Another nail in the coffin of acceptable religious bigoty...

MrPudding

... or PC gone mad?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

Personally I am going with the nail. With a bit of luck they will appeal. I would like to be a supreme court ruling on this, though I am fairly sure the result will be the same.

MrP

Penn

This for me is the most important bit:

They said that if children were placed with carers who objected to homosexuality and same-sex relationships, "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to 'safeguard and promote the welfare' of looked-after children".

What if they were asked to look after a teenager who was struggling to come to terms, or had already come to terms with being a homosexual? The children should be placed in homes that no matter what kind of problem they have, they could go to their foster parents for help. Help free from the foster parents own religious or personal beliefs. These folks said that they wouldn't be able to tell a child that homosexuality is okay. Well what if one of the children they are asked to look after is a homosexual?

Definitely not PC gone mad. If these folks are not able to separate their own beliefs from what is best for the child, they shouldn't be foster parents.

Dades

I'm undecided on this one yet.

I suspect the couple are hiding how conservative their beliefs really are in their statements, but I can't know that.

MrPudding

Dades wrote: »

I'm undecided on this one yet.

I suspect the couple are hiding how conservative their beliefs really are in their statements, but I can't know that.

More detail here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html

MrP

strobe

Dades wrote: »

I'm undecided on this one yet.

That was my initial reaction. I am diametrically opposed to state interference in peoples private lives (within reason obviously) but these people were applying to essentially be agents of the state, so it's a bit different.

Barrington points out why it's ok for this to be different in my opinion.

MrPudding

strobe wrote: »

That was my initial reaction. I am diametrically opposed to state interference in peoples private lives (within reason obviously) but these people were applying to essentially be agents of the state, so it's a bit different.

Barrington points out why it's ok for this to be different in my opinion.

If you have the time you really should read the judgement. It is very well thought out, and aside from a couple of comments along the lines of "religious belief should be encouraged..." I think it is a good judgement.

Oh, and I don't think there will be an appeal, or it is unlikely, they seem to have refused leave for appeal.

MrP

philologos

I wonder would the British Government like to send out a list of "unacceptable" beliefs to its inhabitants since it somehow seems that it has the authority to be able to determine this?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I wonder would the British Government like to send out a list of "unacceptable" beliefs to its inhabitants since it somehow seems that it has the authority to be able to determine this?

Good idea, then the christians can send out theirs and everybody will be on the same page then

philologos

Point is that its absurd in a free society for the Government to be anything but impartial in respect to religious belief. This isn't even a good example of secularism as there is clearly one view being favoured over another.

What's even more lamentable is that they would forego excellent foster parents with 15 years experience bringing up children because they have an intolerance of mainline Christian belief.

This is arguably the only bigotry involved here as they have clearly stated that they will love the child even if they hold disagreement. That's the definition of tolerance agreeing to co-exist with those with whom you disagree. It doesn't mean wholesale agreement.

gbee

Jakkass wrote: »

I wonder would the British Government like to send out a list of "unacceptable" beliefs to its inhabitants since it somehow seems that it has the authority to be able to determine this?

I find myself rather agreeing with the above. It's a position were one set of values is displaced by another, on one hand a religious view on the other a judge's view.

In this I don't think the judge has the right to oppose. No more than a church has the right to intervene.

I don't think a homosexual lifestyle is right, but I'm not one so I don't know. A position of neutrality should exist and the case dismissed without judgement.

It's not creating a pleasant image of the English Council IMO.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Point is that its absurd in a free society for the Government to be anything but impartial in respect to religious belief. This isn't even a good example of secularism as there is clearly one view being favoured over another.

What's even more lamentable is that they would forego excellent foster parents with 15 years experience bringing up children because they have an intolerance of mainline Christian belief.

This is arguably the only bigotry involved here as they have clearly stated that they will love the child even if they hold disagreement. That's the definition of tolerance agreeing to co-exist with those with whom you disagree. It doesn't mean wholesale agreement.

