Christian couple cannot foster because of views on homosexuality

[QueenB4Liberty]

The High Court had been asked to rule on whether the traditional views of Christian couple Owen and Eunice Johns should be a bar to them becoming foster carers.

Their legal bid came after Derby City Council halted their application process when the couple admitted they would not be able to condone the homosexual lifestyle to a child in their care because of their beliefs on marriage as a union between a man and woman.

Although the High Court did not go as far as to ban all orthodox Christians from becoming foster carers, its ruling yesterday stated that laws protecting the rights of homosexuals should take precedence over laws protecting religious beliefs.

It is now unlikely that the Johns, who have fostered 15 children previously, will be approved as foster carers unless Derby City Council changes its position.

The Christian Institute expressed particular concern over the High Court’s conclusion that “the attitudes of potential carers to sexuality are relevant when considering an application for approval”.

http://www.christiantoday.com/articl...ning/27597.htm

Crazy! I don't have a problem with homosexuality, but this is ridiculous and is very bad precedent.

[jmdrake]

That's stupid. If the city council is so concerned about gay kids it should simply bar this couple from fostering kids who are gay. Makes me glad I don't live in England. That and the stupid spy cameras in homes.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/...private-homes/

[ifthenwouldi]

Wow. This is a huge development to me.

Any chance this gets overturned?

[Agorism]

Their legal bid came after Derby City Council halted their application process when the couple admitted they would not be able to condone the homosexual lifestyle to a child in their care because of their beliefs on marriage as a union between a man and woman.

Condone means

1.
to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
2.
to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
3.
to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.
4.
to cause the condonation of.
5.
Law . to forgive or act so as to imply forgiveness of (a violation of the marriage vow).

Doesn't it depend on your definition of condone? They could mean they don't approve but could tolerate it or they could mean they would banish the child forever for his homosexuality.


I would hope the judge probed their viewpoints more than just the word "condone."

[jkr]

MADNESS!

are these "people" in bizzaro world?

[Southron]

Why do they think people left for America in the first place? Hundreds of years later and they still don't respect religious freedom.

[juleswin]

If the city council is so concerned about gay kids it should simply bar this couple from fostering kids who are gay.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/...private-homes/

But how do u know if a toddler is going to turn out gay? Personally, I think the birth mother or closest relative should be the one who determines what kind of parents should be denied for an adoptive parent. If the mother wants no gays, no homophobes, no blacks, no Chinese etc, it would be up to them. But my guess is any parent would rather have see their child adopted by homophobic parents than rot in foster care

[Vessol]

This is just as retarded as not allowing gay couples to adopt.

[Teaser Rate]

I don’t see a problem here; I don’t think the state should grant guardianship rights to openly homophobic individuals any more than it should grant them to white supremacists or drug addicts.

Even if you believe the city council’s decision was wrong, it was their decision to make; under a libertarian, local-control worldview, the court had no jurisdiction to overturn their call.