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

[theVOID]

Good points, i'm going to mull over this for a bit.

[Dotard]

A lot of invidiousness and intolerance comes from the mouths of those claiming to be respectful and impartial.


Disagree with the notion of gay marriage =/= Hateful bigotry.

[Jaysyn]

A lot of invidiousness and intolerance comes from the mouths of those claiming to be respectful and impartial.


Disagree with the notion of gay marriage =/= Hateful bigotry.

But gay marriage wasn't mentioned in that article at all so I'm not sure what you are going on about.

[Skipper]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi...rules.html

They said nothing about gay marriage Dotard, they had the opinion that homosexuality was plain wrong. An opinion likely heavily influenced by their religion. The courts have decided that the prejudice they have because of their religion does not trump secular law in the U.K... so the discriminatory views they hold are not going to be tolerated just because of their religion, a great precedence to be set. I see this as no different to telling a racist couple they can't foster kids. This is anti-homophobia and a boost for a even more secular society, it is not anti-Christian. Just so happens these homophobes are of the Christian variety.

[Dotard]

I'm "going on about" the article said negative views on homosexuality. All it takes is to state you don't think gays should marry and you are labled a homophobe, a hater and a bigot. For all I know that may have been a single question on the application.

Do you agree that homosexuals have a right to traditional marriage?

No.

HOMOPHOBIC HATING BIGOT! REJECTED! OFF WITH HIS BIGOTTED HEAD!

[Faith No More]

So no pentecostals can adopt either? What about Evangelists? Mormons?

Loving the authoritarianism guys...

Fight fire with fire.

[Tiberius]

I love the hypocritical nature of some atheists in these forums. Most of you would gladly accept secularism as a good form of government since it separates church and state, and yet most of you support the rejection of Christians from being foster carers or adoption parents because they have beliefs that don't gel with your own, or indeed, with most of society.

Guess what people? Secularism is separation of church and state. That means the church doesn't get to influence the government, and the government doesn't get to deny people privileges because of their religious beliefs (whether they be atheist, Christian, jew, etc). There is no stipulation (nor should there be) that foster parents or adoption parents are not allowed to teach their children about their beliefs, just as there is no stipulation that normal parents cannot teach their own children about their beliefs.

The government isn't in the business of creating and upholding morals. The government should create and uphold laws, and one of those laws is the protection of religious beliefs. The government should no more deny a homophobic religious person the chance of adopting a child as it should an anti-religious homosexual. People's beliefs should be protected under the law, end of.

[Skipper]

So we should let racists foster children Adrian? Nazis? After all peoples beliefs "should be protected under the law". This was a couple that clearly stated they couldn't tell a child it was acceptable to be gay, so as far as they are concerned being homosexual is unacceptable, this is something we shouldn't be teaching kids in the same way we shouldn't be teaching them that it's wrong to be black or Jewish. Besides, this case has nothing to do with government. It's the courts.

Again, like I said, this is anti-homophobic not Anti-Christian. I have no problem with religious people fostering or adopting as long as they don't take the parts of their book that teach intolerance or hatred and other dated views that are not compatible with a modern society and push them on the child that is in their care.

[Minimalist]

and the government doesn't get to deny people privileges because of their religious beliefs

They aren't being denied their beliefs. They can believe whatever the fuck they want. They are being denied access to children under state supervision because they are bigoted fuckers. I don't know how it works over there but in the States foster care families get a stipend for each kid....for some it becomes a going concern! There is in effect a contract between the foster and the state agency paying the bill.

Of course, over here, they'd gladly let shitheads like these two care for children while telling the gays that they were unfit.

I'll take the UK system any day.

[Jaysyn]

The government isn't in the business of creating and upholding morals. The government should create and uphold laws, and one of those laws is the protection of religious beliefs. The government should no more deny a homophobic religious person the chance of adopting a child as it should an anti-religious homosexual. People's beliefs should be protected under the law, end of.

The government isn't in the business of creating and upholding morals. The government should create and uphold laws, and one of those laws is the protection of religious beliefs. The government should no more deny a racist religious person the chance of adopting a child as it should an non-racist atheist person.

Emphasis mine. And don't try to say I'm comparing apples & oranges. Homosexuals are a protected class in the USA, so that argument won't fly.

BTW, the welfare of the child trumps the potential foster parents / adopter's rights, every time, in every situation, without question. You don't like it? Well, I guess that just sucks for you.

People's beliefs should be protected under the law, end of.

That's cute. They can still believe whatever they'd like to believe. Doesn't mean they get to adopt. Adoption is a privilege, not a right.

Let me ask you a question? If a Christian Scientist couple was denied adoption because they stated that they wouldn't provide the child with medical care other than prayer, would you still be saying that they should be allowed to adopt? I didn't think so.