Reader comments · Derby council defends foster ban on Christian couple · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Derby council defends foster ban on Christian couple

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. God I am fed up of seeing their mugs

    1. You’re not the only one – they look inbred

  2. Paula Thomas 24 Mar 2011, 1:59pm

    I am also tired of seeing them. But we must watch the petition they start carefully and be prepared to launch a counter petition if necessary.

    1. Jock S. Trap 24 Mar 2011, 2:10pm

      Why wait?

      1. Cameron announced support with the judgement here, he’s unlikely to support their petition.
        The biggest worry is that any support for their petition could derail the fight for marriage equality or delay it and cause a backlash against our hard won rights.

        We need to fight their petition from the start to prevent our rights being rolled back.

        1. Jock S. Trap 24 Mar 2011, 2:47pm

          Exactly. The Christian Institute is trying to change the PM’s view via force because his statement was supportive of the end judgement. They will Fail.

        2. I’ll sign any counter petition but what would it say? . Perhaps someone should also start a marriage equality petition and we should start signing this now prior to the July consultation , here in Australia they’ve already got a counter marriage equality petition all signed up and put before the senat even before the gay orgs have submitted a petition asking for marriage equality, it’s still in the process of collecting signature and has less signature than the one against marriage equality which started much later. Get in quick before the oppostion, surely must be a better policy??

      2. @ Jock S Trap

        I can’t see an reason why there shouldnt be a pre-emptive strike

        It seems to me they are trying to seek a situation which would enable them to foster and “cure” a child of its homosexuality – not acceptable – period!

        They are entitled to their beliefs, but they should never be allowed to have vulnerable children in their care if they may try to “educate” them that homosexuality is wrong, partly because the child is technically in care of the local authority, partly because there would be no balancing argument, partly because the child is vulnerable if being fostered in any case and additional stress is undesireable and partly because that message is plainly wrong.

    2. I am a Church of England Christian and when i went to church as a child the vicar said that we are All equal in the eyes of the lord. Hmmmmm wonder when that changed then.
      PS but not been to church in 40 yrs lol.

      The petition is up and running here. also they are on facebook.

      1. Please do NOT sign this petition – please do sign a counter petition that endorses LGBT rights when it is establlshed!

        1. Paddyswurds 24 Mar 2011, 5:48pm

          @Stu i went and filled in the petition with nonsense, including fake email address

          1. Its an option lol

          2. I just filled it in with a personal message instead of an address!

          3. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 8:21am

            Erm just a though but won’t filling it is just add to their number of there campaign?

          4. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 8:24am

            Surely the info is irrelevent, its the numbers they want. You know how sneaky these people are.

          5. I think Jock S Trap may have a point which was why I havent added anything fake to the petition

          6. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 11:27am

            I don’t think the name “big screaming queen who hates bigots” could possibly add to their numbers.

          7. @Paddyswurds

            Two thoughts –

            1) It shouldnt add to their number – but some people who are striving for what they perceive to be rights can be a tad manipulative

            2) Does that mean you are a big screaming queen?

          8. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 12:58pm


            All it means to them is another number, you have in effect just signed their petition. The name is immaterial.

            I question why someone would invite that petition on here in the first place but you can count yourself in agreement with Christian Concern and against Gay Equality.

            I think proof that you clearly put mouth into gear before brain kicks in.


          9. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 3:11pm

            @ Facist bigot you know who you are…. you have no idea how the program that runs their poll works and are being abusive just for the sake of it. For all you know they need to use another program to count the e.mail adds’ and to copy them to a data base which would automatically discount them. Until you know Ita Conclusit.

        2. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 2:59pm

          @Stu lol. sadly not nowadays…maybe could have been construed as such in my teens and seafaring days… a distant but fond memory.

          1. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 3:12pm

            @ Stu…Lol…Sadly not nowadays**

          2. Gentlemen … handbags … lol

            While I do not know how the group will formulate their petition from online, I do recognise there is a danger that groups who are strident and potentially manipulative that they could include false entries.

            Whilst I understand some may make false entries out of either humerous aims or in a quasi protest, I wasn’t prepared to take that risk.

          3. Jock S. Trap 26 Mar 2011, 8:48am

            None of us should be complacent about these polls but we always fall to such ignorant idiots always willing to take the risks against the LGBT community. Those that then brandish everyone else with names and insults.

            Enough Said, I’m done with that particular creep.

    3. I think their petition is already out there, I read it some weeks back and it seemed to be making an emotional appeal rather than a factual or legal one. I’m not sure if it was the final thing but I’ll see if I can find it again.

      1. Yes, it’s up at Christian Concern, has been going for a while now.

        The Wording of the Petition:

        Recent Equalities legislation and its interpretation in the courts has led to several individuals who hold to mainstream Christian teaching being barred from different areas of public life and employment, running counter to our country’s long heritage of Freedom of Conscience, and creating a serious obstacle to the Christian community’s full and active involvement in the Big Society initiative.

        We call on the Prime Minister to act decisively to address this situation, securing the change necessary to ensure that the law provides a basis for widespread involvement in serving society whilst properly upholding the dignity of every individual, including those who seek to live with integrity to Christian conscience and teaching.

        1. and yet they ignore the dignity of the people they seek to oppress and hurt with their evil cherry-picked hypocrisy

      2. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 8:26am

        Thats the whole problem, they base all their campaign on emotion because there is no fact to religion, just hearsay.

        1. @Jock S Trap

          The problem with religion (and other things – but particularly so with religion) is that it isn’t black and white. There are some “facts”. Some of the information that is in the Bible can be historically verified as accurate – not all of it. There is evidence to support some of the claims of some religions, but most of it circumstantial and not providing a complete and full picture. I guess, those of faith would argue thats where faith comes in.

          Equally, those who do not believe or who feel marginalized by faith or who have had bad personal experiences linked to religion seek irrefutable evidence and the lack of it is seen as “proof” that religion is fantasy and not based on solid verifiable evidence. However, the historical and other circumstantial evidence is often swept away by these critics as coincidental. That can be seen as hurtful by some of faith where they have experiential evidence (which to them is clear and certain but to those outside the emotion of..

