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

[tackattack]

---

Society as a whole may frown on their opinion, but they are entitled to it and it should in no way inhibit their freedom to adopt.

Quit making things up. There is no such thing as "freedom to adopt." It's a privilege not a right. The state is supposed to be very particular where they place their wards for foster care.

[quote='Tiberius' pid='121151' dateline='1299180701']
Hilarious to you; fair and equal to me. I don't have to like what people believe in order to support their right to express it, and their right (yes, their right) not to be discriminated over it.

So you'd be fine & dandy with a company that didn't hire blacks, women or homosexuals? No? Then tell me how is this different? The state is ultimately responsible for this child & seemingly can no longer endorse the views that the couple in question have by letting them foster children. It's actually pretty cut & dry when you think of it that way.

I think that in a free country, people are allowed to have their own opinions, and that those opinions should not mean they are denied privileges by the government. What use is freedom of speech and expression if the government can just deny privileges based on what you say and support? Face it, by denying this couple the privilege of adoption, you are completely discarding these freedoms.

You are conveniently ignoring right of the foster child to not have his mind filled with bigotry against a protected class, which I & apparently the UK, would consider bad form if not mental abuse. You are also ignoring the rights of the state to decide where to place foster children. Why on earth do you think the racist's or homophobe's privilege supersedes these?

A natural parents rights may supersede them, but a foster parent's do not, no matter how you frame your argument.

---

In a highly religious society, the government may decide that you aren't allowed to foster children, because you may teach them your atheistic beliefs. I assume that you'd be fine with that right? I mean, the government's always right yeah?

But we are talking about the UK & USA, not Saudi Arabia. Everyone here already knows that theocracies are lost causes.

It is only pollution and evil in your opinion.

It's unethical & borderline to outright mental abuse.

No, I'm suggesting that some parents do think it is something they should be teaching their kids. The government don't stop parents from teaching their own children about their beliefs, so why do they try and stop when the child is fostered or adopted?

Because the natural parent's right supersede that of the state. If the child is a ward of the state this is no longer true.

---

The problem with your arguement is that upon adoption...

the child of the person or persons so adopting him.... shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges, and subject to all the obligations, of a child of such person or persons born in lawful wedlock. An adopted person is the child of an adopting parent, and as such, the adopting parent shall be entitled to testify in all cases civil and criminal, as if the adopted child was born of the adopting parent in lawful wedlock.

ref so the child isn't a ward of the state after adoption.

D. The investigation requested by the circuit court shall include, in addition to other inquiries that the circuit court may require the child-placing agency or local director to make, inquiries as to (i) whether the petitioner is financially able, except as provided in Chapter 13 (§ 63.2-1300 et seq.) of this title, morally suitable, in satisfactory physical and mental health and a proper person to care for and to train the child; .....

Are the only qualifiers with regard to the adoptive parents in my local law. Because they disagree with homosexuality as a lifestyle and don't promote it does that make them morally unsuitable? Does their opinion preclude them from satifactorally imparting a physically and mental healthy enviornment for the child? You still can't substantiaate anything more than they have an opinion on homosexuality. The other notes from the court case on other topics are obfuscation at best and fodder for a straw man at the worst.

---

@Faith no more - and what supports them being bigots. I see no exhibition of intolerance or animosity.

I never referred to them as bigots. See the post I was responding to for context.

---

Fair enough

---

Please point out the paragraph where it says parents cannot teach their child about their own beliefs. If it exists (and I doubt it does), then there's a lot of campaigning to be done!

The Local Authorities, foster carers and agencies must all abide by the Equality Act 2010 to ensure services, recruitment and general business do not discriminate on the grounds of any protected characteristic.

By investigating the couples overwhelmingly apparent bigotry and blatant disregard for equality and diversity policies and guidelines set down, the social worker in question was merely doing their job in this respect.

Why are a Christian couple being denied rights to foster a child. If their religious beliefs were protected as you say they are in the Equality Act, why have they been denied a child based on their religious beliefs?

Because sexual orientation and marriage or civil partnership are protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010, whether you're Christian, Muslim and so on.

Ah, so despite you telling me that people's beliefs are protected under the law, you now admit that actually, they aren't.

So long as it does not discriminate on the grounds of any protected characteristic of Equality Act 2010.

-Age
-Disability
-Gender
-Gender Reassignment
-Marriage or Civil Partnership
-Pregnancy and maternity
-Race & Ethnicity
-Religion & Belief (or the lack thereof)
-Sexual orientation
-Religious beliefs

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010.aspx

---

And you get their "overwhelmingly apparent bigotry and blatant disregard for equality" from the article? Can one not agree with, or even support, something but support a child in every other way really be acting on their prejudice? Could it be perhaps that they have an opinion and still allow the child to choose for themselves when they have the ability to make that choice?

@corndog- ref would be helpful, I think it's both enviornmental in selection and genetic in orientation and preference, but I fear we're delving too far off the topic if we continue down that road.. perhaps another thread.. not that it doesn't already exist.