The day I decided to start this blog, 28th February 2011, it was announced that a Christian couple, Eunice and Owen Johns, have lost their case against Derby City Council over their wish to foster children.
Back in October the CLC reported that a devout Christian couple had been banned by their local authority, Derby City Council, from fostering children due to their 'sincerely held religious belief' that homosexuality is 'unacceptable'.
In 2007 Derby City Council withdrew the Johns' application to be foster parents because of their Christian, biblical views on marriage and the family. link
The couple had previously fostered nearly 20 children over the years but in 2007 their application was rejected. I can't find details as to how or why the council found out about the couple's deeply held religious convictions that means they think homosexuality is evil incarnate (am I assuming too much?) except for what is reported in the Judgment which can be found here. Point 6 describes the John's discussion with a social worker. I shall discuss the Judgment later on.
After they had their application turned down the Johns either took their plight to the CLC or were contacted by them. No doubt the CLC leapt with glee upon this obvious case of the state discriminating against a harmless old couple of bigots Christians and undertook to take the case to the High Court. Quite obviously this was a case of the Johns' rights being impinged, their religious rights. Right?
Wrong.
Originally this post was to contain a lengthy rant as to how the Johns are not being discriminated against by having their religious convictions taking a back seat to others' basic rights. However I decided to split the post so that this deals specifically with the case and ruling rather than go into why these people are so wrong. Instead it can be read here, if you're interested.
The Judgment, located here, contains a number of interesting points that are not mentioned in the numerous newspaper articles I've read, nor in the CLC article lamenting their loss.
Point 6 in particular caught my eye:
... when asked if...they would be able to support a young person who, for example was confused about their sexuality, the answer was in the negative.
So this loving, caring, oh-so-Christian couple who are instructed by their god to love everyone no matter what, wouldn't be able to support a gay youth struggling with their sexuality. And these people don't understand why the High Court deemed them unfit to foster any more children? She did back track on this in a later interview, however Mr Johns seemed to be of the opinion that such a child should be 'gently turned around'.
With regards their visit to a gay relative in San Francisco, which was mentioned in the Daily Mail:
She added that the couple have visited her nephew, who is gay, and his partner in San Francisco. link
The Judgment contains this:
She commented that she did not like it [San Francisco] and felt uncomfortable while she was there.
How very interesting. I wonder why that information was left out of the various pro-Johns reports? Also left out is the fact that Mrs Johns wouldn't feel able to take a child to a mosque. Just saying.
Something glaringly obvious from the details of the Johns' application is the contradictions in how they planned on raising any children placed with them:
... at a much earlier stage in the process Mrs Johns had assured a social worker that she would never seek to impose her belief system on a child...
and
.... Mrs Johns stated she felt she could not give up going to church which she attends twice on Sundays and was doubtful about alternating with her husband if she could not take a child with her. Her husband agreed ...
It is interesting to note that the Johns held the opinion that they were being discriminated against for their religion from the offset:
She felt that her beliefs would not affect how she was able to care for a young person, and stated that we were really saying that they could not be foster-carers because they are Christians.
From this point the Johns had made up their mind that their application was being refused because they were Christians, rather than because their were homophobic. They appear to have gone to their press with their story, forcing the Council to reiterate that the issue was due to their homophobic views rather than their religion.
The CLC article announcing the terrible news that the Johns had lost is peppered with infuriating half truths and skewed opinion.
...the High Court has suggested that... homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK.
By now it should be fairly obvious as to my opinion of the above. "Conscience" - The last hold-out for those who have no decent argument against the terrible reality of equality.
...the judgment strongly affirms homosexual rights over freedom of conscience...
Again - They have the right to their conscience, but they do not get to skew a child's attitude by expression those views in an authoritative manner i.e. as foster parents.
This is incredible and very disingenuous as the Johns moral views cannot be separated from their religious beliefs.
Yes. They. Can. To imply that there is even ONE Christian who does not pick and choose which bits of the Bible they want apply to their own life is laughable. I posit that no two Christians live in exactly the same way or believe in exactly the same god.
There now appears to be nothing to stop the increasing bar on Christians who wish to adopt or foster children but who are not willing to compromise their beliefs by promoting the practise of homosexuality to small children.
Firstly: Good. I hope this leads to a decrease in children who are forced to listen to bigotry.
Secondly: This demonstrates the point I made in the other post. This phrase is particularly loathsome: "...promoting the practise of homosexuality..."
The CLC would have you believe that children are being told they have to be gay. This is NOT the case, it never has been and it never will be. To suggest otherwise is an obvious ploy and is utterly contemptible. It forces us to ask: Why do people and organisations like the CLC need to lie in order to further their aims?
The Johns case is just another in a long line of CLC failures. I would like to think that very few people are concerned with the fact that religious bigotry failed to gain any headway in the High Court, but there are enough people upset by the ruling that lead me to believe that more people need to know and understand the truth of the matter, particularly when many media outlets take a sympathetic stance on 'sincerely held' religious convictions.
As such, I shall continue to document the CLC's campaign of intolerance.
Links
4 - Daily Mail: Christian beliefs DO lose out to gay rights: Judges' ruling against devout foster couple
5 - The Judgment
And I think it's worth noting, should anyone supportive of the CLC reads this post, I listened to Wham! while I wrote the above. Ha.
