The thought police are working overtime in the UK. The High Court there has stripped a couple of their right to continue providing a secure and loving home to foster children between the ages of 5 and 10. Their crime? Not openly and actively advocating for a gay lifestyle or teaching their young charges about the same.
The ruling rests on Britain’s Sexual Orientation Regulations, which make it an offense to “discriminate on the grounds that someone is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.” On its face, the law is fine. It prevents discrimination, which is all to the good.
However, in the case of Eunice and Owen Johns, the couple in question, the word discriminate is being perverted to include affirmative endorsement of a set of beliefs—which is just plain nuts. If the language of a law is going to be twisted so as to force a heterosexual couple to teach their children about alternative lifestyles, why stop at homosexuality? Why not insist that the couple expose their foster children to veganism and a host of other lifestyles whose practitioners are just as vigorous in their crusade for worldwide acceptance?
In any case, consider the broader implications of the case. Or, as The Telegraph notes:
[I]n the case of Mr and Mrs Johns, where is the victim? They were not turning anyone away. Quite the contrary—they were offering a home to children who will otherwise end up in care, and there are precious few people who will.
It is important to note that the Johns never openly disparaged the gay lifestyle. The “offense” of which they are being accused is that they were mute on the topic. When a social worker asked them whether they had broached the subject with the children in their charge, they answered honestly that they had not. It was only when an advocate for the gay rights group Stonewall got wind of the interview that the case even went public.
The Telegraph notes another troubling aspect of the case, which hinges on the Johns’ Christian faith:
Equality laws are supposed to uphold the rights to religious belief. Yet the High Court ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation ‘should take precedence’ over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds. Why has it been left to judges to decide whose rights trump those of others?
Don’t be surprised when witless, seemingly well-intentioned measures like this turn up on this side of the Atlantic. I’m guessing it’s only a matter of time.
- Obama administration strikes down Defense of Marriage Act
Click Subscribe at the top of the page to have my articles sent directly to your e-mail inbox. Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at [email protected] or by posting a comment below.