Because we have no reason to disbelieve the judge when he says that this is a very acrimonious situation, and that the so-called "Christian teachings" are damaging the relationship between the little girl and McLeod. Call me a cynic -- but I think that this is basically your typical ugly divorce with a twist, and there is little niceness to be found on either side.
Is it not possible that Clark (recognizing the correction you made in the next post) actually cares deeply about McLeod but simply wants to teach her daughter the truth about her deviant lifestyle?
Possible, but highly unlikely.
BTW, a large part of my contrarian position on this story is due the fact that Clark's lawyers are a) advocacy lawyers, a species whose public statements I never trust at face value; and b)the fact that they're shrieking about the judge wanting to suppress religious freedom, when it seems quite clear that the judge's ruling is based on something quite different: the damage Clark is causing to the relationship between the child and McLeod.
IMHO this thing is a publicity gimmick by Clark's lawyers to raise a public hue and cry -- which it seems to be doing.
And all involved (with the possible exception of the judge) seem to have lost sight of the fact that there's an innocent little girl who has to witness this ugliness, and whose opinion of what Christianity means is probably being hideously warped -- by Ms. Clark, above all.
Apparently you aren't familiar with activist judges. If I grant you the possiblity that the advocacy lawyers could be twisting their side, will you grant me the possibility that the judge actually has a problem with the Christian teaching that homosexuality is an abomination?
With that in mind, the actual statement that the woman may not provide "Christian" teaching that is "homophobic" goes beyond an attempt to protect an "innocent" child. If that's what the judge wanted to do, he could easily have used language like yours. It is certainly possible to use Christian teaching that homosexuality is wrong to have a child lovingly pray for a homosexual, provide support and healing comfort when necessary, but not learn to accept homosexual behavior. The judge could have easily required such without mentioning religion or the politically charged term "homophobic" at all.
Since we can not prove your assumptions or mine based on the article at hand, I think we must at least criticize the judge for politicizing and "Christianizing" his ruling.
But judges don't get punished for that, unless they are trying to display a monument to the Ten Commandments. Then they can kiss the bench goodbye.
Shalom.