Equality... Except for Church

[Tom Paine]

It appears that there is the potential for the Equalities Bill not to apply to Catholic adoption agencies...

The Independent on Sunday claims Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly is battling to allow Catholic adoption agencies to turn away same-sex couples.

Her department said "no decisions" had yet been taken on the detailed rules.

Ms Kelly, herself a devout Catholic, told the Commons last October the new law, which had been expected to come into force then, would now be ready in April.

She said it was delayed because of the 3,000 responses to a consultation - and also said her own religion would not prevent her from doing her job of tackling discrimination of all types, including that against homosexuals.

Asked about the Independent on Sunday report, Lord Falconer told BBC One's Sunday AM: "We have introduced laws which prevent discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation; those laws should be given full effect.

"We do take the view in this country that you shouldn't be discriminated against on that basis and think that applies to everybody, whatever your religion."

Mr Bradshaw told the BBC's Politics Show he would be very surprised if the Government was thinking of "bowing to pressure from conservative Catholics."

Some big-name opposition and a lot of people saying no, but notably not her own department or her herself. However the most distressing fact reported, for me at least:

The Independent reported that Ms Kelly had the backing of Prime Minister Tony Blair

Now, is this right? Should someone be able to get their way out of a law based on their religion, in terms of application? Should they have an exception for being Catholic? Or should this be ignored, and the law applied universally? I ask you to forget the report, or half-forget it; would you support the exemption that the Independant has reported may be being applied?

(Story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6284725.stm )

[General Dissaray]

While I don't agree with the churche's stand on this issue I think they have the right to refuse any one for any reason, like any bisiness there in the States. That said I don't think there should be a law giving them licesne to single out a spacific groop like this as the state should not endulge in this kind of activity.

[Tom Paine]

That'd not be in the States but in the UK; thus some of the titles like Lord X.

Problem comes, however, when you realise that that must extend beyond homosexuals. If a group wants to exclude black people (to use an obvious example), should it be allowed to? The precedent set with homosexuals is yes. or should they be allowed to exclude interracial couples? Again, the precedent set would be yes. Extreme examples, but valid; and should they be allowed?

[General Dissaray]

I am awear that this is a british isue, I was just making a conection to where I live so you can see where I cam coming from.

I can't see the conection bitween not wanting same sex couples to adopt and linching black people. As the latter is rather illigal regardless of race. This isue can't be equated to one of race I think as the palyers are way diferant. This is a matter of idiology not phisiology. A law stateing what the church can and can not do would be just as bad if you ask me. Who is the state to say what they can do? Now is the church right for doing this? No I don't think so. But the state would beno more right for dictateing church doctorin.

[Gwendylyn]

That'd not be in the States but in the UK; thus some of the titles like Lord X.

Problem comes, however, when you realise that that must extend beyond homosexuals. If a group wants to exclude black people (to use an obvious example), should it be allowed to? The precedent set with homosexuals is yes. or should they be allowed to exclude interracial couples? Again, the precedent set would be yes. Extreme examples, but valid; and should they be allowed?

Well, I'm coming from an American standpoint, so I don't know how and if the laws in the UK differ:

Does the charity recieve any government funding?

If yes, then it must follow non-discriminatory policies that reflect the federal government's stance. if the UK's policy is non-discrimination against same-sex couples than this charity must reflect that.

If it recieves no federal funding then they have a right to discriminate against whomever they want, because they are offering a free service to help others. Effectively, their services are in good faith, even if they are not for everyone. Therefore, yes, I think a charity has a right to give their services to only men, or only whites, or only heterosexuals, or only Scientologists.

The tricky part comes from the fact that its an adoption agency, and the children they are also providing a service for have no voice in the matter. It's a question of whether the charity has a right to decide on the fitness of a parent wanting to adopt by their own standards, or by objective standards set out by the government. I honestly have no idea which of that I'd support.

[SickBoy13]

I think they have the right to turn down anyone they please, though I do not like their close-mindedness.

[Tom Paine]

I did not say lynching. I said not wanting black or multiracial couples to adopt. The parallel is exact; should a multiracial (which is probably better, really) couple be allowed to be turned away by a Chruch adoption agency? There is no difference there between the multiracial couple and the homosexual couple, in the analogy. In one case it would be nillegal, however.

So the Church has absolute right and sovereignty, even in other countries, to do what it pleases?

