This was in England by the way.

What's great is the more these stupid lawsuits are made and lost (so far, every one has lost) the more legal precedent is set against religious bias and coercion of this kind. The other thing to consider is that foster children are being cared for temporarily by non-related families on behalf of the state. They certainly have no right to teach other people's children to discriminate against homosexuals.

In a sharply worded judgment, Lord Justice Munby and Justice Beatson dismissed the couple's lawyer's claims as "a travesty of reality".   "...We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy."

It's hard to find people willing to foster children. They may offer a great environment and refuge for kids who need it. However, because of their religious beliefs they are unable to help out the kids and the kids have one less place to go.

It's a sad example of religious discrimination.

I don't think preaching hate creates a great environment for children or adults. So does that mean that if a muslim fosters children they can preach that the USA is the "great satan"?

Catholic Charities loses ruling on foster care

Judge rules state is not obligated to renew agencies' contracts

In a packed courtroom just one day earlier, lawyers for Catholic Charities urged Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Schmidt to prevent the state from suddenly severing a partnership that has funded foster care and adoption services in Illinois for four decades.

But Schmidt wrote in his ruling released Thursday that the longevity of the relationship between the state and Catholic Charities in Joliet, Peoria, Springfield and Belleville did not entitle them to automatic renewal of their contracts.

"No citizen has a recognized legal right to a contract with the government," Schmidt wrote.

Since March, state officials have been investigating whether religious agencies that receive public funds to license foster care parents are breaking anti-discrimination laws if they turn away openly *** parents.

In discussions after the civil union bill went into effect in June, Catholic Charities told the state that accommodating prospective foster parents in civil unions would violate Catholic Church teaching that defines marriage between a man and a woman.

Pointing to a clause in the Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act that they believe protects religious institutions that don't recognize civil unions, the agencies said they would refer those couples elsewhere and only license married couples and single parents living alone.

But lawyers for the Illinois attorney general said that exemption only shields religious clergy who don't want to officiate at civil unions. The policy of Catholic Charities violates state anti-discrimination laws that demand couples in civil unions be treated the same as married couples, they said.

Schmidt's ruling avoided the religious freedom issue. Instead he focused on whether the state violated the property rights of Catholic Charities when it declined to sign new contracts for the next fiscal year. Previous contracts expired June 30.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...0819,0,7997624.story

A woman told me that in the 60s she and her husband had checked into fostering children. They were stopped cold and told they couldn't be foster parents because when ask if they attended church they said no.

A civil union/partnership isn't a marriage. Most people don't object to that. I certainly don't.

Preaching that something is wrong is not preaching hate.

If the foster parents told their kids that smoking is bad for them, does that mean they are teaching them to hate smokers?

To answer your question, not all Muslims are anti-American.

Not all muslims are anti-American, not all christians are anti-***. I ask and wanted to know if you thought some muslims teaching foster children the US was "the great satan" was OK. You come back with some crap about smoking. Smoking has nothing to do with the subject. The subject is about not allowing people to teach children, that are not theirs btw, that a homosexual lifestyle is wrong. What if those children have relatives that are g a y?  What if some of the older children are ***? And just how would being g a y be "bad" for them?

The question about smoking is an analogy. A comparison to clarify the point.

Foster parents teaching hatred for a country is very different than foster parents teaching that homosexuality is wrong.

If you teach a child that smoking is bad for them, it doesn't mean they are learning to hate smokers. I believe homosexuality is wrong for many reasons, but I don't have any hatred whatsoever for homosexuals. I treat them with the same respect as I would treat anyone else. That's the difference.

Preventing this couple from fostering children based on their personal religious beliefs is a form of intolerance and injustice. People should not have their rights or privileges taken away because they are Christian.

Nash, they were foster parents. These children were not their children. They are free to teach all the hate to their own children they want, they just can't spew it to children they are paid by the government to care for. The smoking thing is still silly. And you didn't answer the question what if the children had g a y relatives or were themselves g a y. Some children are returned to their parents. What if those parents happen to disagree with what the foster parents told their children about homosexuality? This is another area where christians think they have the right to push their beliefs onto people.

