Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Christian couple ‘extremely distressed’ at fostering ban

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Good hah!

    Bigots have no place in society and should be shunned. I hope their pain and distressed state follows them for the rest of their lives

    1. Does their faith not bring them any comfort – what about the distress they cause to other human beings with their bigoted views.

      poor old things their distressed. vulnerable kids need good all round folk to care for them to two homophobes

  2. I heard them this morning on Today. The woman was asking for a level playing field while at the same time asking to be able to discriminate against gays.

    She also insisted that she’d love a gay kid the same way as any other but would be telling him that homosexuality is not right.

    Something along the lines of “you are a disguting little pervert and you are going to hell but I love, darling” would certainly do wonder to a kid’s self-esteem!

    1. She obviously too thick to understand that she is full of hatred. She beleives in god and goes to church so she must be a decent person. If Satan came to Earth today he’d be a pentacostal minister

      1. They appear to be playing the victim card, and doing the rounds of generating support from other like minded bigots.

    2. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 12:46pm

      “She also insisted that she’d love a gay kid the same way as any other but would be telling him that homosexuality is not right.”

      The fools don’t see they have answered they own question on the ruling.

      Are they really that thick? I guess so.

    3. Mumbo Jumbo 1 Mar 2011, 1:40pm

      Indeed. What they said amounted to “love the sinner, hate the sin”, the most sinister repression of all.

      1. I remember this line. It may have left people’s lips sounding nice, but by the time it reached this adolescent’s ears, ut had become “We love you even though you’re a disgusting freak”.

  3. This applies to all parents not just foster parents:

    If you can’t accept the inconsequential differences in your child such as LGBT, you are not qualified to be a parent

    1. Tell that to the next Labour government.They might believe your bigoted view.

  4. Not half as distressed as a gay child would be growing up in their household. Surely these people can understand that they could cause long-lasting damage to children in their care?

    Even if the child grew up to be heterosexual, there is a very real chance that this couples beliefs will have rubbed off on them, creating a new generation of intolerant homophobes.

  5. Well kiss ma teeth Eunice! No better to raise a child in a glorified cult than let it lead a normal upbringing. Much more balanced to tell a child homosexuality is wrong but nailing a guy to a cross to die for our sins is perfectly ‘normal’.

    1. Nobody was nailed to a cross….Roman crusifixion was carried out by tyeing the wrists and feet to a cross. Nailing the hands has been proven to be fiction as the skin of the hands would tear because of the weight of the person being nailed. Fiction like all the pixie in the sky fantasie.

      1. They could be nailed or tied. The nails would not typically go through the palms of the hands but through the wrists or forearms.

      2. Staircase2 7 Mar 2011, 1:18am

        ‘pixie in the sky’? lol

    2. David Myers 2 Mar 2011, 9:02am

      A possibility that does not require tying is that the nails were inserted just above the wrist, between the two bones of the forearm (the radius and the ulna).

      An experiment that was the subject of a documentary on the National Geographic Channel’s Quest For Truth: The Crucifixion showed that a person can be suspended by the palm of the hand. Nailing the feet to the side of the cross relieves strain on the wrists by placing most of the weight on the lower body.

      Ancient sources also mention the sedile, a small seat attached to the front of the cross, about halfway down,[which could have served a similar purpose. A short upright spike or cornu might also be attached to the sedile, forcing the victim to rest his or her perineum on the point of the device, or allow it to insert into the anus or vagina. These devices were not an attempt to relieve suffering, but would prolong the process of death.

  6. “All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of being black was a good thing.”

  7. It’s disgusting. the fact that so called Christian couples call for inequality in the name of personal faith yet they cry wolf when the tables are turned.

    No child should be subjected to feeling anxious and upset because they develop feelings towards the same sex. People like this couple are creating more harm than good.

    I should hope that they’ve been banned from fostering – spiteful people.

  8. Homosexuality is as immoral and wrong as is being black.

    The practice of being homosexual is as wrong and immoral as the practice of being black.

  9. loving the sinner and not the sin – bollocks! by saying that being gay is not right represses and oppresses gay people making the individual’s life a misery or at best having some sense of fear of / seperation from their parents just because of who they are – that is the opposite of nurturing love. In fostering there is a choice in selecting who can parent – it is good that this very damaging element can be deselected. Bigots with ribbons on are still bigots!

  10. Being homosexual is as much a choice as being black is a choice.

    1. Agreed, wholeheartedly. But having a sexual preference for children is as much a choice as either of the above. It doesn’t follow that acting on that preference is therefore right.