          1. … those experiences is an emotional event which, at best, does not clearly demonstrate any factual component of the foundations of the religion).

            If a person does not accept the validity of religion, whether that be because their evaluation of the evidence leads them to draw the conclusion that there is no evidence to support the claims of that religion or if it is due to personal experiences which caused them distress or to doubt the claims of the religion – then any gap in evidence (however big or small that is perceived) will not be bridged by having to make a leap of faith.

            Equally, where a persons belief is due to having that faith (whether due to actual experience or from their being able to make the “leap of faith” that religion demands) then it is going to be difficult to communicate that ability to bridge the gap of evidence in a plausible and factual manner.

            We end up with a dichotomy where those of faith contend that there is evidence because their experience or …

          2. ability to make that leap of faith informs their belief and they fervently and honestly believe demonstrates the “reality” of their faith. However, those outside that faith (and some inside) are equally certain that there is no such evidence because the facts do not add up to the result that those of faith fervently believe in.

            All of those involved in this process – those of faith, those without faith and those somewhere in the middle are all entitled to their rights. Unfortunately some people in all these groups claim rights that are not actual rights. For example, the apparent willingness to indoctrinate a foster child is not justifiable. Some actions of Muslims against the LGBT communities are wrong. Equally some actions by LGBT communities against faith groups is wrong. What we need is balance.

          3. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 11:29am

            I’m sorry but most religious texts, the Bible, the Koran is made up by over inflated male egos who feel they have the right to tell man who they can discriminate, even kill, which tends to be everything, Women, Gay people… everything except themselves.

          4. @Jock S Trap

            There certainly are elements of Old Testament Bible, New Testament Bible and the Koran which I perceive as being discriminatory and suggestive that married straight men are superior in some way to others.

            My discussion was in no way meant to appear to justify any of that. If thats how it came across, then I apologise.

            I was merely trying to say that there will always be a level of conflict between those of faith, and those not having faith because of the evidential gap and the fact that faith often requires belief rather than evidence.

            I don’t share the views of the faiths, but I am pragmatic in recognising that achieving parity in rights is complex and difficult because of the difference in how evidence is perceived by those with and without faith

          5. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 11:47am

            @ Stu….My main problem with religion though, is not that while there may be some valuabe lessons to be learned from the bible as any other fictional book, is that those who adhere to religion insist that it, bad and good bits,it is somehow sanctioned by a non existant entity, even deity. If they were to say this book is what we believe in because we think it has merits we can live by then fine so long as they dont expect me to believe or live by it.
            I am not familiar with any of the Abrahamic fiction or indeed the books of any religion or cult other than the bits being used by adhereants to vilify my existance and would appreciate if you could reference some, rather than vaguely implying from time to time that there parts that can be historically “verified” or proven. What can, to my mind be verified, is that for the most part they were compiled from oral traditions of illiterate uneducated tribsmen wandering the Egyptian and Paleitinian deserts 4 or 5 thousand years ago……

        2. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 11:48am

          ….bear no relevance for modern humanity.
          Please elucidate…..

          1. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 11:57am

            …i really must remember to get new batteries for my keyboard,….. Sorry about all the typos and hope you will recognise them as such….

          2. @Paddyswurds

            I will dig out some of the historical accuracies that I accept and post them shortly. I never remember things like this from the top of my head.
            Whether it is fact or fiction, I certainly cant prove. If you can provide evidence that demonstrates it is fiction – fire away …
            Its interesting that these subjects ensure that there are extremely strident views on both sides of the arguments. I find myself trying to maintain balance but getting frustrated by the lack of willingness of people on both sides of the argument to have open minds. There are lots of negatives about some Christians and also about those who ridicule them.
            Regardless of whether the Bible or other religious text is factual or not, there are some positive messages (not all) within them

          3. @Paddyswurds

            My friend who is a theologian – but not a follower of any faith – so I have some empathy with things he says are accurate would be able to explain far better than myself about such things. I have dropped him an email and asked him if he can recommend a particular document/book in this regard

  3. I too am bored of hearing about them.

    They didnt meet the grade for being foster carers – get over it!

  4. Charles Gormley 24 Mar 2011, 2:04pm

    I love their ‘conscience’ get out for Christians and religious people. Why not also a conscience get out for racists, and religious bigots, actually, lets just undermine the whole point o the equality laws by saying ‘my conscience wont let me do this and therefore i should be excused from these laws.

    1. There clearly are some issues of conscience e.g. conscientious objectors in the armed forces …

      However, in terms of human rights and treating people equally I fail to see how we can have issues of conscience.

      Equally, no one has a right to be a foster parent. They are entitled to their beliefs – and no one is denying them that. They are wrong, in many peoples views, but they are entitled to their thoughts.

      Also, not all Christians thankfully have this view

      1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 8:28am

        The Christians who don’t, indeed all religious people that don’t, agree with extremist views need to somehow make themselves heard, only then will they be seen for standing up to the Bigots.

        1. There is some truth in that

          There is also some evidence of more liberal people of faiths trying to stand up to the extreme views of some of the more bigotted individuals/groups

          But as you say in a different part of this debate “you know what these people are like” – I suspect, it is as difficult for liberal Chistians to fight this sort of issue as it is for those of no faith

  5. “turn the child”

    This is what they try to do. luckily I was such a belligerent little fcuker no on tried that sh*t with me

    1. Scary prospect … the idea of voodoo or other spiritual nonsense to turn the child

      or did I mean trying the nonsense on you lol

      1. lol I was a called a handful from an early age

        1. In some ways that could be a good thing – challenging

  6. Not this perverse couple again, i suppose thay have the support of david bloody starkey.

    1. Can you believe that attention seeking old queen; he even dragged his poor late mother into it.

    2. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 8:30am

      I truely believe the next bill through parliament should be a ban on forcing children into any religion.

      What the bigot sparks fly then!!