Being the major influence in a developing child's life is NOT "agreeing to co-exist" and "holding disagreement".

The govt wants what's best for the children. The couple presumably do also.
If they've judged it potentially harmful that the children will be told homosexuality is wrong, well, that's that. It has nothing to do with intolerance of christian belief
Nobody has said the couple should stop believing what they do

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

This isn't even a good example of secularism as there is clearly one view being favoured over another.

I suggest that you read the judgment, since you are ignoring the grounds upon which it was made.

The judge made it clear in the judgment that the right to acquire and hold whatever personal religious beliefs one wants to without state interference (which is what secularism is) was overridden by the child's right to an upbringing free of the spread of hatred under the guise of religion.

Yer Lordships wrote:

43 However, it is important to realise that reliance upon religious belief, however conscientious the belief and however ancient and respectable the religion, can never of itself immunise the believer from the reach of the secular law. And invocation of religious belief does not necessarily provide a defence to what is otherwise a valid claim.

97 [...] The local authority is entitled to explore the extent to which prospective foster carers' beliefs may affect their behaviour, their treatment of a child being fostered by them. [...]

100 [...] the fundamental principle of adoption law that the best interests of each child is the most important consideration [...]

103 [...] Moreover, in the present context, it is common ground that there is no right to foster [...]

The judgment is a good one.

Would you support, say, the adoption of children by fundamentalist islamists bent on indoctrinating them as christianophobes, antisemites or suicide bombers?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Would you support, say, fundamentalist islamists bent on indoctrinating foster children as christianophobes, antisemites or suicide bombers?

This is hate speech. I don't see how having a mere disagreement is hate speech. All the couple are saying is that they have a moral disagreement with homosexual acts. Its no more bigoted than saying that I disagree with smokers.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

This is hate speech. I don't see how having a mere disagreement is hate speech. All the couple are saying is that they have a moral disagreement with homosexual acts. Its no more bigoted than saying that I disagree with smokers.

so you wouldn't like kids to be exposed to people telling foster children that christians are morally corrupt, but you're ok with them hearing that homosexuals are morally corrupt?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

This is hate speech. I don't see how having a mere disagreement is hate speech. All the couple are saying is that they have a moral disagreement with homosexual acts. Its no more bigoted than saying that I disagree with smokers.

Jakkass these are children.
Having a disagreement with a group of adults is fine, but raising a child with "homosexuality is morally wrong" is a different matter.

I sincerely doubt you would be sitting there saying that telling your child christians are morally corrupt and wrong is a "mere disagreement".

magicbastarder

gbee wrote: »

I find myself rather agreeing with the above. It's a position were one set of values is displaced by another, on one hand a religious view on the other a judge's view.

the judge is not saying they cannot hold those views.
the judge is saying that if the state is to place into their care children whom the state is responsible for, that the state has a right to dictate certain things.

*not* fulfilling those conditions outside the context of fostering is not necessarily a crime; for example, you can choose not to live with a flushing toilet if you so wish, but don't expect the state to place vulnerable youngsters in your care.

you do not have a *right* to foster children. this issue is not a rights issue.

mikhail

Jakkass wrote: »

This is hate speech. I don't see how having a mere disagreement is hate speech. All the couple are saying is that they have a moral disagreement with homosexual acts. Its no more bigoted than saying that I disagree with smokers.

Yeah, that's a simple comparison all right.

"both Eunice and Owen expressed strong views on smoking, stating that it is "against God's laws and morals". They explained that these views stemmed from their religious convictions and beliefs. Eunice explained at a later interview, that she had always been brought up to believe that having a cigarette was unnatural and wrong, and that these convictions had not come about as a result of being "saved".

No kid has ever come to realise that he or she just was a smoker whether they liked it or not, and felt ashamed and isolated for that.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

Point is that its absurd in a free society for the Government to be anything but impartial in respect to religious belief. This isn't even a good example of secularism as there is clearly one view being favoured over another.

