Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

Should Christians be stopped from fostering because of their faith/belief?

LINK

As an atheist I wouldn't for one moment think it was OK for me to tell a child Christianity in 'unacceptable' - or even to disclose my strongly held atheist beliefs or views on certan aspects of certain religions. Even though those are my absolute moral beliefs.

Basmati, this couple were not barred because the "could" voice a belief unfavourable to homosexuality, but because they stated that they would do so when presented with a homosexual child.

Any person "could" voice an opinion damaging to a child. However, when we know, by their own admission, that the definitely would, it is reasonable to not give them the job.

Blu wrote:

"Surely equality means that Christians are welcomed as foster carers along with every other religious and non-religious group.

As long as alongside athiests, agnostics, hindus, buddhists and jews and other christians they ALL refrain from saying anything which implies that homosexulity is not acceptable.

It isn;t just Christians who need to agree not to say this, it's EVERYONE, While at work being a foster carer."

It's not just that, it's that ANYONE acting as a foster carer is not allowed to voice an opinion in contradiction of the Equality Act while delivering a public service, in case the child in their care may be harmed by their words, either now or in the future. This isn't just about non-discrimination in employment, but in the delivery of goods and services.

The Equality Act 2010 goes further than sexual orientation, it also covers age, disability, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion and belief. Express a view that doesn't fit into the current state-approved set of attitudes and you could be barred from being a foster parent. And while we may approve of the current set of state-approved attitudes, what if they change (i.e. revert to where they were about 50 years ago with respect to gender or sexuality). Can any of us guarantee that our opinions will line up with the government of the day?

While I don't agree with the attitudes of the couple in this case, and having never met them I have no view on whether they would make suitable foster carers, this case does show that a person can be denied being foster parents for expressing any one of a wide range of views.

Perhaps it underlines the huge level of tolerance and understanding that any foster carer needs to have. The ones I know have huge admiration from me. I just wonder whether the legal implications of what could now disqualify a person from the role have been thought through.

Basmati - Are you sure there is no difference, in the implementation of the equality act, between 'exressing' a view, and 'expressing a view to the client' - in this case a young person.

If a potential foster carer said in interview 'my view is that homosexuality is not acceptable but I would never express this in the slightest way to a young person in my care, or disclose that that is my belief' surely that would be OK?

This couple have said that they would express to a young person that they could not find hosexulaity to be 'acceptable'.

As regards changing beliefs and attitudes, we can only do our best: in the 1950s my mother was an assistant in a children's home when it was expected that care workers would beat children with a slipper. Not like the 'abuse' stories, just in line with accepted normal horrible practices of the day. (My mother did NOT hit any chidren as she found it cruel and inappropriate - but no-one would have been preculded fo the job because they believed corporal punishment to be acceptable).

Thank goodness we DO allow standards to evolve!

it's an impossible task to find anyone anywhere, who has a totally flavourless 'no real opinion' approach to everything - but if that's what they want they'd better start training up robots.
I'd rather be fostered by Mr and Mrs Johns.

Blu - whether holding the view but promising not to express it would be OK looks like a grey area in the law (and I'm not a lawyer, just someone who can look things up online!). It could be argued that if a picture of a person holding very strong views promised not to express them, the mere presence of the views could still be a problem. If an active member of the BNP promised faithfully not to talk about race issues with a child in their care, would we believe them?

In the case in question, Mrs Johns seems to have said several contradictory things. But one thing she did say (taken from the court decision) was that "she would never seek to impose her belief system on a child or to denigrate the parents for their lifestyle or sexual orientation." The social worker also felt that some of what she said was superficial, i.e. she didn't believe Mrs Johns.

It seems in this case that probing questions were asked to test the extent of the couple's views, and their answers point in different directions.

But how many of us could guarantee that we wouldn't express our own views, and in doing so implicitly undermine different views, in all of the possible situations we could end up in. If someone were fostering a child and the child asked questions about religion how could it turn out? What if the child asked "what are your views on religion?". If you answer them "I personally don't agree with religion, but if you choose to then I will support you" then you could be construed as communicating an unfavourable view, even with the added qualification. Under the law such a statement could be similar to saying "personally I don't agree that it's OK to be gay, but if you see it differently then I will support you".

Issues will come up, and will need to be talked about. Enough people on this thread have talked about how they didn't hear enough about sexuality issues as they were growing up. We don't need a court order enforcing silence for fear of possibly upsetting someone, somewhere. We do need openness and toleration, but if expressing your own view, even if it is qualified just as your personal view, can be taken as influencing a child then we will end up in all sorts of trouble.

