Reader comments · UK Catholic adoption charity resumes anti-gay legal fight · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


UK Catholic adoption charity resumes anti-gay legal fight

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Keep wasting your money catholic cult.

    They will lose yet again.

    1. Spanner1960 14 Sep 2012, 10:12am

      There goes that ‘cult’ word again.

      1. That There Other David 19 Sep 2012, 3:50pm

        Nice set of palaces those Cardinals get to live in don’t you think? Surrounded by those ornamental gardens, renaissance art, servants looking after their every requirement, and all funded by contributions in life or death from the faithful in return for the promise of salvation.

        Or put it another way. If it waddles like a cult and quacks like a cult….

  2. I agree with Tevor Philips

    “”The law stops at the door of the temple as far as I’m concerned.

    “Once you start to provide public services that have to be run under public rules, for example child protection, then you have to go with public law.

    “Institutions have to make a decision whether they want to do that or they don’t want to do that, but you can’t say ‘because we decide we’re different then we need a different set of laws’.”

    Where on earth can discrimination based on sexual orientation be a proporationate basis to achieve a goal? Which MP/Lord dreamt up that line in the equalites act?

    1. There are good reasons to allow discrimination where it is “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. Imagine a child welfare charity who emploted a number of counsellors, and suppose through chance all the counsellors were straight. The charity might think that in certain situations, a gay teenager might relate better to a gay counsellor, and perhaps can provide evidence to back that belief up. This clause in the Equality Act allows the charity to advertise for a counsellor and say that a gay one would be prefered.

      I can’t imagine such situations arise frequently, and there may be good reason why the example I’ve given falls down; but if you’re writing legislation, you need to cope with the possibility that such a situation might arise.

      1. Spanner1960 14 Sep 2012, 10:20am

        I fully understand where you are coming from here, but unfortunately the law doesn’t work like that, and has to be followed to the letter to avoid any ambiguity and possible loopholes.

        A good law is designed to protect as many people as possible, however, there are always going to be situations where the case will ‘fall between two stools’ simply because no law can possibly predict every eventuality.

        One simply has to work around shortcomings in the legislation and try and get the best of a bad deal.

  3. Let them lose their funding and close down. Then, the children who require adoption will be adopted through agencies who have the welfare of the child at the forefront and place them in loving, caring and nurturing homes, irrespective of the sexuality of those wishing to adopt.

    1. I can’t remember the full details from the time before, and can.t be arsed looking them up again, but one of the problems they had the last time was that only something like 5% of their funding came from church funding and 95% from the state. If they lost their church funding they would not close down they would lose a little bit of funding.

      Another smokescreen.

      1. Spanner1960 14 Sep 2012, 10:21am

        A very interesting detail.
        I wonder if anybody can elaborate, I’m sure as a charity it’s finances must be available to the public.

  4. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Sep 2012, 1:53pm

    Religious based businesses should NOT receive public funding whatsoever. They are NOT places of worship. Let their own denominations fund them instead. Why should tax payers have to support them considering that the majority of the British public aren’t religious, don’t attend services regularly and are not overwhelmingly catholic? If the court decision rules against Catholic Care, just wait for the hysterics coming from the religious nutters, “abuse of religious freedom” will be at the forefront.

    1. Those that encourage or promote homosexuality should not be lottery or public funded, if you want to promote your faults fund it yourself.

      1. Miguel Sanchez 13 Sep 2012, 3:16pm

        Well said. Let the church use their own money and not that of the publics. If they have to close, so be it.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 13 Sep 2012, 6:25pm

          The paedophile and pederasty scandal that have shaken the roman cult to it’s foundations do not exactly put its affiliate faith-based adoption agencies in a position to discriminate against a loving, stable same-sex couple. It forfeited any right to oversee adoption services by its abominable handling of molesters, both hetero and homosexual alike, covering up their heinous crimes and denying any culpability. They’re all morally bankrupt and as such should be prohibited from being near children since the welfare thereof was never primary. Let them shut down I say.

        2. You can’t ‘promote’ something that people simply ARE, Matthew. Or are you finding all these gay voices are calling to something deep inside you….?

        3. It’s clear enough to me that it’s rather a question of respecting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

        4. Paddyswurds 19 Sep 2012, 9:32pm

          It is high time the religious cults were made to pay their taxes. If the Queen must pay so should the churches on their billions…..

