As a general principle adopted children are placed in homes of similar faith if requested by the genetic parent.

Having recently visited a friend in a Seniors Home, it was discussed that persons who offend other clients by continual bad language or offensive behaviour are restricted from the home. Similar with persons employed by the Centre. They must have sympathy and understanding of the clients in their care. Attitude to clients is more important than certificates of education.

The Government is there for all citizens not just secular institutions. Welfare is given to all irrespective of beliefs and how the recipients choose to spend is their choice. Nursing homes are funded by the retirees who live in them, and most retirees prefer to be with persons of similar values and interests.

Lots of same sex couples currently foster children Bazz, Wesley is the only one that will not accept them in NSW that I know of.

When allegations are made it’s generally for compensation from DoCS not individuals. That sounds a bit cold. Survivors of abuse within the system first want acknowledgment I believe.

Complicated Bazz, if procedures were followed at the time etc I can’t see how damages would be awarded on the adoption side of things.

Adoption is something I know very little about besides wanting it kept separate from the out of home care of children. Same sex couples can adopt children here in Aussie last I heard.

In fostercare Josephus the genetic parents generally get no choice about placements.

You mention a Seniors Home and I know abuse happens in them but often they can articulate the abuse and vote, do they not get to choose which type of senior home they will enter? Children in Fostercare have no voice, no choice.

I’m all for businesses, but I think beliefs do matter, I think public funded services should not be handed to non govt services if they can discriminate against various groups in society at their own discretion.

Should these churches/charities/not-for-profits be allowed to take our state wards and convert them to a religion? Actually that might be a whole different discussion but there is near 40,000 children in care in Australia that very few people ever hear about until apology time.

Pied Piper said;
I can’t see how damages would be awarded on the adoption side of things.

Seems to be a particularly stupid thing to do, the risk just should
not be taken. Much lower risk I think to allow adoption by couples over 50 yrs of age.

"Wanted: White Straight Married Christian Male"?!

That is novel. White males are only group you can discriminate against. Legalised and encouraged too!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/white-men-can-go-jump/story-e6frf7jo-1111118260457

Pied Piper,
If you take away public funds from religious groups you are effectively shutting down the support system for refugees and many new migrants. Many (most) African migrants are Catholics or Pentecostal Christians, as are about 25% of Indian migrants, 20% of Chinese and the majority of Pacific Islanders and Koreans and of course we have almost half a million Muslims here too.
So you can choose, if you seek to convince us that interests of the 1-2% of the population who are "gay", the 9% of couples who live in de facto marriages or the 14% of the mums and dads who are single parents are to take precedence over the 30% of the population who observe some form of religion and the 40% who supposedly hold "conservative" views then you're setting yourself a Sisyphean task.
If this political system was truly democratic we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Might I also add,
Many of us on the radical right hold the view that Third World migration had by the turn of the millennium halted so called "progressive" public policy, now we're starting to see this "progress" reversed.
We're generally pretty comfortable with the things most Third Worlders believe, for example the influx of Chinese gives us licence to discuss things like eugenics and racial fitness since they are brought up to accept such concepts and are open to such conversations. Islam promotes healthy ideas on gender roles, political organisation and ethnic solidarity while the Indians are open to discussions on elitism and racial supremacy, it's all good
The "New Australia" of the mid 21st century will be built upon a reactionary substrate, reactionary being the absolute polar opposite of "progressive".