I personally think it could open up a whole can of worms and dangerous grey areas, to the detriment of foster parents and children in their care.

Discussions about religion are surely a little less fundamental than issues of sexuality though. A child has whatever sexual orientation it has - saying its not OK to be homosexual to a child who may be gay is as wrong as telling a girl she's inferior to a boy, or a black child he's of less value than white.

Whatever belief a child (or its birth family) may or may not have is simply not on the same level. Obviously the carer should adopt a respectful stance if they don't believe the same things, but they surely dont have to hide their religion (or lack thereof).

Our Father who art in Heaven
Do not let the poofs in
Because er er er

Yeah

Hullygully - thank you for your mature and considered contribution.

GrimmatheNome - my point isn't whether religion is more important than sexuality, or the other way around. It is to think through the consequences of fully applying the Equality Act to foster carers such that they cannot express their views for fear of facing prosecution. If a person is allowed to express their religious views to a child in their care, provided that they are respectful to alternative views, then should they be allowed to express their views on sexuality, provided they are simlirarly respectful? Even if their view is that homosexuality is wrong?

If you say that a foster carer cannot express any views on sexuality if those views communicated a lesser value to one group of people, then they can't do the same in an awful lot of other areas. And you could argue that merely saying you didn't approve of a particular group (gay people, religious people, humanists, muslims, etc.), even if you said it was OK for others to hold a different opinion, that you were putting undue pressure on a child in your care. As such you could be failing to uphold the Equality Act with regards to delivering the public service of fostering.

I honestly don't know what I feel about the outcome of this case. I wouldn't want any child to be brought up by strongly homophobic foster parents, especially with the problems that would arise if that child turned out to be gay. But if we start getting too heavy handed in how we apply the law in one case then we open ourselves up to other pressure groups wanting the law to protect their particular interests. And there are a lot of interests covered by the Equality Act. The long term effect might be that the role of foster carer becomes so subject to the technicalities of equalities legislation that it is practically unworkable. I hope it won't come to that, but there is a good chance that the profile of this case will discourage perfectly good foster carers from coming forward.

perfectly good foster carers

No, they'll still come forward. But hopefully the rampant homophobes won't.

I think its a simple distinction. Sexual orientation, gender, race, disablity are about what someone is.
Religion/humanism etc are just what people believe at that point in time.

I think this is where the judge has drawn the line and why the rights of homosexuals 'trumped' the rights of religion.

Grimma, With the greatest respect,, thats rubbish. people are born into their religion - it's their whole being, their life. A Sikh for example, isn't a Sikh Mon to Thursday and then becomes an atheist for the weekend.
And believe if or not - there are people who have experimented with homosexuality but don't stick at it.

carmina is right.

But, if their religion is loony and full of can'ts, mustn'ts and hatreds for various things (all accept Buddhists and Jains), it must lie down before common humanity and love to all.

I didn't choose my religion, it chose me, as much as people might choose to dismiss that experience.

Also, how do you explain people who suddenly come to the realisation that they're gay after years of being married or in a hetero relationship? If it was such a fundamental part of who they are then they wouldn't have been able to have kept up the pretence for so long.

Yes. Gay pretenders.

Religion isn't full of can'ts and hatred. People follow a faith for the positive elements, faith isn't just about having a list of rules.

What's a gay pretender? Somebody who's pretending to be gay?

um, the whole point of this thread is that the two Pentecostalists say their religion considers homophileracery a sin.

Somebody who pretneds not to be gay.

Somebody who pretends to be gay.

The whole gay pretend spectrum. They need help.

Calling them "rampant homophobes" is very negative. They are not cruel skinheads shouting faggot and beating them up. They are caring people who want to make a contribution and who have examined their consciences as Christians. It doesn't make them rampant homophobes.

Of course, they might be rampant homophobes anyway but from what I've heard they don't sound like it. They sound like thoughtful and conflicted people. They want to contribute and they find that their faith means they can't.

I think this debate deserves more serious consideration, such as basmati gives it. It's tremendously important. The number of looked after children just keeps on rising, and the rules and regulations surrounding the standards we enforce on the people who care for them seem to be growing like topsy. This could become as litigious as so many other areas of public policy, and not to the benefit of children.

Oh dear, loony, rampant blah blah blah.

No it couldn't. It just says, no fostering if you're anti-poof. The end.