Thread: Qualifications for parents

It is flat out state sanctioned discrimination against a religious belief.

This thread is not about the tenants of Christianity, and whether or not Christianity is tolerant of homosexuality. As such I will not engage in such a discussion in this thread.

Originally Posted by mhailey

It is flat out state sanctioned discrimination against a religious belief.

This thread is not about the tenants of Christianity, and whether or not Christianity is tolerant of homosexuality. As such I will not engage in such a discussion in this thread.

No, its about basic human right. Whether or not a religious group condemns or condones it is beside the point.

Originally Posted by markevens

No, its about basic human right. Whether or not a religious group condemns or condones it is beside the point.

I agree this thread is about basic human rights. The question is who/what determines what those rights are since they have to be "codified" some where, some how, some way.

That there is the difficult part isn't it?! That is why, I guess, laws are made to suit the majority opinion rather than the individual.


Mick

While this is indeed a case of specific religious discrimination, that doesn't make it wrong per say. If I start a religion (or schism from an existing one) which defines all women as property, to do with as I please, then cps would rightfully bar me from adopting a child.

That is discrimination born from my religious beliefs. And rightfully so.
Just because you are free to have the religion you want does not mean that the state should agree with you or should be forced to allow you to adopt if it does not think that would be in the best interest of the child in their care. By the same token, I am free to choose not to go to a gay bar upon invitation, even though it is perfectly legal for the bar to exist and for them to invite me.

One could even go a step further and assume a religion which goes back to human sacrifice. You are free to believe that of course, but you cannot really practice it because practicing that religion would violate a number of laws. So just because something is religious does not automatically give carte blanche to do whatever.

Originally Posted by MickR

That there is the difficult part isn't it?! That is why, I guess, laws are made to suit the majority opinion rather than the individual.


Mick

While this may be true in Oz (I make no comment on their laws), in the US this is far from true. The laws are made to protect the individual from the majority, and not to subjugate the individual to the majority. We do not have a democracy, we have a republic ruled by law. You don't have to protect the free speech of the popular majority, you have to protect the freedom of speech for the unpopular minority.

This is my problem with the issue presented in this thread. The unpopular minority (or shall I say unpopular silent majority) is being denied the ability to foster a child because of their unpopular speech. This issue runs counter to the first amendment in two ways. it both stifles freedom of speech and it is governmental sanctioned discrimination against religion. If the government is going to be equal, then no religious person of any faith, and that would include atheists as that is equally a religion, should be eligible to become a foster parent. This is simply not feasible.

You need to look at the parents' history. Is there any history of drug/alcohol abuse, any prior criminal convictions, any prior domestic abuse, what was their childhood like, ...? however, disqualifying a person on the belief that homosexuality is wrong under Christianity is akin to disqualifying a person because, under Christianity, lying is wrong. Both are sins, and both are punished the same. All have fallen short of the glory of God. Not one of us is righteous, and under Christianity, Christians should not judge other sinners. (Let him who has no sin cast the first stone.)

If truly the state is so interested in protecting the child from the speech of others, then no religious person should be allowed to be a foster parent, and that would include atheists, as it is a religion just as Christianity.

I had a meeting to initiate the process of becoming a foster parent last night (the meeting was scheduled weeks ago) and all I could think about was that I was going to be equated to the Aryan brotherhood because of my Christian belief.

Originally Posted by mhailey

If truly the state is so interested in protecting the child from the speech of others, then no religious person should be allowed to be a foster parent, and that would include atheists, as it is a religion just as Christianity.

Atheism isn't a religion.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Atheism isn't a religion.

Actually, the most "evangelical" people I have ever met, online, or real life have been "atheists".

According to dictionary.com
re·li·gion

 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

The "esp." isn't an inherent part of the definition, just adding a bit of emphasis.

Atheists believe there is no God/god/gods, and that everything is explainable by other means. That constitutes a set of beliefs concerning the cause of the universe etc.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

atheism requires a fundamental set of beliefs agreed upon by a number of persons. e.g. that there is no God/god/gods

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

I'm not sure of a particular atheist group, but there are groups with atheist tenancies that push a particular agenda (for instance, that evolution is fact, or that there is no "universal" right or wrong)

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

Not really applicable, and not necessary, a number of religions don't have monks or nuns.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Sure you don't go to church on Sunday, but atheists live there life as if there is no higher power, which is a practice of their particular religious belief. Plenty of "Christians" don't go to church either.

6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Most atheists I've encountered seem very devoted to their cause of convincing everyone to agree with them.

Originally Posted by mhailey

While this may be true in Oz (I make no comment on their laws), in the US this is far from true.

On the other hand the case under discussion is in UK and has nothing to do with US laws, so your comments on US laws are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by mhailey

This is my problem with the issue presented in this thread. The unpopular minority (or shall I say unpopular silent majority) is being denied the ability to foster a child because of their unpopular speech.

And then you have to also consider the same argument for the other side. Potentially homosexual child (minority) is being placed under the authority of people who believe that child is constantly acting out of his/her free choice against their beliefs.
Now to my knowledge the current laws in UK and US do not consider homosexuality to be a crime or aberrant behavior, anymore and that is fairly important.

My question is why you, being a lawyer, appear so concerned with the protection of a religious minority i.e. the parents but don't even consider the possibility of the rights of a homosexual minority. Seems like a personal bias trumping professional integrity. But setting that apart which minority rights are more worthy of protection in this case?

Originally Posted by gugi

On the other hand the case under discussion is in UK and has nothing to do with US laws, so your comments on US laws are irrelevant.


And then you have to also consider the same argument for the other side. Potentially homosexual child (minority) is being placed under the authority of people who believe that child is constantly acting out of his/her free choice against their beliefs.
Now to my knowledge the current laws in UK and US do not consider homosexuality to be a crime or aberrant behavior, anymore and that is fairly important.

My question is why you, being a lawyer, appear so concerned with the protection of a religious minority i.e. the parents but don't even consider the possibility of the rights of a homosexual minority. Seems like a personal bias trumping professional integrity. But setting that apart which minority rights are more worthy of protection in this case?

Why belittle my opinions, and then ask for them? It was my understanding from your opening sentence that my comments on the US laws are irrelevant. As such, all that follows will also be irrelevant, but I will not dodge your question. The reason that the protection of religious freedoms trump the protection of homosexuals from discrimination is because the law says it does.

Under federal law, sexual orientation is not a protected class. Religion, Race, National origin, Gender, color, Age (if you are over 40). These are protected classes. Sexual orientation is not.

Again, this applies to the irrelevant laws of the US.