Green Room

Foster parents wanted. Must endorse homosexuality.

posted at 6:31 pm on February 28, 2011 by

Presumably, that’s how the advertisements will read from now on.  Britain’s High Court has ruled that a Pentecostal couple who have fostered young children for years will no longer be allowed to do so because – when asked; they didn’t bring it up themselves – they told a social worker they could not tell children under the age of 10 that a homosexual lifestyle is acceptable. (H/t: The Weekly Standard.)

The basis for this ruling is Britain’s set of Sexual Orientation Regulations, which make it an offense to “discriminate on the grounds that someone is heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.” By the definition implied in this ruling, it is “discrimination” to be unwilling to affirmatively endorse someone else’s beliefs or behavior, even in one’s own home where only third parties are present.

This interpretation of the law is idiotic on its face.  But it was handed down by the British High Court.  The next obvious step is ruling that parents must endorse homosexuality to their own children.

Think not?  This extended treatment of the court’s ruling shows that it contains every precept that would be necessary to intervene between parents and their natural children.  Besides affirming that government authorities “can require positive attitudes to be demonstrated towards homosexuality,” and that the Sexual Orientation Regulations take precedence over the right against religious discrimination, the court opined as follows:

Article 9 [of the European Human Rights Act] only provides a ‘qualified’ right to manifest religious belief and … this will be particularly so where a person in whose care a child is placed wishes to manifest a belief that is inimical to the interests of children.

This passage echoes language used by Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, which, in a brief on the case, “suggested to the Court that a child should not, in their own words, be ‘infected’ with Christian moral beliefs.”

I am 100% certain that when the Sexual Orientation Regulations were being debated early in the decade (they were implemented in 2003), opponents theorized that things just like this could happen – and advocates of the regulations swore that that was ridiculous: such ideas were the wild imaginings of fevered minds.  As always, the naysayers who warned of special-interest encroachment on individual liberty were correct.

If the British High Court deems Christian beliefs on homosexuality “inimical to the interests of children,” it will justify intervening between parents and their natural children, just as governments do the world over when child welfare is at issue.  If this kind of ruling isn’t what Parliament had in mind, back when it was considering the Sexual Orientation Regulations, now would be a good time to do something about that.

J.E. Dyer blogs at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions” and as The Optimistic Conservative.  She writes a weekly column for Patheos.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Good find. Evidence on why we must fight the homosexual agenda in America.

PrezHussein on February 28, 2011 at 7:09 PM

A Dior spokesperson (or model, or something) was arrested in Britain last week for using racial and anti-semetic slurs… which is illegal there. No surprise that they’d steal kids away for refusing to tell young children that “G-A-Y is A-OK”, if they can throw you in the slammer for saying un-nice words.

RachDubya on February 28, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Not of this matters anyway. In 50 years, the whole country will be under Sharia Law. Just compare the Muslim resident birth rate with the average Briton’s.

They’re doomed

ALLAH AKHBAH!

Opposite Day on February 28, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Needless to say, the U.S. has far more robust civil liberties protections than Britain. There is no legal basis, and no legislation under consideration that would provide one, for similar treatment here in the States.

While I disagree with Britain’s decision in this case, I can’t pretend to have much sympathy for the Johns. Put it this way: a child who may turn out to be homosexual can expect to suffer far worse under their care. I don’t mean the Johns are bad people. Their beliefs are sincere and well-meaning; unfortunately, they’re also based solely on a dehumanizing and senseless superstition about sexual behavior.

I mean, whatever slight harm the British government is doing to the Johns, it’s at least an improvement over how, say, Alan Turing was treated just a few decades ago. Gays and lesbians deserve better than to be placed in a home that teaches them to hate themselves for absolutely no good reason.

RightOFLeft on February 28, 2011 at 9:09 PM

The next time someone mocks the “slippery slope” argument in any context, I’m linking this piece.

Europe has truly outdone The Fonz in shark-jumping ability. It’s pathetic that these governments inject themselves into every aspect of citizens’ lives, and apparently believe themselves qualified to be literal “thought police”. They exhibit absolutely no faith in individuals and seek to dampen the human tendency toward liberty and the natural right of self-expression. Sadly, Canada is not far behind them in this squelching of free speech and even freedom of thought.

