European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Religion vs Sexuality again

by In Wales
Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 12:06:15 PM EST

Catholic adoption society wins exemption from using gay parents | World news | guardian.co.uk

A Catholic adoption society today won the right in the high court not to consider homosexual couples as parents.
Mr Justice Briggs, sitting in London, has allowed the society's appeal for an exemption from the sexual orientation regulations – opposed by the Charity Commission – which means the society can continue operating as it has always done.
Catholic Care, serving the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough and Hallam in South Yorkshire, warned it would give up its work of finding homes for children, as many Catholic adoption societies have already done, rather than comply with the legislation, which would have barred it from refusing to consider same sex couples.
The verdict was welcomed by the society and by the Catholic church authorities, but provoked dismay among gay rights campaigners.

Really bad news, especially given the recent debate in the House of Lords around what level of exemptions should be allowed for religious organisations - allowing them to discriminate against gay people in some areas of service provision and employment.

So a Court ruling has effectively said it is ok to overturn rule of the land to let a bunch of people keep acting on their prejudices.

Children need access to families who will care for them and love them, and excluding people who are willing to adopt, on such prejudiced grounds is appalling.

Catholic adoption society wins exemption from using gay parents | World news | guardian.co.uk

However, the judgment was condemned by the gay rights charity Stonewall. Jonathan Finney, its head of external affairs, said: "It's unthinkable that anyone engaged in delivering any kind of public or publicly funded service should be given licence to pick and choose service users on the basis of individual prejudice.
"It's clearly in the best interests of children in care to encourage as wide a pool of potential adopters as possible."

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Religion vs Sexuality again | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Religion vs Sexuality again (4.00 / 2)

That's sickening. And totally against the intended spirit of the law. Special pleading for religious bigotry was dismissed by Parliament at the time, and it isn't really the place of the judiciary to twist the law to allow prejudice in by the back door.

by Sassafras on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 12:30:10 PM EST

Re: Religion vs Sexuality again (none / 1)

The courts are a bloody liability sometimes, they've done a similar thing in the past with disability legislation by overturning a clause set out in the Disability Discrimination Act through not understanding some fairly basic premises about the impact of disability discrimination.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 01:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Religion vs Sexuality again (none / 1)

No, the courts are not a liability. The government should do a better job of creating legislation that actually does the job they want it to.

there are numerous Labour lawyers in the Commons, and even more in the Lords. They have the services of innumerable legal advisers, all of whom are perfectly capable of spotting a flaw that those so minded could drive a coach and four through.

Yet time and again, legislation is created sketchily and in haste, pushed through the commons without scrutiny, then banged through the lords. And then they wonder why it screws up in the courts.

This isn't just NuLab's problem, I seem to remember the tories under Major fell down on it sometimes. However, it would help if government were more about governing the country and creating effective legislation and a lot less about coming up with showpiece bullshit like dog insurance schemes designed to catch a lazy headline and waste everyone's time working out why it's a total crock.

However. On this occasion I wonder if this didn't happen by design. We know how much in hock NuLab is to religious bat-shittery, so maybe this was a deliberate get-out clause. I wouldn't put it past them. I'm just glad Blair and Kelly are no longer around to legislate this country into Opus dei.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Mar 17th, 2010 at 05:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Religion vs Sexuality again (none / 1)

I'm a discrimination law advisor, and the way law is interpreted by the courts and tribunals can be extremely dodgy. There are examples of clauses that are not clear enough of course, but many clauses are designed to be open to reasonable interpretation in the courts, you cannot give an exhaustive list of every possible scenario where the court may have to apply the law to make a ruling.

This applies where 'reasonable' adjustments are the basis of a case in tribunal for example where ultimately only the tribunal can decide given all the circumstances presented to them whether or not it is reasonable to expect an employer to make the adjustments being requested.

Anywhere the word 'reasonable' appears is going to bring a path in for judges to overturn other decisions or interpret a clause to the extreme motivated by their own prejudices. This is what seems to have happened with the case above - the current legislation isn't strong enough but hopefully when the equality bill passes it will be stronger and far more restrictive and clear on what exemptions are allowed.

The case I'm referring to was one that overturned an entire section off the DDA by essentially disagreeing with the principle laid out in it and completely messed things up. The equality bill is one way we can rectify it and also improve other provisions but only if the Bill gets through Parliament before the election. Otherwise we'll end up in wash up which would leave the bill open to attack by the Tories. Then we'll see a properly shoddy bunch of clauses floating around.

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Thu Mar 18th, 2010 at 04:41:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Religion vs Sexuality again (none / 1)

We just had a comparable incident here in Colorado.

Teachers at Sacred Heart of Jesus School in central Boulder earlier this week were told at a staff meeting that the preschool student won't be allowed to return to the school next year because of the child's parents, who are lesbians. In a statement, the Archdiocese of Denver said: "We expect all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching."
Archdiocese spokeswoman Jeanette R. De Melo didn't return calls from the Camera or questions in an e-mail about whether students whose parents are divorced, non-Catholic or used fertility medication also are not allowed to attend the preschool.

http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_14522872#ixzz0iV7zEjez

by asdf on Thu Mar 18th, 2010 at 12:58:10 AM EST

Religion vs Sexuality again | 5 comments (5 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]