+  Newcastle-Online Forum
|-+  General» Chat» freedom of religion vs. lgbt rights
Username:
Password:
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: freedom of religion vs. lgbt rights  (Read 320 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
alex
Offline Offline



« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2007, 03:10:03 PM »

Don't get me wrong, the people I've met have been unbelievably friendly (making it a real home from home) but I'm not going to start asking about stuff I know (comparatively) little about.
Logged
80
Offline Offline



« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2007, 04:00:20 PM »

Don't get me wrong, the people I've met have been unbelievably friendly (making it a real home from home) but I'm not going to start asking about stuff I know (comparatively) little about.

Oh aye, definitely. I know the place and people pretty well, myself. Often find myself defending them when I find they're getting a particularly hard rap for existing. All the same, as an outsider its often sound practise to get a sure footing on those kind of matters.
Logged

"The Government allows us to vote, they trust us with that, and we should trust them in return" - Paul Ross
indi
Fuckwitted Cock-for-Brained Arsehole (AKA Admin)
Offline Offline


I believe in joy!!


« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2007, 06:34:08 PM »

Saw a bloke on the news last night who ran a guest house and said he wouldn't allow gay/lesbian couples to stay in his guest house. Seemed like a bigotted wanker to me but in one sense I don't think there should be a law stopping him deciding who he should have staying at his guest house if it goes against his religious beliefs. It's a prickly issue though as you would presumably have to outline these rules in any literature advertising your establishment. Also, I wonder how people would feel if he was saying the same thing about people of a certain religion or ethnicity. Some people will perhaps say thats different but it's equally just a matter of him being prejudiced as far as I'm concerned. Tricky one to call though. - Alex

[/Parky]

Ethnicity and sexuality are different from religious preference in my view; because, whilst you have no choice about who you're attracted to or who your genes come from, you do have a choice over whether or not to be religious. It's a decision and as with any decision it should be open to criticism, and so, I guess in a way it would be more justified to discriminate based upon religion rather than sexuality or race. Having said that, I still don't think people should be discriminated against because of their religion, but it's a much more grey area than race or sexuality which are - pardon the pun - black and white, for me.

Regardless of that, it should be law that people who run hotels and guest houses, etc, should not be able to blanket discriminate against sections of society. It's part of their chosen profession and if they don't like it tough-shit, I don't suppose they like environmental health inspections either, but they have to have them.
Logged

!! SHEPHERD OUT !!

I ain't no number
I don't need no ID round my neck
So Mr Politician
I got born and named like blood runs red
Cause I, I aint no number
Don't require no ID round my neck
So Mr number maker
ID cards won't stop no hijacked jet

:toon1:

womblemaster
Offline Offline



WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2007, 10:18:26 AM »

being somewhat anti gay rights, i obviously think this law is rather crazy.

the law doesnt have any right to force u to accept someone views at the expense of your own.  Its just silly.

Logged

"don't judge anyone as world class on how they play in the Premiership pub league"
madras
Offline Offline



« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2007, 03:18:23 PM »

i wonder if this tactic has been tried

" no you can't come in..you're poofs and my religion is against it"

"what if we don't shag"

"how do i know you wont"

"well do you ask your married clients if mr is taking mrs up the gary"

just wondered like.

Logged

fernando was...a little white bull!
indi
Fuckwitted Cock-for-Brained Arsehole (AKA Admin)
Offline Offline


I believe in joy!!


« Reply #25 on: January 11, 2007, 05:32:46 PM »

being somewhat anti gay rights, i obviously think this law is rather crazy.

the law doesnt have any right to force u to accept someone views at the expense of your own.  Its just silly.



Yes it does, that's the point of laws.

Sexuality isn't a view, anyway, it's innate.
Logged

!! SHEPHERD OUT !!

I ain't no number
I don't need no ID round my neck
So Mr Politician
I got born and named like blood runs red
Cause I, I aint no number
Don't require no ID round my neck
So Mr number maker
ID cards won't stop no hijacked jet

:toon1:

BlueStar
Offline Offline



« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2007, 06:10:45 PM »

i wonder if this tactic has been tried

" no you can't come in..you're poofs and my religion is against it"

"what if we don't shag"

"how do i know you wont"

"well do you ask your married clients if mr is taking mrs up the gary"

just wondered like.


