There is no reason in law why sexual orientation rights should prevail over religious rights.
That’s the view of Christian Legal Centre barrister and fundie nutjob Paul Diamond, who announced this weekend that Eunice and Owen Johns have decided not to appeal against a High Court decision that ruled their views on homosexuality were a bar to them becoming foster carers.
According to this report, Diamond, who represented the bigots, advised them not to appeal the decision. He said:
Owen and Eunice Johns are on a mission to turn back time
In my opinion, it would be futile – a waste of resources.
He added:
Recent equalities legislation and its interpretation in the courts has led to several Christians being barred from different areas of public life and employment. This creates a serious obstacle to the Christian community’s full and active involvement in the Government’s Big Society initiative. There is something deeply and ethically wrong with the ethical and legal compass of Britain.
This, alas, is not the end of the saga. The Johns now plan to take their case to Parliament, with the launch of an equalities and conscience petition. It will call on the Government to review the equality laws and re-visit:
The absurd human rights agenda, including the Human Rights Act.
The Johns are seeking wide support across the Christian community.
The launch of the petition comes just days after Prime Minister David Cameron backed the High Court ruling and said the judges’ decision should stand. This caused outrage.
The Johns’ case went to court after Derby City Council said it could not decide whether the couple could become foster carers because they did not meet minimum guidelines.
This conclusion was reached after Mr and Mrs Johns told a city social worker they would not tell a child that homosexuality was acceptable because of their Christian beliefs.
The Oakwood couple have been taking advice from the Christian Legal Centre, which backed the judicial review in the High Court.
Mrs Johns, 62, said:
We are not doing this just for ourselves but for thousands of Christians in a similar position.
The Pentecostal Christian couple first applied to the city council to become foster carers four years ago.
But, despite having fostered 15 children during the 1990s, new rules applicable since 2007 meant the couple had to satisfy a different series of guidelines.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
March 14th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
I’m glad that these bigots aren’t gaining much headway, as I hope that one day, their bigotry will look like the racism that this country has suffered from and continues to suffer from. I hope that one day, we can look back at this point of history and uncomfortably chuckle, like how the Germans do with the Nazis.
March 14th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
“There is something deeply and ethically wrong with the ethical and legal compass of Britain”
Err, no. There is something deeply and ethically wrong with the ethical and legal compass of bigots.
March 14th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
My first thought was to question the claim that they were standing up for thousands of Christians since the cases of this kind so far can be counted on the fingers of one hand. However, I haven’t heard any more moderate Christians denouncing these people and stating that they don’t want to be associated with such people as these.
Jessica’s reference to racism is right on the money, the Johns appear to be old enough to have experienced racism before it became unacceptable here. It seems that they are too stupid to make the connection.
March 14th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
I was rather hoping this couple would proceed with their pointless appeal so that they and the xtain institute waste their money.
March 14th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
From a comment on the Daily Fail article about this (as usual, the way to spot the decent comments is that they’ve been massively red-arrowed)
Not often I find myself agreeing with a Christian commenter!
March 14th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
If this petition is a runaway success I wonder how many people will suddenly turn religious overnight. It should be a pretty good feeling knowing that if you don’t like a law or workplace rule then claiming that it is against your ‘conscience’ to obey it means you don’t have to.
March 14th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Ahh the lunacy of Christards
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....35573.html
March 14th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
I think Pentecostal Christians are particularly hidebound and beyond the reach of common sense, never mind reason. A christian I came across years ago was Pentecostal. He was a real pest. Endlessly wasting our time by trying to get us to “share our witness.” He carried a bible everywhere and had the smug self righteousness which proclaimed that he knew the truth and the rest of us were fools.
I confronted him with some bible contradictions a couple of times. Didn’t phase him at all. His view was they only seemed contradictory because we had not truly understood god’s word and once we understood that the contradictions would disappear. When someone prayed and sod all happened he took the line that they prayer was lacking intensity and we must pray harder and longer.
March 14th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
This case has left me a bit split on my feelings.
Whilst, I applaud anyone who can offer a home to a child through fostering (even these religious twats) I do not like the idea of homophobia being pushed down the kids in their care throats.
The question I ask myself, as an atheist, is would it be right of me to say to an evangelical foster child in my care ‘your beliefs are crap, not backed by science and laughable?’ Of course this would be wrong.
So who is correct? Me for pushing my views on someone in my care or they for pushing theirs?
I don’t like what they are saying but would I be any better?
March 14th, 2011 at 10:24 pm
@ tony e
Sexual orientation, like skin colour, is an innate quality of a person and cannot be altered.
Religion is, like politics, only a belief system and people can always swap one religion for another or, better still, none.