Check out paragraph 55 of the judgement. It is from a previous case which is held to be good authority.

Jakkass wrote: »

What's even more lamentable is that they would forego excellent foster parents with 15 years experience bringing up children because they have an intolerance of mainline Christian belief.

No. Read the judgement. it is quite clear that an atheist or a muslim or a jedi with the same view would also be held to be unsuitable.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is arguably the only bigotry involved here as they have clearly stated that they will love the child even if they hold disagreement. That's the definition of tolerance agreeing to co-exist with those with whom you disagree. It doesn't mean wholesale agreement.

Read the judgement, and try to do it with an open mind. What I mean by that is the judges have no axe to grind, they simply seek to apply the law in a fair way.

gbee wrote: »

I find myself rather agreeing with the above. It's a position were one set of values is displaced by another, on one hand a religious view on the other a judge's view.

In this I don't think the judge has the right to oppose. No more than a church has the right to intervene.

I don't think a homosexual lifestyle is right, but I'm not one so I don't know. A position of neutrality should exist and the case dismissed without judgement.

It's not creating a pleasant image of the English Council IMO.

You have clearly not read the judgement. It is not a case where one set of rights has displaced another. It is a case where a subjective and impossible to prove belief is deemed as not capable of setting aside black and white legislation.

robindch wrote: »

The judgment is a good one.

Agreed. Very well constructed, though they did say that religious belief was to be encouraged a couple of times... but aside form that, good.

MrP

Penn

Jakkass wrote: »

All the couple are saying is that they have a moral disagreement with homosexual acts.

No, they are also saying that they wouldn't be able to tell a child in their care that homosexuality was acceptable. Again, what about my example of a homosexual child unknowingly being placed in their care. I can only imagine that accepting ones sexuality outside of the general heterosexuality is an extremely difficult thing to accept. A child in foster care should be able to talk to their foster parents about it. But if the foster parents have moral disagreements with homosexual acts, how can they guide the child?

Of course, some children are born into families with similar disagreements to homosexual acts, that can't be helped. But placing foster children with foster parents who can put aside their own religious beliefs for the sake of the child in their care can help them. And if these folks were deemed to be unable to do that, they shouldn't be foster parents.

It's not about the people who want to help others. It's about the people who need to be helped.

TrollHammaren

Jakkass wrote: »

This is hate speech. I don't see how having a mere disagreement is hate speech. All the couple are saying is that they have a moral disagreement with homosexual acts. Its no more bigoted than saying that I disagree with smokers.

Take the fact that they're Christians out of it for a second, and imagine that the couple just have a personal moral view that homosexuality is wrong, and that this view is in no way influenced by any religious belief.

It would still be an issue, as the fact that, as foster parents, they would be unwilling provide emotional support for a child struggling with his/her sexuality. This could potentially jeopardise the child's emotional well-being, and THAT's hte basis of the court's decision.

Also, your smokers example doesn't fit, as a teenager can choose to start smoking, and the parents can discourage this due to the scientifically-proven health issues. A teenager doesn't choose to be attracted to the same sex, and his or her parents telling them that their orientation is wrong could impede or damage healthy emotional development.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I wonder would the British Government like to send out a list of "unacceptable" beliefs to its inhabitants since it somehow seems that it has the authority to be able to determine this?

They have done. It's called equality legislation.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They have done. It's called equality legislation.

Equality in its 21st century form unfortunately seems to involve for-going the rights of one in favour of another in a lot of cases. It could be argued that this isn't equality in earnest.

We could do with its more robust cousin, tolerance. Agreeing to disagree with those who differ with you and showing a bit of grace.

TrollHammaren

Jakkass wrote: »

Equality in its 21st century form unfortunately seems to involve for-going the rights of one in favour of another in a lot of cases. It could be argued that this isn't equality in earnest.

We could do with its more robust cousin, tolerance. Agreeing to disagree with those who differ with you and showing a bit of grace.

