I was reminded of this when I read about a recent high court case that found that Eunice and Owen Johns were not discriminated against after being overlooked for fostering children after they told a social worker that they could not tell a child that homosexual behaviour was acceptable. They claim this was part of their religious beliefs and so being overlooked as part of these beliefs is a form of discrimination. Personally I find it hilarious that a couple are claiming they are being discriminated against because they cannot pass on their prejudice to another generation of children. Because that’s what the main issue is here. It has nothing to do with their religion and has everything to do with children being raised in an environment where they are taught it is not fair to discriminate against people for who they choose to shag.

It is frankly hypocritical that discrimination laws that are supposed to protect minorities are trying to be used by religious groups to protect their right to discriminate because it is part of their religion. Eunice Johns, with no sense of irony argued;

“We are extremely distressed at what the judges have ruled. All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need (providing that child wasn’t gay)*, but because we are Christians with mainstream Christian views on sexual ethics (we think gays are the devils work), we are apparently unsuitable. We are prepared to love and accept any child (providing that child isn’t gay). All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing. We feel excluded and that there is no place for us in society.”

There is a place for them in society and that place is away from children where they cannot pass on their prejudice to another generation. The court summed it up perfectly when they ruled;

“No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not ‘fit and proper’ persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone** is equal before the law and equal as a human being … entitled to dignity and respect.”

*Emboldened comments in brackets are mine.

**Emphasis mine

Now I know the video is a month old, but if the tabloids can resort to pulling up articles from 8 years ago in order to slur Nick Clegg I see no reason why I can’t bring this up now.

This is really an update to my previous blog post Are the Tories Homophobic and shows David Cameron responding to his Party’s voting record on gay rights. This video alongside Cameron’s rabbit in the headlights look during the previous leaders debate raise doubts that transcend just the usual criticism about Tory policies. 

I am starting to have serious doubts about Cameron’s ability to deal with pressurised situations and questions.  If this is how he responds to a little bit of pressure from a magazine journalist what is he going to be like should he ever get to govern this country?

These are legitimate concerns, unlike the vitriolic criticism we have seen recently of Nick Clegg and The Liberal Democrats in the tabloids which has prompted even Conservative bloggers to  reel in disgust.

Here are the results.

Labour

Over 100 Labour MPs voted 100% in support of Stonewall’s position. That’s just under a third.

No Labour MP voted totally against Stonewall’s position.

Gordon Brown voted 71% for Stonewall’s position.

The average Labour MP voted 84% in favor of Stonewall’s position.

Liberal Democrats

12 Liberal Democrat MPs voted 100% in support of Stonewall’s position. That’s just under a fifth.

No Liberal Democrat MP voted totally against Stonewall’s position

Nick Clegg voted 86% for Stonewall’s position.

The average Liberal Democrat MP voted 79% in favor of Stonewall’s position

Conservatives

None of the Conservative MPs voted 100% in support of Stonewall’s position. That’s none.

Three Conservative MPs voted totally against Stonewall’s position.

David Cameron voted 36% for Stonewall’s position.

The average Conservative MP voted 79% against Stonewall’s position.

“How many people do you need to change a country? Answer. All of them.”

Unless you’re gay that is, according to the Conservative voting record.   

Maybe my blog title is a little provocative, but given the evidence I think it is a fair question and one that should be raised at some point during one of the three leaders’ debates. I just wonder how Cameron can defend his own voting record let alone that of the rest of his party.

Update

Literally just as I posted this I saw a tweet from @tkingdoll linking to this website: http://mygayvote.co.uk/

She calls the Tories ’massive bigots’ I’m inclined to agree.

So what inspires this mini rant you ask; well who other than the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has been in the news today after Pope Benedict wrote an open letter to “help in the process of repentance, healing and renewal.” from the paedophilia revelations. This was done shortly after the head of the Catholic church in Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady apologised for his role in covering up the abuse allegations. All this comes across as a massive PR stunt by the Catholic Church to attempt to restore the public’s confidence in the archaic institution. If the Pope and his cronies really did regret the actions of its members then they might sack some of the people involved instead of protecting them, as in the case of Cardinal Bernard Law who was given a job in Rome after accusations of child abuse. He is wanted by a grand jury; perhaps the Church thinks it is above secular morality where people are expected to pay for their sins with time in jail. I don’t. 

This aside, the Catholic Church has a fundamental problem when it comes to trust because it is hard to trust an institution that, not only is built on a bed of lies, but that continues to lie in order to protect its perceived religious righteousness. Pope Benedict is well known for his blatant lies about contraception and aids and on the very day the Catholic Church is trying to make amends for raping children and covering it up a Catholic adoption charity wins the right to discriminate against same sex couples.

Sorry about the rape, the homophobia and the aids; Believe in Jesus!

Now whether you agree with same sex couples adopting children or not is not the issue I wish to raise here. Clearly the Catholic Church does not and has fought to support that opinion in court. What I do want to draw attention to is the lies; refusing to allow a couple to adopt on the basis of their sexuality is discrimination simple.

Not according to The Bishop of Leeds, Right Rev Arthur Roche, who said outside the court: “Our case has not been brought on an anti-gay agenda of any sort. We respect, and would not want to diminish, the dignity of any person.” But that’s exactly what they are doing! There is no other way of describing it; they are depriving same sex couples from having children on the basis of their sexuality and for no other reason. That is discrimination; that is an anti-gay agenda. Yet again a member of the church is blatantly lying, something isn’t so just because you say it is, although I realise this is the basis of faith. You can’t say you aren’t being homophobic while at the same time celebrating a victory in court that allows you to discriminate against homosexuals. You don’t get to say you respect the rights of all individuals when you are being prejudicial.

So the Catholic Church has lied about raping children, discriminating against homosexuals and contraception, thus condemning millions to die from aids, and they expect us to take their word for it when they say there is an omnipotent creator watching our every move and sorting us into heaven or hell. They better hope for their own sakes that they’re wrong.