      1. @Jock S Trap

        Whilst I have no doubt that if proposals of that nature were brought into effect they would cause sparks to fly and cause an interesting and lively debate, I actually think it might be a useful tool to both sides of the debate – those of faith and those not of faith – to clarify the issue. I would suggest two things though, firstly we need great care in how you define “forcing” because there will be genuinely children/young people including some in the care of foster parents etc. who are genuinely curious of faith issues and they should be entitled to explore their curiosity. Some people seeing foster parents supporting young people in this exploration could pedantically suggest this was more subversive that support – so care to protect both the young people and genuine foster parents would be necessary. Secondly, I dont think we should isolate this to children – but include vulnerable adults and how faith is communicated but not limiting freedom of speech

        1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 11:33am

          I strongly believe that all information religious or not should be made available and only when a child is ready, 14 – 16 can they then make That lifestyle choice but solely for themselves.

          1. @Jock S Trap

            Firstly, what do you mean *all* information religious or not should be made available and only when a child is ready, 14 -16 … I think I can guess what you mean, but it appears that you are suggesting that no information on anything can be given to a child until 14-16, thats bizarre – but not what I think you mean …

            I could not agree with you on that. Part of universal human rights is the freedom of religion. If it became illegal to share information about faith with anyone younger than this it would limit the freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It would also block those inquisitive children from being given (hopefully balanced) information that allows them to explore their thoughts.

            If such a ban were to be brought in place it would be almost the equivalent of a section 28 on religion – and that, in my view, could never be right.

            Yes, we need to protect children – but not by damaging freedoms

          2. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 1:05pm

            Not at all Stu.

            I mean all information on All religions or atheist or whatever is made available for children to read but only when a child is ready to make their own choice at 14 – 16 or more years old. If they wish to read it at all.

            No religion should be forced on any child or anyone for that fact. Personal belief is just that, personal. It does not belong to anyone else. We can teach right from wrong and morals but that doesn’t need to come from religion that comes from common sense.

            No-one is suggesting isolating children, no in fact quite the opposite. It is giving children and young adults the freedom to choose and make up their own minds, with prejudice and discrimination.

          3. @Jock S Trap

            I think your suggestion about withholding information regarding any faith (or atheism etc) until they are 14-16 is unworkable

            Whilst I can see the motivation may be the best interests of those children and young people – by ensuring that active decisions are only taken when they are confident and capable of reaching measured decisions.

            I kind of have a similar (but different) view – for example I think that where families have a “tradition” of attending church etc they should not christen infants or young children but leave that until the children are in a position to reach a decision for themselves That said, I do think that effectively barring young people from information about faith is a religious version of Section 28 and damaging to freedom of religion and freedom on expression.

          4. Jock S. Trap 26 Mar 2011, 4:46pm


            Your doing the classic not reading comment properly!

            Where have I suggested withdrawing information? I have NEVER even suggested withdrawing information, where the fcuk have you got that from? I HAVE said quite the opposite.

            Your reply makes no sense what so ever, you’ve made it up but why I really don’t know!

          5. Jock S. Trap 26 Mar 2011, 4:51pm

            To put into simple speak I have:-

            1) Suggested ALL that’s ALL information is made available so that

            2) When they are ready to make such a decision, at whatever age IT IS ONLY THEIRS TO MAKE. It cannot be forced, It has to be from each individual.

            You can bleat on about being ‘unworkable’, ‘isolating’, ‘withholding’ but I HAVE NEVER suggested anything of the sort, only YOU have.

          6. @Jock S Trap

            What you have said there makes a lot more sense than what I perceived in your previous message.

            It wasnt clear to me what you meant. I should have asked for clarification but came up with a view of what I thought you meant – and it seems I was was wrong – I apologise.

            I did try and clarify it in my first message when I said it appeared that you were suggesting no information be given – but thats where I went wrong …

            Fully endorse all children being able to access information from all viewpoints on issues of faith etc and be able to reach their own conclusion to that when they are ready.

            I was “bleating” as you say because I thought you were trying to prevent access to information … that seemed odd to me, as although we disagree on some things you generally seem fair on most things

        2. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 12:01pm

          @ Stu … Didn’t communism try this tactic. Unfortunately it didn’t work.

          1. @Paddyswurds

            Not sure exactly what Communists did to be honest. I do know they tried to clamp down on and suppress religion – the outcome of it was to promote the growth of both the Russian orthodox church and evangelical groups where Christian churches are concerned

          2. Jock S. Trap 27 Mar 2011, 5:56am

            hmmmm, you should put them specs on dear! ;)

          3. Specs?

            Its factually true that churches grew under communicsm and still are in China

  7. The UK is on a very positive path at the moment with current equality legislation. Hopefully people who are trying to drag it back to accepting discrimination if religiously motivated will not succeed.

    I think it’s important that we remain vigilant and do not become complacent with the rights we currently enjoy because those who are trying to erase them are certainly not resting.

  8. Jock S. Trap 24 Mar 2011, 2:10pm

    Derby council have every right to defend the foster ban. Those two were completely unsuitable to be parents. They would have forced religion on any child they had with in itself is just wrong.

    These two people seem to forget the many Christian parents that do get accepted so to single these out just shows up there discrimination.

    1. @Jock S Trap


      I have no problem in a child being placed with Christian foster parents if they understand and comply with the requirements that are expected of them, including those of balance and equality.

      Equally, I have no problems if a child is inquisitive about a foster parents faith in them answering questions – as long as they recommend a balancing view point.

      I suspect this couple would have relished an inquisitive child and not been able to suggest an alternative balancing viewpoint – but would have been so triumphant if they had turned a gay child.

      Wrong wrong wrong

      I appreciate I am displaying some of the prejudices that I usually condemn, but in this case there is evidence of what they thought was acceptable

  9. Arrogant bastards assuming their “conscience” is more important than a foster child’s needs. The foster care standards were designed with a view to the best care of ANY child/EVERY child, including the gay ones and including the ones that the council does not want to be trained in to being hateful homophobic scum.

    1. Connor Wallace 24 Mar 2011, 2:43pm

      Exactly! If a gay child had been placed with them, it would have been seriously messed up. No one should have the right to be a bigot.

