This past Friday, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed a measure to allow adoption agencies to deny service to same-sex couples if it would “violate the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies.” This follows similar legislation passed in Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, South Dakota, North Dakota, Virginia, Mississippi and Michigan (though later reversed in Michigan), as well as reflecting the ideals of the new proposal of President Donald Trump, which would rescind the Obama-era rule that prevented foster care agencies from receiving federal funds if they discriminated against families based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Lee’s largest defense of the act is that it supports the constitutional defense of religious freedom and liberty as assured via the First Amendment. However, this bill has been met with immense, strong, and justified opposition that goes beyond the already substantial claims that the bill fosters immoral discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community.

While current adoption practices in Tennessee are not expected to change under the new law considering many faith-based agencies were already disallowing gay couples to adopt, impactful financial tensions are arising from the measure, as it provides legal protections to the agencies that deny same-sex couples, meaning the state cannot deny an agency’s application for public funds due to a refusal to place a child with a family based on religious objections. Essentially, taxpayer funding is forced to go to these agencies regardless of the unethical discriminatory practices against the LGBTQ+ community.

Furthermore, the fact that the adoption agencies whose religious freedoms are attempting to be protected are now receiving federal compensation for their faith-based justifications for not placing childen in homes emphasizes the unfair bias of the government bill, as it favors and financially supports religious agencies in support of the discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community, fostering discrimination in a government funded program. Taxpayers are legally obligated to fund certain faith-based organizations, the exact opposite of the religious neutrality and freedom the bill’s supporters claim to advocate for.

Another vital aspect of the opposition comes from looking at how this bill will affect the children in such faith-based adoption agencies. Looking at some statistics of LGBTQ+ involvement in adoption processes, same-sex couples raising children are four times more likely than their different-sex counterparts to be raising an adopted child; an estimated 16,000 same-sex couples are raising more than 22,000 adopted children in the United States. This means that, with the new bill enacted by Lee, the children looking to be placed in homes from a religious adoption institution will have less of a chance to get adopted considering the significant amount of adoptions that come from same-sex couples.

Importantly, the bill also decreases the likelihood for minority children to be adopted. Among children under 18, 50% of those living with same-sex couples are non-white compared to 41% of children living with different-sex couples. With the elimination of the potential for same-sex couple adopters, the ratios of minority children being adopted will become even further imbalanced, harming minority children’s chances for adoption.

Overall, with a front of protecting religious rights, the new Tennessee bill mainly fosters forced financial support of faith-based agencies that engage in immoral discriminatory practices that deny LGBTQ+ couples equal treatment.