Wow, this thread has really moved on quickly! So many posts to get through...
First of all, whilst there is the right to religious belief, there is a) no right to look after someone else's child, and b) certainly no right to impose your own moral beliefs upon children who are not your own. That is what is at issue. Can you impose your moral and religious beliefs on children who are not your own against the will of those who have parental responsibility and are trying to ensure that they grow up having all their possible needs met? (The state will ensure that a child has their spiritual needs met by making sure they can practice their religion - but it cannot think of spiritual needs in terms of the soul etc.)
It really does seem to me quite obvious that the state, which now affords protection and respect to gay people, would now require that those children in its care are afforded this respect should they turn out to be gay - and the age of the child does not matter at all. You can know that people think being gay is wrong before you even realise that you're gay. Then you realise that that thing people think is wrong is what you are.
At the end of the day the rights of the children come first. These children can then grow up and adopt homophobic views if they wish - that is their right. However, then they in turn will not have the right to be able to impose them on children who are not their own against the wishes of those with parental authority. If they have their own children - well, then they will have parental prerogative.
The couple have the right to their beliefs, but not the right to tell them to someone else's child against the wishes of those who hold parental responsibility. And the state has to protect the child's rights over those of the adults who do not in fact have any rights over the child.
What the bible says, whether homosexuality is right or wrong - this is irrelevant. The state has to bring up the children in its care and give them all the protections of the land - which includes being able to be gay without fear or harrassment. The state also has to make sure that the child can practice their own religion without fear or harrassment. Foster parents therefore need to be flexible to the different needs of the children in their care - whatever their own beliefs - because it is the state's responsibility to protect said children's rights to practice their religion or grow up to be gay without having unrelated adults' views telling them it's sinful or that their religion is pathetic (for example).
It's a matter of who has juridiction over the child. And someone who is fostering does not have the sort of jurisdiction over a child that would make it permissible to tell them that homosexuality is morally wrong.
LeninGrad - yes, I had that too. Section 28 didn't help!