      1. @Connor

        A gay child placed with them could have been badly damaged

        When I was in the police we had a view that we could not stop someone holding a viewpoint, but we could tell them they could not promote intolerance in the workplace and they had to be tolerant at all times at work – kind of a policy saying that we can’t stop you thinking what we think are bad things, but we can stop you either acting on them or persuading others to believe them – and I think that applies to all bigotry or should do … any prejudice or hatred towards any minority should be condemned and assertively dealth with

    2. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 8:34am

      I don’t know if anyone show The One Show, I think last week? Which feature this couple. At first I was disgusted that yet again the BBC showed a lack of debate but in the end the couple showed themselves up when they said no-one, not even a child was/is more important to them than their religion.

      Then they wonder why they are not suitable parents.

      1. @ Jock S Trap

        I didnt see the start of the feature on The One Show, so perhaps thats why I didn’t feel any sense of disgust in the journalistic approach. However, the bit that I did see – made me consider that the editors had decided that the issue didnt need a Paxman style approach to questioning (maybe because they felt the couple would expose their extreme views without any need for challenging interviewing, maybe because they were worried aggressive interviewing would cause the couple to gain support or cause the BBC to get complaints – maybe a combination). Regardless, they certainly demonstrated a lack of understanding of the key responsibility of putting the child first.

  10. Paddyswurds 24 Mar 2011, 2:22pm

    *Instead, they are pushing for a review of equality laws and are asking MPs *to sign an ‘Equalities and Conscience Petition’ which calls on prime minister David Cameron to ensure that laws allow Christians to act on their consciences.**
    Their solicitor knows full well that he would be in danger of being struck off if he tried to appeal, given what the Good Judges had to say about him so this is another way he can extract more money from these two deluded idiots. Does anyone seriously believe that the Prime Minister is going to make an order declaring that xtians or any religion will be able to opt out of the law just because they don’t like it .These people are seriously deluded and it is obvious they weren’t brought up in a country that respect rights and democracy. Send them back to Jamaica where the can be as bigoted as they please.

  11. I think the decision was right to reject them but this idea of laws to excuse some bigoted christians or other religious homophobes from laws is stupid, they are cherry-picking scum and their holy book is nonsensical
    Also – Charles Gormley is right, if they are allowed a get out to be homophobic then why not allow racists and others the same clause?

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 8:36am

      True. What these vile people and the Christian Institue seem to be deliberately missing is the number of Christian foster parent that DO get accepted.

      1. This is very true – they seem to not understand that there are some Christians who understand the need for balance and therefore are accepted as foster parents …

  12. Majestic republic 24 Mar 2011, 2:27pm

    These people were turned down because of homophobia not christianity. We need to write to MPs to support defamation and hatred towards gay people.

    1. Just to clarify, because I don’t think you meant what I perceived as I read your post ….

      If people were turned down as potential foster parents because they are homophobic – surely that is good ….

  13. Majestic republic 24 Mar 2011, 2:28pm

    Ooops … to support MPs in their efforts … againts hatred towards gaypeople sorry!!!

  14. These people are foster carers – taking care of OTHER PEOPLE’S children – NOT their own. They have absolutely no right to foist their religious views on children in their care. Derby City Council needs to know that their actions are supported by the community.

  15. It won’t work. Anyone with their views taking government money for foster care must be subject to the law. I doubt if there will be any conscience clause approved. Nobody should be above the law, least of all religious nutters, whether they like it or not.. People like this are always playing the victim card. We live in a secular state, not a f_____g theocracy. Why don’t they just piss off back to Jamaica if they don’t like our laws. Nobody asked them to come here.

  16. Just look at Oranges Are Not The Only Fruit to see what sort of miserable childhood they would offer a child. Trying to turn it would probably include exorcisms etc. and that really amounts to child abuse.

      1. @James!

        It’s an old and disturbing story, James

        For me what is as worrying (can’t find the web story – sorry) is a story over the last week or two about a pastor from an evangelical African church (I think in SE London) who was bringing over youngish children from Tanzania to act as servants …

        Whilst I know not all Christians act in this way – there is a case for condemning some particularly as some of those who carry out awful things are often the most vocal at condemning LGBT people as sinful

  17. Equalities & Conscience, eh? Isn’t it these kinds of loopholes that allow the Westboro Baptist Church in the US to carry on spouting their disgusting, ill founded and harmful twaddle. Free Speech and Conscience can not be allowed to trump equality and basic human rights. The Johns would do well to remember that this ruling is nothing to do with personal belief or a clash between homosexuality and faith. It is simply a case that reinforces the importance of following perfectly reasonable legislation in the delivery of public services.

  18. I do wish these so-called Christians would stop bleating about their perceived ‘persecution’ …. maybe they should use their energy to follow the instruction of no less a personage than Jesus Christ himself … “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s …….” – in other words OBEY THE LAW OF THE LAND, WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIKE IT!!!!

  19. Wah wah waaaaaaaahhh! Couldn’t have happened to a nicer pair of bigots.

  20. Cameron wont back down. The law is one thing, religion another. Religion is a personal belief and a personal choice. Being homosexual isn’t. Many Christians from the West Indies etc have a simplisitic attitude to religion and live. Some mean well but sadly they dont realise the stress caused by making a child feel guilty and unhappy about being gay.

  21. Any counter petition we put together must stick, coldly and in a detached manner, to the reasons why the law is what it is. It must not attack Christians or religious people generally, and should re-iterate the impartial analysis of the position as stated in the judgment of the court. It needs to make clear that everyone is entitled to hold an opinion and follow a creed if they choose, but that freedom to do so must not interfere with the rights of other people to exist and be respected irrespective of their inherent, unchosen, unchangeable characteristics. A child therefore must be protected from any carer (under state sanctioned supervision) who by their own admission is unable, for any reason including their religion, to respect those rights whether of the child itself or of people generally.

    I believe that we have to come across as the rational, progressive, tolerant, side of this debate in order to highlight the irrationality and unreasonableness of the other side.