Which is why they were denied the right to foster. Telling a child their sexual orientation is wrong and refusing to support them is not an act of tolerance.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

Equality in its 21st century form unfortunately seems to involve for-going the rights of one in favour of another in a lot of cases. It could be argued that this isn't equality in earnest.

As pointed out above, there is no right to foster children. You do so at the behest of and with the blessing (heh) of the state.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Point is that its absurd in a free society for the Government to be anything but impartial in respect to religious belief. This isn't even a good example of secularism as there is clearly one view being favoured over another.

The State has a responsibility for care of children in its care.

What you are basically saying is that a parent or guardian (in this case the State) has no right not to have a child minder who wishes to teach their children that homosexuality is immoral.

If you were hiring a child minder would you have the right to not hire the child minder who was going to tell your kids that you were immoral?

Jakkass wrote: »

What's even more lamentable is that they would forego excellent foster parents with 15 years experience bringing up children because they have an intolerance of mainline Christian belief.

They aren't excellent foster parents, that is the point. Excellent foster parents would have said that there was nothing being homosexual.

Again the State has to ensure that children are raised to the moral standards of the State, not what ever religious group demanding to raise children.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Equality in its 21st century form unfortunately seems to involve for-going the rights of one in favour of another in a lot of cases. It could be argued that this isn't equality in earnest.

That is ridiculous, no one has a right to foster a child and raise that foster child with Christian morals.

Jakkass wrote: »

We could do with its more robust cousin, tolerance. Agreeing to disagree with those who differ with you and showing a bit of grace.

Couldn't agree more. These people think homosexuality is wrong, the State doesn't view it that way and its the State is the one who has responsibility for these children and their care

Instead though of being tolerant of that fact this couple forsook the States position and took action against the State.

Yes Jakkass, what we need is a lot more tolerance, tolerance from Christians that they don't rule the world any more :rolleyes:

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Agreeing to disagree with those who differ with you and showing a bit of grace.

Get real here. These people have said that they are prepared to preach hatred to foster children. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Jakkass wrote: »

We could do with its more robust cousin, tolerance.

Tolerance of hatred is appeasement.

BTW, you still haven't said whether you'd like be exposed to people telling foster children that christians are morally corrupt?

Or does the obvious admission that you wouldn't simply destroy your untenable position?

Stercus Accidit

If a child or teen were to grow up to be homosexual, how damaging would it be to have two parents who openly do not 'approve' (whatever the f*ck that means, to disapprove of a human being) of that person. I do not believe it is a choice to be gay, as such these two people are basically disapproving of a type of person.

You have on the other hand open minded parents who will support and 'approve' of their child no matter their race, creed or sexual orientation.

Who is a fit foster parent and who isn't?

I find the notion that a bigot should be allowed foster a potentially gay child or teen with the excuse of religious freedom an awful, weak and double thinking or even dishonest idea. I think you realise this Jakkass, but have hopped on religious freedoms counter argument for the sake of it, taking the opportunity to decry our hypocrisy and lack of tolerance. I think you will find the intolerant are not tolerated among right thinking people.

'Anti-Semitic couple denied foster status for their beliefs' - Oh the outrage that headline would reap

I only hope that more potential foster parents are denied custody of a child in similar cases, and that those cases come to light.

fitz0

"In relation to their expressed views on same sex relationships, Sally stressed that these views did not equate with the Fostering Standards which require carers to value individuals equally and to promote diversity. Eunice and Owen were not able to acknowledge that their very strong beliefs in this area would be likely to impact on their ability to support and reassure a young person who may be confused re their sexual identity. Having read the report, Eunice disputed that she had said that she could not support anyone who was having such difficulties. She felt that her beliefs would not affect how she was able to care for a young person, and stated that we were really saying that they could not be foster-carers because they are Christians."

I find the last bit revealing. Completely ignoring the real reason they were denied, they go on the defensive line that they're being discriminated on the grounds of religion. Yet they had no trouble denying a potential foster child access to a mosque.

They are also recorded as telling Ms Shaw that they would not feel able to take a child to a mosque.