That was my first thought.  Or see if these nutters think it's relgious freedom if a muslim landlord wont let his tennants make bacon sarnies in the flat they rent off him or if Johnny No-Stars the satanist burger king worker wont give a nun a whoppa.

It's a minority of Christians asking for specialist treament and exemptions, not hurmurs.

By the way, there's a guy high up in my local church with a makka foreheed who wrote to the Whitley Bay Guardian saying he was disgusted by people who want to make racism one of the deadly sins (no idea who is suggesting that) because the bible clearly says the races should not mix (I typed the letter out onto the snopes board and some non-mental christians explained to me which parts of the bible he could have been referring to, including the Curse of Ham and some vague stuff about the different groups of people living separately in the holy land).  Would this guy be allowed to turn away mixed race couples if he ran a guest house instead of being a mentalist coffee morning organizer?
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 09:40:08 AM by BlueStar » Logged

Everything clean but the ashtray.
Haswell
Offline Offline



« Reply #27 on: Yesterday at 01:08:43 AM »

I cannot see any reason why Gay people should not enjoy the same rights as heterosexual people. Unfortunately, it may well take legislation to enforce this right but anything that erodes religious considerations has to be good work.
Logged

"The secret of happiness is to face the fact that the world is horrible, horrible, horrible..."
- Bertrand Russell
Wullie
Destroying Forums Since 2005™
Offline Offline



« Reply #28 on: Yesterday at 02:16:32 AM »

I'm reading The God Delusion by Dawkins at the moment, and so I found this protest even more abhorrent than I usually would.
Logged

John 11:35
NJS
Offline Offline


« Reply #29 on: Yesterday at 10:20:38 PM »

Just been reading that there may be a split in the cabinet over the bits in a bill forcing catholic adoption agencies which take government cash to not ban gay couples. That fuckwit Kelly and Blair are apparently up against the more rational ones in the cabinet. Kelly has now had a job as education secretary in which she promoted faith schools and now as "equality" minister when she thinks gays are immoral - both conflicts of interest with her uber-catholic opus dei bollocks.

We all know that as human beings we're not immune to pretty irrational bigotry but to actually demand legal protection for it is so far beyond abhorrent its plain evil imo.

Having said that I was actually happy to see this protest - the more more the nutters show themsleves up for what we are the more hope we have of saving the "casual" believers from stupidity.

BTW on the actual adoption agency question I'd raise two points - first of all I'd strip them of all public money and then I'd stop religions having tax breaks.

Secondly the thought of the catholic church proposing that they need to keep children from the "clutches" of gays doesn't exactly sit well with the paedophilia in their ranks does it? - hypocrites.



Logged
No Quarter
Offline Offline


Don't be a douche, stop piracy


WWW
« Reply #30 on: Yesterday at 11:40:06 PM »

For anyone interested:

Quote
Faith & Reason: Ruth Kelly, her hard-line church and a devout PM wrestling with his conscience
Catholic-run adoption agencies should retain the right to ban gay couples, say Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly. Most other cabinet members are horrified at the thought - and the scene is set for a political holy war. Francis Elliott reports
Published: 21 January 2007

She is a devout Catholic and member of the Opus Dei sect. His leanings to Rome have been rewarded with audiences in front of successive Popes.

So, when Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly team up to deny gay couples equal access to church-run adoption agencies, as we reveal today, it is little wonder that their opponents believe it is the "Catholic tendency" at work.

"We are descending into a spiral of immorality," said Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of the Catholic church in Scotland, when that country brought its laws into line with those of the rest of the UK to allow local authorities to place children with gay parents, just before Christmas.

Now, a further change in the law to remove from Catholic-run adoption agencies the right to ban gay people threatens to provoke a full-scale battle throughout the UK.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who is set to become the leader of England's Catholics, recently warned the Government not to "impose on us conditions which contradict our moral values".

"It is simply unacceptable to suggest that the resources of... adoption agencies ... can work in co-operation with public authorities only if the faith communities accept not just the legal framework but also the moral standards being touted by the Government," he sermonised last November.

When it comes to Mr Blair, the archbishop is preaching to the converted, according to senior ministers. The Prime Minister first asked Alan Johnson, then responsible, to include a loophole in anti-discrimination legislation to allow the Catholic ban on gay parents early last year.