      2. Well Matthew, those that encourage or promote religion should not be lottery or public funded, I’m sure you’ll agree,

      3. Spanner1960 14 Sep 2012, 10:24am

        Oh I SO agree!
        I mean homosexuals and their friends and families are not members of the general public, and would never resort to playing such common pursuits as the National Lottery, would they?

        Sanctimonious twat.

  5. I bet this group are among those who were outraged and offended that Clegg might have been going to call them bigots.

  6. i really, really, really object my tax pounds going to this organisation, in fact any religion.

    1. Spanner1960 14 Sep 2012, 10:25am

      I hate to say it, but I imagine they aren’t overly happy about funding LGBT causes either. That’s what living in a democracy is all about.

      1. Paddyswurds 14 Sep 2012, 12:25pm

        They, if you mean the Abrahamic cults, don’t pay any taxes so they fund no one except their own anti rights groups such as Christian Concern etc….

        1. Spanner1960 14 Sep 2012, 3:17pm

          The organisations may not, but everybody pays income tax, do they not? Stephanie was referring to herself as an individual, so I was applying like-for-like.

  7. Bigots.

    Go on Cleggy, deny it.

  8. If only they spent all this time they’re spending trying to wriggle their way out of the law providing care to young people instead of sexually abusing them. Religion has no place in adoption services.

  9. I would not be so sure about the dismissal of the appeal by the catholic adoption society. The RC St Margaret’s adoption society in Glasgow has been given an exemption under the Act and is able to discriminate against gay couples. The Scottish Government said at the time that it was comfortable with that exemption.

    1. Neville, you’re right about St. Margaret’s Children & Family Care Society. The Scottish government actually advised them how to use the loophole at the time, so they were more than just comfortable with the exemption. The SG wanted all catholic adoption agencies exempt from the equality law, but this was refused by Westminster seeing as it was reserved law.

      As I understand it, St. Margaret’s are NOT allowed to refuse gay people if they are working on behalf of a local council, but they ARE allowed to refuse gay people if they are approached directly by a gay person or couple.

      In the 3 years since this story was first reported, I’ve written to MSPs, MPs, MEPs and various people within the SNP about it. Some didn’t even reply. Some replied at first saying they were unaware of this situation and were shocked about it but didn’t actually do anything. Unfortunately, it looks like it’s never going to be challenged by anyone so won’t change anytime soon.

  10. Surely “Catholic Care” is an oxymoron – unless used to describe totally selfish behaviour ?

  11. If this “charity” gave a damn about what matters (i.e. children getting happy and safe homes rather than being stuck in the system) and being good Christians who love and care for their fellow man (supposedly) then the “gay issue” shouldn’t be a bloody issue to start with. Get over it and help those kids. Leave your own religious issues at the door and do your job.

  12. If god is on their side, haven’t wondered why they keep loosing, consistently.

    More toys out of the pram.

  13. Nothing better to do with their money, it seems, but to be anti-christian. I’m amassed they have any left given what they have had to pay out for the enormous levels of abuse against children they committed…. but them again, the catholic church is more obsessed with persecuting gay people, so much so they much prefer to cover up the child abuse.

  14. casparthegood 13 Sep 2012, 7:17pm

    What about kids who are gay and just happen to have the misfortune to be born into this cult? Adoption by other cult members is only going to leave them worse off? Close the sods down and leave it to neutral parties to sort out

  15. Ultimately, social conservatives have a right to freedom of conscience, but why is the Catholic Church entitled to use public money when they would deprive children of the opportunity of adoption just because it might be a same sex couple? Doesn’t this make such adoption agencies unfit for purpose?

  16. Obsessed! What gratification do they get from discriminating against a group of human beings? They don’t want everyone to be equal because then they’d lose their place lording it over everyone else.

    1. Believing that god has chosen a group or a people is a major building block of religious myths.

    2. You are right there, Iris. Domination, manipulation and control are very powerful and active elements of Satanic occultism and they are alive and well and living in the Roman Catholic Church and have been for centuries.

