• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Christian couple told they can't foster due to views on Homosexuality

Shrewsbury

Newbie
Feb 6, 2011
85
0
United Kingdom
✟23,005.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
BBC News - Christian foster couple lose 'homosexuality views' case

A Christian couple opposed to homosexuality have lost a court battle over their right to become foster carers. Eunice and Owen Johns, 62 and 65, of Derby, said the city council did not want them to look after children because of their traditional views.

They claim they were "doomed not to be approved" due to their opinions.
The High Court ruled that laws protecting people from sexual discrimination should take precedence.

The Pentecostal Christian couple had applied to Derby City Council to be respite carers. They withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable. At the High Court, 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.

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. They said that if children were placed with carers who objected to homosexuality and same-sex relationships, "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to 'safeguard and promote the welfare' of looked-after children".

They rejected suggestions that the case involved "a threat to religious liberty", adding: "No one is asserting that Christians - or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims - are not fit and proper persons to foster or adopt. No-one is contending for a blanket ban." Speaking outside the court in London, Mrs Johns said: "All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need. We have a good track record as foster parents. We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith and we feel sidelined because we are Christians with normal, mainstream, Christian views on sexual ethics. We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing."

The couple, who cared for about 15 children in the 1990s, have called for a public inquiry into the matter. Derby City Council has welcomed the court's ruling. A spokesman said the authority "valued diversity and promoted equality" and "encouraged and supported children in a non judgmental way, regardless of their sexual orientation or preference". He added: "The court confirmed that the local authority is properly entitled to consider a prospective foster carer's views on sexuality when considering their application to become a foster parent and in fact, failure to do so would potentially leave it in breach of its own guidance as well as the National Minimum Standards."

Ben Summerskill, chief executive of Stonewall, the lesbian, gay and bisexual charity, said: "Thankfully, Mr and Mrs Johns' out-dated views aren't just out of step with the majority of people in modern Britain, but those of many Christians too. If you wish to be involved in the delivery of a public service, you should be prepared to provide it fairly to anyone."

But the Christian Legal Centre reacted to the ruling with dismay and warned that "fostering by Christians is now in doubt". The organisation said the judgment "sends out the clear message that orthodox Christian ethical beliefs are potentially harmful to children and that Christian parents with mainstream Christian views are not suitable to be considered as potential foster parents".
The BBC Religious Affairs Correspondent, Robert Piggot wrote:
The case is likely to be seen as a landmark decision, as senior judges ruled so decisively against any idea that attitudes might be justified purely because they were Christian in origin.

The court discriminated between kinds of Christianity, saying that Christians in general might well make good foster parents, while people with traditionalist Christian views like Mr and Mrs Johns might well not.

Such views, said the judges, might conflict with the welfare of children.
Significantly, the court said that while there was a right not to face discrimination on the basis on either religion or sexual orientation, equality of sexual orientation took precedence.

This was the most decisive ruling against the idea of Christian values underpinning English law since judges ruled last year that to protect views simply because they were religious would be irrational, divisive and arbitrary.

Today the message was that courts would interpret the law in cases like the Johns' according to secular and not religious values.
 

OldStudent

Junior Member
Feb 24, 2007
434
21
central Ohio
✟23,188.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I had heard of this. Thanks for posting more information.

The Johns were disqualified for serving in foster care for merely saying they would discourage a homosexual lifestyle. And this in the face of empirical evidence that supports that stand. In the report nothing is said of other qualities of character that might create risk to children so we are led to believe that only a difference in worldview on a single point led to this judgment.

With that legal precedence standing watch for agencies wanting to remove natural children from Christian homes where the same stance is held. Watch for civil pressure to require sexual deviants to serve in church offices (especially the childrens divisions) and schools. Conscientious Christians can expect to be pushed underground (by this and other “controversial” matters) as in the Dark Ages.

The Genesis creation record is quite plain that human sexual design is an important reflection of God's likeness in us. To set aside the rightful place of that design is to grossly deface humanity and will be a key aspect of human demise. Because of the devastation wreaked within the human makeup by sexual deviations Satan’s work toward general demise is greatly enhanced. Sexual distortion was a key aspect for God's action on Sodom and environs. But since we are now in the endgame of the demonstration of where sin leads we can expect God to let things run until the inevitable end of its consequences is made nauseatingly obvious – part of the insurance policy to assure it (sin) will never rise again throughout eternity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Byfaithalone1

The gospel is Jesus Christ!
May 3, 2007
3,602
79
✟26,689.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I do agree that the story as set out in the original post is truly sad.

With that legal precedence standing watch for agencies wanting to remove natural children from Christian homes where the same stance is held.
Perfect love casts out all fear. If God is for us, who can be against us? When I encounter such injustices, I want to voice disagreement while exercising faith in God.

BFA
 
Upvote 0