News: "Christians, asked if they believe ‘outdated parts of the Bible,’ denied foster application."

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mdgspencer

Guest
I wonder if the social worker would have asked a Muslim couple the same question.

If she would, I would at least applaud her consistency…but I VERY much doubt that would be the case…
 
Unfortunately there is no guarantee of freedom of speech or religion in Canada. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms takes a different view of civil rights than the United States. We believe that all persons are endowed with certain unalienable natural rights, and that the government exists to guarantee and protect those rights. The Canadian constitution however assumes that rights are granted through provision of law, in other words they are not retained by the people but granted by government decree, and that these rights are only guaranteed to limits set by the law. Obviously Canada uses a very loose definition of what reasonable limits are. Also notice that Canada only gives the right to freedom of thought, it does not guarantee freedom of exercise. See below:

“The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Fundamental Freedoms​

Marginal note:Fundamental freedoms​

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

freedom of conscience and religion;
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
freedom of peaceful assembly; and
freedom of association.
 
Last edited:
And there’s this concept of it being a ‘living document’ so it’s not the same approach many in the US are familiar with and opens the door to ‘arbitrary’ decisions.
 
Just playing devil’s advocate, what if a child in foster care identified as homosexual, or their parent/guardian. There are some some rules you have to follow when you foster children. No spanking, for instance.
 
Are you talking about a couple who wants to foster a LGBT identifying teen?
Or they raise a kid who later identifies as LGBT?
 
Is the implication that practicing Christians can’t take care of an LGBT teen? I’m not sure i subscribe to that.
 
It’s also just generally a weaker document, and it doesn’t have nearly as much protection for individual rights and freedoms. The charter matters until the government says it doesn’t basically.
 
OnAJourney said:
Is the implication that practicing Christians can’t take care of an LGBT teen? I’m not sure i subscribe to that.
Click to expand...
The foster rules likely include that parents must support the children in being LGBT and can’t teach them that it’s bad or wrong, or forbid them from having same-sex partners.
 
Personally speaking I don’t think it’s any business of the state telling parents that they have to accept who their adopted child dates. We don’t expect that of parents with children that aren’t LGBT, and it would be inconsistent to treat people to differing standards.

I can’t speak to being trans but I can on being gay. Being gay is not itself bad or immoral. I think so long as a family is willing to accept a child for being intrisincally gay (not acting upon it), then it shouldn’t matter.
 
The US constitution does not provide a right to adopt children. The ultimate protector of children, when parents do not do so, is the state (by which I mean governmental authority, not the mini-countries some places are divided into). So it is absolutely to be expected that the state will try to ensure the welfare of children, including the protection of rights (which are protected in the US constitution) such as freedom of expression.
 
OnAJourney said:
Personally speaking I don’t think it’s any business of the state telling parents that they have to accept who their adopted child dates. We don’t expect that of parents with children that aren’t LGBT, and it would be inconsistent to treat people to differing standards.
Click to expand...
I think they sort of do? Like, it’s not “you have to accept anyone your child dates no matter what,” but if a family said “we’d never let our kid date someone from another race because we don’t believe in that sort of thing,” it would absolutely be an issue. Like it would be different from “we don’t want you dating someone who’s drinking underage.” Most pro-LGBT people would see dealing with gay people that way as similar. It wouldn’t be a blanket “you can’t disapprove of who your kid dates for any reason,” but “you can’t forbid them from going on same-sex dates for the reason of them being same-sex.”
 
Well I’m gay, and I don’t agree with this whole affair. I think you can accept your child in either case.
 
I reject the outdated concept of modern theological liberalism. That is so 70s.
 
FiveLinden said:
The US constitution does not provide a right to adopt children. The ultimate protector of children, when parents do not do so, is the state (by which I mean governmental authority, not the mini-countries some places are divided into). So it is absolutely to be expected that the state will try to ensure the welfare of children, including the protection of rights (which are protected in the US constitution) such as freedom of expression.
Click to expand...
Ummm, but the adoptive couple does not have freedom of expression?
This is the circle you go round in when moral judgments are based on governmental authority (ie “force”) rather than objective goods.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top