Human rights are for human beings, not ideas.
What is an evangelical child?
All children are entitled to an education that teaches them how to evaluate evidence and think clearly for themselves.
March 14th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
“There is no reason in law why sexual orientation rights should prevail over religious rights.”
While this isn’t true to begin with, I find it curious that it appears to appeal solely to the letter of the law rather than its spirit or any semblance of morality. It is as if the CLC just want their rights to trump all and aren’t even all that afraid about admitting it, because it baffles them that anyone would think any different.
March 14th, 2011 at 10:52 pm
It seems to me that Christian Concern can only make headlines by lying. Chief Executive Andrea Minichiello seem unable to tell the full truth. Neil Diamond is pathetic as his recent interview on radio 4 demonstrated.And they certainly do not speak for the vast number of Christians who can tell the difference between discrimination and chilrden’s rights.
March 14th, 2011 at 10:55 pm
“Bleating” is such a good word for these situations.
March 14th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Ivan,
I agree with your post. But………
What I tried to do is turn the argument 180 degrees, to try to see the argument from their viewpoint. What I meant by ‘evangelical child’ is one that is old enought to have been indoctrinated in a belief system for several years.
I knew two couples who have fostered children. They were both from christian backgrounds. Whilst I disagree with their beliefs they were great foster parents.
Yes, the Johns are extreme, but do kids spend a life in care as their potential foster parents are not ‘pc’ enough?
Would you not be angered if a gay couple were refused adoption based on their sexual orientation? If we take a ‘we are right and you are wrong’ attitude then we are no better than the religious arseholes we battle every day.
March 15th, 2011 at 1:39 am
Hmmm. Interesting that a site called “Freethinker” is opposed to people being able to do something simply because they happen to think differently than those who write these articles.
I guess “free thinking” isn’t really what this site is about, is it?
March 15th, 2011 at 2:09 am
tony e
The essence of freethinking is, you don’t tell the child ‘religion is wrong’, you just make sure that they have enough information to (and try your best to instil the desire to) look at all sides and make their own mind up. If they’re already indoctrinated, I guess you just do the best you can.
The essence of religion is, you tell the child that this is wrong, this is right, no argument.
March 15th, 2011 at 8:34 am
Daz,
As mentioned this particular episode has really split my thinking.
Whilst I completely disagree with the John’s beliefs and values, what does concern me is that after nearly 20 years of, I assume, successful foster parenting, they are now denied the opportunity to continue doing so. Would I, likewise, be denied the opportunity to foster someone as I am anti religion?
I’m caught between not liking what they believe in and feeling sorry that they are now not allowed to continue what was obviously successful foster parenting as they no longer ‘tick the boxes’.
March 15th, 2011 at 9:20 am
tony e – I do have quite a bit of sympathy for your position on this. However, the fact of the matter is that this couple almost certainly never did ‘tick the boxes’. Over the years they have probably tried to teach all the kids they have fostered that homosexuality is wrong and by so doing may well have been responsible for turning yet more bigots loose on society.
The fact that in every other respect they are no doubt well-meaning, caring and selfless foster parents is the tragedy of the situation. Because of their utterly bonkers religious views they can no longer offer a much-needed social service. And all the likes of Paul Diamond care about is promoting their own crusade – truth be known, he couldn’t give a flying one about the Johns or the kids who will now be deprived of a vital fostering home.
Come to think of it, I actually feel sorry for the Johns in all this. The religious indoctrination they themselves have no doubt been subjected to has undone them utterly.
March 15th, 2011 at 9:41 am
To be fair:
is not an unreasonable position.
But equally, that’s not what this is about. These people are not being discriminated against because they are Christian – they are being legally discriminated against because they hold anti-social views.
If there was a religion that believed that raping children was the route to divine salvation then it would still be illegal to discriminate against someone simply because they were a member of that religion, but it wouldn’t be illegal to discriminate against them on that basis that you had a real fear that they would rape the children in their care – especially if you asked them would they and they said yes.
I’m sorry there’s just no rights issue here at all.
March 15th, 2011 at 9:46 am
Has the CLC actually had any success in court? Apart from the Voleslinger’s case.
March 15th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Freethought does mean being presented by the facts. Sometimes the facts hurt. Unfortunately,the facts are not always clearly presented and a different agenda is being followed. This might suggest why CCFON are so unsuccessful in their legal attempts.
March 15th, 2011 at 11:11 am
Marcus,
I must stress that I realise that I’m going against the common consensus on this post, and I do not wish to wind anyone up, but I think the John’s case should be reviewed. I also think that this couple have been manipulated by social services, Derby council and the CLC for political gain.