      1. Maybe, but I have yet to hear a rational argument as to why acting on homosexual feelings is per se unethical.

      2. If you have sex with someone who cannot or does not consent to it, you are a rapist and a disgusting excuse for a human being. Children lack the mental capacity to consent. It follows that acting on that preference is therefore wrong.

        No such argument can be made against consenting adult homosexuals, and it irritates the hell out of me when people purposefully confuse these extremely distinct issues.

  11. Judgment here if anyone’s interested; I think it has some brilliant points.

    “the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form. The aphorism that ‘Christianity is part of the common law of England’ is mere rhetoric; it [is] impossible to contend that it is law”

    Why can’t these people get that through their heads?

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html

    1. Even professional adults cannot get through to the Johns how misguided they are on this issue, they do not see the potential harm they are likely to do by inflicting their unevidenced beliefs about homosexuality being wrong on a child .
      A child held captive in the Johns home wouldn’t stand a chance of standing up to this stubborn anti-gay arrogance and willful ignorance about human nature and sexual orientation.
      The High Court decision was correct.

      1. In response to the claimaints’ barrister’s skeleton argument, which they clealry thought was ludicrous, the court states:

        No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not ‘fit and proper’ persons to foster or adopt. No one is contending for a blanket ban. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. No one is seeking to force Christians or adherents of other faiths into the closet. No one is asserting that the claimants are bigots. No one is seeking to give Christians, Jews or Muslims or, indeed, peoples of any faith, a second class status. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law, to our polity and to our way of life, that everyone is equal: equal before the law and equal as a human being endowed with reason and entitled to dignity and respect.

    2. Thanks for the link sven, well worth reading in full.

      1. Definitely. I wish the papers would print it, or at least some of the best bits.

    3. I think we could end all discussion on this these message boards in the subject of religious rights v gay rights with this excellent judgement. Thank you Sven for posting it. Lots of stuff here argued with surgical precision.

      To quote just one titbit: “it is important to realise that reliance upon religious belief, however conscientious the belief and however ancient and respectable the religion, can never of itself immunise the believer from the reach of the secular law. And invocation of religious belief does not necessarily provide a defence to what is otherwise a valid claim.”

      1. Yep, that’s the killer part! Nicely selected Philip.

    4. Note to all discriminated-against Christians. Do not hire Mr Diamond as your QC. He appears to have had several goes at this, none to any effect. I LMAO at his evisceration in the hands of the judges.

      Rather disappointingly, but not surprisingly,The EHRC’s intervention appears to have been largely ineffectual too.

    5. saynotommmmm 1 Mar 2011, 3:18pm

      Dear Sven, thank you so much for posting this link . It makes it all crystal clear, and does justify totally, that this court made the right judgement.

      1. You’re very welcome. I quite agree, it takes away the hysteria and silliness that accompanies news reports on these issues.

    6. Many thanks for the link. Love this from the couple’s letter to the local authority:

      “I believe that the descriptor “homophobic” is demeaning and degrading to our faith and our dignity.”

      That’s another irony metre gone then.

  12. ““All we wanted was to offer a loving (anti-gay) home to a child in need. We have a good track record as (anti-gay) foster parents.”

    1. Apparently they last fostered a child in…1993!…for a month!!…So much for a good ‘track record’…Other problems included the fact that they both went to Church twice on Sunday’s and wouldn’t be prepared to alternate so one could stay home to look after the kid(s)..Presumably the kids would have to go to Church too…And they also stated they wouldn’t be prepared to take a muslim child to a mosque……

  13. Hm, she claims they were “only” unwilling to tell a “small child” that homosexuality was “good.” Reading the judgment, it seems that they actually said they would ‘turn’ gay teenagers, that they would not prevent a child bullying another child for being gay, that they would refuse to take a child to a mosque, and when queried said “We cannot adjust.”

    That’s a bit different from what they’re telling the media. Never mind homosexuality; I thought lying was a sin…

    1. They really are anti-gay zealots of the fist waters, they try to come across all sweet, caring and vulnerable but they are hard and stubborn, I imagine they can be very strict with children…frightening.

  14. I used to have neighbours like those two . They were aggressively homophobic, i would see em going to their perverse cult on sunday mornings with their inbred brethern and they would kiss their teeth(they were this unevolved) at me and partner and encourage the younger of their litter to start screeching, jumping up and down with promises of killing the batty bois. Vile , grotesque filth. unfortunately i believe general public actually have sympathy with them as they are milking the persecuted christian victim role.

