www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... uples.html Given that a charity must operate within its charitable objects, this seems a wierd thing for the Charity Commission to argue. I assuume (not checked) that the Catholic charity's objects will involve observance of Catholic philospophy. If that's the case aren't the Charity Commission likely to cause the trustees of this (and maybe thousands of other charities) to have to breach their objects (and thereby potentially lose their charitable status)?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... uples.html Given that a charity must operate within its charitable objects, this seems a wierd thing for the Charity Commission to argue. I assuume (not checked) that the Catholic charity's objects will involve observance of Catholic philospophy. If that's the case aren't the Charity Commission likely to cause the trustees of this (and maybe thousands of other charities) to have to breach their objects (and thereby potentially lose their charitable status)?

No not really.



You can't hide behind beliefs in order to circumvent the law as an individual or as a business - I might believe that I can drive perfectly well on ten pints of lager but it doesn't make it any less illegal, my opinion or belief is irrelevant as is the church's particularly as their belief is not founded on any morsel of technical or scientific fact that they could have offered the courts int hese past five years.

That was not the point I was making.

If the Charity Commission can help to remove some unpalatable bigotry from the world, then no, it isn't stupid.

You can't say bigot, it's a nasty horrible word (even when totally justified, as it is in this case), apparently.

It's difficult to see who wins out of this case.

I guess it's like saying "candyman" 5 times, say the word and your local neighbourhood bigot pops up!

You seem to be saying that a charity should be allowed to keep its charitable status as long as it stays within its own remit.

Would I be allowed to set up a charity that only dealt with adoption by gay couples? No, I would not and for exactly the same reasons.



Quite apart from that, the Catholic charity is being uncharitable.

If it would take its head out of its backside, it would realise that.

That'll be because of the hugely uncharitable anti-gay blinkers you choose to wear, apparently justified by a wilfully gross misconstruance of a double translation of something that someone 2000 years ago might or might not have remembered correctly someone else having said decades earlier.

I see where you're coming from, but the fact is they [iare[/i being charitable, it's just that they are acting within the consciences of their benefactors.



I fail to see who exactly benefits from this ruling. The agency is likely to close. The children, many of whom are difficult cases, will undoubtedly suffer through this further lack of provision. Whilst all the time gay couples, who wouldn't have been able to use the service anyway, are no better off.



Let me repeat this: Less children finding placements. All so that the same number of gay parents can adopt as before.



And all in the name of equality

Nonsense.

The "charity" can continue, it just can't be a registered charity or enjoy the benefits of social approval and tax breaks.

Hopefully the children, who can be sent to a loving home without having someone prejudiced and ignorant deciding what's best for them.