  22. It seriously hacks me off that ANY adult presumes to take on the religious ‘guidance’ of children.It is little more than brainwashing.This ‘foster’ couple were clearly gagging to get their hands on some unsuspecting naive child so they could plant the seeds of religious bigotry & intolerance.They should never be allowed anywhere near kids.An individual needs to be able to decide about such issues when he/she is able to do so freely,not from the drip,drip,drip feed of so-called christians.

  23. Why should the Council even have to defend their decision? This misguided couple refused to comply with National Standards for Fostering.

    Would we ever read “Anywhere Council defends its decision to turn down racists as foster-carers”? No. I’m sick of all the sympathy on sites like the Daily Wail for religious homophobes when they wouldn’t dream of supporting religious racists.

    1. @Iris – Whilst I totally agree with you, I do think the council should be applauded both for standing firm and taking it as far as they did legally and for being willing to stand up to the request to defend their decision publically – and did so on camera, particularly when there was a backlash from a number of leading clerics and personalities. They made the right decision and they should be congratulated.

      1. Stu, I wasn’t having a go at the coucil and I hope I didn’t come across that way. :s I completely agree with your praise of them and the fact that they’ve acted so calmly and patiently. I just find it sad that they have to ‘defend’ what is clearly a logical, commonsense, and considered decision simply because the John happen to be Christians.

        1. Iris, no you didnt come across as though you were criticizing the council. I just wanted to both endorse what you said and for once praise a local authority – not something I am in the habit of doing, but this was an example of excellent practice.

          1. Thanks, Stu – and agreed.

  24. Christian Concern have had a petition up on their site for some weeks now.

    The Wording of the Petition:

    Recent Equalities legislation and its interpretation in the courts has led to several individuals who hold to mainstream Christian teaching being barred from different areas of public life and employment, running counter to our country’s long heritage of Freedom of Conscience, and creating a serious obstacle to the Christian community’s full and active involvement in the Big Society initiative.

    We call on the Prime Minister to act decisively to address this situation, securing the change necessary to ensure that the law provides a basis for widespread involvement in serving society whilst properly upholding the dignity of every individual, including those who seek to live with integrity to Christian conscience and teaching.

  25. I’m getting annoyed, not just with these bigots but by Pink News for calling them Christians. They are not Christians. They are nasty little bigots who are trying to legitimise their bigotry by cherry-picking a few words from The Bible that appear to support their bigotted views – and conveniently ignoring anything that doesn’t match their biggoted views.

    I think that any counter petition that is organised should emphasis the positive love of all mankind from all true Christians and emphasises that these people just cannot, really cannot be called Christians.

    1. unfortunately what you describe is what many christians do

    2. @David

      I empathize with your point but there are many types of “Christian” ranging from extremists like this grouping or worse the WBC, through a whole range of interpretations to nominal Christians.

      Many are decent and honourable people. Unfortunately not all.

  26. Pavlos, that statement falls flat on its face. “Upholding the dignity of every individual” is not what these people are doing. In fact they are invalidating a child’s dignity by trying to “turn him” straight or by denigrating homosexuality if the child happens to be gay. This does immense damage to the psyche of a child in that environment. Clearly, the court saw fit that this couple was totally unfit. How arrogant to impose a religious belief system on a child that isn’t biologically theirs. These people should be barred for life.

    1. Christian Concern have this posted under Sexual Orientation
      “Sexual orientation is being given increasing protection under equality legislation. Unfortunately this has led to serious consequences for Christians. Although both religious belief and homosexuality are protected in some ways under equality law, these two strands are often incompatible with one another. We believe that the law is unbalanced in this area, first within the legislation and then worsened in judicial interpretation, favouring the protection of sexual orientation over the protection of religious belief. This has led to Christians losing their jobs after refusing to compromise their beliefs at work, and Christians being stopped from fostering children. At Christian Concern we stand for freedom of conscience and resist legislation that would restrict historic Christian freedoms.”

      Individuals have human rights, religions don’t. Holding religious belief is protected but the manifestation of belief may be restricted.

      1. What I wanted to add was that the Johns are free to and have the right to hold their religious beliefs however they are not free to impose those belief upon others which is something they and other religious folk still don’t seem willing to accept or understand.

        1. Absolutely, they are entitled to hold their beliefs …

          They are not entitled to impose those beliefs on anyone – particularly on a vulnerable child whom, if they became foster parents, they would be caring for on behalf of the state

        1. Always a good idea to keep an eye on what these Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians are up to, no matter how misguided they are.

        2. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 2:26pm

          Trouble is John we already have idiots who have signed it not realising all they are doing is adding to their number they want.

  27. Maybe they were going to change the childs sexuality by sacrificing a goat while speaking in tongues?

    1. That is precisely where the complete freedom to manifest ones beliefs would lead us.

  28. I want to shake these christians (oh yes we can call them that) and ask them why they want to spend money to fight for the right to be a bigoted scumbag when they could donate the same amount of money for immunisations, or clean water projects, or any number of causes that would save lives. You know, the sort of things that Jesus talked about – helping others less fortunate and stuff….

    But nooooooooo let’s waste time and money trying to slap around the queer folks, and then get all uppity when we lose.


  29. So in other words, they’re now pushing a law that puts “Christian rights” above all other basic human rights? Allowing Christians to be above every other human citizen in this country, allowing them to do exactly what they like regardless of the consequences because “their conscience said so”? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. That’s like allowing someone to murder because the voice in their head told them to. There’s no way that law will get approved, at least in this country.

    1. but religion is respected more so non-proven voices is accepted – look at how much influence religion still has for example

  30. Guglielmo Marinaro 24 Mar 2011, 5:46pm

    Trying to alter a young person’s natural sexuality to make it fit a heterosexist paradigm is a form of emotional, psychological and spiritual abuse. Such tampering cannot be condoned.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 24 Mar 2011, 6:07pm

      I most wholeheartedly agree………

      1. There are cases of criminal charges being brought for child abuse in the UK criminal courts which relate to spiritual abuse. Clearly this couple had not engaged in such an activity (that we know of) but they expressed views which caused the local authority sufficient concern that they had to act to prevent them access to foster children where they could carry out such abuse. I have no doubt they may have been friendly, caring, supportive, and physically looked after a child appropriately – but in terms of the spiritual content and balance of the relationship, I have concerns that it could have been (for what they see as the best of motives) very damaging for the child.