    1. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 4:17pm

      Yeah victims of what the limited media reporting not the plain facts showing that they are the Bigots We all know them to be.

      Still gotta love that Judge!!

  15. Thanks for posting a link to the judgment. So they are liars as well as bigots?

    I notice that they would not be willing to take a child to a mosque either.

    Bigots to a core and not at all sound to be around vulnerable kids.

    1. It’s quite disturbing the lengths they will go to in order to protect their “Christians are victims of a gay agenda” persona. At least our “agenda” doesn’t involve lying through our teeth to the media.

      1. “Christians are victims of a gay agenda” persona.”

        I agree, disturbing; with no sense of personal responsibility or self awareness

        1. I especially love the fact that Lord Justice Munby called the defendants’ outlining of the oppression of Christians in favour of gays (‘the gay agenda’ in common Christian parlance) in para 33 a “travesty of the reality”, a travesty being a “false, absurd, or distorted representation” according to the dictionary.

          But will that shut them up? I doubt it.

    1. great stuff, JohnK…

      this misguided couple has no idea what religiously induced shame and guilt can do to a gay person, and especially a young person.

      in fact, besides losing their case, this couple ought to be offered clinical help to recover from their homophobia.

      homophobia is a mental illness.

      1. Thanks Jonpol

  16. On the subject of bigotry and homosexuality- Pink News has so far not featured a story about le grande homosexual John Galliano and his anti-semitic diatribes. I’d like to see some ‘equal opportunities’ with regards to this. Galliano is an absolute c–t so why can’t we have a comments board featuring him? I know plenty of people who’ve bore witness to his bigoted rants.

    1. I do question PN sometime but you cant accuse Ben Cohen of anti semitism.

      I think a forum board would be useful for our own topics too

  17. Nowhere near as distressed as being a gay child and being brought up by homophobes.

    This all seems to be about them and very little to do with the children in their care.

  18. do we need to have gay people to openly discriminate against christians illegally for them to understand that legal discrimination because your a dick is NOT the same thing as equal treatment before the law?

    1. what a massive cnut go and fcuk your self exorcist style

    2. Legal discrimination is now an oxymoron.

      You’re just a moron.

      1. from you I’ll take that as a compliment

        1. That was at Xaria.

          Not used to this newfangled comment thing. Ha! Guess I am a moron after all.

          1. Whoops my attitude always gets the better of me. i thought it was a bit odd from you. xaria is a bit of a cnut though. Never appease the agressor attack head on well done sven

    3. Xaria, have you not heard of punctuation?

      Xaria, you appear to be rambling incoherent!

      1. that bitch is toast she aint comming back

    4. Mumbo Jumbo 1 Mar 2011, 1:43pm

      Is that you, Melanie?

      1. I’m glad some of you understood the comment,I didn’t have a clue…

        1. Me neither. I even drew a Venn diagram and was none the wiser.

  19. I was surprised but a column in todays telegraph is supporting the christians persecution complex
    How is it moral to hate? how would they feel if the KKK came and abused and attacked them but said it was moral and in line with their beliefs?

    Parents with bigoted views will always affect the kids and people lie if they try to claim otherwise

  20. I’m sure members of the KKK would be ‘extremely distressed’ at being found to be unsuitable to foster – if they were to tell the child that being ‘black’ is not okay.

  21. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 12:41pm

    Oh dear, what a pity, Never mind.

    Excellent prospective foster parents do not have discriminating beliefs.

    On this they Failed. They have themselves to blame.

  22. Asked how he would respond to a child who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay.
    Owen responded by saying that he would “gently turn them round”.

    This is just not acceptable.

  23. “All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need.”

    No you didn’t.

    ” We have a good track record as foster parents”

    Wrong.

    “we are Christians, with mainstream Christian views”

    No, they’re extreme views, far from any mainstream.

    “We are unsure how we can continue the application process”

    Don’t bother

    “We have been excluded because we have moral opinions”

    Erm… Surely that should say immoral opinions

    “The judges have suggested that our views might harm children.”

    Yep.

  24. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 1:05pm

    So when asked:-

    Someone who is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay.

    Eunice said she would give reassurance and tell the child to ignore it while Owen responded saying he would “gently turn them around”.

    Oh yeah ideal parents…. NOT!!

    No way should these people be near Any child! Disgraceful!

  25. “All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a GOOD thing”

    NOT BAD =/= GOOD

    All you have to tell them that homosexuality is NOT a bad thing. Nobody even suggested that you have to tell your child that being gay is good, all they want you to do is to tell your child that being gay is NOT BAD.

