Fox News
A British court has ruled that a Christian couple can no longer care for foster children because of their opposition to homosexuality.
Eunice and Owen Johns provided foster care for nearly two dozen children in the 1990s — but after Great Britain instituted equality laws, they were banned from the program in 2007.
Social workers red-flagged the couple during an interview when they explained that they did not approve of homosexuality because of their Pentecostal faith.
The Associated Press reported that judges at London’s Royal Courts of Justice determined that laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination take precedence over the couple’s religious beliefs.[...]
A British court has ruled that a Christian couple can no longer care for foster children because of their opposition to homosexuality.
Eunice and Owen Johns provided foster care for nearly two dozen children in the 1990s — but after Great Britain instituted equality laws, they were banned from the program in 2007.
Social workers red-flagged the couple during an interview when they explained that they did not approve of homosexuality because of their Pentecostal faith.
The Associated Press reported that judges at London’s Royal Courts of Justice determined that laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination take precedence over the couple’s religious beliefs.[...]
What if the child they adopt realises he/she is gay later in life? Would they simply get rid of the child? I think the judges made a right decision as the couple with their outdated views on homosexuality would probably not be able to love such a child.
ReplyDeleteYeah Lorne, the Torah also has "outdated" views on this subject.
ReplyDeleteLorn, they are foster parents. They are not in the adopting business. What if a Jewish couple adopt a child and he grows up to be a Nazi. Where do you end this conversation?
ReplyDeleteAny rate this ruling is stupid because a child's potential sexuality will not be threatened by where they are temporarily residing. Also I do not see how such a child could be harmed by such a couple.
The answer to Lorn's question is that they probably would not get rid of the child because they found that they had gay tendencies.