The Evangelical Alliance has
said that the ruling from the High Court this week about a Christian
couple’s bid to foster children is unlikely to carry any landmark
implications.
Eunice and Owen Johns and Derby City Council had been seeking
clarification from the High Court as to whether the couple’s beliefs on
homosexuality should be a bar to their becoming foster carers.
Derby City Council halted their application process after the
Pentecostal couple said they would not be able to promote the homosexual
lifestyle to a child in their care.
The High Court ruled on Monday that when it came to equality
provisions, laws protecting the rights of homosexuals should trump laws
protecting religious beliefs.
The ruling left the way open for Christians to continue applying to
be foster carers but noted that if children were placed with parents who
have traditional Christian views “there may well be a conflict with the
local authority’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of
looked-after children”.
Although the Evangelical Alliance said the outcome of the case was
“unhelpful” for Christians and other religious believers with orthodox
beliefs, it added that it was “unlikely that the case will carry any
major landmark implications”.
It questioned whether British courts of law “should be used as forums
for debating the pros and cons of conflicting human rights created by
equalities legislation”, saying that they should only be used to resolve
disputed points of law “based on evidence”.
The EA said there was “no doubt” that equality laws appeared to be
disproportionately impacting against Christians, but said there was a
“clear need” for a “more cautious and strategic approach” in taking
disputes to court.
Dr Don Horrocks, head of Public Affairs at the EA, said: “We all need
to be more clued-up in deciding if and when to fight legal battles. Of
course there are occasions when defending religious liberty in the
courts is entirely appropriate and if there is evidence of fundamental
unfairness in the interpretation of equalities legislation then this
needs to be addressed by government.
“However, it is counterproductive to provoke the courts into unnecessary and unhelpful rulings - especially when a case is weak and evidence is lacking. There may also be risks that Christians will be viewed as deliberately engineering conflicts with the courts or pleading privileged treatment.”
“However, it is counterproductive to provoke the courts into unnecessary and unhelpful rulings - especially when a case is weak and evidence is lacking. There may also be risks that Christians will be viewed as deliberately engineering conflicts with the courts or pleading privileged treatment.”
Dr Horrocks said Christians should instead be seeking constructive
ways to safeguard public services as well as civil liberties by working
with public authorities and only seek legal redress if there is “no
other option”.
He said: “The good news is that Christians are and continue to be
actively involved in public life and contribute to the common good.
Following this particular case we hope that those in authority will
continue to consider the welfare of the child first in allowing
vulnerable children to be raised in supportive homes.”
The Johns were supported in their case by the Christian Legal Centre
and Christian Concern. Christian Concern said it would ask Prime
Minister David Cameron to launch an independent inquiry into the outcome
of the case.