Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sexual orientation "should take precedence" over religion
#1
Provocative heading I know, but this is the first time I think I have seen any authoritative statement of this kind (but you know it makes sense Wink )

The story concerns a couple in Derby who withdrew their application to foster when it was pointed out to them that the views they hold on homosexuality, informed by their Pentecostal beliefs, are unacceptable.

Quote: The court heard the couple withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable.

Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

The Johns are considering an appeal.

Derby City Council said previously its first duty was to the children in its care, some of whom were very vulnerable.

Speaking outside the court in London, Mrs Johns said: "All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need. We have a good track record as foster parents.

"We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith and we feel sidelined because we are Christians with normal, mainstream, Christian views on sexual ethics.

"We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing."
BBC News - Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple
#2
WOW! I applaud the British Court who made the ruling. Funny thing...I have always considered this in the equation when I hear people making the case against a woman's right to choose...I often see these extreme religious wingnuts offering up their services to "take care of the child" and I think to myself how horrible a fate that would be to subject a child to that kind of intolerance and bigotry...maybe brainwashing them permanently.
#3
I am impressed. Bravo. I agree subjecting kids to that kind of brainwashing is horrible and I applaud this. Awesome.

Mick
Feel free to PM Me. Keep in mind though, you have to catch me at the right moment. I will read everyone though. Want to try your luck? lol
#4
While I certainly welcome and applaud the decision there's a small part of me that is trying to remind me that it's not all over yet. What bit of the imagination is missing when someone from a minority ethnic group (a circumstance of birth) uses their belief system of choice to invalidate a minority sexuality (oh, look! Another circumstance of birth).
#5
I can't find any direct reference to it now but I'm sure I saw that they wanted to be respite carers, which presumably means they would be doing short term care for kids with problems of one sort or another. The matter of whether they approve or not of any particular species of sexual activity really should never arise in these circumstances, they have apparently said as much themselves.

I see it as an indicator of just how obsessed these christians are with homosexuality that this came up in the interview. They belong to a religion that sees the immortal souls of nearly seven billion people as imperilled and they give a tiny minority like us us so much attention, perhaps we should be flattered.

They're backed by the usual supects and intend to appeal, If I were a lawyer I'd be backing these loony christians all the way (to the bank).
#6
I love the advert next to the first post:

"Christian Prayer Centre
Post a Prayer Request
Thousands Will Prayer For You"
#7
I gathered that it was the interview with the social worker where their views were brought up.

There is mention of their application to be respite carers in The Independent, which fills out the story a little more.

Anti-gay Christian couple lose battle to become foster parents - Home News, UK - The Independent
#8
If this judgement stands it is an important one, but it will inevitably be seen by christian activists as another blow to their freedoms.

If would-be foster parents, or Catholic adoption agencies for that matter, were primarily interested in the care and welfare of children as they claim rather than pressing their unpleasant prejudices I don't see what is so difficult about being able to support a child of a minority sexuality through life, even if they would not live the same life themselves. The moral issue is mainly an issue because glbt people have been forced to live outside the mainstream for so long and are denied access to social institutions such as marriage. If this kind of christian would deny us access to the institution that would legitimise our relationships in their eyes, they have no leg to stand on when they also try to beat us for creating our relationships outside a marriage covenant.
#9
Personally, I don't see this as legally ground-breaking as others. It is already well established that there is no right to become foster or adoptive patents unlike being a biological parent. Social services can decline to place a child with particular would-be patents on grounds that would never get biological children taken into care. All the judge has said (as I see it) is that is perfectly reasonable not to place a child who might turn out to be gay (in practice this is any child) with foster/adoptive parents who would teach the child homosexuality is wrong or sinful. The lottery of life can place a child in that situation, and the state can't do anything about it, but the state can decline to put the child in that situation.
Fred

Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.
#10
marshlander Wrote:If this judgement stands it is an important one, but it will inevitably be seen by christian activists as another blow to their freedoms.

If would-be foster parents, or Catholic adoption agencies for that matter, were primarily interested in the care and welfare of children as they claim rather than pressing their unpleasant prejudices I don't see what is so difficult about being able to support a child of a minority sexuality through life, even if they would not live the same life themselves. The moral issue is mainly an issue because glbt people have been forced to live outside the mainstream for so long and are denied access to social institutions such as marriage. If this kind of christian would deny us access to the institution that would legitimise our relationships in their eyes, they have no leg to stand on when they also try to beat us for creating our relationships outside a marriage covenant.



I had a knock down drag out fight with the Christians who run Save The Children maybe 20-25 years ago. I was furious that they used the money to convert the children to Christianity versus respecting the beliefs of the people they were feeding and sending to school.

I told the initial person who was "helping me" and the consecutive people with whom I spoke that trading religion for food...to use the hunger of a child to "convert" them... was evil and barbaric...I finally got one of the bastards to LISTEN to me and give me the name of an organization that did not require the children they feed to attend religious services.

I basically forced the issue at the time because I wanted someone in that organization to at least consider what I was saying to them......though I hoped they would at best I didn't really expect them to change. It is my hope that this ruling would have a similar effect.....


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)