Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

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

LINK

People are not born with a set of beliefs, that's nonsense.

I think Basmati has more of a grasp of the issue than you. I think you think that too.

I love Hully.
Hully is funny.
She makes me laff
Cos she is daf(t).

At least she calms you down a bit.

for MrsDV (and others)

Well I think Basmati has it nailed to the mast. Very cogent, very forward thinking.

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

There's a bit of a clue here in the fact that this Equality Act, inconvenient thought it might be for some of you, is law and therefore if you are serving a public duty you are bound to abide by it.

Why is that so difficult a concept to grasp?

Quite right BIWI, the law is the law.

Would anyone defend the right of a foster parent to physically punish a child in their care, because they believed it was fundamental to their beliefs?

Of course not.

Comparing it to physical punishment is questionable.

The law is clearly open to the whimsy of social workers: it's clear here for example that there's an element of disbelief on the part of the social workers. And you must note, this is an attempt at prevention of something that may not happen, and if it did happen, isn't even a crime. This is rather Orwellian.

It is rather disturbing to see that so many people have either defended their prejudice or defended a system that could become deeply prejudicial to the welfare of children with the comfort of "it's the lor innit". Again.. very Orwellian. But so many champions of "freedom" and "diversity" resort to it.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Thing is RPO, you only seem to want to protect the rights of heterosexual children to have secure care. The same rights of homosexual children appear to be sacrificed to the rights of free expression for adults who are not being persecuted, but have been turned down for employment.

No, that's not the case at all.

You don't understand, or possibly haven't read, or possibly I haven't explained, but Basmati expressed it very well for me. It's a high profile case which could eventually be detrimental to a much larger number of children eventually, gay or straight.

I think this deserves serious consideration. I very much disagree with attempts to bully people into silence with shouts of homophobia. I agree that it's not you doing that, but that's why I've kept ferreting around on the edges of this thread. I think it needs serious discussion, I think Basmati addressed the issue appropriately and I think although I disagree with you at the moment, you also are thinking about it too.

I think there are far too many "thinks" there, but I think you know what I mean. I think.

With the greatest respect,, thats rubbish. people are born into their religion - it's their whole being, their life

And back at you, that's rubbish. I had a friend who was 'born' a Sikh - we were both members of the Christian Union. Now I'm an athiest. Its not genetic, you know. I might genuinely have thought it was part of my whole being back then but beliefs can change.

I wish people were born into their religion, babies don't believe in anything.

I wasn't aware that - Hully aside - that there was any discussion going on here that isn't serious, RPO.

And I don't see anyone trying to bully (oh no, not that argument again) anyone into silence.

Throwing around accusations of homophobia, hatred etc etc -- yes that's bullying. "Bigot bingo" is serious?

What do you mean, not that argument again? I could say, oh, not that old pc chestnut again.

Yes, there has been serious talk. But there's been a lot of stupidity along the lines of shut up because you don't agree with me you bigoted homophobe.

Basmati - all the perfectly lovely, decent, ethical Christians I know could be trusted 100% to use integrity in responding to questions of homosexuality, and indeed religion in the case of having the care of a child from a differnent ot no faith. As an atheist I would never denigrate faith or particular religions to a child in my care. I could say 'I happen to be an atheist but I believe that the views and faiths of people with a differnt belief are as valid as mine' - and support the child's feelings. That's pretty uch the same as a straight foster carer saying to a child 'I'm straight, and happy that way and I hope anyone who is homosexual is equally happy to be who they are'. As a foster carer I would know that is was more important to look after the feelings of the child than present my own beliefs - that's the caring approach, the ethical approach, the legal approach and the professional approach.

I'm not quite sure I would trust a member of the BNP to be as ethical about race / nationalism etc, as you say! But if they did act wrongly in their 'delivery of goods and services' they could be left off the list.

How was it found that Mr and Mrs Johns would not be objective about homosexuality, does anyone know?

they said so

I do like it when Hully gives a perfectly accurate answer with brevity (and sometimes levity).

Well put Blu

They must have been asked in a pro forma set of questions. They wouldn't have needed to volunteer it.

they would absolutely not support poofery because it is against their religion. they were quite clear.