[danzig]

I did not say lynching. I said not wanting black or multiracial couples to adopt. The parallel is exact; should a multiracial (which is probably better, really) couple be allowed to be turned away by a Chruch adoption agency? There is no difference there between the multiracial couple and the homosexual couple, in the analogy. In one case it would be nillegal, however.

The difference is turning away a multiracial couple would be based on racism, skin and the other (even if you disagree) would be based on moral issues. Comparing race vs homosexuality is imo a flawed analogy and one too often used. I disagree with homosexuals being denied the right to adopt by catholic based organization but it is imo their right to do so people are rejected for adoption for numerous reasons as it is.

[the Black Prince]

of course she's going to have Blairs backing, Blair's a closet catholic and married to a catholic....


its yet another example of the churchs double standards. They were big supporters of the Equality Bill when it was passed into law, because it outlawed the last possible vestiges of discrimination on the basis of religion. But when it comes to implementing the part of the Act that deals with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, suddenly the church shows its true, prejudiced, colours.

the people i really pity at this time are the gay christians. sold out by their own religion in a clear betrayal of the principles Jesus held dear

[LoZz]

you cant force people who dont belive that being gay is right to think its right.

gays have rights, but people have the right to think its wrong/disagree with it.

i support this, catholics should be allowed to say no to gays.

[Tom Paine]

People have the right to disagree but do they have the right to deny homosexuals things because of their beliefs? The BNP believes interracial marriage is wrong; should members of the BNP be allowed to deny interracial couples services?

[the Black Prince]

indeed
catholics are not prevented from believing whatever they want.

they are however prevented from forcing others to live by their own moral standards. I'm not catholic, why should i have to live my life as they dictate.

they are prevented from discriminating, that is all.
if the store manager, or a checkout worker at a Tesco's store was catholic, she could not use that as a basis to refuse to serve someone. Likewise a bar manager or hotel owner.

If a gay catholic couple want to adopt a child, why should they not be able to go through a catholic adoption agency like any other catholic?

[LoZz]

indeed
catholics are not prevented from believing whatever they want.

they are however prevented from forcing others to live by their own moral standards. I'm not catholic, why should i have to live my life as they dictate.

they are prevented from discriminating, that is all.
if the store manager, or a checkout worker at a Tesco's store was catholic, she could not use that as a basis to refuse to serve someone. Likewise a bar manager or hotel owner.

If a gay catholic couple want to adopt a child, why should they not be able to go through a catholic adoption agency like any other catholic?

dont go to a catholic adoption agency?

their are loads of agencys that allow same sex couples to adopt (another reason why i say the catholics should be allowed to say "no")

why does it matter where you get the kid from anyway? the catholics should be allowed to say no, and if you dont like it go to another agency, its seem the only reason to force them to allow adoption for same sex familys is spite

and you dont get gay catholic couples, or atlest none which are acknowledged by the catholic church as being gay is against their relgion.

just adopt from a normal agency and then raise him/her a catholic

[bdh]

they are prevented from discriminating, that is all.
if the store manager, or a checkout worker at a Tesco's store was catholic, she could not use that as a basis to refuse to serve someone. Likewise a bar manager or hotel owner.

Except this isn't a store, its an adoption agency. The Catholic Church will do what it believes is in the best interest of the children. By default, it already has a different vision of whats in the best interest of the children than the government. Nondiscrimination wouldn't really be an issue at all for the Church if not for the issue of the well being of the Children, or so the Church says.

If anything, and I mean anything, conflicts with that vision, the Church will simply stop what it is doing and walk away. The Church will do things its way, and only its way. Should the law be applied to Catholic adoption agencies, the agencies will simply shut down rather than do something they believe to be wrong. I read of a similiar issue occuring in Oregon, and they are trying to work out a compromise because before the adoption agencies close.

If a gay catholic couple want to adopt a child, why should they not be able to go through a catholic adoption agency like any other catholic?

Technically, by definition, there could never truly be a gay catholic couple. The way Catholicism is supposed to be a practiced, it is not only a religion, but also an entire life style.

[Syron]

and i was told Ruth Kelly was just doing her job :hmmm:

anyway, i much prefer the American way of doing things.

[Consummatease]

Adoption is a tricky matter. If we are of the opinion that the prior parent/s, if still alive, judgement on who should get the child is irrelevant, then I think the child is ward of the state, and that anyone should be free to adopt the child, so long as he/she/they fulfill the legal requirements. If we deem things to be otherwise, and see the prior parent/s views as relevant, or, in other words, that there is some ward other than the state, then I believe it is up to that ward to make decisions/take responsibility as it sees fit for the child's future. In other words, in that case discrimination does not bother me. I think that would be a small minority of cases.