  26. meh, didn’t know symbols don’t work

  27. This disgusting couple deserve no sympathy. They are ugly bigots who are no longer allowed to abuse children with their vile homophobia

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 1 Mar 2011, 1:57pm

      You know what, David, I’m not so sure they are such bad people but are merely kindly, ordinary, not particularly sophisticated folk led by others down a path that they would not otherwise follow if left to their own devices.

      In other words, religion can make good people do bad things and maybe the criticism is best aimed at their nasty little church, the possibly closeted preachers and the vile opportunists at the Christian Legal Centre.

      You might be right but it’s not the impression I get from this pair who seem to be genuinely confused when it comes to understanding what is wrong with what they are doing. They are certainly being exploited.

      1. Wise words, MJ. I do hope you’re right

      2. I disagree , they are rotton to the core. They chose to become involved with a morally bereft cult and follow its teachings. They have free will and moral autonomy and chose to be evil whether that was encouraged by religious dogma or not, unless of course it can be proven they have exceptional learning abilities or some form of autism .

  28. J Cartier 1 Mar 2011, 1:16pm

    No wonder the Romans liked throwing them to the lions.

    1. LOL! Lets start that tradition up again…

  29. Have they waved the ‘black’ card yet? Its only a matter of time. During “New” Labour’s reign they’d have been a shoo-in for adopting or fostering kids and forcing them to accept their bigoted ways. Cause as we know ‘race’ was a far touchier issue than sexuality.

  30. Their homophobic attitude is so chillingly casual and habitual, but worse, they think they are doing good.

    The mixture of willful ignorance and arrogance takes my breath away.
    The total lack of empathy shown… I’m sure they have absolutely no understanding of how the steady drip drip of anti-gay discrimination throughout their daily lives wears gay people down and it’s all the more remarkable for the fact they are black and really should have a heightened awareness of how it feels to be discriminated against.

    Of course they’ve been mislead by the anti-gay industry, in which their pentecostal church is no doubt heavily involved, to believe the nonsense that homosexuality is a choice and that sexual orientation can be changed, that all homosexuals lead a sinful lifestyle however they conduct their lives.
    Where do you begin with these religious morons?

  31. These are ther sort of people who run religious schools across this country! If ever we needed another reason to ban religious schooling,regardless of faith, this is it! You cannot teach social harmony with different religious bigots practicing their belief structures on innocent children! Its immoral, unjust and should be banned!

  32. Robert (Kettering) 1 Mar 2011, 2:09pm

    Oh dear, so they are moaning about not being able to preach their bigotery to kids, what a shame. One might just have thought that this Afro-Carribean couple might have known first hand about prejudice and bigotery in society!? Seems that they are happy to fight for their own rights whilst denying others theirs. Bigots!

  33. Wonder where all the religious nuts are…. they are normally all over this nonsense like proverbial flies to christian inspired excrement….

    ….wait….. wait….

    ….They’ll be here any minute now….

    I hope its Ollie. He’s my favourite idiot.

    1. I told em to fcuk off

    2. Will, on the other thread “John” explained why he would not be joining this discussion. I have copied and pasted it below.

      John Wrote
      “Seeing the new thread on the “John’s issue it might be tempting to wade in – but is there any point? Trying to score points and name calling is counter-productive and too many people get upset with views that conservative Christians like me offer.”

      1. Invite him to read the judgment.

        1. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 5:20pm

          I doubt even that’ll change things. People like that don’t want to know no matter how much evidence you put in front of them.

          They’re right because their Bible told em so…yawn!

      2. The only thing worse then a bigot, JohnK, is one that hides it in nice words and pleasantries. Personally, I’m getting sick of his veiled homophobia.

    3. …several posters, including myself complained to Pink News yesterday about skinner, rachy roo ,and charly farly and they have been absent since. That sort of bigotry and homophobia is not and can never be welcome on what purports to be a gay website. Good riddance. Go to the Telegutter or daily wail sites linked above and you will get a flavor of what we are missing from those loving caring peaceful xtian folks…not

  34. The BBC, surprisingly for an organisation claiming that it celebrates diversity, has been reporting this primarily from the perspective of the foster-parents.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=eunice

    1. That welsh bloke on BBC 6 o’clock news said gay lifestyle which I find as insluting as saying gay men frequent a place it’s all sordid. BBC defends moyles too so dont expect too much

  35. Yet again, it’s all about them not the child. If they couldn’t do the job as required – or rather REFUSED to – then what do they expect? The fostering service is there to help children not provide a way for bigots to warp the minds of young people.