    2. “Trying to alter a young person’s natural sexuality to make it fit a heterosexist paradigm is a form of emotional, psychological and spiritual abuse. Such tampering cannot be condoned.”

      I could not agree more!!!

  31. Notice how quiet the C of E cult is, among others, in all this? I’m just waiting for bigot in arms Rowan Williams come out in their defence. The Roman cult will undoubtedly support them.

    1. I think the previous Anglican Archbishop Lord Carey of Clifton has been pretty active promoting the ridiculous idea that Christians are being discriminated against because they are no longer permitted to discriminate in the workplace nor when providing goods and services..

      1. …which just shows the complete hypocrisy of their position.

      2. Yes, he really is a plonker. I don’t think he ever got over Peter Tatchell climbing up in to the pulpit to harangue him one Easter.

    2. Neither the Archbishop of Canterbury or York have made a comment but the Bishop of Winchester and former Bishop of Richmond and Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury have all spoken out in favour of the couple …

      1. I suppose it is too risky for them to be rebuked in public by the prime minister, for example.

        1. I guess the PM would be unlikely to rebuke …

          But I think Cameron would be happy to say he profoundly disagreed …

  32. It’s so sad, I am sure they didn’t mean any harm, but the protection of children must be at the heart of legislation.

  33. Re petition.

    ‘Many people have been deeply shocked by the treatment of Christian foster carers Owen and Eunice Johns….’

    The truth is many people couldn’t give a jot about the Johns.

  34. Paddyswurds 24 Mar 2011, 9:41pm

    I wonder what it feels like to be two of the most hated people on the planet.

    1. As much as they are disliked … try competing against Mugabe, Gadaffi, Sarah Palin, leader of WBC …

      Small fry this couple really …

    2. I don’t think the Johns are hated Paddyswurds , certainly I don’t hate them anyway,

      I do think of the Johns and their supporters as deeply misguided and arrogant in that they expect special privileged treatment to behave unreasonably and to impose their homophobic beliefs on others… simply because they claim they are Christians, as though being Christian places them above the law.

      The recent experience the Johns have been through doesn’t seem to have caused them or their supporters any pause for reflection that their attitude might indeed be wrong, I think they pretend they see nothing wrong with imposing their beliefs upon others because it’s yet another fiction that suits them.

      1. they have god on their side so they can do no wrong (they think) but reality shows otherwise plus their god is a cherry-picked creation that suits their own evil agenda

      2. Excellent reply! I don’t hate the Johns either. I feel sorry for them and wish they’d open their eyes and realise that gay people aren’t a threat. I also wish they’d spend a few minutes imagining what other people’s ‘consciences’ might tell them to do and what bits of the Bible those people could quote to ‘prove’ they should be allowed to act in that way. I want to shout at them “Stop and THINK!”

      3. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 12:07pm

        @Pavlos……Agreed …Perhaps the word hated was a little over emotional. Deeply disliked may be more suitalbe on reflection, in as much as they are certainly misguided and to a large extent being manipulated by others with a wider agenda.

    3. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 8:43am


      You bloody hypocrite… again.

      Now if someone had ‘dared’ to say that on a thread about a Muslim couple you would have been on the hysteria side of loony.

      Talk about pick and choose.

      1. I have to say I agree

        They are disliked for their stance

        Hatred is strong … Doubt many balanced people hate them

        1. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 12:18pm

          @ Stu & others……….why anyone would construe that their religion somehow colors my opinion of the Johns beggars belief. If they were Muslim or Shinto and wanted to change the law to suit their beliefs and allow them to vilify me would not make me think “oh they aren’t xtian so thats all right then” Clearly an ingroant response which bears no response to reality.Just because i am not an islamophobic or right wing facist racist like some on this thread hardly warrants your response. When it becomes necessary for a council to bar a Muslin or Hindu from fostering and they claim to be above the law i will comment appropriately. In this case the Johns just happen to be xtian.

          1. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 12:21pm

            …errata * clearly a response which bears no resembalance to reality……**

          2. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 1:07pm

            You are your own worst enemy and a bloody hypocrite and quite possibly a danger to yourself.

          3. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 1:30pm

            …thats rich coming form a racist facist EDL supporter like you …As usual no valid comment just abuse.
            Abuse, the last refuge of the ignorant.

          4. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 2:29pm

            And yet your the one making false claims… i have NEVER said I support the EDL.

            You can’t help being a hypocrite, it’s just you. Point is someone else had made that same comment you would have lynched them for it.

            Your nothing but a joke. (And not a particularly funny one at that.)

          5. Paddyswurds 25 Mar 2011, 3:19pm

            I detect the awful stench of a facist racist in the air…i wonder why??

          6. @Paddyswurds

            I personally have not accused you of being bigoted. I do think that sometimes you are a little over emotional in your language that you use with reference to the Catholic church in particular, and have commented on that sufficiently elsewhere. That can come across as being prejudiced in itself. No one has suggested that what the Johns sought was right. Indeed Derby council was right in its decisions and actions to prevent them from being foster parents. You, yourself accepted that the use of the word hated was emotional (and I would suggest harsh). I have not seen anything that would make me suggest you are Islamophobic. Equally, I believe that if the Johns were of a different faith and acted in a similar manner you would also condemn it. I think you reflected on your use of the word hate and acknowledged it wasn’t the best choice of word.