When he refused, the PM moved him and handed the equalities brief to Ms Kelly, whom he knew could be trusted to back him on the issue. But a cabinet row last October delayed the introduction of the Equality Act until this April.

Ms Kelly now has to produce the regulations that spell out exactly how the new law will work, and the pressure is building towards an explosive political battle.

Mr Johnson remains implacably opposed to any exemption and is being supported by Peter Hain, Jack Straw, David Miliband, Des Browne and even Mr Blair's close friend Lord Falconer.

For his part, the Prime Minister can count only on Ms Kelly and John Hutton if the issue is pressed to the point of a full meeting of the cabinet committee that settles disputes on domestic policy. Members of the Domestic Affairs Committee, chaired by John Prescott, have been expecting a letter from Ms Kelly on the new regulations for weeks. Her aides say she will send them her proposals this week after further "detailed policy discussions with colleagues".

But Mr Blair can't count on much support among backbenchers. Angela Eagle, who topped a recent election to become the vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and Chris Bryant, MP for Rhondda, have been leading behind-the-scenes efforts to defeat the "Catholic tendency".

In a meeting last week Ms Kelly insisted that her wish to allow church-run adoption agencies to discriminate against gay couples had nothing to do with her own religious sensibilities.

Instead, the Communities Secretary said, she was acting in the best interests of vulnerable children since the Catholic bishops were threatening to close the seven agencies run by the church rather than comply.

The bishops point across the Atlantic at the example provided by the closure of an adoption agency by the Catholic church in Boston after the passing of anti-discrimination laws. It could no longer reconcile its operation with the Vatican ruling that gay adoption was "gravely immoral", it said.

In Britain the seven Catholic agencies account for around 4 per cent of the 2,900 children placed for adoption last year. But the agencies handle around 33 per cent of the so-called "difficult-to-place" children, some of whom have to wait years before they are found a home.

Since gay and lesbian people have proved to be more likely to adopt such children, there is anecdotal evidence that some Catholic agencies have been quietly ignoring the Vatican in a small number of cases.

Campaigners such as Ms Eagle and Mr Bryant say it is a nonsense to suggest that the best interests of such vulnerable children are best served by the exclusion of the very people most likely to provide them with a loving home.

Downing Street, anticipating the trouble the issue is likely to cause, tried to broker a compromise. Conor Ryan, Mr Blair's education adviser, suggested Catholic agencies could refuse to accept gay couples but would have a "duty to refer" such applicants to agencies that would accept them.

Ms Eagle draws a comparison with a famous incident in Alabama in 1955 that sparked the US civil rights movement to explain why she believes such a fudge would be offensive as well as unworkable. "It is the equivalent of telling Rosa Parks to wait for the fully integrated bus coming behind."

So just why is Mr Blair so desperate to maintain the ban, and can he and Ms Kelly win out in the face of the opposition? Despite the fact that his wife is a Catholic, close observers say it is unlikely that she has been a significant influence on this issue.

Cherie Blair is on the liberal wing of the Catholic church in England. She has, for instance, publicly said that she believes that the Vatican's teaching on birth control is wrong. Mrs Blair is also in favour of the ordination of women priests.

It may be that the PM is simply nervous of the Government being blamed for the closure of seven charitable agencies and is nervous of the political fall-out.

Certainly Gordon Brown is fully aware of the potentially negative electoral impression of the issue, especially in Scotland, which goes to the polls this May to elect a new Scottish Parliament.

The repeal of the legislation forbidding the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools was deeply contentious north of the border, especially in Labour Catholic heartlands on the west coast. The Scottish Executive has written to Ms Kelly asking that she take a "balanced" view - in effect supporting her attempts to win an exemption.

It is a little-noted facet of Mr Brown's political history that he has failed to vote every time there is a significant Commons division on gay rights. True to form, the Chancellor is showing scant interest in the current battle, although his most senior lieutenant, Ed Balls, is said to be firmly against allowing an exemption.

But for Ms Kelly there is no hiding place. Already wounded by the revelation that she sent her dyslexic son to a private boarding school, the Communities Secretary knows that she will sustain further damage in the coming weeks.

She first faced calls to resign from her job as the minister with overall responsibility for equality last May when she refused to say whether she believed that homosexuality was a sin.

"I don't think it's right for politicians to start making moral judgements about people. It's the last thing I want to do," she said. Later she added: "Everyone is entitled to express their views in free votes on matters of conscience."