    “We have been excluded because we have moral opinions based on our faith”

    Nope. You’ve been excluded because it seems you are unable to remain neutral and behave in an appropriate manner towards the children in your care.

    I presume they’d be perfectly happy with a white Christian couple adopting a black child and telling them that being black is wrong/inferior/cursed? No, of course, they wouldn’t, but the years of being told what to think by religion has addled their reasoning faculties. They simply can’t see that what they propose is the same thing and just as unacceptable.

    I don’t think they’re bad people or malicious. They simply don’t get it.

  36. TheSuburban Bi 1 Mar 2011, 3:31pm

    Christians are supposed to be honest. Mrs Owen is not being honest when she says on the radio that all they said to the social worker was that ‘being gay went against her beliefs’ or something that simple (wrong, but simple). If so, they would most likely have been approved. The rules don’t actually say everyone must hold perfectly acceptable views to be deemed safe for children.

    But from the court documents, it’s clear this couple made deliberate and sustained comments on homosexuality that lead the social worker to see that any child put in their care would be turned into either a self-hate case (if gay, bi or trans) or a bully (if not).

    “In our initial discussion on this issue, when asked if, given their views, they would be able to support a young person who, for example, was confused about their sexuality, the answer was in the negative. Eunice at this time also mentioned a visit she had made to San Francisco…”

  37. We’re talking about acutely vulnerable children here who could have been placed with people, who’s approach (as described by them) may well have tipped such children over the edge. Sorry, Mr & Mrs Johns, I’m sure you meant well (at least before you got caught up on the bandwagon), but it’s really not such a good idea to place such children with you.

  38. TheSuburban Bi 1 Mar 2011, 3:46pm

    Also from the report: “…when the question had been put to Owen [how he would respond if a child in his care ‘is confused about their sexuality and thinks they may be gay’], he responded by saying that he would ‘gently turn them round’.”

    It’s those kinds of answers that got them nixed as fosterers. Not just a general ‘well it’s not taught in my religion’ as they want the public to believe.

  39. They need to learn that homophobia is just as damaging as racism. They cannot be allowed to cause suffering and distress to gay children in their care.

  40. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 4:25pm

    Lets be honest the Sunday thing of not being prepared to jointly look after a child while the other went to Church was all about the fact they would have forced the children to church twice a day to be Brainwashed by religion.

    They basically were planning to recruit children into their sick bigotted beliefs. To plant the seeds of hatred into them while on their watch.

  41. Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; i don’t sleep with women so how can i sleep with them the same as I do with a man?

    1. See i always took this part of the bible as opposition to the heterosexual missionary position and as a expression by god of his preference of doggy style when one is having anal sex.

      1. TheSuburban Bi 1 Mar 2011, 6:04pm

        haha…. when I was a kid I really thought it was about lying. And I wondered why do men lie to women differently than they lie to men?

  42. Well you shouldn’t be a bigot then should you. There should be no place in this world for people like them. Coming from a black background too should make them more understanding towardss people from “different backgrounds” it wasn’t THAT long ago when the likes of them were classed as 2nd class and now they are doing the same to others. I hope they learn something from this.

  43. Peter & Michael 1 Mar 2011, 4:50pm

    We get distressed, when these so called christians spout their hatred toward us, being equal is just that, would their ‘god’ discriminate toward any human being? In their eyes their ‘god’ would! In the real world most churchgoers believe that ‘god’ created man without discrimination.

  44. Upset? Hmm. Well, then they shouldn’t have become the Christian Institutes bitches, should they?

    Just another pair of morons who fail to understand that their childish belief in an invisible friend doesn’t give them any special rights.

  45. Ooer missus 1 Mar 2011, 4:54pm

    Soundbites courtesy of CLC no doubt. Since when did the neo pentecostalists become mainstream? They may be, in Uganda, but thankfully not here.

    They seem to be going to great lengths to try and appear to the media as ordinary traditional Christians, but that it the last thing that the US funded extremist pentecostalist movement is.

  46. Jock S. Trap 1 Mar 2011, 5:04pm

    “The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence” over religious beliefs”

    So we can expect this argument for Equal Marriage then.

  47. Whats the difference between this couple and a state funded faith school or youth centre discriminating?

  48. coemgenus 1 Mar 2011, 5:19pm

    Good. Children in care have a right to have their best interests as a priority. Having foster parents denigrating perfectly legal practices because of superstition and ignorance is not one of them. They are unsuitable for the job.

