Jingsamichty

I'm a bit late coming to this story about the would-be foster parents who were refused the opportunity to foster because of their alleged views.

I was quite taken aback at this... especially the comments from the Judges, Lord Justice Munby and Mr. Justice Beatson that laws protecting people against discrimination over sexual orientation should "take precedence" over those protecting against discrimination over religious beliefs.

Two things here - the first is what seems to me to be apparent State 'thought-censorship', and the second is apparent State ranking of different types of discrimination.

Almost Canadian

Sits back and waits for the opposing sides to vent on this one.

Jings, your link wouldn't work for me

Jingsamichty

Try this link

jimf

Looks like the social work industry has a preference for going for soft targets rather than the more difficult task of protecting children truly under threat.

fledermaus

The question should have been "what would you do if your foster child was homosexual?".

Jingsamichty

Why has it even arisen as a question?

There is a 95% (?) "chance" that any foster child will not be homosexual, therefore the question of how they'd deal with it is, at best, a minor issue. Not one that a decision on their overall suitablity as foster parents ought to be founded on.

Any child, I suggest, is better in a stable home - almost regardless of beliefs - than left to stagnate in council care, with all the attendant risks of abuse and neglect therein.

Alan2005

Religious parents will brain wash their kids into believing nonsense. Therefore children are better off in a home than with these mentally ill weirdos.

fledermaus

Oh I agree but it could serve as an example of how foster parents might deal with differing situations. Children generally challenge their parents opinions and views and the views aren't important but how the would deal with other opinions is.

dbd33

To the extent that this decision represents a move away from the idea that religion can excuse conduct I think it's to be welcomed. However, I think the council has likely discriminated against these people unreasonably and shot itself in the foot by so doing. Foster parents are not, I imagine, in great supply and the motivations of all candidates are likely to be questionable. These people's religion, any religion, should be a mark against them but it doesn't follow that because they're afflicted with religion children placed in their care will catch it. They're not Gary Glitter and, if this is their only failing I can't see why they shouldn't be foster parents.

Mr Lee

Bingo!

Alan2005

Of course it's catching. The majority of religious people get it from their crazy mum and dad.

Jingsamichty

Foster children are are not as genetically predisposed to being soft in the head like their foster parents though.

dbd33

If the article mentioned how long they'd be keeping each child I missed it. If it's a revolving door, a couple of years per child, I imagine few of the children would be infected. If the idea is to give them a young child for the long term then that's more of a concern but, again, I don't imagine there are so many potential foster parents that candidates should be discarded for eccentricity.

Alan2005

True; and I suppose the exposure is less cos they are foster kids.

Still I had to pick a side of the fence to be reactionary about - and I've made my choice. Down with mentalists!

Almost Canadian

Said, I suspect, by someone with no experience of what it is like to live in such a place.