Tashima Crudup, 26, said she contacted Contemporary Family Services in July and went through 50 hours worth of training classes to become a foster parent. The organization is a private company authorized by the state to place foster children with families.Yes, the letter the agency sent rejecting her application listed one reason, and one reason only, for rejecting her -- the fact that she would not have pork products in her home.
The complaint alleges that Crudup's application was denied after it was discovered during the interview process that she prohibits pork products in her Middle River home. In a letter dated Oct. 12 from Contemporary Family Services, the company tells Crudup that the application is being denied out of "concerns raised by statements made during the home study interview, specifically your explicit request to prohibit pork products within your home environment. Although we respect your personal/religious views and practices, this agency must above all ensure that the religious, cultural and personal rights of each foster child placed in our care are upheld."
I wonder, is the agency also rejecting applicants who won't have pork products in their homes because they are Jewish, vegetarian, vegan, just don't like pork? Somehow I doubt it.
And can you think of any religion when one is REQUIRED to eat pork? That would be the only way that a child's religious rights might be violated by a foster parent's refusal to let them eat pork. And here's a crazy idea -- maybe, just maybe, there are Muslim or Jewish or vegetarian or vegan or pork-hating children who would love to be placed in a pork-free home! Wanna bet the agency wouldn't have a problem with placing a Muslim child in a pork-filled home?