  49. Bless them and their kind but closed minds.

    Still, reading some of the posts on here one would think that the minds making these comments are not much more open.

    Good, for once, that the law recognizes that religion and how one afflicts/interprets it on others IS a personal choice whereas sexuality is not.

    1. If were not good enough for you fcuk off

      1. James, what’s it with the constant foul abuse to other? Give it a rest, Simon is clearly agreeing with the rest of us. If that is your less then educated response, then Simon is quite right in saying “reading some of the posts on here one would think that the minds making these comments are not much more open.” You’ve just proven his point.

        Please, more decorum.

        1. No mtom these bigots send people to their graves or the nuthouse. I’ll be as rude as I want if they come here spouting their rubbish.

          1. What on earth are you on about? Simon was not rude to you, no is he a bigot, so why behave like some piece of street filth in your attitude towards him?

            If you can’t behave like a decent human being, then don’t bother coming in here and impressing us with your low brow obscenities. You’re just embarrassing.

          2. Bollocks

          3. ” why behave like some piece of street filth in your attitude towards him?” Remember it was what you call street filth started the stonewall riots. Not soft apologists like you lot

          4. Hmmm. Quite. Not very rational, are you?

          5. James! only contribution to any discussion is to utter an obsessiveness any anyone…. it doesn’t matter if they are agreeing with him or not. Its like an internet version of Tourettes.

            I am not slagging you off. I am offering you some advice: get an education. Then YOU might be able to come in here and type a message without sounding like a low life retard.

            I’m done, James can mouth off as he likes. He lowers himself, not anyone else with his stupid and vulgar statements.

        2. Decorum? Gay people are being murdered in the middle of London and you want decorum. You need a slap

          1. Jock S. Trap 2 Mar 2011, 3:08pm

            slapper!

            :)

          2. And your offensive language is doing what exactly to prevent this?

            Get an edcuation, you moron.

          3. Ok Tom I’ll stop the bad language when you make some sort of point rather than slagging me off

          4. Jock S. Trap 3 Mar 2011, 10:25am

            Tom

            So James! gets a bit carried away sometimes, I think even he’d agree with that but it’s up to you if you respond in a way that even you must know the response you’ll get. You can’t complain if you push.

          5. As I thought Tom has nothing to say he only knows hot to criticize

    2. got to say I agree with you bigots are to be pitied but not hated. Hate never does anyone any good.

  50. I believe this was a fair decision but some of the self-righteous comments about this Christian couple being bigots are unfair & harsh. Offering a home to foster children deserves some sort of respect. Just remeber all you self-righteous….there are plenty of real selfish bigots who happen to be gay…John Galliano being just one of them…

    1. I hate this response, the whole “well look at them gays challenging homophobia, why dont they challenge antisemitism, racism etc etc etc”. If this was an article about Galliano the majority of the comments would be against what he has said.

      The couple were bigots, the man said he would try and turn a gay child. Imagine if i said black people should have their skin bleached so they can be white, you would rightly call me a bigot.

      Also these people are fostering to impose their religious beliefs on such vulnerable children, I have no respect for that or for them.

    2. They are bigots and unsuitable to be foster parents. They do not deserve any respect for trying to inflict and contaminate children with their hatred . Yes there are certain undesirable elements in the lgbt community such as gallianos rant,but if i was to use that flimsy debate to somehow support this vile couple . i would be listing thousands of hetrosexual christian reprobates not just one one . you are clutching at straws trying to associate the 2 cases.

  51. what, what?…’i’ve missed something ; who is John Galiano?

    1. I thik he’s some sort of fashion designer

    2. He’s Dior’s main man, or at least he was until he went all anti-semitic and everyone got mad and he left this morning.

      1. Also he’s gay.

  52. ….it’s ok now , i know who the pig is…hope they put him in the worst jail they can find in the world. The man is a disgrace to mankind.

    1. chill out, guy was drunk and said something stupid, there are lots of people around who would mean it when saying it without being drunk.

  53. westcoastkid 1 Mar 2011, 6:23pm

    I’m certain this couple (in particular) would be glad to note that I’m distressed slavery is no longer legal… the bible tells me it is. This is against my religious beliefs!!! I’m taking this to the high court!

  54. de Villiers 1 Mar 2011, 6:29pm

    I have just read the judgment. The court made no order. No order. No decision has been taken.

    The judges described the Claimant’s submissions as a “travesty of reality”.

