''The judges have suggested that our views might harm children. We have been told by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that our moral views may 'infect' a child.
"We do not believe that this is so. We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing.
"Worst of all, a vulnerable child has now likely missed the chance of finding a safe and caring home at a time when there are so few people willing to foster or adopt.''
Eunice Johns, 62, who has been denied the ability to care for a foster child by a court in London, UK. (Telegraph.co.uk)
Johns and her husband, Owen, 65, say they have four grown children of their own and have fostered another child a few years ago; so they didn't believe that their request to the Derby City Council would be a problem.
It's reported that the court ruled that the couple's religious beliefs could not be used as an excuse to circumvent secular law.
Eunice Johns said that she knows an 8-year-old child would not ask about homosexuality, and if he or she had, she would sit them down to talk to them because something would be wrong. The Johns say they would have loved their own child if one of them had been gay, and that they would do the same for a foster child. However, they insist that their particular interpretation of the Christian Bible would not allow them to say that homosexuality is acceptable. (Times of London via YouTube)
Robert Pigott of BBC News wrote an analysis that said in part:
''Significantly, the court said that while there was a right not to face discrimination on the basis on either religion or sexual orientation, equality of sexual orientation took precedence.
''This was the most decisive ruling against the idea of Christian values underpinning English law since judges ruled last year that to protect views simply because they were religious would be irrational, divisive and arbitrary.''