It was a good ruling.

Zombrex

Whether it is Creationist demanding that scientific journals publish their nonsense, employees demanding that they be allowed break uniform guidelines, State employes demanding that they be allowed while representing the state express religious preference, or these people demanding that the state facilitate them raising orphans as Christians, "discrimination" seems to be the most over used term in the Christian vocabulary these days.

All rather tragic when there is genuine discrimination (including genuine religious discrimination) that should be tackled.

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

Equality in its 21st century form unfortunately seems to involve for-going the rights of one in favour of another in a lot of cases. It could be argued that this isn't equality in earnest.

Exactly - all rights some at the expense of someone else's 'rights'

As has been said, your right to throw a punch ends an inch in front of my face.

What you're saying could equally be applied to the end of slavery, where people's rights to own slaves were forgone in favour of rights of everyone to be free.

ShooterSF

Jakkass wrote: »

Point is that its absurd in a free society for the Government to be anything but impartial in respect to religious belief.

Why? Sure I could wrap anything up as my religious belief, put a nice bow on it but the government should only be impartial if it doesn't contradict state guaranteed rights of others.

pH

ShooterSF wrote: »

Why? Sure I could wrap anything up as my religious belief, put a nice bow on it but the government should only be impartial if it doesn't contradict state guaranteed rights of others.

No, obviously only some people's religious beliefs are precious and constitute 'rights' because:

A/ they're really old
B/ they're really sincere about their beliefs
C/ there are lots of them
D/ their God is real

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Get real here. These people have said that they are prepared to preach hatred to foster children. They should be ashamed of themselves.Tolerance of hatred is appeasement.

Nonsense.

Disagreeing with what people do != hating people

Anything else is just absolute tripe.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Nonsense.

Disagreeing with what people do != hating people

Anything else is just absolute tripe.

So you think preaching to be christianophobes is hate speech and preaching to be homophobes isnt
Right so

PDN

bluewolf wrote: »

So you think preaching to be christianophobes is hate speech and preaching to be homophobes isnt
Right so

Saying that you believe the practice of Christianity is wrong could hardly be construed as hate speech, could it?

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

So you think preaching to be christianophobes is hate speech and preaching to be homophobes isnt
Right so

Preaching hatred of Christians != clear disagreement with Christianity
Preaching anti-Semitism != clear disagreement with Jewish belief and practice.
Preaching hatred of homosexuals != clear disagreement with homosexual acts

I would universally condemn hatred of homosexuals as individuals. As I would universally condemn hatred of Muslims. This does not mean that I agree with Islam, or homosexual acts. It just means that standing up against vitrolic hatred is the right thing to do.

I would consider preaching hatred against homosexuals to be evidently homophobic. I wouldn't consider disagreement with homosexual acts to be homophobia.

Likewise in respect to preaching hatred against Muslims (is Islamophobic) and disagreeing with Islam (isn't Islamophobic).

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Saying that you believe the practice of Christianity is wrong could hardly be construed as hate speech, could it?

Robin gave it as an example and J replied with 'that's hate speech'

robin

robin wrote:

Would you support, say, fundamentalist islamists bent on indoctrinating foster children as christianophobes

Jakkass wrote: »

This is hate speech.

There

Now I know we don't know, but if the parents 'couldnt' bring their child to a mosque and felt homosexuality was morally wrong and told the children so, well that's a different matter to 'i dont agree with it but you can if you like'

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Nonsense.

Disagreeing with what people do != hating people

Anything else is just absolute tripe.

Obviously. If you disagree with another person's actions, yet do nothing to interfere with them, then that is the equivalent of hating people, keeping slaves and punching someone in the face.

Unless, of course, the action you disagree with is something like praying or going to church.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

There

Now I know we don't know, but if the parents 'couldnt' bring their child to a mosque and felt homosexuality was morally wrong and told the children so, well that's a different matter to 'i dont agree with it but you can if you like'

If someone started ranting to a child about how much they hate LGBT people I would consider that hate speech.