    1. The claimants wanted a declaration, but filed no evidence and didn’t make a coherent argument. The court basically referred them to the existing case law, restated the law and said there was no need for a declaration and even if there had been, the claimant’s didn’t go about asking for one correctly. Basically, the court said “this is already established law, please go away and stop wasting our time”.

    2. http://www.secularism.org.uk/high-court-judge-makes-clear-tha.html

      “high court judge makes clear that the law is secular, it is not anti-christian”

  55. What upset me was the statement [para. 41] that “Religion – whatever the particular believer’s faith – is no doubt something to be encouraged”.

  56. One wonders whether we’re starting to see an increase in these bigoted views coming about, or whether legislation is forcing these people to accept equality rather than trot out their outdated views.

    How very sad that a religion supposedly built around love (and bread and trespassing) incites so much hatred. Quite the oxymoron…

  57. does anyone know how many gay foster parents there are as opposed to christian ones?

  58. If a child in their care said they thought they might be gay, how dare the Johns presume it would be in any way acceptable to try to turn that child straight!

    Never mind their wretched “religious” beliefs about homosexuals and sin, they are insane to hold these dangerously mad beliefs that sexual orientation can be manipulated and deliberately changed, it could so easily end in tragedy for any child in their hands who might be growing up gay and who was subjected to that kind of abuse.

    I can’t bear looking at their stupid faces when I think about their vile, ignorant attitude, doing so just fills me with utter disgust.

  59. I wonder how these people would feel about a racist couple who would “love any child” but would not be willing to tell a black child that being black was as good as being white?
    I can’t speak for them, but I predict that you wouldn’t hear them defending the bigots.

    1. I always thought that the best way to challenge people such as this would be to launch counter legal cases to highlight the hypocrisy of ones such as this. I.e. White couple challenge council after being told they were not fit to be foster parents after telling black children they should bleach their skin.

  60. “Worst of all, a vulnerable child has now likely missed the chance of finding a safe and caring home at a time when there are so few people willing to foster or adopt.”

    Maybe if you weren’t so insistent that gay people shouldn’t have the right to adopt, the problem wouldn’t be as bad. Maybe if you weren’t so homophobic, less children would be on the street due to parents who are unaccepting of their own child.

    1. Apparently Alex there is no shortage of respite carers which is what the Johns were.

  61. Guys here is a well made video about the LGBT community we made and posted on youtube,after the many suicides last year encouraging gay people to love themselves despite religious indocrination.Here is the link:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n700edTcmxc

    Spread the word and help get it out there.We want to get it out there but but arent sure how to go about it? (Sorry for the spam )

  62. I’m beginning to like these equality laws….I was a bit cynical to start off with…

  63. Hey everybody – Went on a bit of a rant on my blog today concerning these anti gay xians (please dont mock the fact that I blog, I find it therapeutic). Check it out if you like.

    http://informedspeech.blogspot.com/2011/03/anti-gay-christian-foster-parents.html

    1. hahaha! “arsegiblets”?! Nicely put.

  64. saynotommmmm 1 Mar 2011, 11:20pm

    another story in the mail tonight re anti gay and the services, and guess what the comments have been stopped again . Whats going on? Do yout hink the mail has relaised that its readers are now sailing too close to breaking the law re incitment to hatred

  65. Eunice made the comment cited below in the Telegraph.

    ‘She might have done better to fudge the issue when asked a direct question. “But,” she protests, “our Christianity isn’t something we can just take on and off. It is our lifestyle.” Her husband adds that this ruling represents “the first stage of persecution”.

    She maintains that Christianity is her lifestyle and she just cannot take it on and off! She and her other Christian bigots expect us to do exactly that with our “lifestyle”. I was born Gay, am Gay will always be Gay. Christianity is a bronze age myth that is well past its sell by date.

  66. de Villiers 2 Mar 2011, 7:50am

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html

    The judgment is here. It is worth reading paragraphs 32-36.

    1. de Villiers 2 Mar 2011, 7:50am

      Sven, sorry – I did not see that you had posted this.

  67. If gay = unacceptable does slavery=acceptable ?
    It’s in a Bible after all.
    My black boyfriend wouldn’t agree.

  68. O…and as a Christian I forgive those bigots. Hate has no place in my life. Only love. “One love” as Bob Marley would put it.

  69. There was a time that maleHomosexul acts were unlawful and were shunned. Now it seems that Christians are suffering the same fate. Who are the bigots? It is those who disagree with Christians who hold orthodox biblical views and want them to have no place in society.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 3 Mar 2011, 12:05pm

      Gays are not persecuting Christians.