Her membership of the Opus Dei sect, which encourages its members to take "holiness" into their working lives, has excited most suspicion among her colleagues. The sect, located firmly on the traditional wing of the church, has an uncompromising attitude to practising gays, regarding them as "serious sinners".

Ruth Kelly's advisers say that she believes that gay and lesbian couples provide loving homes for adopted children but their words would carry more weight if she, herself, said plainly that she believed that same-sex adoption was acceptable.

The scene is now set for a political Battle Royal. Tony Blair, an outgoing Prime Minister, is determined to support the Catholic bishops against the gay lobby, despite the opposition of most of his Cabinet.

In one further twist, David Cameron is likely to vote against any exemption for the Catholic agencies if the issue is put to a Commons vote, a senior member of his team has told The Independent on Sunday. It would be quite a parting gift from Mr Blair to the Opposition should he hand them the gay rights mantle.

In favour of an exemption

The coalition of leading Catholics opposed to gay adoption

Ann Widdecombe

The ex-minister, an implacable opponent of same-sex adoption, said that two men who had adopted three children made "a mockery of the law" two years after same-sex adoption was made legal.

Pope Benedict XVI

As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and head of the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", he signed a statement in 2003 that said allowing cohabiting gays to adopt was "gravely immoral".

Vincent Nichols

The Archbishop of Birmingham fired a warning shot over the Government's bows last November when he warned in a sermon of a "serious backlash" if the new gay rights laws were introduced.

David Alton

The former Liberal MP, and a vocal campaigner against abortion, now sits in the House of Lords as an independent peer, where he remains a staunch supporter of traditional Catholicism.

Equality before the law

The Act that has fuelled the clash between Catholics and gay lobby.

Same-sex couples have been allowed to adopt children in England and Wales since 2002; Scotland followed suit last year, but Northern Ireland remains opposed. Last year, the Government passed anti-discrimination legislation that comes into effect in April.

The law, supposed to guarantee gays equal access to goods and services, already faces a challenge in the High Court from religious groups this March. Now Catholic bishops want an exemption to allow church-run adoption agencies to ban gay couples applying. If it's not granted they say seven agencies will close, citing a Boston adoption agency that shutrather than flout the Vatican ruling that gay adoption is "gravely immoral".

Last year, Catholic agencies placed 4 per cent of the 2,900 children adopted and 33 per cent in the "difficult to place" category. Gay and lesbian couples such as Tony and Barry, are more likely to adopt such children, and campaigners say it is wrong to deny them a loving home. There are no reliable statisticson how many children are placed with gay parents each year.
https://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2171678.ece
Logged

Invicta_Toon
Offline Offline


Hip Hop is dead


« Reply #31 on: Yesterday at 11:49:11 PM »

Just been reading that there may be a split in the cabinet over the bits in a bill forcing catholic adoption agencies which take government cash to not ban gay couples. That fuckwit Kelly and Blair are apparently up against the more rational ones in the cabinet. Kelly has now had a job as education secretary in which she promoted faith schools and now as "equality" minister when she thinks gays are immoral - both conflicts of interest with her uber-catholic opus dei bollocks.

We all know that as human beings we're not immune to pretty irrational bigotry but to actually demand legal protection for it is so far beyond abhorrent its plain evil imo.

Having said that I was actually happy to see this protest - the more more the nutters show themsleves up for what we are the more hope we have of saving the "casual" believers from stupidity.

BTW on the actual adoption agency question I'd raise two points - first of all I'd strip them of all public money and then I'd stop religions having tax breaks.

Secondly the thought of the catholic church proposing that they need to keep children from the "clutches" of gays doesn't exactly sit well with the paedophilia in their ranks does it? - hypocrites.


religous beliefs are protected against discrimination too

so how is it that discrimination against gays somehow overrides discrimination against religion?
Logged

This doesn't look like Toontastic
indi
Fuckwitted Cock-for-Brained Arsehole (AKA Admin)
Offline Offline


I believe in joy!!


« Reply #32 on: Today at 12:10:31 AM »

For anyone interested:

Quote
Faith & Reason: Ruth Kelly, her hard-line church and a devout PM wrestling with his conscience
Catholic-run adoption agencies should retain the right to ban gay couples, say Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly. Most other cabinet members are horrified at the thought - and the scene is set for a political holy war. Francis Elliott reports
Published: 21 January 2007

She is a devout Catholic and member of the Opus Dei sect. His leanings to Rome have been rewarded with audiences in front of successive Popes.