This isn't what has happened in this case.

I don't use "Christophobia" in any context, but it certainly isn't just mere disagreement with Christian belief or practice. That's just disagreeing with me. Just as disagreeing with homosexual acts is just disagreement.

If people genuinely hate me for my beliefs, that's their prerogative.

PDN

PDN wrote: »

Obviously. If you disagree with another person's actions, yet do nothing to interfere with them, then that is the equivalent of hating people, keeping slaves and punching someone in the face.
.

How you can post something like that given your 'i'm not calling them idiots I just mentioned idiots in the same post' and 'fly in the ointment isnt really calling them a fly' post in the other thread is beyond me

jakkass wrote:

If someone started ranting to a child about how much they hate LGBT people I would consider that hate speech.

This isn't what has happened in this case.

Right, what happened is that for the good of the children the council decided it was in their best interest not to be fostered by this couple. This couple also felt they 'could not bring the children to a mosque' for moral reasons, so you're not the only religion losing out here

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

Right, what happened is that for the good of the children the council decided it was in their best interest not to be fostered by this couple. This couple also felt they 'could not bring the children to a mosque' for moral reasons, so you're not the only religion losing out here

On an absolutely awful basis.

By the by I wouldn't expect Muslim foster parents to bring children to a church, that's just another ridiculous example. I wouldn't consider it "bigoted" either that they wouldn't.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

On an absolutely awful basis.

On a valid basis!

philologos

I take it you're not going to deal with my point that disagreeing with homosexual acts isn't hatred?

Also BTW, in a free society arguably nobody should "lose out". People should be free to practice their faith and participate fully in society. The fact that you say that is really quite odd.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I take it you're not going to deal with my point that disagreeing with homosexual acts isn't hatred?

No, I've already tried and gotten nowhere so I'll just leave it now


Ohhh, you had to go and edit didn't you.

Also BTW, in a free society arguably nobody should lose out. People should be free to practice their faith and participate fully in society. The fact that you say that is really quite odd.

They are free to practise their faith. They are free to participate in society.
Fostering children is not a right.
The concern here is for the wellbeing of the children, not making sure a couple aren't offended

The fact that I say WHAT?

roosh

Saw this elsewhere, so thought it was worth posting - apologies if it has already been posted, or if similar points have been made.

Misplaced outrage over High Court “ban” on Christian foster parents
Posted on 28 February 2011 by Gavin Drake

A Christian couple have lost their High Court bid to overturn Derby City Council’s ban on them fostering children because of their orthodox Judaeo-Christian views on homosexuality.

It’s a story you’ll be hearing a lot about. But it didn’t happen. That is not what happened in the High Court today.

For a start, the couple had not been banned from adopting or fostering – the City Council’s social services and children’s panel hadn’t made a decision about whether or not Eunice and Owen Johns would make suitable foster parents. But, after social workers asked questions about how their Christian views would affect their response to a child who said they were gay; the couple and the council decided to make a joint application to the High Court for guidance.

This is unusual, but not unheard of. Judicial reviews are usually sought to challenge decisions which have already been made. Doing it that way round allows the court to examine actual evidence and facts about how a particular decision was arrived at. But in today’s case the court was being asked to rule on an abstract. There had been no decision so there was nothing for the court to examine.

In effect the court was being asked to make a declaration but by the time the application was made neither party had provided a draft declaration; and merely asked a question:

“How is the Local Authority as a Fostering Agency required to balance the obligations owed under the Equality Act 2006 (not to directly or indirectly discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief), the obligations under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 (not to discriminate directly or indirectly based on sexual orientation), the Human Rights Act 1998, the National Minimum Standards for Fostering Services and Derby City Council’s Fostering Policy when deciding whether to approve prospective foster carers as carers for its looked-after children. Within that balancing exercise does the Local Authority have a duty to treat the welfare of such looked-after children as its paramount consideration?”