My opinion is Foster Parents shouldn’t be teaching young children anything accept good manners, educational help, grooming and respect for others. If a question of homosexuality comes up from the child, they should briefly tell the child that we are all equal in this world and should care about each other. And that people can be different from each other sometimes. Then if they decide to adopt they can and should teach them the way they believe or not the world is about, but still not put down others.

Skippy

Exactly skippy. 

Again, the view that homosexuality is wrong does not equal hatred.

If the foster parents are insisting on teaching hatred of homosexuals, that's not right. It's also very different than the belief that homosexuality is morally wrong.

Since the smoking example missed, let's try this one. If the couple were atheists and insisted on telling the children that God does not exist, would you be okay with that?

I can answer but of course you'll choose to not believe me. No, that would not be OK with me. Teaching religion or teaching against religion is NOT a foster parent's place. You have the idea that the child belongs to them to do whatever, and that is not true. I happen to think there is nothing wrong with a person just because they're homosexual, but again, I wouldn't offer my opinion about it to someone elses child. IF they ask I would follow the guidelines set down by the fp program on how to answer them.  I've read a few comments from foster parents on the subject and they are not allowed to do it either. The birth parent or parents still have a say about it and if they don't want the child taught religion the foster parents can't do it. Also if the bp wants the child taken to church but a different denomintion than the fp, they have to make arrangements for that. If the parents aren't there for input it's left up to the child if they're old enough to say, and if they choose not to attend church they can't force them to go. If it is a younger child they have to go as far as to hire a babysitter to stay home with the child while they're at church. IF they adopt the child they can do whatever they want.

The case posted was in england, but I'm sure it would happen here if fp broke the agreement they have with the fp program. So their claim that they are being discriminated against because of religion is BS. They knew the rules and chose to break them. Whose fault is that?  There are many reasons children go into the fp program, and as many as half are returned to their bp. How would you feel if through no fault of your own your children had to be fostered for six months, a year, and when they came back to you they had been indoctrinated into a religion completely different than yours? What if they had an aunt or uncle or even an older brother or sister that were homosexuals and now they were turned against them?

Why do you assume I won't believe you? I do believe you. Thanks for answering, I think we're actually closer to having a similar opinion on this subject.

I do not believe foster parents can do whatever they want to the foster child. I never said that in any of my posts.

I did not know that foster parents are not allowed to share any of their beliefs or culture. I think it would be good for children to be exposed to different environments, but if it's against the rules then it's against the rules.

If the foster parents in the article are Wesboro types, full of hate and distracted from what Christianity really is, then I would agree that they should not foster.

If they are simply Christians but are being denied based on their personal views and not because they have broken any rules, denying them would be discrimination.

If they are simply Christians but are being denied based on their personal views and not because they have broken any rules, denying them would be discrimination.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Of course the fp program would know they were christians and that is perfectly fine with them, but even christians have to follow the rules.  

I agree, they do have to follow the rules. However, that brings up the key question. Was this decision based on the couple breaking a rule or or was it based on their beliefs?

We can go around and around in circles about it but it looks like the decision was based on them breaking the rules and pushing their beliefs off onto children, which, as posted before by other foster parents, is a big no no UNLESS the bp and or child agrees to it. I see no reason in the world for the fp program to have a problem with them being christians as long as they followed the rules/guidelines and apparently someone had a problem with them teaching children that the homosexual lifestyle was bad.

I had an Aunt & Uncle that fostered children for many years. Theirs was a Christian home & Christianity was never brought up when they were asked to take one child or 5.

The above is the result of a quick search, and it's Colorado. It wouldn't paste the link for some reason and it "came out funny looking". I don't know if rules differ from state to state but from reading fp comments it seems to be the same all over the country.

Then I guess we're in agreement.