Christian Foster Parents Punished For Ungoodthink

[Starets]

[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896"]Christian Foster Parents lose "Homosexuality Views" case[/url]

I find this court decision outrageous. I spent 6 years as a rent-a-kid in winnipeg. There are few enough foster parents who give a hoot about their charges without eliminating some because their religious views are Politically Incorrect.

[Lisa]

wow. That's really sad. You so often hear of abusive or neglectful foster parents; it's amazing to me that they would reject parents for a non-pc opinion.

[Ed Normile]

Are the both of you who posted here so far being polite, or did you miss the fact that this is not about being PC, or politically correct. This is about christian viewpoints/values. These people are christians and they can not teach non christian viewpoints to the children they are caring for, that is why they are being eliminated as foster parents.

ed

[Starets]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1299034584' post='2217001']
Are the both of you who posted here so far being polite, or did you miss the fact that this is not about being PC, or politically correct. This is about christian viewpoints/values. These people are christians and they can not teach non christian viewpoints to the children they are caring for, that is why they are being eliminated as foster parents.

ed
[/quote]

[font="Book Antiqua"][size="3"]That is exactly my point. Christian values are not PC and are therefore unacceptable to at least this judge and thedefenders of his decision. [/size][/font]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1299034584' post='2217001']
Are the both of you who posted here so far being polite, or did you miss the fact that this is not about being PC, or politically correct. This is about christian viewpoints/values. These people are christians and they can not teach non christian viewpoints to the children they are caring for, that is why they are being eliminated as foster parents.

ed
[/quote]
It is absolutely about political correctness. These people refuse to affirm the goodness and wholesomeness of homosexuality and the government is afraid these children would be infected by their views.

[MithLuin]

Slow down....

This story has been reported in a very inflammatory manner, so it probably isn't quite what you think it is.

For one thing, the couple in question was [i]not[/i] rejected by the foster care agency. They were [i]not[/i] denied nor told that they could not foster a child. They [i]withdrew their application[/i] after being asked what they considered offensive questions during the interview, and took offense that concerns were raised over their answers to some questions. The agency may have decided not to accept them as foster parents, but that decision had not been made, and the last report actually recommended them as respite carers (not foster parents), while noting some reservations. Then they took it to court, asking the court to rule that the questions were inappropriate.

The court basically didn't rule anything, except to say, 'Here's the law; carry on.'

In other words...the agency is allowed to ask, 'What would you say to a child who had questions about homosexuality?' before placing a child in that home. Not that anyone would be stupid enough to say, 'I would beat them,' in the interview, but the questions can be asked. And, honestly, before placing a child with (for instance) a gay biological parent, it might make sense to ask those questions! If the potential foster parent can't handle the hypothetical questions in an interview, how are they going to handle them when the child asks?

And as for religion, yes, the agency is allowed to ask you if you would take the child to church with you. Because if the kid is from a Muslim family, say, they'd want to know about that sort of thing before placing the child in your home.

In other words...they have a responsibility to ask a lot of prying questions and investigate before telling a couple, sure, go ahead and take this kid home with you. The court wasn't going to tell them not to do that.

Christians can be concerned that they will be excluded for their views, though.

Here was how the question was put to the court:

[quote]How is the Local Authority as a Fostering Agency required to balance the obligations owed under the Equality Act 2006 (not to directly or indirectly discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief), the obligations under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 (not to discriminate directly or indirectly based on sexual orientation), the Human Rights Act 1998, the National Minimum Standards for Fostering Services and Derby City Council's Fostering Policy when deciding whether to approve prospective foster carers as carers for its looked-after children. Within that balancing exercise does the Local Authority have a duty to treat the welfare of such looked-after children as its paramount consideration?...

The claimants sought the following declarations (as refined following the hearing):
"[list][*](a) Persons who adhere to a traditional code of sexual ethics, according to which any sexual union outside marriage (understood as a lifelong relationship of fidelity between a man and a woman) is morally undesirable, should not be considered unsuitable to be foster carers for this reason alone. This is a correct application of the National Minimum Standards 7 'Valuing Diversity'.
[*](b) Persons who attend Church services at a mainstream denomination are, in principle, suitable to be foster carers.
[*](c) It is unlawful for a Foster Service to ask potential foster carers their views on homosexuality absent the needs of a specific child.
[*](d) It is unlawful for a public authority to describe religious adherents who adhere to a code of moral sexual ethics namely; that any sexual union outside marriage between a man and a woman in a lifetime relationship of fidelity is morally undesirable, as 'homophobic'."[/list]
The declaration sought by the defendant (as refined during the hearing) is:
"A fostering service provider may be acting lawfully if it decides not approve a prospective foster carer who evinces antipathy, objection to, or disapproval of, homosexuality and same-sex relationships and an inability to respect, value and demonstrate positive attitudes towards homosexuality and same-sex relationships."[/quote]

The court refused to make either declaration, and in the end ruled:

[quote]For the reasons given in [107] we have concluded that we should make no order. Moreover, in the light of the cumulative effect of our conclusions in [90]-[106], in particular, contrary to the submissions on behalf of the claimants, our conclusions that the attitudes of potential foster carers to sexuality are relevant when considering an application for approval and as to the effect of the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Islington London Borough Council v Ladele (Liberty intervening) [2009] EWCA Civ 1357, and McFarlane v Relate Avon Limited [2010] EWCA Civ 880, we have also concluded that we should not grant permission.[/quote]

The court ruling merely said that the agency is allowed to ask questions. Since the agency did [i]not[/i] deny their application to be foster parents (merely expressed concerns and deferred a decision), this ruling wasn't about whether or not this particular couple could be turned away for their views. Certainly, such a case could go to court, because the UK has some conflicting Anti-Discrimination laws, but in the case of foster parenting, the rights of the child surely trump the rights of the prospective foster parents. The real issue is that a couple [i]can[/i] be turned away for religious beliefs under the law if those beliefs result in religious practices (ie, taking the child to church with them, telling the child that homosexual behavior is wrong, etc), but until an agency actually [i]does so[/i], it's hard to cry foul.

If you want to read the court's actual ruling, it can be found here:

[url]http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html[/url]