learn to accept that people are different and sometimes it doesn't fit their idea of what that person should be. I think if someone is in a position of putting their child up for adoption (by choice) then maybe they should worry more about keeping their legs closed then where the child they don't want goes. When a women or a man gives up their rights to a child then all rights should be given up. They should stop thinking about where the child will grow up and worry more about not getting pregnant again.

Exceptions should only be made for cases of rape and molestation.

I think you have a very screwed up idea about Birth Mothers.  Coming from a future Adoptive Mother, adoption is the hardest choice.  Abortion is easy, welfare is easy, but placement is a true act of love.  This girls have been down a tough road, had to make hard decisions.  They've had jerks promise them the world and then bail at the first sign of responsibility.  They've had to chose to give their child a better life.  They want to chose the best life for their child, they have EVERY right to say where their baby ends up.  Because ITS THEIR CHOICE IN ACTION.  This is the same as abortion.  ITS ABOUT CHOICE.  Its a woman's right.  No some couch commentator like yourself.  As a woman, my body is my choice.  I have religious choices and secular choices.  Noone can tell me that I can't say my children must go with people who will understand their racial needs or what kind of upbringing I want to give my baby.

My best friend was on this opposite side as a Birth Mother, she felt very strongly that she wanted Jesse to have a strong Christian family that could financially give him the things he needed.  She also felt that he needed to have a family who understoond the hardships of raising a biracial child.  Who's to say she doesn't get a choice in these matters, its her baby until the paperwork is signed?  She obviously has the right to say no to a couple and not sign the paperwork.

You're just as much a bigot as you claim others to be, or more likely a sexist.  Its men like you that keep me Pro-Choice even though I personally believe abortion is wrong.

Sawtul posted this sentence:

"The western governments are trying to make the immoral moral and the moral immoral, and the simple reason why is that most Western politicians are Satanists."

Really?  Where did you get your information.  Could you please explain how you reached this decision?  How can you possibly paint an entire culture as Satanists?  I would expect you to post your source(s) on this subject.  Do you have any source???