'Christian couple 'doomed not to be approved as foster carers for views on homosexuality'' reports The Daily Mail. "A couple are ‘doomed’ not to be foster parents because their Christian beliefs prevent them from accepting homosexuality, the High Court heard yesterday.
In a landmark legal case, Eunice and Owen Johns argue their rights are being ‘trumped’ by those of homosexuals under equality legislation..."
But during interviews with social workers in 2008, they admitted they would not be able to tell a child that a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable because this would conflict with their traditional Christian values.
"Mrs Johns has said in the past: ‘The council said, “Do you know, you would have to tell them that it’s OK to be homosexual?” But I said I couldn’t do that because my Christian beliefs won’t let me. Morally, I couldn’t do that. Spiritually I couldn’t do that.’"
Of course Mr and Mrs Johns shouldn't be allowed to look after children - they're clearly fucking mental.
Case closed.
Update: David Cameron spoke out in support of the decision reports the Telegraph.
Posts
Rather the couple be "doomed" not to be foster parents than a child be doomed with homophobic parents who place their own rights to bigotry above that of any child in their care.
ReplyDeleteThe glaringly obvious analogy is what would happen to potential foster parents who said they'd tell kids why they hate black people.
ReplyDeleteDumb...
Something even more troubling than this case is that the coverage of it will undoubtedly make homophobic couples applying to be foster parents in the future much less inclined to tell the truth if asked about the subject.
ReplyDeleteFar easier and safer to just pretend they're not homophobic until they have the child.
i'd hate to think what would happen to a child placed with them who later figures out they are gay. awful.
ReplyDeleteSome good letters from Daily Telegraph readers (!) complaining about these awful Christian bigots on November 7th.
ReplyDeleteChildren need carers who are open-minded and supportive
Councils should prioritise well-being of children, not carers' beliefs.
SIR – I was not brought up in a family with both a mother and father in a committed relationship, but I will reserve judgment as to whether the four bishops are right to conclude that I failed to flourish as other children did (Letters, October 31).
What I do know is that it is the beliefs and attitudes of those who care for you when you are young that make or break you.
The bishops are so keen to fight for “traditional Christian” views that they overlook the needs of the child.
If a child suffers homophobic bullying in the playground, for instance, it is essential that home is a safe place and not one where self-hatred and shame are attached to any feelings of confusion about sexual orientation. For that boy or girl will become an adult one day and find there are those who wish to shadow him or her with righteous indignation - including these four men who speak so disparagingly about gays and lesbians in ways they would never dare to speak about other minorities who had no choice in being who they are.
Canon Mark Oakley
London EC4
SIR – For 2,000 years religious rights have trumped human rights with some very nasty results. Finally, in the 21st century, human rights take precedence over religious rights.
Perhaps if these church leaders could use their power to teach “loving Christian couples” that homophobia is a sin, these conflicts might disappear?
To raise children in a home that preaches that homosexuality is sinful is morally insupportable and will just continue to prolong an ignorant position.
Chris English
Basseterre, St Kitts
SIR – The chief executive of the gay rights campaigning group Stonewall said that “in fostering cases... it is the interests of a child, and not the prejudices of a parent, that matter.”
Research shows that a child’s best interests are served when he or she is cared for by both a mother and a father; this is not just a Christian view.
Jonathan Longstaff
Woodford Green, Essex
SIR – What exactly is prejudice? Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, has called the rejection of homosexuality “prejudice”. But if rejection is prejudice, why is not acceptance of homosexuality also prejudice? Am I to dismiss any view which does not agree with mine as prejudicial?
Kyriacos Kaye
Wellington, Shropshire
SIR – Over the centuries, celibacy, polygamy, monogamy, marriage and many other lifestyles have taken their share of criticism. All this has been seen to be the expression of free speech. But now one lifestyle is declared to be above criticism, to the point that to express reservations, or to be reluctant to recommend it, is sufficient to prevent those expressing this view from being foster parents.
Do we not have to expose young people to the range of lifestyles and invite them to take responsibility for their choices, based on having been informed about likely consequences? Is not that what education is about? Is there really a need for such over-protectiveness?
Arthur Cornell
Eastbourne, East Sussex
SIR – Is it really only Christians who are interested in allowing the expression of traditional or unfashionable beliefs?
Derby Council is attacking freedom of thought.
Robert Gibson
Windermere, Cumbria
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8113580/Children-need-carers-who-are-open-minded-and-supportive.html