In a world where so many people are refraining from having or raising children, we should be grateful for anyone willing to take up the burden and make the sacrifices.

*wow, look at my post count*

[Feliks]

If these organizations want to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, that's well within their rights. However, that should exempt them from any federal aid.

[Erich von Manstein]

Now, is this right? Should someone be able to get their way out of a law based on their religion, in terms of application? Should they have an exception for being Catholic? Or should this be ignored, and the law applied universally?

Of course they should be exempt. You say it is distressing that they should be able to avoid a law that they disagree with. I find it even more distressing that the government could force them to violate a central pillar of their faith, one of the oldest and most widely practiced faiths in the West. If I want to discriminate in my capacity as a private citizen then I should be able to. It would greatly intrude upon my liberty and privacy if the government could start dictating my faith.

Now let me make myself clear: I don't condone discrimination by the government. Here in the US government keeps out of the business of organized religion. No religious organization is going to be on the direct receiving end of federal monies. I don't know how it works in the UK, but the Catholic organization mentioned should receive no governmental aid, especially if they're going to discriminate. But the converse of that should also be true: the government shouldn't meddle with them either. After all, values change frequently. The most dangerous thing to liberty is the government, not individuals. A government that imposes a certain set of values upon private organizations is a scary thing indeed.

[Tom Paine]

Full support for Church in this matter - agencies have right to deny for whatever reason and there must be others that allow gay to adopt children which I fully disapprove.

Why do you disapprove?

and i was told Ruth Kelly was just doing her job :hmmm:

anyway, i much prefer the American way of doing things.

She's representing not the whole nation but the Catholic part of it; the majority disagree with her, and the best interests of the nation also disagree with her. As such she is not doing her job.

Of course they should be exempt. You say it is distressing that they should be able to avoid a law that they disagree with. I find it even more distressing that the government could force them to violate a central pillar of their faith, one of the oldest and most widely practiced faiths in the West. If I want to discriminate in my capacity as a private citizen then I should be able to. It would greatly intrude upon my liberty and privacy if the government could start dictating my faith.

Now let me make myself clear: I don't condone discrimination by the government. Here in the US government keeps out of the business of organized religion. No religious organization is going to be on the direct receiving end of federal monies. I don't know how it works in the UK, but the Catholic organization mentioned should receive no governmental aid, especially if they're going to discriminate. But the converse of that should also be true: the government shouldn't meddle with them either. After all, values change frequently. The most dangerous thing to liberty is the government, not individuals. A government that imposes a certain set of values upon private organizations is a scary thing indeed.

The government protects them from any form of discrimination the same way it protects homosexuals; an adoption agency cannot turn away people on the basis of religion. The government is imposing a set of values on the Catholic Chruch that the Church supported strongly, until it realised that they also applied to homosexuals. Furthermore as a charity they do have access to some forms of state funding I believe; that makes this doubly problematic, no?

The difference is turning away a multiracial couple would be based on racism, skin and the other (even if you disagree) would be based on moral issues. Comparing race vs homosexuality is imo a flawed analogy and one too often used. I disagree with homosexuals being denied the right to adopt by catholic based organization but it is imo their right to do so people are rejected for adoption for numerous reasons as it is.

Actually, if you look at the organisation I've named somewhere around here, the BNP, they believe interracial relationships are immoral. That fact is important. Its a refusal of service to an interracial couple on the basis of morality. Does this have any difference from homosexuality? Furthermore some people believe that skin is darkened by sins in previous lives; moral racism, and again, is this justified? That's why my comparison was specifically what it was.

[Erich von Manstein]

The government protects them from any form of discrimination the same way it protects homosexuals; an adoption agency cannot turn away people on the basis of religion. The government is imposing a set of values on the Catholic Chruch that the Church supported strongly, until it realised that they also applied to homosexuals. Furthermore as a charity they do have access to some forms of state funding I believe; that makes this doubly problematic, no?

See, your very first sentence is what I have a problem with. The government should protect all citizens from discrimination by the government. I should add that I consider that to include all organizations that are funded by the government. If you take their money you should play by their rules. So, in your scenario, I believe the government can force the Church to cease its discriminatory policies - but only to the point that nonadherence will result in closing the purse strings. As to whether the Church supported the policies originally or not shouldn't matter, since they obviously misunderstood their meaning. If the government wishes to punish the Church for discriminating against homosexuals, fine - but anything more than a cutting of state funding would be a serious overstep by the government.