http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/anti-gay-ruling-divides-church/story-fn6t2xlc-1225976973918

Community Service foster carers can be single, married, in a de facto or same-sex relationship," DoCs said yesterday.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-discriminating-decision/story-e6frg71x-1225976813185

In a democracy, controversial issues are best determined by elected representatives rather than by unaccountable judicial activists. This is why the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal was wise in its ruling that religious charities are allowed to bar gay foster parents. As the tribunal said, rather than representing a moral judgment about whether churches should discriminate in providing services for which they are funded publicly, the decision rested on the broad exemptions in the Anti-Discrimination Act relating to religious groups. These, it said " may be a matter which calls for the attention of parliament".

http://www.news.com.au/politicians-refuse-to-act-after-churches-win-right-to-discriminate-against-gay-foster-parents/story-e6frfkp0-1225976862266

NSW Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell also ruled out yesterday any move to push for legislative change on the issue if the Liberals win government next March.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/church-free-to-ban-gay-foster-parents-after-nsw-administrative-decisions-tribunal-ruling/story-e6freuy9-1225976419514

Council of Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy said churches who received taxpayers money to provide services for the state -as was increasingly the case -should no longer be exempt from discrimination laws.

-/-/-

We have children being cared for under church administration. Can we allow church run organizations that enforce their own beliefs on clients to be handed the custody of state children? Christians as foster parents I don’t have a problem with, a system that supports administering outside of what the government has decided is permissible appears more than a little dodgy.

We also appear to have a parliament that wishes to not address it.

In NSW we have a coalition of NGO’s.

http://www.timetocare.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2&Itemid=2

All are anxious to bring children into the foster homes of who they recruit and manage with a strange mix of Church and non church care and some do recruit gay carers. They are however certainly all on the same page when looking at where the funding comes from.

Is it okay to let religious based organisations discriminate when contracted to supply services to the state?

when it comes to kids
NO ONE CAN BE TRUSTED...!

not church not state
not boyscout leaders
not police not lawyer

not ngo
nor caregiver
not even parents

the best intrests of kids..is a trickey point
is it best to get a good education..or stay innocent

[this is an either or]

i know many [like me]..
who were molesterd as innocents

who got our eyes opened
that adults can be nice...while being hurtfull

i have met so many like me
who know the vile..others do to you
when no one is watching..

when no one will believe you

do you realise
that criminals love the law
even make the law?

the best way to get party loyalty
is have the dirt on your member

[and kids is how they get most of em]

you have kids deliverd..to your door in a com car
if your an important judge or poly or media personage

if people only knew how organised it really is GLOBALLY
maybe they would stress out less on the issue

i have talked to survivers
many thought to be dead..by their parents
are doing easy time..in the cast-les of the world
i have met them on the streets..listend to their stories

let others think them mad
i refuse to be sad
they survived

too many kids
dont survive war

what is in their best intrests
living or dying?

no one in govt will/can.. change a thing
[they cant..they are as guilty as the real perverts]

dont forget
they are organised

they have planned and scemed
because they once..were a victim too

once they* were..the secret..
now they too..hold secrets

"Give me the child for seven years,
and I will give you the man."

Who said that?

Give me the child for seven years,
and I will give you the man."

Who said that?.........

I dont know........A catholic priest!.....lol..

LEAP

Hey OUG, monitoring and keeping children safe within individual homes every moment would be the ideal and with current technology/climate probably impossible to achieve. The question would be who does the monitoring as the current lead agency is the government. The other ideal is for them to actually have complete power which enables them to continue to protect their young clients no matter where they are located.

So the way I see it you have to start at the top and look at the systems in place. For government to hand a child to a sub-contractor they still have to retain the function of protector which in my mind means anyone contracting to government to do a specific job has to follow government rules from the top down.

Once you allow a company to decide they will turn away from their employer’s model they surely cease at that point to provide the service they are funded to do and the government is allowing a standard to be set that can spiral out of control in all areas and negatively affect who it is supposed to be protecting.

Now I guess I’m wondering, with gay couples in this case, how government can continue to support/hire/fund/accept any type of provider that discriminates against certain people when it does not.

I’m not wondering why as I think I’ve seen enough to know what a horrible money hungry mess the whole system currently is here and beyond our shores. What I want to know is if it is generally accepted here and the thinking behind what people really believe the governments function is.

Cheers Leap and Morgan, and remember to teach him to fish don’t just give him a fish etc etc.

There is a difference in allowing Church run institutions to decide who they employ but when an organisation is supplying services on behalf of the government and is paid to do so, surely they become subject to the common law and the rules governing the tender process, whatever they may be.

Government paid services are not multiple choice, organisations picking and choosing as they see fit. Surely the premise is that the regulations or guidelines are handled uniformly across the sector, and there is good faith expectations these services will be provided in adherence with those guidelines.

The vital factor is suitability for parenting, the ability to give love and care to the children in care. That requirement can be fulfilled by all manner of people.

I would imagine if an organisation cannot adhere to the tender requirements they probably would not apply. That is their right.