Shortly before the hearing, at the request of the court, the parties formulated draft declarations.

The Johns sought the following declarations:

“(a) Persons who adhere to a traditional code of sexual ethics, according to which any sexual union outside marriage (understood as a lifelong relationship of fidelity between a man and a woman) is morally undesirable, should not be considered unsuitable to be foster carers for this reason alone. This is a correct application of the National Minimum Standards 7 ‘Valuing Diversity’.

(b) Persons who attend Church services at a mainstream denomination are, in principle, suitable to be foster carers.

(c) It is unlawful for a Foster Service to ask potential foster carers their views on homosexuality absent the needs of a specific child.

(d) It is unlawful for a public authority to describe religious adherents who adhere to a code of moral sexual ethics namely; that any sexual union outside marriage between a man and a woman in a lifetime relationship of fidelity is morally undesirable, as ‘homophobic’.”

Derby City Council sought the following declaration:

“A fostering service provider may be acting lawfully if it decides not approve a prospective foster carer who evinces antipathy, objection to, or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships and an inability to respect, value and demonstrate positive attitudes towards homosexuality and same-sex relationships.”

So, what did the court decide? Well, it decided not to make any declaration and there is no order.

The judges expressed concern about the “extravagant rhetoric” used by Christian barrister Paul Diamond of the Christian Legal Centre; and say his claims about the persecution of Christians in the UK: “to speak plainly, are for the greater part, in our judgment, simply wrong as to the factual premises on which they are based and at best tendentious in their analysis of the issues.”

Having read the judgement I’m inclined to agree. I’m not a lawyer, but I have sat through many court cases in the Magistrates, Crown, County and High Courts. In my non-legally-trained-mind; I tend to find that Judges like Counsel to stick to the points and present evidence to back up their arguments.

In the current case the judges repeatedly comment on the lack of any evidence from either party. It appears that rather than a trial of the legal issues the court was used as a debating chamber to argue for the kind of law people would like rather than a challenge of the law that actually exists.

It is disappointing that Paul Diamond re-argued the same points he used in the case of McFarlane v Relate Avon Limited; and the case of Islington London Borough Council v Ladele (Liberty intervening). I say “disappointing” because he had already lost on those points three times –in the case of Ladele he lost these points in the Court of Appeal.

Again, I’m not a lawyer, but I do know that the High Court is bound by the decisions of the Court of Appeal; so there is no point trying to re-argue a point already lost.

The Christian Legal Centre have issued a press release about the case which they open: “In a landmark judgment, which will have a serious impact on the future of fostering and adoption in the UK, the High Court has suggested that Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics are unsuitable as foster carers, and that homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK.”

This is nothing less than a lie and I am appalled that a Christian group should seek to misrepresent the truth in such a way. I’d go so far as to suggest that the Christian Legal Centre’s press release may amount to a contempt of court.

It isn’t a landmark judgement. It will have a serious impact for nobody – not least for Owen or Eunice Johns who could still be allowed to foster by Derby City Council if they proceed with their application.

The judges themselves say they have “no intention of laying down any principle of law” saying: “We are inclined to think that the kind of situation where it is appropriate to invite the court to decide some abstract or future question is where the relevant facts are clear and where the identified question of law can be answered with something approaching a simple yes or no. The present case, as will be apparent, is fairly far removed from that: there is little by way of evidence and the question posed for our consideration – “How is the Local Authority … required to balance the obligations owed under” various enactments and instruments – could hardly be more open.”

And what Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson actually said in their conclusion couldn’t be more clear:

“We have stated our misgivings about the exercise of the jurisdiction to consider whether to grant any (and if so what) declaratory relief. The defendant has taken no decision and there is likely to be a broad range of factual contexts for reaching a particular decision, the legality of which will be highly fact-sensitive. Moreover, the parties have: (a) been unable to agree on an appropriately focused question for the court to address, (b) each identified questions that do not raise a question of law that can be answered with anything approaching a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’, and (c) furnished the court with no evidence.