          7. @Paddyswurds

            I may be wrong but as much as I perceive you have strong feelings against the Christian church I also perceive Jock S Trap has strong feelings about Muslims. I also perceive that both of you have good reasons to challenge some people from both faith groups about their conduct. I do not see either of you as bigots (although I may be wrong …) but that is based on the evidence of the encounters I have had so far debating with you both

          8. english words 25 Mar 2011, 11:58pm

            @Stu…..While it would seem that i have a problem with the Catholic church in particular, that only stems from my upbringing in that faith and the utter revulison at what has emerged about some of the clergy of that church in the last ten years. Also the utter refusal of the former pope John Paul 2 and the current ex Naz! Ratzinger to cooperate with the authorities in Ireland in relation to the investigations of the abuse and rape of children by clergy for more than 60 years.
            However while i have not been presented with opportunity to criticise other faiths on these pages, that doesn’t mean that i am in any way more sympathetic to other Abrahamic faiths or indeed religionsof any hue. It just so happens that so far all of the stories to which i have had the opportunity to comment, have been of the christian variety.
            I do however have a problem with the way some on these pages have used a particular faith as a cover for bald racism and that i will not stand for. I haven’t complained

          9. english words 26 Mar 2011, 12:17am

            …of being accused of Islamophobia but of being accused of being Islamofacist .I have however accused others on these threads of being rabidly Islamophobic and i dont think that can be reasonably challenged , but i refute the charge vehemently that i am Islamofacist. I am however rabidly anti racist and as i said before I think Islam is being used as a cover for racism toward Asians in particular.
            While i am anti religion in general, i do respect anyones right to have Religious faith. This respect though will not in any way diminish my conviction that all religion is a human construct and serves mankind no useful purpose. and indeed has served as a hinderance in many ways as is evidenced by the anti progress under Islam, for females in particular. Religion has been the catalyst for conflict for millenia as evidenced by the religious conflicts as far back as the Egyptian Pharohs.
            My own experience of religious conflict in Ireland have helped shape my reticence toward religion.

          10. Paddyswurds 26 Mar 2011, 12:20am

            @ stu I just noticed my tag . My partner is english words ..I am of course Paddyswurds. Apologies for any confusion..

          11. Jock S. Trap 26 Mar 2011, 9:26am

            I have strong feelings against any religious whose usual best effect is to degrade, belittle and discriminate against us. Mine, and many others language is equal to all not one or the other that Paddys so easily chooses. Just as I have strong feelings toward Christian Homophobia I Equally have the same feelings for Muslim Homophobia.

            Unlike some idiots I am not two faced about it, I show it to all that treat us with hate. Unlike some idiots I do not make unfavourable comments about Christianity with borderline racist overtones Then go all out to defend those who create Muslim Homophobia branding all that comment against it as facists.

            Then what do you expect from nothing more than an uneducated immature simpleton.

            Enough. I take the blame for falling into Paddys… pathetic rhetoric when others had advised me against it. Equality I have taken that creep to task as well as praised when he occasionally made some sense but clearly the idiot has no grasp of reality or debate. Done!

          12. jock s trap

            Dude are you for real. Can you even read. Uneducated immature simpleton, really. The man makes you look like a 5 year old.

          13. @ english words

            I agree that there are very good reasons to be reticent and more about various faiths – Catholic, Muslim and otherwise.

            I also agree that some racists appear to use Islam as a tool to enable the condemnation of all Asians.

            I think both of these situations do lend themselves to manipulation whereby the right criticism of any faith is then used as a label to apply to all members of that faith- that is prejudiced in itself.

            Good to hear someone who is anti religious to an extent having the honour to say that they recognise the right of people to hold religious beliefs.

          14. Paddyswurds 26 Mar 2011, 2:18pm

            @Stu …I take it you did realise it was Paddyswurds under the tag english words. I didnt notice my partner had changed to his tag while replying to another thread. My apologies for any confusion.
            Thank you for your measured relply though.

          15. Paddyswurds 26 Mar 2011, 2:19pm

            @jonniek I am very capable of fighting my own battles, but thanks for your support anyway.

        2. @Jock I said I did not see you as a bigot …

          1. Jock S. Trap 26 Mar 2011, 1:43pm


            I wasn’t responding to the not seeing me as a bigot I was responding to your comment:-

            “I may be wrong but as much as I perceive you have strong feelings against the Christian church I also perceive Jock S Trap has strong feelings about Muslims.”

            One think I’ve never been accused of it being Two faced, I tend to tell people what I think to their faces, as it is, there’s no point otherwise. :)

          2. Jock S. Trap 26 Mar 2011, 4:53pm


            You ain’t worthy!

          3. @Jock

            I did notice that you had made strong comments on a couple of threads about Muslims. I also noticed you had made points about Christians. I perceived that you were balanced

            I felt Paddyswurds was used inflammatory words about the Catholic church that didnt lend credence to his arguments. Thats why I challenged him.

            You were criticised by others for your comments on Muslims, my intention was to agree you had made some strident comments about Muslims but to say that I did not feel you were a bigot – I now accept I should have elucidated further and stated that I saw your comments as balanced.

            I did not mean to accuse you of being two faced.

            I do feel uncomfortable with some of your comments but we hold different opinions and that makes life interesting


  35. Pretty unbalanced BBC programme. Thank goodness for C4 News.

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 8:44am

      Channel Four New? you gotta be kidding. They are nothing more than Labour stooges. Mind you the BBC and ITV news are just as bad.

      1. @Jock S Trap

        A bit off topic but it seems to me that many people who accuse C4 News of pro Labour bias have only really dont this since Labour were back in opposition. They were remarkably consistent in their attack on Labour when they were in power, so I don’t see challenging the current govt demonstrates journalistic bias

        1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 11:36am

          Actually I thought it when they were in power and after!

          1. @Jock S Trap

            Consistent at least. (Both you and C4 News).

            There has been an increase in accusations about C4 being biased in favour of Labour, since the coalition came into power.

          2. @Jock S Trap

            Well, both consistent at least. (Both you and C4 News).

            There has been an increase in accusations about C4 being biased in favour of Labour, since the coalition government came into power.

            It would be interesting to have an apolitical body study C4 News, Newsnight, BBC News channel, Sky News, ITV News, Radio 5Live , LBC etc over a period of 2-3 weeks, all of their broadcasts with a similar rational set of criteria and identify potential bias – who is supported and who not. I suspect the outcome would be different to what many of us believe, unfortunately it would be subjective but if the same rationale was applied to every broadcast then it might be credible.

