A CATHOLIC adoption society has won a High Court battle over laws forcing it to consider gay couples as parents, according to a BBC report today.
Leeds-based Catholic Care had warned it would be forced to give up its work finding homes for children if it had to comply with the legislation.
Its plea to be allowed an exemption was opposed by the Charities Commission.
Same-sex adoption supporters pictured at gay pride rally
However, Mr Justice Briggs has allowed Catholic Care’s appeal and ordered the commission to reconsider the case in the light of his judgement.
The High Court ruling was met with dismay by gay rights charity Stonewall.
Jonathan Finney, head of external affairs at Stonewall, 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.
Catholic Care, which serves the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough, and Hallam in South Yorkshire, argued that the Equality Act 2006 went against the Catholic Church’s teachings on marriage and family life.
Other Catholic adoption agencies have changed their policies or closed.
The appeal came after the Church lost a battle against the introduction of the Sexual Orientations Regulations, under the Equality Act, which forced agencies to consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents.
Catholic agencies were given a 21-month transition period to comply with the new rules, which ended in December 2008.
The Bishop of Leeds, the Right Reverend Arthur Roche, welcomed the judge’s decision, saying it would:
Help in our determination to continue to provide this invaluable service to benefit children, families and communities.
He said the judgment confirmed that Catholic Care was correct in its reading of the law and that the exemption could apply:
To any charity subject to it being in the public interest. We look forward to producing evidence to the Charity Commission to support the position that we have consistently taken through this process: that without being able to use this exemption, children without families would be seriously disadvantaged.
He added:
Catholic Care has been providing specialist adoption services for over 100 years. We have helped hundreds of children through the recruitment, assessment, training and support for prospective adoptive parents, as well as offering ongoing and post-adoption support to families that give such security and love for some of the most vulnerable children in our society. The judgment today will help in our determination to continue to provide this invaluable service to benefit children, families and communities.
Hat tip: Marcus
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
March 17th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
“…our determination to continue to provide this invaluable service to benefit children, families and communities”.
obviously not interested in providing their lovely invaluable service to gay families or communities…
Disgraceful and depressing. I am sure the judges are right about the law, but SURELY the day will come when ‘faith’ is no longer acceptable as a valid justification for discrimation and prejudice.
March 17th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
So RC couples, under the influence of someone of the views of Cardinal Sean Brady, may adopt. If I were looking to adopt I would go elswhere and the fact that they would allow an RC priest anywhere near a child should, from the outset, make them deeply suspect as adopters.
March 17th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
No Lucy, this judgment is wrong, and I hope the case will be taken further. The judgment makes the assumption that whatever the Roman Catholic Church decides must, per se, be “in the public interest”. Quite apart from the enormous irony of this fact, it is not for them to make this judgment. Public interest is public interest, and they must abide by that or cease their operation. Once again a learned judge has made a ridiculous decision, and it must surely be overturned!
March 17th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Once again the law in an ass. This ruling will see the start of other bigoted organisations withdrawing services from LGT people. It is an outrage that tax-payer or publicly funded organisations can behave with such prejudice and remain within the law.
A very bad day for us.
March 17th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
If it weren’t for the catholic church dogma regarding condoms, birth control, and abortion there would certainly be fewer children to place in adoptive homes. But, if they are not receiving tax dollars, I am inclined to cut them some slack and allow them to operate their psuedo-charity as they please. There are thousands of adoption agencies, and children from China, Russia, Africa, etc., if gay couples want to adopt, they don’t need to go kneeling to the catholics. In fact, fuck them!!!
NeoWolfe
March 17th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
“But, if they are not receiving tax dollars”
Well, they’re receiving tax pounds, so that’s enough reason to tell them to live with it or close their doors for good. In fact, even private organisations have to comply with this law, so companies cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation either.
March 17th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
JohnMWhite,
Silly me. The fact that the church is above the law, and yet receives money from the taxpayers is a matter of grave concern.
I feel your pain. Recently, the supreme court of the US found that multi-billion dollar corporations can contribute unlimited amounts of money to politicians campaigns.
Well, there you have it, John. As freethinkers, if we could rid the world of religion, we would celebrate. But, then we discover the greedy bastards are still going to keep us poor while they get rich. Work our fingers to the bone while we build their newest yacht, and go home to eat ramen.
NeoWolfe
March 18th, 2010 at 12:23 am
Yes the Supreme Court decision that corporations have First (I believe it’s the first) Amendment rights is rather disconcerting. Should it not follow they also have Second Amendment rights?
And as you say, this decision honestly seems to infer that the Catholic Church is above the law in the United Kingdom, so long as them having to follow that law would mean they would simply stab children in the back and abandon them. For this to be true, not only in a supposedly modern democracy, but also a state which still has the Act of Settlement on the books and is headed by a monarch who leads a rival church, is madness.
