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

[Tiberius]

...and so you admit that all your arguments are based on nothing more than your own biased opinions, and cannot therefore be applied to the general way of things without resorting to some form of authoritarianism. Exactly what we stated at the beginning.

Not at all. Protected classes aren't an opinion Adrian. Neither is child psychology. I'm not an anarchist like you. I realize society needs some laws & that mob rule is a bad thing. You may too when you get older.

Protected classes are an opinion; they are just an opinion supported by the government and the law, which is what we were debating in this thread. I also never said that child psychology was an opinion. Just an FYI, but using strawmen in a debate isn't usually thought of as clever.

Oh, and I'm not an anarchist; I'm a Libertarian, or a minarchist. In other words, I too realise that society needs some laws and that mob rule is a bad thing. I just believe that the government should treat everyone equally, rather than creating special groups of people who need "protection". There are some things that the government should stay out of, and people's beliefs is one of them. If those beliefs cause them to commit a crime, then the government can get involved, but just because someone is a racist doesn't mean they are going to go around committing racial attacks.

You keep harping on authoritarianism. I dare you to walk down your street nude (freedom of expression) or yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre (freedom of speech) & see how long your cries of "authoritarianism" keep you out of jail.

In a truly libertarian country, you could do both and avoid jail (although with the latter, you'd probably get banned from the theatre). However, where I live (UK), both major parties are on the authoritarian end of the scale. So no, I'm not going to do either. I follow the rules of the country and seek to change them through legal means.

Just as an aside, you are woefully ignorant of the civil-rights struggle in the USA.

No I'm not. Just because I disagree with the current system doesn't mean I'm not aware of its history. I stand by my position; I think companies should be able to hire whomever they want to. I trust the public enough to make their own decisions on whether to do business with those companies without having the government forcing them.

It doesn't matter how you interpret it to be discriminatory, it's the law, it's current legislation - foster agencies as employers must comply with it. The Equality Act 2010 means people cannot use any of the aforementioned protected characteristics to discriminate the other. You cannot hide simply behind the veil of Christianity and behave like a bigot towards anyone else on those grounds, in this particular instance, sexual orientation. It’s all to do with equality and diversity, no one has any more rights than the other, and no one gets to use their characteristics as an instrument to discriminate another. It does not just apply to beliefs, which is after all just one of the protected characteristics – for example an asexual individual cannot act with prejudice in the workplace towards a heterosexual couple.

Yes, I'm aware it's the current legislation; but apparently you are not aware that its contradictory nature has been noted time and time again by lawyers fighting for the rights of both religious people and homosexuals. It is consistently noted that sexual orientation often trumps religious beliefs, despite the fact that both are considered part of the "equality" act.

No, the person was merely doing their job. You wouldn't last one week in the civil service or any other governmental department Adrian, you'd be dismissed for gross misconduct.

I never said they weren't doing their job, I merely commented on the fact that because the law is contradictory, they can come to what I consider to be bad decisions (such as the one we are debating in this thread).

I bolded the line I want to draw attention to, in hindsight that wasn't a particular clever thing of you say, in fact you (and by extension the people who thought you made sense by handing out kudos) are at best ignorant and at worse borderline insulting. The Act actually forces employers and service providers to make reasonable adjustments to their workplaces to overcome barriers experienced by disabled people. You seriously think they are worthless?

No, I don't think they are worthless. How do you even manage to get to that position based on me calling what I consider a flawed and unfair "equality" act bullshit? What I've said before is that companies shouldn't be forced into employing people they don't want to, or making adjustments. If the employees don't like it, they don't have to put up with it. I believe that companies should be controlled by their consumers; and that consumers ultimately hold more power than any law or industrial action can.

All you've done is made a observational selection fallacy. I expected better from you.

There was no fallacy. I pointed out the fact that there is a massive contradiction in the law; some equalities are more equal than others.