So, when Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly team up to deny gay couples equal access to church-run adoption agencies, as we reveal today, it is little wonder that their opponents believe it is the "Catholic tendency" at work.

"We are descending into a spiral of immorality," said Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of the Catholic church in Scotland, when that country brought its laws into line with those of the rest of the UK to allow local authorities to place children with gay parents, just before Christmas.

Now, a further change in the law to remove from Catholic-run adoption agencies the right to ban gay people threatens to provoke a full-scale battle throughout the UK.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who is set to become the leader of England's Catholics, recently warned the Government not to "impose on us conditions which contradict our moral values".

"It is simply unacceptable to suggest that the resources of... adoption agencies ... can work in co-operation with public authorities only if the faith communities accept not just the legal framework but also the moral standards being touted by the Government," he sermonised last November.

When it comes to Mr Blair, the archbishop is preaching to the converted, according to senior ministers. The Prime Minister first asked Alan Johnson, then responsible, to include a loophole in anti-discrimination legislation to allow the Catholic ban on gay parents early last year.

When he refused, the PM moved him and handed the equalities brief to Ms Kelly, whom he knew could be trusted to back him on the issue. But a cabinet row last October delayed the introduction of the Equality Act until this April.

Ms Kelly now has to produce the regulations that spell out exactly how the new law will work, and the pressure is building towards an explosive political battle.

Mr Johnson remains implacably opposed to any exemption and is being supported by Peter Hain, Jack Straw, David Miliband, Des Browne and even Mr Blair's close friend Lord Falconer.

For his part, the Prime Minister can count only on Ms Kelly and John Hutton if the issue is pressed to the point of a full meeting of the cabinet committee that settles disputes on domestic policy. Members of the Domestic Affairs Committee, chaired by John Prescott, have been expecting a letter from Ms Kelly on the new regulations for weeks. Her aides say she will send them her proposals this week after further "detailed policy discussions with colleagues".

But Mr Blair can't count on much support among backbenchers. Angela Eagle, who topped a recent election to become the vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and Chris Bryant, MP for Rhondda, have been leading behind-the-scenes efforts to defeat the "Catholic tendency".

In a meeting last week Ms Kelly insisted that her wish to allow church-run adoption agencies to discriminate against gay couples had nothing to do with her own religious sensibilities.

Instead, the Communities Secretary said, she was acting in the best interests of vulnerable children since the Catholic bishops were threatening to close the seven agencies run by the church rather than comply.

The bishops point across the Atlantic at the example provided by the closure of an adoption agency by the Catholic church in Boston after the passing of anti-discrimination laws. It could no longer reconcile its operation with the Vatican ruling that gay adoption was "gravely immoral", it said.

In Britain the seven Catholic agencies account for around 4 per cent of the 2,900 children placed for adoption last year. But the agencies handle around 33 per cent of the so-called "difficult-to-place" children, some of whom have to wait years before they are found a home.

Since gay and lesbian people have proved to be more likely to adopt such children, there is anecdotal evidence that some Catholic agencies have been quietly ignoring the Vatican in a small number of cases.

Campaigners such as Ms Eagle and Mr Bryant say it is a nonsense to suggest that the best interests of such vulnerable children are best served by the exclusion of the very people most likely to provide them with a loving home.

Downing Street, anticipating the trouble the issue is likely to cause, tried to broker a compromise. Conor Ryan, Mr Blair's education adviser, suggested Catholic agencies could refuse to accept gay couples but would have a "duty to refer" such applicants to agencies that would accept them.

Ms Eagle draws a comparison with a famous incident in Alabama in 1955 that sparked the US civil rights movement to explain why she believes such a fudge would be offensive as well as unworkable. "It is the equivalent of telling Rosa Parks to wait for the fully integrated bus coming behind."

So just why is Mr Blair so desperate to maintain the ban, and can he and Ms Kelly win out in the face of the opposition? Despite the fact that his wife is a Catholic, close observers say it is unlikely that she has been a significant influence on this issue.

Cherie Blair is on the liberal wing of the Catholic church in England. She has, for instance, publicly said that she believes that the Vatican's teaching on birth control is wrong. Mrs Blair is also in favour of the ordination of women priests.

