Honestly, just when I think I have seen everything comes this strange story. It seems that Eunice and Owen Johns, the smiling couple pictured above, want to be foster parents. They were miffed when social workers determined that their disapproval of homosexuality was not in the best interest of kids. This would seem a no-brainer to me. Why would a social agency put young kids in a home where, if they happened to be LGBT, they would be made to feel they were going straight to hell? It happens in regular families, of course, but given a choice a government agency would be foolish to deliberately allow such a situation and might even be subject to legal action by the kid eventually for putting them in that environment knowingly.
More importantly, the UK has Sexual Orientation Regulations and the Equality Act which codify the need to ensure kids are not faced with such things as the state exposing them to being made to feel they are intrinsically flawed. Undaunted by such attempts by the state to protect kids from their bigotry the couple have decided to sue to guarantee they have the right to maintain their perceived right to potentially persecute any kids placed in their ‘care’. I truly hope the court makes the obviously correct decision.
The part that puzzles me most is the insistence that they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs. You can certainly have your religious beliefs ( bigoted though they may be) but when they conflict with legislated equality then you most certainly cannot have kids exposed to you. Their lawyer says:
‘The promotion of values is something that the court should be protecting,’ he said. ‘People have a wide range of views, but the only views that are being singled out for conflict are the views of homosexual people. The Christian viewpoint, if the courts don’t protect it, will be vanquished in this country.’
And I suppose the courts should also be protecting the believers in a flat earth or maybe the skinheads? No, I don’t think so. If a gay or lesbian couple said they didn’t approve of heterosexuality I would say the same thing. Kids need to be allowed to blossom into whatever they are. And just when I was recovering from the statement of their lawyer I deal with their rationalization using the argument :
‘Valuing diversity does not mean that you cannot have a disagreement or do not respect a person while not valuing certain lifestyles. The court must be mindful that these public policy objectives are not used to trump fundamental rights.’
Not valuing certain lifestyles? Really? I can’t get my head around that concept. So I can value diversity while thinking someone is fundamentally flawed? Really? How does that work? The certain ‘lifestyles’ thing totally floors me. So the KKK can respect black people and have a disagreement with them but not value them? Just say you are an ignorant bigot and feel you have a right to be protected for it.
Maybe they have a bit of nostalgia for ancient Rome.
Read more of the
insanity article here.
I especially like their last picture that says we are haters but we like to show that we love each other.