I think that children that have been in their care should be interviewed to gain a better picture of them as foster parents and a decision made on that basis.
March 15th, 2011 at 12:23 pm
tony e You certainly aren’t winding me up, mate. As I say, I actually have some sympathy with where you’re coming from. And while I absolutely believe that views like those the Johns have expressed are utterly unacceptable, I can’t help feeling that they are victims too – victims of odious religious indoctrination and the unpalatable ambitions of the CLC.
March 15th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
How are the Johns being discriminated against?
I’m fairly familiar with the UN Declaration on Human Rights and I don’t ever remember seeing a ‘human right’ to child abuse ?
March 15th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
tony e:
What you’ve raised is a real ethical dilemma. I don’t think anyone here thinks you’re going against the grain or being irksome. My point was that as a freethinker, you would presumably agree to let the child have their own choice, after giving them as much information as possible. This is not the same as what the Johns are doing.
To be honest, I also feel a little sorry for them. Only a little, though, and I have to wonder how many other equally stonewalled positions they’d take on other issues, just as potentially damaging, but less headline-grabbing, merely because of some bronze age myths they happen to believe in.
March 15th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
I expect the mindset of these people is to fight the good fight. Having been elected by god they believe their beliefs are above all others. Of course the rest of us believe that we are equal and expressing our concerns reflect the true ethical response to this situation.
March 15th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
David McNerney is correct. There are not two sets of conflicting “rights” here; there is just human rights. The Johns have the right to believe what they like, but the children whom they seek to foster have their rights as well. They are not being discriminated against; the argument is bogus!
March 15th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I see. So why doesn’t the Katisha of CCon understand that. Oh making money and publicity I suppose.
March 16th, 2011 at 12:52 am
Tony e’s issue seems to be sincere,
But, he seems to be concerned if he was a foster parent of an “evangelical” child. Simple, there is no such thing. All infants are born atheists, not freethinkers. They have no belief in a god or afterlife, they have no concept of such things. They are only born with a natural trust in their parents to protect them and thereby be honest with them. Fundamentalist religion is something forced upon them as “truth” when it is really just the parents convenient choice of belief about the truth.
Conversely, gay minors do exist, and they don’t need to be cured, they need to be understood, especially in a confused society.
But, there is a way to be balanced as a freethinker parent. You can say that I think religion is bullshit, but, I am just a human, so that doesn’t make it true. You can explain why you believe the way you do, but, leave the decision to them.
While evangelicals may read the genesis account of the flood to their children, you can read a history book about what the catholics did to Galileo, and end with their official apology. Maybe, this will help put your mind at ease. The threadhead said:
“This creates a serious obstacle to the Christian community’s full and active involvement in the Government’s Big Society initiative.”
Hopefully. Religion has had thousands of years to prove that they can put straight the affairs of men. They sit beside the thrones of kings and instigate wars and massacre those who challenge them. Despite their murderous efforts, science emerged, and now they want to whoar themselves with science, Adam riding a dinosaur, etc.
The definition of a freethinker is a person who rejects others ideas about how to perceive the world. What makes you think that if you raise your wards with that idea, freedom of thought, that they are not able to reject your opinions as well? Don’t teach atheism to your wards, teach freethought. Then your conscience is clear. Does that make sense?
NeoWolfe
March 16th, 2011 at 6:49 am
Appeal what?
As I’ve pointed out before, Derby Council has made no decision on the case and the judges made no order. Paul Diamond is exaggerating the whole thing – no one has decided anything, the couple have not been banned from fostering and the judges only said that the council were following correct procedure. There is no judgement to appeal.
http://www.platitudes.org.uk/p.....311-094601
March 16th, 2011 at 9:26 am
Peter Hearty:
Thanks, that’s a good article.
So not only is the couple’s ‘persecution’ by the council being hyped to the max (presumably for publicity’s sake), but even the PM is responding to the wrong version of events as if it were true.
March 16th, 2011 at 11:30 am
Freethinker is what it says, think for yourself but do not be prejudice. How much money has this couple made and how many children have they taught that only Christain beliefs are the only true beliefs and sent them in to the world to spread hatred of one type of way of living, that they may not believe in.
I was brought up in the era of religious bigotry towards blacks.We have come a long way since then, althoughwe still have a long way to go. How on earth can black people be prejudice when they have lost so much to get to where they are today.
March 16th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Perhaps a minor point, but the couple also indicated that if they were asked to foster a ‘Muslim child’, they wouldn’t take him/her to the local mosque. Their attitude in this matter certainly doesn’t suggest religious tolerance.
March 17th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Not a “minor point” at all, Valdemar. Another indication that they don’t actually have the best interests of the children at heart at all.