Eunice and Owen Johns, aged 62 and 65, from Oakwood, Derby, went to court after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a "homosexual lifestyle" was acceptable.
But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.
The Pentecostal Christian couple had applied to Derby City Council to be respite carers but withdrew their application, believing they would never be approved because of the social worker's attitude to their religious beliefs.
Today they asked judges to rule that their faith should not be a bar to them becoming carers, and the law should protect their Christian values.
4 Comments
This is outrageous, and an important lesson. Our country was formed in order to escape the tyranny of the British rule. We must not be silent lest we become the same country from which we escaped.
I think that it's only fair that the British courts should also deny couples the right to adopt children if they are critical of Christianity. After all, why should the rights of gays trump the rights of Christians? Are gays more equal than Christians?
"But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds."
That is the difference between Britain and The United States of America. Religious discrimination is not tolerated here. Even Obamarama went to great lengths to make certain that there was no religious discrimination against Muslims.
As Barb implied, the Pilgrims left England for one reason; to be able to follow their religious beliefs. It appears that now, more than ever, the Pilgrims did the right thing!
I object to your use of the term "gay rights" in this headline. This is not a right--it's a privilege. It's the granting of privileged status to a bizarre leftwing view.
ConservativeNY is exactly right. If we're to require foster parents to be--not only tolerant--but fully accepting of and in fact to endorse minority lifestyles, then we must also require the same standards regarding other privileged statuses. No atheist foster parents. For that matter, no religious foster parents, since to believe the word of scripture must necessarily mean to deny the veracity of other religions' scriptures. You can't be a Christian foster parent because you believe Buddhism is not acceptable, and you can't be a Muslim foster parent because you believe Christianity is unacceptable.
Obviously, you can't be a racist foster parent.
What about sexists and other intolerant people?
At some point, you have to realize that banning prejudice equals enforcement of a very specific worldview, which equals a leftist police state.