Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple

[hymie]

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

LINK

(I mean entered on the legal case - I don't doubt their desire to foster is entirely genuine)

What a mess. Thanks for the exchanges towards the end, I've learned things. Goodnight.

rpo, social work is not that simple. No decision is ever based on the opinion of one person. Every decision has to be evidenced, referred and justified.

There is little room for error when investigations are instigated.

Discrimination is about actions not beliefs.

What is the hotel thing you are referring to?

A lot of sense from the Christian journalist in madhair's link, and from the Ekklesia Christian think tank chap from LeninGrad's link. Nice to know that some Christians out there are checking the details out and finding the media reporting does not match up to the case. It also sounds like the Christian lawyer in the case has a chip on his shoulder and wanted to use this case to make a wider point about alleged persecution of Christians, rather than present the material points of the case.

I was aware that no ruling had been made and therefore no precendents set, which is why my posts have been referring to "the case" rather than anything else.

It seems like the judge is a bit of a wily politician. He was effectively asked the question "which takes precedence in this case, the need to preserve religious liberties or the need to provide services free from prejudice about sexuality". Neither the Johns or Derby CC wanted to break the law, so they asked the judge to tell them the answer. The judge saw that if he ruled either way he could be seen as either trampling on gay people or traditional Christian views. So he washed his hands of the matter, refused to give a ruling, and chucked it out of court. The County Council are able to not appoint Mr and Mrs Johns, preserving their commitment to their fostering policy, but no precedent is set for all County Councils to wield at future prospective foster parents. Nice move by the judge!

Unfortunately it still leaves open the question as to how the Equality Act 2006 and the Equality (Sexual Orientation) Act 2007 interact, and also how equalities legislation should be applied to foster carers.

Thinking this over, the hard thing for foster carers delivering their public service is that they are effectively doing it all the time. They don't go to an office during the day to do a bit of fostering, minding their Ps and Qs, and then go home and can kick back and be themselves. If you are a foster carer it is 24/7, and a lot of it in your own home. So if you are having to ensure that you comply with the equalities legislation covering race, gender, sexuality, religion and belief, marital status, etc. all the time then it could be a pretty tall order. My respect for foster carers, which is alreay high, goes up even further.

It shouldn't be that hard though surely? I am a total atheist for example, but when dd asked "what happens when you die" I gave her the full range of options. She gets to make her own mind up.

She has an entirely secular education in Belgium. We do nativities, talk about Easter, Lent, Xmas because that is MY background, and it is part of her CULTURAL heritage. I will never tell her what she should believe though and everything is couched in those terms. Many of her close school friends are Muslim. I don't know a lot about Islam though am trying to educate myself.

At the end of the day, even I as a parent "stay out of it". If you are doing things on a professional basis, it is surely possible to leave your prejudices and religious beliefs out of your dealings with the children.

Thing is Portofino - when you're in a home environment the ''lifestyle and values' of the occupants is all around - from the newspaper on the table to the choice of radio station. I could enter a Home and witin a few hours work out a lot about the people living there - they wouldn't have to say anything. Do you understand what I'm saying? - silence speaks volumes.

Great link Lenin. Particularly this bit,

"One consequence of this is that Christians need to grow up and realise (a) that they no longer live in a country which gives the Christian faith a pre-eminent position in the jurisprudence of the land (the judgement in para 30 recognises that this has been the case for at least a century) and that therefore (b) there is an obligation, as Jesus instructs us, to render unto Caesar things that belong to Caesar. At the end of the day, those who wish to represent a non-Christian state (and foster parents are representatives of the state) need to fulfil various obligations to that state which owe more to what Caesar desires rather that what God ordains. To be a foster carer is not a right and therefore a Christian?s liberty is not being constrained if the state rules that a particular couple cannot be foster carers because their views conflict with the environment that the state wishes the children in its care to be raised in."

Thanks for that link as well LeninGrad. This has all been very interesting.

I am a Christian.

I actively tell my DC 10 and 12 that there is nothing wrong with being gay.

I have a friend who is a Catholic nun, she agrees with me.

How many other people within other orthodox faiths such as islam and judasim believe that a homosexual lifestyle is acceptable? Therefore is everyone with definite beliefs that do not fit in with what is considered to be politically correct but do fit in with their religious belief going to be denied the right to adopt and foster children. This is not just about one religion.

As a Chistian myself I struggle with this issue - but that is another topic altogether. The fundamental issue here is whether your views derived from your religion should influence the decision as to whether you would provide a happy home. From the article it appears that this couple's honesty has deprived a child of a home - if they had just been more pc would they have been allowed to foster?

Britwish...have you read any of the thread?

Of course this is the right decision. What if the child turned out to be gay? He/She cannot knowingly be placed with a couple who would then tell them this is not 'ok'.

Too right Briwish...It doesn't suprise me you are struggling. My my how times change...Homosexuality was firmly considered a sin , a crime no less against human nature. And this was under British law less than half a century ago .Now it's actually a pre-requisite if you want to enter the upper echelons of the legal profession or politics.
It does seem that more and more of what used to be considered abnormal or immoral has become more and more acceptable in British society- take pre-marital sex and consequent pregnancies, or even adultery -now nobody even bats an eyelid despite its destructive potential on families. Infact its considered quite 'healthy' and 'normal' now to 'express you sexuality'in any which way irrespective of the consequences as is plain for everyone to see .
The very obvious relentless trend has been a growing latitude and casual attitude to most things sex-related.
With degree of pedophilia having been exposed at all levels in society , it seems it won't be long before it too becomes decriminalised in the UK. After all the authorities are already aware of the level of teenage sex that goes on without any controls , so it's would not be too far-fetched to predict that is what may well happen. All in the name of 'love' of course.
I though you couldn't change a religion to suit your beliefs but then the ruling classes have been tinkering and tweaking their religion for so long haven't they?
Who determines what is PC anyway?
Clearly Judges wield an enormous amount of power over what is and what isn't .So they get to impose their beliefs on society without having been elected or authorised to do so by the general public .After all they have the sole power to interpret the legislation however exactly as they please .Who are they accountable to? How many judges get sued for giving wrong or bad judgements ? Apparently they must be a different species because as far as I am aware they consider themselves infalliable and that is why no ordinary member of the public cannot even formally complain against a judge for having made a mad decision. Am I missing something here?
Do not all parents inevitably influence their children by their own faith/beliefs? The children will either accept them or as they grow up they may decide differently.Which is what happens normally doesn't it? To what extent is goverment going to legislate against that?
So if you want to bring up children in the UK you are now going to have to bring them up according to the religion of the goverment and the law courts ?
God help us!!

What a bizarre post!

And a load of nonsense too.

mama4life, please tell me you're not a foster carer.

Briwish, Judaism is not an 'orthodox faith'. Like Christianity and Islam, it has different wings and denominations, if you like, from Reform to Liberal to Orthodox to ultra-Orthodox. And you will find that Jews on the liberal wing tend, unsurprisingly, to be liberal about homosexuality. I met my first lesbian rabbi well over 20 years ago, and none of the Jews in my extended family are homophobic.

However, there are Jews who are deeply prejudiced against lesbians and gays, and they would not be suitable foster carers either.

Once again, this is NOT about Christian-bashing.

mama4life has been posting shit like this for a little while now.

hahahaha. People have been having sex in all sorts of ways forever and ever. It is the laws and the prudishness that is new. Strangely in today's less victorian society we decided that some of the laws were stupid.