“On behalf of the claimants it is said that the material the Commission filed in evidence is highly controversial, but no rebutting evidence has been filed. Mr Diamond has sought to rely on material which is unsupported by any evidential evaluation. We are not in a position to assess, let alone evaluate, any of the material relied on. This, together with the difficulties we identify in has meant that such conclusions as we have been able to reach in must be seen as qualified in the light of the nature of the material before us and the way the case was presented.

“For the reasons given we have concluded that we should make no order.”

That’s the decision of the High Court today – to not make a decision on what appears to be a badly thought out, badly argued, badly presented case.

I have no doubt that there are cases of Christians suffering for their faith. And I have no doubt that there needs to be a public debate about the competing interests of those who seek to advance rights on the basis of sexual orientation and those who seek to uphold traditional and orthodox Christian views on human sexuality.

Today’s judgement was not comfortable reading and there are parts of it which do cause concern; but the courts are not the place for a public debate about competing rights.

Wherever the debate does take place it needs to be handled truthfully and accurately. Painting a false picture to shout discrimination where none has been shown does nothing to advance the Christian gospel; does nothing to fight for the rights of Christians facing real persecution and does nothing to advance the argument about those competing rights.

Gavin Drake - Blog etry
Court Ruling

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

I take it you're not going to deal with my point that disagreeing with homosexual acts isn't hatred?

It's a very fine line, you'd be hard put to argue that anyone disagreeing with say "black acts" in Ireland wasn't doing it out of some form of hatred.

JimiTime

Barrington wrote: »

This for me is the most important bit:



What if they were asked to look after a teenager who was struggling to come to terms, or had already come to terms with being a homosexual? The children should be placed in homes that no matter what kind of problem they have, they could go to their foster parents for help. Help free from the foster parents own religious or personal beliefs. These folks said that they wouldn't be able to tell a child that homosexuality is okay. Well what if one of the children they are asked to look after is a homosexual?

Definitely not PC gone mad. If these folks are not able to separate their own beliefs from what is best for the child, they shouldn't be foster parents.

So if we are playing 'what if', WHAT IF a child/teenager is attracted to Labradors or is an objectophile? Should there be apathy in those cases too? Where do we draw the line? Do we impose a rule that says you should not give any opinions etc to the children in foster care? Simply state, 'you are there to put a roof over their head and food in their belly etc, but must be apathetic to everything relating to the child'?

strobe

JimiTime wrote: »

So if we are playing 'what if', WHAT IF a child/teenager is attracted to Labradors or is an objectophile? Should there be apathy in those cases too? Where do we draw the line? Do we impose a rule that says you should not give any opinions etc to the children in foster care? Simply state, 'you are there to put a roof over their head and food in their belly etc, but must be apathetic to everything relating to the child'?

By having sex with a Labrador, I presume you mean a dog rather than a Canadian (although I'm not sure which is worse {jk liah } they would be breaking the law so presumably it would be the foster parents legal responsibility to advise them against this.

Had to google objectophila. Heh, it takes all kind I guess.

Apathy is not what is being advocated in any case here though. Support is what is being advocated, and doing what is best for the child.

JimiTime

strobe wrote: »

By having sex with a Labrador, I presume you mean a dog rather than a Canadian (although I'm not sure which is worse {jk liah } they would be breaking the law so presumably it would be the foster parents legal responsibility to advise them against this.

Your tone above still seems apathetic. A bit, 'take out your handbooks, 'that is against the law so don't do it'. Is that how you would approach a child of yours? 'Daddy, i am sexually attracted to dogs (not canadians:) )', 'Now son, thats illegal, so out and play and be done with ye'. You don't think there is something more that needs discussing?

Had to google objectophila. Heh, it takes all kind I guess.

Theres a woman who 'married' the Berlin Wall believe it or not.

Apathy is not what is being advocated in any case here though. Support is what is being advocated, and doing what is best for the child.

I see nothing to suggest that the couple in question would not support a child.