PLAY
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 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.
Britain, the judges ruled, was a “secular state, not a theocracy.”
The Johns told The Press and Journal newspaper they were “extremely distressed.”
“We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith, and we feel sidelined because we are Christians with normal, mainstream, views on sexual ethics,” Mrs. Johns said.
British gay rights organizations praised the ruling.
“In any fostering case, the interests of the 60,00 children in care should override the bias of any prospective parent,” gay rights activist Ben Summerskill told Pink News, Europe’s largest gay news service. “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.”
Listen to this report from Fox News Radio’s Todd Starnes:
Audio clip:
Follow Todd on Facebook and Twitter!
I wonder…
…if we replaced the word "Christian" with "Muslim"…
…and the word "Pentecostal" with "Islamic"…
…would the British Courts have reached a similar conclusion?
Somehow, I doubt it.
If you read the judge's ruling he actually cited a case where Muslim law was overruled, using it as a precedent. So the answer to your question is yes.
Brilliant
My thoughts exactly!
Excellent observation. The great irony of the liberal movement is that they don't realize that it is Christian ethics which allowed them to gain a voice in the first place. If and when Islam becomes the dominant force in their culture, the liberal folks will be (possibly literally) crushed when they try to protest. They don't get it. The mostly-free socitey that they take for granted is from a Judeo-Christian heritage. That is why Ghandi successfully used the "peaceful resistance" effectively against ENGLISH society, because of its heritage. But when people tried to use his approach agains Communists (Hungary, if I remember correctly) they were LITERALLY crushed by their tanks. This will be the hard lesson that liberals will have to learn before appreciating the foundation of a society.
If Britain is a “secular state, not a theocracy,” why did the government social worker have the right to ask the couple about their religious views? Or does British secularism only work in one direction?
Xian Do, you're kidding, right? The ruling has nothing to do with their religion, but rather that they refused to provide an environment free from descrimintion based on sexual orientation.
If you read more on this issue, you'll find that they said they would tell children that homosexuality is not acceptable. The religion doesn't matter, the fact that all children, including ones who may be gay or have gay reatives or parents need to feel supported by those providing their care. That's not possible if they are getting homophobic messaging.
Just remember, liberals look to Europe for guidance in all things legal, military, social, etc. As to "Britain being a secular state not a theocracy" well secularism is a religion and thus it is a "theocracy of atheists".
I don't know a thing about the British Constitution, but it seems to me that 1st-Amendment-type arguments should have prevented this result.
What's next, will Christians be excluded from civil service, the police, or elected office in Britain?
Considering Britain's permissive posture toward Shariah Law in the past, it is curious that being labeled a "theocracy" has not upset its judges' legal scruples until now.
This is how Hitler did the Jews. The first thing he did was exclude them from the Civil Service. You know if this couple was Islamic, this would not be happening. This is pure religious bias, masquerading as "secular" law.
This couple was not excluded for being Christian. This couple was excluded for expressing anti-gay bigotry. One can be a Christian without being anti-gay.
not if they read an follow the word of god
Not true. The homosexuality is contrary to biblical teachings. Read Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination." And 20:13 " If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them." Also, Romans 1:27 "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." The bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is sin, that we should hate the sin, but love the sinner. This is a concept most non-Christians cannot understand.
Wow, has any of the children from their past fostering come to their defense?
More liberal tolerance. Guess they've moved right past "equality" to "superiority". No room for non-liberal belief systems.
How can a court get it so wrong? A little payola maybe? I bet CAIR had to fork over a huge wad of cash to get this decision. I hope its overturned on appeal.
Fantastic!
Shameful.
Can I ask what one has to do with the other?
In other words you have to deny the Scriptures to be a foster parent. HUH?
My favorite part is the gay-right's advocate saying this is a victory for the children – as if liberals aren't constantly complaining about how the foster care services are overloaded (hence the need for more abortions, they claim). So after taking out all Christian parents who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between a man, a woman and God, how many potential foster parents are going to be left? What about the children who won't be placed in a healthy, loving environment because social services discriminates based on religion?
"The Brits have basically established that muslims are subject only to the laws of their religion." Evidence? Do not use Muslims right to Sharia courts as an example since 1) Sharia courts cannot contradict British law 2) the type of cases that can be tried are limited and 3) parties must agree to have their cases heard in those courts. Jews in Britain also have the right to their own courts in line with their own religion subject to these limitations.
Norman, being a minority is something you're born into. Being a homosexual is a choice. Big difference amigo.