Christians are no longer allowed to adopt in Britain unless they surrender to secular humanist morality.
And notice the weasel words that Ben Summerskill uses to justify the policy:
"‘Many Christian parents of gay children will be shocked at Mr and Mrs Johns’s views, which are more redolent of the 19th century than the 21st.’"
Translation: Because we have got some Christians (or least soi disant Christians) to reject Biblical teaching on homosexuality, those doctrines are no longer to be considered part of Christianity. Moreover, the existence of non-traditional teachings invalidates the right to hold traditional teachings; a particular teaching cannot be considered part of your religion as long as we can get someone who claims to belong to your religion to reject it.
This sleight of hand happens frequently, when someone who criticizes a policy for violating their religious beliefs is pointed towards another person ostensibly of the same religion who supports the policy, as if that someone's belief invalidates everyone's who disagrees with him. It is as if freedom of religion only means freedom to identify as a particular creed rather than freedom to hold one's own particular beliefs.
Of course, I suppose that people who defend this policy will remind me that anyone who rejects the sexual revolution is automatically an oppressor and has no rights.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.