  17. The question should be whether or not the Catholic Church should be allowed to be involved in the care of ANY children, given their centuries long track record of abuse and cover-up which shows no regard for kids at all. Teaching any child that it is ‘fundamentally disordered’ (if he/she turns out to be gay) is nothing less than abuse, and indoctrinating other kids with the same idea is just perpetuating beliefs that lead to discrimination if not hate crimes. Neither should be legal. There can only be one reason why a religious organisation wants to get its hands on kids: to groom them to become recruits to that religion, as sure as any paedophile grooms kids for their own use. Interesting that the Catholic Church has such a long history of doing both.

  18. Roman Catholic Church’s obsessive hatred of the LGBT Community. Their hatred will destroy them.

  19. Instead of wasting money stopping gay couples from trying to give children a good home, perhaps the Catholic church should spend its money supporting those children that were sexually abused by its priests. Sickening.

  20. Spanner1960 14 Sep 2012, 10:15am

    I agree Catholic Care needs to appeal again until it’s voice is heard.

    However, it is appealing to the wrong people; instead of complaining to the Upper Tribunal, they should be appealing to the Catholic Church who are threatening to cut their funding.

    It is the Church that is out of line, not our governmental processes.

  21. Paddyswurds 14 Sep 2012, 11:21am

    The Catholic Church and its minions have a damned cheek wanting to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. The Catholic churches clerics should not be allowed within sight distance of a child under the age of sixteen. They have proved without doubt that they are a danger to children. Gay people on the contrary have proved over and over that they make even better parents than most heterosexuals. 87 % of paedophilia and incest takes place in Heterosexual family groups…. and most of those belonging to Abrahamic cults, when calling for the denial of human rights for Gay people, have at the same time called for the legalisation of some vile practices such a polygamy, incest and paedophilia. I favour bringing in stringent laws with regard to the Abrahamic cults and the care or education of children….. They are just interested in children so they can indoctrinate them firstly and then rape them! Oh and before the trolls start thumbing this, I am a recovering victim…..

    1. Spanner1960 14 Sep 2012, 3:27pm

      Some of us already know that, and you have my sympathies.
      However, does that not make you rather biased in your appraisal?

      1. Paddyswurds 14 Sep 2012, 6:24pm

        If you consider the systematic rape and sadistic abuse millions of children world wide in the last 1500 years, and the last 50 of those years proven without doubt, and the knowledge of that, biased, then colour me guilty.
        You, I’m sure are as aware of what the cult of Rome has been guilty of in living memory. It is the extent and depth in which paedophilia was ingrained in the whole edifice over the last 50 years that leads me, perhaps unscientifically, to the conclusion that it was going on almost from the start. A study of the awful burden of religious faith that mankind endures without reason you would not say that the worst words and review of these evil cults was or are biased in any way!

  22. If the verdict is to uphold the appeal, then it could be the case that there would be an appeal to the ECHR against any decision to allow discrimination against gay people. That then might remove the loophole in the law which allows St Margaret’s to discriminate against gay prospective adoptive parents.

    1. I wrote to the Scottish office of the EHRC about St. Margaret’s. They said it would need someone who St. Margaret’s turns away for being gay to take it to court – but they couldn’t say what the outcome would be, in fact a court case like that could agree that St. Margaret’s can have a legal exemption. The Scottish Government should never have assisted St. Margaret’s in the first place and you’ve got to ask why they put religious bigotry above gay equality. It is the only adoption agency left in Britain that can discriminate against gay people – not exactly something to be proud of, is it?

      1. I should add that the EHRC said they would be happy to assist anyone should they take court action against St. Margaret’s, but the EHRC itself was unable or unwilling to take such action itself.

  23. The adoption of children is a matter of vital public interest and therefore must be carried out according to strict empirically-based criteria regarding their needs and welfare. There is no evidence to suggest that l+g couples are poorer parents than others, and much to suggest the contrary. Religiously-based adoption agencies are clearly inclined to act on supernaturally-inspired prejudices and not rational considerations. No civilised society should permit this regarding the welfare of children, and so I would suggest that religious organisations should be banned from arranging adoptions. Without exception.

  24. but what exactly is their “legitmate aim” to stop gays from adopting a child, when the very purpose of their organisation is to make sure children are rehomed – there should be no discrimination against single parents, ethnicity, mixed race couples, old couples, young couples, same sex couples etc. As long as the potential parents can provide a loving and stable home what the frigg is the problem?

  25. Lady Tanya 19 Sep 2012, 6:35am

    if they lose there funding let the pope and the catholic church pay for there funding they have more money than everone let them feed the world as well

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.