Why religious 'rights' do not and should not hold sway

Most of the following text was originally in the post that can be found here, but as it is concerned with mainly general points as to why religious beliefs should not take precedence over the fundamental rights of others, I thought it best to give it a separate post.

The following was written specifically about the Johns' lost case where they accused Derby City Council of religious discrimination for refusing their application to foster. DCC refused due to the Johns' views on homosexuality.

_____________________________________________________

I feel the need to clarify something about this issue and others concerning homosexuality and religion, because nearly every article I've seen written about the recent ruling quotes the couple in their bewilderment of the conclusion drawn by the judges when all they wanted to do was give children a lovely home. The couple have been quoted thus (and along similar lines):

‘All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.’ link

This is the crux of the matter and a very important point. The Johns made it clear that they would not tell the children in their care that homosexuality is "OK" "Fine" or even "Good" (whatever that means).

From articles that reported the story on Monday, and certainly every Christian website that details the story, the wording is such that the ruling dictates that all foster parents have to actively promote 'the homosexual lifestyle'. This is seen time and again: The enforcement of equality for homosexual people and couples is described as the preferential treatment of homosexuals and homosexuality.

This twisting of the truth is reprehensible and is an overt fallacy put forward by the Christian right to further its own agenda. Such rulings and laws are strictly about equality, not the dominance of homosexuality over anything else. I imagine that for the majority of people reading this that probably didn't need saying, but I have personally experienced sentiment from people, who are otherwise content with the equality of homosexuality in modern society, that implies that some of this fallacious rhetoric is leaking into the public consciousness. I have a feeling that this is particularly true amongst those who read such awful rags as the Daily Fail.

For example, on gay adoption: "Why is it that kids are being put with gays just so that councils can say 'Oh look at us aren't we modern and inclusive?' That isn't right. Why are they getting special treatment?" (paraphrased)

When I heard that I was shocked and did my best to correct the lies that had helped in leading that person thinking that is the case. That person shall remain nameless (even though should they read this, they'll know it was them) but I will say that it was because of that conversation that I started blogging again, and it is one of the reasons this blog exists.

Back to the issue in hand: The Johns won't tell their foster children that 'being gay is OK'.

Foster and adoptive parents are not like 'normal' parents as the state gets to decide whether or not they are fit to care for children from the offset. As such if a foster parent is found to have views that are not what the state deems acceptable and it is likely that they will instruct the child in this way (perhaps not even then) then they are not be allowed to foster. This should be obvious to everyone and it probably is, except for certain grey areas.

Obviously the Christians can't see it being an issue that children are told that "Gay is wrong", after all it isn't them that says gay-is-bad, it's their god that set that one in stone (oh wait, it didn't). But our society, particularly the legal part, says that that is no longer acceptable. There are laws in place that don't allow people to teach vulnerable children that being gay is morally corrupt. At this point in time, I'm not sure if this extends to churches and Sunday schools.

The Johns' right to practice their religion includes their wish to live by their sincerely held belief that homosexuality is wrong. They are, of course, entitled to do this. Nobody is forcing them to accept gay people in their everyday lives. They don't have to let gay people enter their private home. They can decide not to frequent places where they know gay people live or work. I would imagine that they don't even have to speak to gay people in public if they don't wish to - policemen etc excepted. They don't have to have gay friends. They can move away if gay people move in next door.

But they do not get to actively discriminate against gay people. If the Johns were to run a shop, they would not be entitled to turn gay people away just for being gay. They don't get to actively discriminate against homosexuals in the public sphere. This simple fact is blatantly obvious to anyone who has been alive for the last 20-30 years, except the homophobes of course.

It doesn't matter why they hold this opinion, the fact that they do and act upon it is what the state is concerned with.

I shall now call upon an analogy that I will likely use so often that people will get tired of it: Swap the word "gay" with "black". Or "Asian". Or "Jew". Or any other historically persecuted minority you can think of. The conclusion is so obvious that I don't even need to expand upon the point I am trying to make, but in any case I have already done so in an earlier reference post.

People of the Johns' and CLC's ilk seem to be under the impression that the ruling of the High Court means that they no longer are allowed to be Christians. Such people either fail or refuse to understand the basic difference between their right to hold their religious beliefs and the rights of others. They do not grasp that they are perfectly within their rights to be as homophobic as they wish but that homophobia is limited to their private affairs. As listed above, they can hate gays and refuse to associate with them. They don't have to go to 'gay' shops or speak to gay people. But they do not get to act on that homophobia in such a way that it impinges on the rights of others to live a free and equal life. They can practice their religion...until it affects the rights of others. "Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose." This is not hard to understand!

They do not have the right to teach foster children in their care that homosexuality is anything other than natural and acceptable in our current society and by teach I mean "Inform from a position of authority". This is exactly the same as their not having the right to teach foster children that Jews are evil, or black people are wicked and have that skin colour because Noah cursed one of his sons.

This fact is so simple that I find it hard to understand that some religious people still insist that homosexuals should have not have equal rights because they are 'unnatural' and 'morally corrupt.' But then I wasn't raised in a religion so I fall at the first hurdle in understanding such a mindset. I can't say that causes me much discomfort, however.

_____________________________________________________

The above is obviously specific to the Johns' case, but it can be extended to any case of religious discrimination brought by a religious person who seems to think they have a 'god' given right to practice their homophobia.