In a word: frightening.

hillbillyjim on February 28, 2011 at 9:28 PM

What about muslims? They hang teh gays.

SouthernGent on February 28, 2011 at 9:32 PM

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 court ruled “a conflict” could arise over the local authority’s duty to “safeguard and promote the welfare” of children and the couple’s beliefs.

So, freedom of religion must take a back seat to some hypothetical future conflict of interest concerning traditional Christian antipathy toward homosexuality that most likely will never be realized.

I’m sure they’ll find a way to make an exception in the case of Sharia laws concerning homosexuality in the name of multiculturalism and political correctness. I’d bet on it.

hillbillyjim on February 28, 2011 at 9:40 PM

SouthernGent on February 28, 2011 at 9:32 PM

They will simply cite the precedence of Sharia Law over British Law and be summarily excused from having to answer the question. And no one will say a peep against it.

Wanderlust on March 1, 2011 at 4:41 AM

wow…just wow….

cmsinaz on March 1, 2011 at 6:57 AM

Black is white, up is down, good is evil, & evil is good.
Great Britain.
*facepalm*

itsnotaboutme on March 1, 2011 at 7:09 AM

Consideration of any child’s welfare is now at the bottom of the concerns from these two “judges” in the U.K. At the top of their list of imports: homosexual agenda.

This couple, as with many others like them, have obviously, clearly presented themselves as adults capable of and eager to provide loving, responsible care to needy children and yet their religious beliefs are being used to penalize them and to harm needy children just to satisfy the bizarre psychological demands of some people.

These two judges have difficult reputations of being more concerned about using their positions to push the homosexual agenda by any means or excuse possible. That they’d claim that there’s “no room for Christianity” in the U.K. (as they have claimed) is utterly contrary to and an utter insult to the U.K.’s history as also form of government. Established by and upon religious principles from…Christianity.

Earlier article…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8353496/Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for-Christianity-High-Court-rules.html

Foster parent ban: ‘no place’ in the law for Christianity, High Court rules

had excellent comments associated to it yesterday when the article was fresh but the later ones that show at the top of the comment stream are now predictably Leftwing, homosexual agenda pushing snipes at Christians. If possible, read the earliest comments for more…

Lourdes on March 1, 2011 at 8:07 AM

I’m curious how it is these two “judges” in the U.K. assume that any child in foster care “must” be exposed to the homosexual agenda and why they make that assumption. Seems to suggest that these two judges are sexualizing children.

Lourdes on March 1, 2011 at 8:08 AM

Just a quicky here, but back when I was taking short term foster children summers(these are slated to return to parent/s when crisis is over)I recall having one sweet little guy, smart as a whip, who had been removed from his home because of suspected homosexual molestation. How the world has changed! For the better???

jeanie on March 1, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Dude.

Count to 10 on March 1, 2011 at 11:48 AM

This is part of a wave of litigation which is nearly always sponsored by Pentecostals and always seems to be about the argument that discrimination is legal because criticizing gays is the cornerstone of my religion.

They will simply cite the precedence of Sharia Law over British Law and be summarily excused from having to answer the question. And no one will say a peep against it.

Wanderlust on March 1, 2011 at 4:41 AM

The ruling (in reference) actually takes care of Sharia Law too but Dyer is rather economical when it comes to providing basic bits of relevant information (like a link to the actual ruling). I would encourage everyone to read the actual ruling. The judge who made the ruling is a devout Anglican and it doesn’t promote any uniquely homosexual aqenda. I would encourage readers to look at the ruling rather than rely on the Telegraph’s or Dyer’s limited view of this.

lexhamfox on March 1, 2011 at 12:59 PM

lexhamfox on March 1, 2011 at 12:59 PM

I don’t see any discrimination by the couple in question, just a refusal to promote homosexual behavior.
Not that discrimination against anyone should be illegal for private individuals.

Count to 10 on March 1, 2011 at 1:36 PM

Black is white, up is down, good is evil, & evil is good.
Great Britain.
*facepalm*

itsnotaboutme on March 1, 2011 at 7:09 AM

Yes, but one of those eeeeevilllll JEWS already had something to say bout that:

“Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!”

Isaiah 5:20 ESV

Sadly, however, Western Civilization has lost the ability to distinguish between “good” and “evil”.

oldleprechaun on March 1, 2011 at 4:05 PM