It may be that the PM is simply nervous of the Government being blamed for the closure of seven charitable agencies and is nervous of the political fall-out.

Certainly Gordon Brown is fully aware of the potentially negative electoral impression of the issue, especially in Scotland, which goes to the polls this May to elect a new Scottish Parliament.

The repeal of the legislation forbidding the "promotion" of homosexuality in schools was deeply contentious north of the border, especially in Labour Catholic heartlands on the west coast. The Scottish Executive has written to Ms Kelly asking that she take a "balanced" view - in effect supporting her attempts to win an exemption.

It is a little-noted facet of Mr Brown's political history that he has failed to vote every time there is a significant Commons division on gay rights. True to form, the Chancellor is showing scant interest in the current battle, although his most senior lieutenant, Ed Balls, is said to be firmly against allowing an exemption.

But for Ms Kelly there is no hiding place. Already wounded by the revelation that she sent her dyslexic son to a private boarding school, the Communities Secretary knows that she will sustain further damage in the coming weeks.

She first faced calls to resign from her job as the minister with overall responsibility for equality last May when she refused to say whether she believed that homosexuality was a sin.

"I don't think it's right for politicians to start making moral judgements about people. It's the last thing I want to do," she said. Later she added: "Everyone is entitled to express their views in free votes on matters of conscience."

Her membership of the Opus Dei sect, which encourages its members to take "holiness" into their working lives, has excited most suspicion among her colleagues. The sect, located firmly on the traditional wing of the church, has an uncompromising attitude to practising gays, regarding them as "serious sinners".

Ruth Kelly's advisers say that she believes that gay and lesbian couples provide loving homes for adopted children but their words would carry more weight if she, herself, said plainly that she believed that same-sex adoption was acceptable.

The scene is now set for a political Battle Royal. Tony Blair, an outgoing Prime Minister, is determined to support the Catholic bishops against the gay lobby, despite the opposition of most of his Cabinet.

In one further twist, David Cameron is likely to vote against any exemption for the Catholic agencies if the issue is put to a Commons vote, a senior member of his team has told The Independent on Sunday. It would be quite a parting gift from Mr Blair to the Opposition should he hand them the gay rights mantle.

In favour of an exemption

The coalition of leading Catholics opposed to gay adoption

Ann Widdecombe

The ex-minister, an implacable opponent of same-sex adoption, said that two men who had adopted three children made "a mockery of the law" two years after same-sex adoption was made legal.

Pope Benedict XVI

As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and head of the "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", he signed a statement in 2003 that said allowing cohabiting gays to adopt was "gravely immoral".

Vincent Nichols

The Archbishop of Birmingham fired a warning shot over the Government's bows last November when he warned in a sermon of a "serious backlash" if the new gay rights laws were introduced.

David Alton

The former Liberal MP, and a vocal campaigner against abortion, now sits in the House of Lords as an independent peer, where he remains a staunch supporter of traditional Catholicism.

Equality before the law

The Act that has fuelled the clash between Catholics and gay lobby.

Same-sex couples have been allowed to adopt children in England and Wales since 2002; Scotland followed suit last year, but Northern Ireland remains opposed. Last year, the Government passed anti-discrimination legislation that comes into effect in April.

The law, supposed to guarantee gays equal access to goods and services, already faces a challenge in the High Court from religious groups this March. Now Catholic bishops want an exemption to allow church-run adoption agencies to ban gay couples applying. If it's not granted they say seven agencies will close, citing a Boston adoption agency that shutrather than flout the Vatican ruling that gay adoption is "gravely immoral".

Last year, Catholic agencies placed 4 per cent of the 2,900 children adopted and 33 per cent in the "difficult to place" category. Gay and lesbian couples such as Tony and Barry, are more likely to adopt such children, and campaigners say it is wrong to deny them a loving home. There are no reliable statisticson how many children are placed with gay parents each year.
https://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2171678.ece
How annoying.
Logged

!! SHEPHERD OUT !!

I ain't no number
I don't need no ID round my neck
So Mr Politician
I got born and named like blood runs red
Cause I, I aint no number
Don't require no ID round my neck
So Mr number maker
ID cards won't stop no hijacked jet

:toon1:

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  

 
Jump to:  

Page created in 4.939 seconds with 19 queries.