Christian couple told they can't adopt due to their views on homosexuality.

[theVOID]

It doesn't matter, you simply need to be consistent.

You are against letting people foster/adopt if they are homophobes or racists?

What is the principle behind this?

Objective

Against. The government has no business endorsing racism or bigotry by giving said racists & bigots a platform, be it a TV show, a web page or the mind of a small child.

The government has no business in beliefs, period.

If it was the case that government had an obligation to prevent bigotry or racism through it's official channels then you would see no .co.uk or .us domains being issued to known racists or homophobes and they would be removed when discovered.

This doesn't violate any of the freedoms enumerated in the US Bill of Rights or Constitution.

I don't care about the established law, I asked for the principles.

1.) They are still allowed to spread their beliefs via Freedom of Speech, but on their own dime & to their own children.

2.) They are still allowed to spread their beliefs via Freedom of Expression, but on their own dime & to their own children.

And why should their own children be an exception? What is it about a child coming into a family after birth that makes them need these double standards?

3.) Freedom of Religion doesn't come into play at all because they can still worship however & where ever they want. Being religious does not automatically give you access to the privilege of adoption.

Never said it did give them automatic access to a privilege, and that wasn't my point about religious beliefs either - My point was that if you are going to 'protect' children from being placed with families who display anti-homosexual beliefs then why not those who display anit-religious beliefs?

Subjective
1.) Racism & bigotry are evil & have no place in modern society.

So why aren't you against religious or sexual bigotry too? You've said that this shouldn't apply to people with anit-religious/atheist attitudes, would you say that a family who's only bigotry is an extreme dislike of Islam should prevent them too from adopting?

2.) Brainwashing children to think that either of the above are a good thing is evil & has no place in modern society.

Oh, and a family refusing to promote pro-gay attitudes makes them "brainwashers"? Are you personally for preventing any religious beliefs form being taught on the account of it being "brainwashing"? By what standards do you determine that these things are brainwashing and is there a difference between "brainwashing" and a family passing on beliefs that they sincerely believe are correct and good for the child? Is a family who sincerely beliefs in creationism and wants to teach that position to there children "brainwashing" them?

3.) The mental & physical welfare of the child trumps any other concern.

I agree that it's the most important concern, I disagree that these attitudes have a significant impact on the child's welbeing. Being raised homophobic and having a perfectly normal physical and mental state are by no means mutually exclusive.

A few generations ago most people were homophobic and/or racist, their children turned out better than that generation, so the case of a child being raised in a homophobic family causing them mental harm is unjustified.

Another interesting tidbit from the court document.

[63]Although our summary of the facts and the submissions in this case focus on the issue of sexual orientation and the way it was handled, it is important to note that, as we have seen, the documents indicate that the defendant was also concerned with other matters. Thus Mr Weston referred to such matters as who would care for a child who was likely to be there at weekends when the claimants were at the two church services they attended on Sundays, the indication that they would not take a Muslim child in their care to a mosque, and their availability in a wider sense because of the pressures of their work and other commitments.

Aside from them lacking the free time to properly care for the child that's bullshit, for the following reason:

It seems to imply that these people would not be able to take the Muslim child to church services with then, following from that line of reasoning:

It would require that an Atheist family who adopts/fosters a child who has been raised in a religious home to continue to take that child to church. An atheist who refuses to take a child to church would be refused the privilege of adopting.

Subsequently, A Religious family who adopts a new born baby would be unable to take that child to church services since that child is an atheist at that point in time.

Apparently this couple had a few strikes against them.

A few strikes?

They wouldn't take the child to a mosque when they were at church - Neither would I.

And they may not have the free time needed to provide sufficient care, that isn't a strike against them it's simply a concern over their availability.

That's a wide brush you guys are painting with. I know & have dated several feminists that weren't anything close to man haters.

Sure, and that is the same as people who would not promote pro-gay attitudes to their children not being anything close to gay haters.

As for the feminists who do hate men, they should be refused adoption by your standards, no?