The same darn thing happened in Utah! The opposite way! The gay couple a huge fight with the Utah family services division over adopting his sisters children.

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/meanwhile_in_utah

And the justification is that it’s a rule of law…

[Adam Greenwood-- bunk]

If foster parents promise not to “unfairly discriminate,” and then call it “fair” to discriminate against a foster child on the basis of whether the child follows their personal religious beliefs, I find that problematic.

I don’t believe for a moment that foster parents (or anyone else) should be required to promote something that goes against their personal religious beliefs. That idea morally offends me, whether I agree with their beliefs or not. At the same time, I’m not comfortable with the idea of foster parents imposing their religious faith on children who are a temporary part of their family. One would hope that social service agencies would have the good sense not to place a gay youth in the Matherick’s home—both for the youth’s sake and the Matherick’s sake. If, for some reason, this became necessary, I’d expect the Mathericks to discourage a minor from engaging in sexual intercourse with anyone, regardless of gender, but I’d find it disturbing for the Mathericks to act against a foster child in a discriminatory manner, simply because the child identified as homosexual.

I can’t describe with absolute clarity what would constitute “unfair discrimination” in this case, other than perhaps punishing a child for identifying as gay. Choosing not to place a male child who identified as gay in the same bedroom as other male children probably isn’t “unfair discrimination.” Other differential treatment might be “unfair discrimination.” I don’t pretend to know UK law, but if this story took place in the United States, I’d be pointing out that the foster parents are acting as agents of the government, and are thus more accountable for discrimination than “regular” parents would ever be.

I’m not sure what I think about the Matherick case but I agree wholeheartedly with this comment.

There are any number of ways in which discrimination can be legally acceptable. For example, it may be not barred by statute. I can discriminate against the less-intelligent in my hiring. Or, it may be covered by an exception of some kind. I.e., I can discriminate against Lutherans when deciding who to hire as the next Catholic bishop. I can discriminate against the blind, when deciding who to hire as a bus driver. I can discriminate against men, when deciding who to hire for my Vegas go-go dancers revue. For that matter, statutes may exempt certain organizations from review altogether.

Adam, are you suggesting that one can discriminate “fairly,” then? How would you, for example, “discriminate fairly” against persons of African heritage?

If this is right, it highlights the Christian predicament. Mormon believers, for example, can’t assure children “that a homosexual lifestyle [is] acceptable,” so while Ronan celebrates the UK for their anti-sexual-orientaion mindset, that same mindset leads them to discriminate against Mormons. Would Ronan think the UK better if they didn’t discriminate against Mormons?

Does the the UK require foster parents (gay or straight) to assure children that it’s okay for them to believe homosexual behavior is immoral? Or does the UK condone religious discrimination?

And, again, thanks to MLU and Ray for giving the soundest advice. And to Manaen for that quote and analysis.

Yes, they’re just imagining it all. No one is chanting “Christian fascist go away. . .”