“The agencies were given an 21-month exemption from the anti-discrimination laws,” says the Beeb, “which came into effect in 2007, but that expired on 1 January.”
The religionists said the law, which makes it illegal to discriminate against gay applicants, went against their beliefs. The BBC story continues:
Five of the 11 agencies will now comply with the rules, while one is to close.
When the Equality Act became law in April 2007 in England, Wales and Scotland, it banned discrimination against homosexual people in the provision of goods and services, which incorporated adoption agencies.
The BBC’s religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott said the Roman Catholic church denounced the regulations, claiming the rights of one group – gay people – were being placed above those of another – Christians.
As is to be expected, Mike Judge from the rabidly homophobic Christian Institute said agencies were being forced to turn their back on their faith. Tough. They’re there to provide a service, and a kids’ quality of life is far more important than a belief in sky fairies.
Judge told BBC Radio Five Live, “I think it’s iconic of a situation where you’ve got a clash between sexual-orientation rights and religious rights where, in almost every circumstance I’ve been aware of, religious rights have been seen to play second fiddle.”
Well you’re conveniently forgetting, Mr Judge, that sexuality is not a matter of choice. You do choose to believe in your mojo.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.