On the one hand the Archbishop of Canterbury says Britain should adopt parts of Sharia law.
On the other, the homosexual superrights lobby has so influenced the government that Sunday School teachers can be denied as foster parents.
But this poses quite the dilemma for a man like Richard Dawkins, who believes, if you'll recall, that there are genes that control whether one is a believer or not. On that view, then, believing in God and the tenets of a religion would also be biological in nature.
Note one of the comments attached to the second article:
The issue here is about tolerance and bigotry. This couple are obviously very good foster parents, but their inflexible Christian standpoint (which actually means one must question their Christianity) means that they are patently unsuitable for nurturing children in the 21st century.This must be quite the quandry for the Nuffidians in the UK. On the one hand, they'll side with the homosexuals and say discrimination if "bigotry" on the presumption that homosexuality is genetic/biological, yet on the other they'll argue that being a believer is also genetic/biological. I suppose some forms of bigotry are less important than others.
Unlike drug abuse, promiscuity, violence et al, homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice which can be 'parented out' of well adjusted children, homosexuality is fully accepted in civilised societies as an irreversible, birth given characteristic. To not condone this simple fact is tantamount to bigotry. And we all know where that leads to.