March 18th, 2010 at 2:40 am
Does this give license to Hindu temples to discriminate against certain castes, and the mullahs and imams to discriminate against women and kaffirs?
March 18th, 2010 at 6:36 am
JohnMWhite,
I’ve been wondering for years. I have watched excerps of Rush Limbaugh, video of Fred Phelps, and worse, video of the site where the followers of Jim Jones died, laying on top of their own children, and the videos of Applewhite’s massacre, as a species are we too stupid to live? How do we rescue what is worthy of saving???
NeoWolfe
March 18th, 2010 at 7:02 am
I have to agree with NeoWolfe (hope that’s ok with you).
I would seriously like to suggest that these campains STOP trying to force RCs to go against their teaching.
It would be a far far better thing if we campaign to bring in a single, simple law:
A public service will continue to receive public funding as long as it serves the general public.
Any service practising discrimination receives no public funding.
This would conform not only to the tenet of freedom central to all atheist thinking, it would also stop the rubbish about religious persecution and allow religious institutions, working with religious donations, to offer these services to those who have paid them.
Just another commercial business.
March 18th, 2010 at 8:28 am
There is a lot to commend your idea, gsw, and religious institutions definitely need to receive no more tax breaks or other public funding (particularly if they are going to be so obstreperous), but the fact is that even private employers in the UK are not allowed to flout equality laws, however bigoted and sincerely held their prejudices may be, so why should an organization like the Roman Catholic Church be treated any differently?
March 18th, 2010 at 9:03 am
gsw, excellent idea. Also, it does beg the question: why do some LGT people go to religious institutions for potential adoptees when there are lots of other sources? Further – and it has been said many times here – why on earth do certain LGT people support religions that hate them; seem bonkers to me. Hobson’s choice if you happen to be born LGT, you learn to live with it; but the individual is free to choose or lose religion.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Perhaps if the BNP set themselves up as a religion (tax exempt)and made their propaganda Sacred Texts they would find the courts just as sympathetic….. Worth thinking about lads.
March 18th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
So then they’d be OK if a business or agency refused to provide services to Catholics on the basis that it was against the “deeply held beliefs” of the individuals who ran the business/agency?
March 19th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
A LGBT couple who goes to a catholic adoption agency, whilst there being other gay-friendly ones handy, well, maybe is not very reasonable. Better boycott catholic and discriminating agencies and telling other people to do so.
I agre with GSW:
t would be a far far better thing if we campaign to bring in a single, simple law:
A public service will continue to receive public funding as long as it serves the general public.
Any service practising discrimination receives no public funding.
This would conform not only to the tenet of freedom central to all atheist thinking, it would also stop the rubbish about religious persecution and allow religious institutions, working with religious donations, to offer these services to those who have paid them.
Just another commercial business.
March 20th, 2010 at 11:22 am
BarrieJohn, what i meant was, the judge was probably right in his interpretation of the current law. It’s a crap law.
But didn’t he just say they could go back to the Charity commission for an opinion? or did I misunderstand that? This battle is not yet over. I hope.
March 20th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
I think a lot of you are missing the larger picture of this piece of legislation over your haste to put the boot into the catholic church (the gods know it needs it). The question is: should the state legislate what a community (in this case a church) should and should not think or do. While, in my opinion, it is wrong for the RCC to descriminate against gays in such a matter it is equally wrong for parliament to force the RCC to act in a proscribed manner.
(While there are some natural prohibitions, ie murder, rape etc, there are valid reasons for these as an individual suffers harm of some form or another. In the case of gays wanting to adopt, they get refused but can go to another agency and try again with a better chance of success.)
Think about it, a bunch of faceless idiots deciding for you what you should think and do. While some people may welcome such state control, after all many germans, chinese and russian did, I for one do not. My opinions, beliefs, thoughts, ideals are my own; how I choose to live my life and treat others is up to me, provided I do not physically harm other.
While you can all slap each other on the back for another blow struck against god/religion and enjoy some hand shandies, you all ignore the fact that this legislation can be employed against anyone for any reason that someone feels ‘descriminated’ against. Freedom of conscience has been thrown onto the dustbin with the rest of our ancient liberties and all so a left wing party can score a few points at the expense of organisations they have always hated; namely because they take people’s minds away from the good and pure entity that is the party.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Sorry guys but the actual legal decision IS logical even if we disagree with it morally- here’s why: The act as it was drafted had a loophole which allowed LGBT charities to target THEIR services at LGBT people so that they couldn’t be sued by straights who couldn’t use LGBT focussed services. The judges in this case are saying that if an LGBT charity is allowed to specificy that it’s services are for LGBT people, then other charities can specify their services to be for straight people. Looked at in this way it’s the principle of EQUAL right for straight charities compared to the rules in place for LGBT charities. Remember how we always ask for EQUAL treatment- well this is exactly that. Only this rime the shoe is on the other foot I’m afraid!