      Belief in slavery was an orthodox Christian biblical view.

      Should they still be allowed that belief.

      Hypocrites all.

      1. Jock S. Trap 3 Mar 2011, 2:09pm

        Quite right, Gays are not presecuting Christians, we’re just standing up to them because we’ve had enough of their crap!

        Funny how they don’t like it isn’t it?!

    2. Ahh didums you cant hate homos anymore and you come here to complain you must be one stupid motherfcuker

      1. Eh?

        Do you even read the comments James or do you assume everyone is a homophobe and then attack?

        1. Yes

          Next

          1. Oh, sorry. I didn’t realise there was something wrong with you.

    3. orthodox? you mean cherry-picked from misunderstood and mistranslated garbage! the christians who support bigotry are bigots still, opposing bigots don’t make you a bigot

    4. The bigots are the ones spouting antiquated beliefs and demanding the right to disregard the law whenever they feel like it infringes on those beliefs, especially when they want to denigrate someone for a characteristic they didn’t choose. Does that help?

      I wouldn’t bring that snivelling nonsense here and expect to get any sympathy if I were you.

  70. Crazy Melanie Phillips has her mental meltdown over the Johns case.
    Read it and weep with laughter :

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6743475/the-judges-atheist-inquisition.thtml

    1. Week by week, Melanie appears to becoming more hysterical and entrenched in her rigid position than ever before.

      Four words. The Circulation-Ratings Wars

    2. Jock S. Trap 8 Mar 2011, 12:36pm

      I do wish her head would explode and have done. I doubt there’d be much mess just a bit smelly.

      Someone that thick and intolerant surely only has sh!t for brains.

  71. Laurie Roberts 2 Mar 2011, 8:19pm

    NO ONE has banned this couple from fostering.

    Read the judges’ statement !

    Some christians love to cry, “maartyrdom !”

  72. The Christians who are proud to be prejudiced

    Religion should never be used as a justification for homophobia

    Eunice and Owen Johns refused to tell foster children that a “homosexual lifestyle” was acceptable.

    Goodness, they keep on coming – an adoption agency, a registrar, a couple running a bed and breakfast, and now a couple wishing to be respite carers. Is there no end to the supply of out and proud, actively homophobic Christians? Eunice and Owen Johns earlier this week became the latest in a long line of people seeking to establish that their religious beliefs should trump the law of the land. They, like so many others before them, want the legal right to advertise their belief that homosexuality is wrong, and to make their disapproval an open and formal part of their professional dealings with others. They keep being told that it’s not on. But they simply won’t accept that empty prejudices are empty prejudices, whether sanctioned by religious belief or not.(Cont’d)

  73. (Cont’d from previous)
    It would be nice if these devout types were as keen to follow so literally the more charming stuff about being without sin and
    casting the first stone. But clearly they are not. I’m not religious. But I strongly believe that people should be free to worship as they please (within the law). These endless petty cases, in which people attempt to justify their desire to vilify others who do them no harm as “Christian”, make me wonder why I bother.
    Deborah Orr

  74. The Catholic News Agency (CNA) has reported that the couple have decided no to appeal against the courts decsion.

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/christian-couple-warned-not-to-appeal-decision-barring-them-from-foster-care/

  75. Interesting article in the Guardian by Alan Wilson

    “Homosexuality, Christianity and child welfare. This week’s court ruling against a Christian couple seeking to foster children was right”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/05/views-on-homosexuality-children-welfare

  76. Homosexuality, Christianity and child welfare

    This week’s court ruling against a Christian couple seeking to foster children was right

    “Without any prejudice to anyone’s right to adopt or foster, the court declined to collude with a silly, manipulative attempt to wring from it declarations that would privilege a particular view of homosexuality held by some Christians (but not others) in the world of childcare.”

    Full atricle here:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/05/views-on-homosexuality-children-welfare

    1. “Without any prejudice to anyone’s right to adopt or foster, the court declined to collude with a silly, manipulative attempt to wring from it declarations that would privilege a particular view of homosexuality held by some Christians (but not others) in the world of childcare.”

      I like Alan Wilsons take on the courts decision!!!

  77. people have to understand that a homosexual orientation is normal as is a heterosexual orientation, what is not normal is homophobia. This is now considered to be a mental disorder and described as an irrational fear of homosexuals and as such is abnormal homosexuality, Check the DSM IV

  78. This article is written very well. I really like. Maybe you’re interested in Nike Free everyday

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all