  36. “to ensure that laws allow Christians to act on their consciences.”

    Oh, what a good ides. Basically do what you want, because the voices tell you what to do…. that’s intelligent. John Wayne Gacy comes to mind here.

    Right, I’m off to buy a can of petrol and a box of matches…. where’s that Skinner cretin again?

    1. What we have presently is a good and fair law ensuring that Christians act on their consciences only within the law.
      That the present law is effective and appears to be working is what upsets the Christian extremists so much.

      1. Agreed. To want the right to discriminate and to act as one believes is contrary to ALL laws.

        1. Indeed – they want special rights for Christians to place them above everyone else. They’re aiming to have Christianity marked out as ‘special’ – yet they complian WE are trying to trump their rights.

          1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 8:46am

            Exactly and I think all they’ll get is a whole load of resentment but not just from the LGBT community.

          2. They are perfectly entitled to their rights and they are pretty adequately protected in law currently giving their rights parity with other rights

            They can call upon hatred laws just as those experiencing difficulties connect to race, orientation, disability etc can

            There are laws to promote equality including faith. There are laws to protect freedom of speech and of religion

            I do understand some issues are affecting them in ways they have not had to address previously such as the possibility of gay marriage – but whilst some clearly feel threatened by that, this is not a valid reason to seek special protection and special treatment

          3. do you mean like the ‘special rights’ that they attack others over? but what thy refer to as special rights is just equality and stuff to make people safer

          4. @chester … not quite sure I follow the question

    1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 11:43am

      One thing about that, that always make me laugh and shows Christians up for fools is this very thing that if your an Atheist you are agents of Satan. Yet is you don’t believe in God why would they think you believe in the devil?

      Lets not forget that these people need to be very sure they are in the right religion coz if you aint ya going to hell!!


      1. That claim is cos they think Satan influences people to be non-christian, you can be the most kindest charitable person in the world but it means nothing to these idiots if you aren’t christian, I used to see many of these clowns in Yahoo Answers!

        1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 2:32pm


          Yep but it’s the same with most of the religions, so I really hope peoplr are creating misery for the right one.

      2. @Jock S Trap

        I find it very interesting that some Christians are very black and white about their view as to which side of the divide other people may be on. That is, you are either “in their club” and thus going to heaven or not and therefore going to hell. Atheists will be regarded by some of those more extreme (and the particualrly vocal) Christians as being agents of Satan – I get your point that if you don’t believe in Satan then you are unlikely to be an agent of Satan – although there is a very odd view that you don’t have to believe in something to be influenced by them. Not sure how feasible that is, in part is sounds a little deranged to me ….
        Yet the same Christians have a view on evidence for faith that is often less than black and white …
        That is what makes me unhappy to take part in either club – the believing or not … there is often little transparency on either side …

        1. Jock S. Trap 25 Mar 2011, 2:34pm

          Personally I see myself above religion. It’s a far better place.

          1. lol

            floating on a cloud?

          2. Jock S. Trap 27 Mar 2011, 5:24pm

            No thanks Stu, I don’t smoke the stuff! ;)

        2. you shouldn’t apply logic and rationality to these crazies as they use neither
          evidence for many is that they have a book about it so it must be true as the bible says so

          1. when you demonstrate what evidence is to the be it legal, medical, scientific etc – then they resort to a religious text, it doesnt inspire confidence

            I get the response (from some lucid christians and others) that faith is about faith … but in order to begin to generate that faith – one presumes there is a basis of fact and truth to build it on … havent seen that yet

  37. I wish everyone would just stop calling them Christians. They are not Christians, they are showing such disrepect to the Christian faith. I am a Christian and a Homosexual. All of my Christian friends know that and whatever “problems” they may have about homosexuality, it doesn’t stop them from respecting me as a person and treating me as an equal.

    I wish these two people would just spend some time reading their Bible and try to understand it’s underlying meaning of respect and love.

    1. The meaning of the bible is respect and love? Are you for real? Do you think that because paul wrote a nice poem on love in corinthians? Perhaps you should also notice corinthians 6.9-11

      You need to stop choosing which lines you read and look at it all. Human sacrifice, rape, murder, wrath – all from your beloved god.

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 27 Mar 2011, 11:43am

      Your religion is nothing more than a plagiarized copy of the older religion of Mithra.

      Go Google it and weep at how you and billions like you have pissed your lives away on a lie.

  38. This is a link to a recent Radio 4 programme on the insufferable Bulls and Owens. Of course, Hazelmary is particularly ghastly, prone to breaking down and praying.

    The Owens are evangelical Pentecostal charismatics, but the Bulls are introduced as ‘non-denominational Christians’ which I presume means they are not affiliated to one particular church, or don’t go to church.

    (Note: What the poor husbands have had to put up with over the years with these two women doesn’t bear thinking about. I hope their children are reading this.)

    All the best.

  39. Why dont you all go to a heavy muslim area say Blackburn etc and ram your sick twisted poofery down their throats ,you would not dare so why should it be different for a married couple with christian beliefs ,there is nothing natural or normal in men sleeping with men .

    1. If its not natural or normal why are you on a gay website, Lawrence …surely, you don’t want to be tainted?

      All the unbiased scientific evidence I have seen shows sexuality is something you are born with – ergo it is natural and normal …

      However, your dogmatic views make you blinkered to the facts and determined to subjugate and persecute the LGBT communities …

    2. You should try it i bet your the 5 pints type

    3. Lawrence, why dont you all go to a college area say Oxford etc and ram your sick twisted stupidity down their throats ,you would not dare so why should it be different for a married couple with christian beliefs ,there is nothing natural or normal with stupidity.

    4. Lawrence Wrote

      “there is nothing natural or normal in men sleeping with men”

      So Lawerence, why are you “Frequenting” a “Gay” website?

  40. I see they have re-applied for fostering, is there not end to it.

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