Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

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

LINK

So not that perfectly accurate really. But there was brevity and levity.

Calling someone homophobic is not bullying. Nor, actually, is calling someone bigoted - or any other name.

Now if you'd said 'insulting' that, perhaps, would be different.

It is when the poster has given no sign of being homophobic. Or bigoted.

Listen to the interview on Radio 4! Hear them speak in their own words! Tis modern magic, I tell 'ee!

The fundamental thing for me here is that this couple have the right to believe whatever they want. (Although I don't respect them for this belief)They have the right to express this belief. They do not have the right to their chosen employment. No one does. They may apply for a job, and be interviewed as everyone else in society is.

Children of every sexuality have a right to secure, appropriate care. When their parents cannot provide this care, the state must provide it. To do so the state must ensure that those that they employ are capable of providing the best possible environment for any child placed in their care. When someone admits that they are not able to do this for a sizeable minority of children, they must be turned down for the job. To do otherwise would be for the state to be failing in their duty of care to those children.

The adults have had no rights denied in this situation.

I don't think social services found out through listening to Radio Four. Did they?

I'm not really talking about denying the adults' rights. I think both sides are concerned about the child's welfare over and above everything: the difference is that we believe different roads forward would be beneficial or harmful.

rpo - er, no. But if you would like to hear them speak in their own words, rather than guessing/arguing about provenance and meaning, there is an inteview in which they do so.

No, it's just that it was asked how it was found out, and you said it was because they said so, but I don't think they would have to volunteer it, I think they would have been asked. I'm sure of it.

Then you said it was because they were very clear, then you said they said it on Radio Four. I thought you were saying that is how it was found out.

I didn't want to scoff, I thought maybe you weren't quite across the story and I was trying to be diplomatic in case you'd made a mistake.

Ha ha Grimma - I think you may have missed my point by a mile or ten -
When I said you are born into your religion, what I meant was this; children can't help being born into a Sikh family ( for example) they haven't 'chosen it' - just like you can't help being born homosexual - it's quite rare for deeply religious people to give their birth religion the one finger salute - in my experience anyway.

Your religion can define you just as much as your sexuality. maybe more so.

And you've missed mine. You aren't born with a religion, though indeed unfortunately many are indoctrinated into one. But it is not an inherent characteristic.

No the Social Workers were able to deduce the couple's views by interviewing them themselves. However, if we want to hear for ourselves the views that they expressed, we can listen to the radio.

I disagree that both sides are concerned about the child's welfare over and above everything. This couple are concerned about the child's welfare until it conflicts with their religious belief. At this point their need to adhere to their religion is more important. Fair enough, that is their choice, but it makes them unsuitable to act as a foster carer.

Unless of course you think that telling a vulnerable child that they are unacceptable is somehow in their best interests?

The thing about homosexuality is that it is not a choice. Religion can be that way too. If you are indoctrinated it's not a choice at all. Indoctrination doesn't have to be cruel and cult like to take away choice.

Poohbah : sorry -- I meant both sides here talking about it would be concerned with the welfare of children over and above.

I'm not talking about the child, and I would agree with Basmati here: this high profile ruling could lead to a possible downgrading of care for cohorts of looked after children due to profoundly and increasingly demanding equality/diversity/held views standards being applied, and litigation which could follow, with attendant emotional, financial and stability costs.

The damage cause by policy over ethnic placements shows that there is a precedent for harm to tranches of children caused by apparent concern for the welfare of the specific child.

You should listen to the i/v, it's interesting. I caught it by chance, knowing nothing beforehand, and I felt sorry for them, and agree that on the whole they sound very caring and lovely. But there is the teensy sticking pint of those that dance up the wrong end of the ballroom being sinful and wrong and not to be supported.

ok rpo. Let's have just two other examples of this widespread potential you're concerned about.

Just two.

What do you mean? Do you mean, for example, a religious child being placed with humanists who would not be willing to take them to church? Is that the sort of thing you mean?

Do you mean examples that have happened, or hypothetical examples. Is it very difficult to understand without examples? I didn't realise.

why might that be different?

this high profile ruling could lead to a possible downgrading of care for cohorts of looked after children due to profoundly and increasingly demanding equality/diversity/held views standards being applied, and litigation which could follow, with attendant emotional, financial and stability costs

two examples of "could lead to"

I have to quote Basmati, because I'm tired and it's past midnight. Sorry about this. She put it so much better than I could.

"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...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. "

I believe this is potentially very damaging.

yeah you said that.

How?

Just two.

I must admit, I don't think it's difficult to understand without examples, although I accept you might still disagree. I didn't anticipate a failure to comprehend.

If you're interested in an analysis which isn't spun by the press release from the lawyers, this is quite interesting

Oh, I is just fick then.

Right. That'll be it.

RPO - I guess I'll have to disagree with you on that one, having been (lovingly) raised as a devout Christian and then finding I did have a choice. I honestly can't see why anyone wouldn't be able make that choice (although to be sure in some cultures you'd have to hide it)