They Blew it All, Because Bronze Age Bigotry Came First.

Eunice and Owen Johns lost their high court case to become foster carers because they refused to say that a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable. The social services feared that this would be a problem (and it would be) if they adopted a child who would later enter into homosexual lifestyles. Of course this is being seen as yet another occasion when the rights of Christians is being superseded by the rights of homosexuals.

Well it isn't. No one can force the more "rigorous" practitioners to like homosexuality, but when they are in a position to actually put this belief into practice, potentially on a child then we have a problem. It isn't the thought police. It is saying that a person may have views that may result in an adverse situation that clouds their professional approach. That you may have views that are considered controversial in a private setting, but may create a conflict of interest in professional situations.

The law that has brought about the court case, currently says that the rights of a person to live free from homophobic discrimination supersedes their right to be discriminated against on the grounds of religious prejudice. That is the right of a person who had their sexual orientation determined by matters out of their control has the right to not be discriminated against by someone who signed up for a religion, who has the opinion that gayness is bad because some book told them it was. I'm sorry but it is a strange moral standard when an opinion has more moral worth than someone being persecuted for something they had no control over. And no amount of strongly worded letters by Dr Carey about how Christianity is being trampled on by gay rights (well you want to be free to persecute, so go figure.) changes that fact.

I think stories like this wind me up so much because of the sheer wastefulness of them. This couple (and I'm sure they were pretty good foster parents in the past, who had a lot to offer.) went to court to try to justify being specially immune from the law because some old book said (about twice) that they had to discriminate against a whole group of people. I hope it was worth it. That they went all this way to defend a biblical issue that on the scale of things isn't that big a part of the Christian faith. That any reasonable person might have thought that wasting all that energy on upholding a "value" that is so irrelevant and blatantly morally wrong. Now a child has lost the chance of having some kind of stable upbringing because upholding some piece of Bronze age bigotry was obviously far more important. What a waste.

It is interesting that they sort of issue a similar statement of regret, but obviously without seeing the inherent irony of what they say:

"'Worst of all, a vulnerable child has now likely missed the chance of finding a safe and caring home at a time when there are so few people willing to foster or adopt."