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

[Tiberius]

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 personally wouldn't be fine & dandy with a company that used such hiring practices, and I would boycott them as much as possible. However, I support the right of business owners to hire whomever they like, and according to whatever hiring practices they desire. Look at it this way; white supremacists don't want to hire non-whites, and I highly doubt non-whites want to work for known white supremacists, so what exactly is the problem with letting the system sort itself out? As society moves forward, racism is slowly being eradicated; not through anything the government has done, but as a result of ordinary people changing their own minds. The government doesn't need to stamp out racism; it happens on its own.

Exactly how does the state endorse the views of the parent when giving them a foster child to look after? As far as I am aware, anarchists are allowed to adopt and foster children, so by your argument, any government that grants an anarchist a foster child is immediately going to pack up and leave. The government doesn't endorse the parents' views; they endorse the parents' ability to look after the child. Simply being a racist or a homophobe doesn't automatically put them in any position that should affect that endorsement. Why? Because racists and homophobes have raised healthy, happy, and successful kids before, and there isn't any reason why the same doesn't have to be true for adoptions.

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.

I do not believe that right exists; it is certainly not in any law I know of. We have freedom of speech and expression, which means that people can say what they like, and express themselves how they like. You don't get a freedom from people's beliefs, but you do get a freedom to not care about what they say, or to not listen. If there is such a right, why isn't the state taking children away from fundamentalist families? Why aren't children of racists being cared for by the state? They aren't, because the "right" you claim children have does not exist!!!

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?

I am not ignoring the rights of the state; I am well aware that it is up to them where to place foster children. What I have been arguing all along is that I believe the state is being unfair in its conditions for granting foster children. My argument has nothing to do, and never has had anything to do with the state's rights...

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

So once again we have a nice double standard, where children of racists are not "protected" from their parents beliefs, but foster kids are? You still have yet to explain why this is.

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

Ok, but please answer my hypothetical. If you lived in a country that decided one day to ban atheists from fostering children, would you be absolutely fine with it? Your argument states that you should be, since it is the government deciding where to place foster kids, and that decision is ultimately up to the government. Once you understand my point here, you may understand why I am so against the government denying people the privilege of adoption / fostering based on nothing but their beliefs.

It is only pollution and evil in your opinion.

It's unethical & borderline to outright mental abuse.

Once again, in your opinion. Why does your opinion trump theirs? What actual argument have you got here, other than "I don't like it, therefore it must be stamped out"?

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.

So once again, we have a double standard. Either foster kids should be treated like normal kids, or they shouldn't. Which is it? If you want to treat them like normal kids (which I'm in favour of), then you must either let them be adopted by people who have different beliefs to your own, or you must remove biological children from parents who have different beliefs to your own. The latter I hold is authoritarian and unfair; the former I very much think is the better solution.

Are you still talking about racist beliefs here? Do you think that racist beliefs should be allowed to be taught? Why should racist beliefs be passed down to anyone when they don't have to be and when such beliefs are bigotry of the worst kind?

Yes, of course racist beliefs should be allowed to be taught. I thought we'd passed this sort of censorship of ideas back in the enlightenment, but apparently a lot of people here think we should continue it. What's next? Do you want to burn all copies of Mein Kampf just because it was written by a racist and fascist dictator? Why should racist beliefs be passed down? Because at the end of the day, I believe in freedom; freedom of people to believe what they want, say what they want, and do what they want (within reason). If you want to censor ideas, go ahead, but by doing it, you are becoming an enemy of freedom, and as theVOID argued, it is a slippery slope.

What racists really need is rehabilitation.

Yes, most of them probably do, but the fact remains that if they want to believe what they believe, you have no right in taking that from them. To do otherwise would open up the floodgates to all types of people who you think need "rehabilitation".

Not allowing them the privilege of adopting is a great start. The state can't be seen as encouraging that kind of thing you know.

Once again, how is the state encouraging or endorsing their beliefs by simply giving them a child to look after; the act of which has nothing to do with their beliefs. If it were a person who believed that all children should be sacrificed to Satan, I'd agree with you, but then that belief isn't really in the best interests of the child is it?

No they don't. Since Adrian decided we can't use the plain subjective evil of racism & bigotry as a qualifier, I am just going by the legality of it. None of your examples are of bigotry against a protected class.

Firstly, I didn't "decide" that you can't use subjectives; I just pointed out the problems with using them. Secondly, if you go by the legality of it, we need to address the issue of the principles behind the law, all of which you'll find are subjective. What this boils down to is that your position is ultimately untenable, since it relies on the mantra of "we're right, they're wrong". As I've said before, a simple disagreement isn't a valid reason, and until you can come up with one, I'm not going to be convinced that refusing to give foster children to bigots is fair.

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.

...and yet part of the Equality Act 2010 (which you conveniently listed below) states that the same services cannot discriminate on the grounds of "religion & belief", which is exactly what this City Council did.

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.

...and also breaking the same act they used to condemn the couple. This is why the Equality Act of 2010 is a piece of bullshit; it contains contradictions that ultimately result in an unfair hierarchy of equality.

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

There you are, I've bolded the section that I find to be in complete contrast to everything said here.