Christianity deserves no protection in law above other faiths

platypus

platypus

platypus

Caporegime
Joined
25 Jul 2003
Posts
40,464
Location
FR+UK
Nice to see a bit of common sense in the judiciary system.

Christianity deserves no protection in law above other faiths and to do so would be “irrational” , “divisive, capricious and arbitrary”, a senior judge said today, as he rejected a marriage guidance counsellor’s attempt to challenge his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples.

In the latest clash between the judiciary and Christian believers, Lord Justice Laws said that laws could not be used to protect one religion above another.

He also delivered a robust dismissal to the former Archbishop of Canterbury who had warned that a series of recent court rulings against Christians could lead to “civil unrest.”

...

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7111593.ece​
Couldn't agree more.
 
Judge is correct.

But...

... if the councillor was of another unnamed religion, he would have won and go £££££ in compensation.
 
eatcustard said:
Judge is correct.

But...

... if the councillor was of another unnamed religion, he would have won and go £££££ in compensation.
Click to expand...

Yup, it seems other faiths enjoy protection in law above Christianity. Welcome to Labour's Britain :(
 
Seriously what the heck is wrong with these people? They go to a Christian marriage councellor who doesn't agree with gay marriage and when he unsuprisingly says no, they take it to court instead of just find someone else??? And people think that is good?? And a lot of them are probably the same people moaning that Christians are trying to force their opinions/beliefs on others...... To me it's looking the other way round
 
This is only common sense and fair if it is applied evenly across all religions regardless.

What of the muslim medical staff who do not have to bare their arms from the elbow due to their religious belief, is this not the same?

If this was applied evenly then the Muslim medical staff would have to abide by the NHS ruling, as the Christian guidence counsellor has to council Homosexuals.

What ever happened to choice in this allegedly free country.

Find a counsellor that councils homosexual couples, rather than a christian one who wouldn't be able to give unbiased guidance anyway.
 
Last edited:
ordinaryjoe said:
Seriously what the heck is wrong with these people? They go to a Christian marriage councellor who doesn't agree with gay marriage and when he unsuprisingly says no, they take it to court instead of just find someone else???
Click to expand...

You might like to re-read the story before going off on one. That's not what happened.

I also agree with the judge. Now if we can have that applied to all religions, we'd be getting somewhere.
 
ordinaryjoe said:
Seriously what the heck is wrong with these people? They go to a Christian marriage councellor who doesn't agree with gay marriage and when he unsuprisingly says no, they take it to court instead of just find someone else??? And people think that is good?? And a lot of them are probably the same people moaning that Christians are trying to force their opinions/beliefs on others...... To me it's looking the other way round
Click to expand...

They didn't go to a Christian Marriage counsellor, they went to Relate. He refused to give them advice and Relate sacked him. He then took Relate to court.
 
eatcustard said:
... if the councillor was of another unnamed religion, he would have won and go £££££ in compensation.
Click to expand...

You'd be able to cite a case where a councillor of another faith has violated equality laws, been sacked and then won in court then?
 
RE: equality laws, it isn't for the state to make judgements on who should serve which clients (and it certainly wouldn't be common if they didn't run 53% of the economy). It is Relate Federation's right to deny service to whoever they choose. Nobody complained about Tesco denying service to people dressed in a certain manner so this should be no different.

That aside, this gentleman should have considered the possibility that Relate would require him to deal with cases other than heterosexual couples. So long as there was no breach of contract, that is.
 
Frankly, in the past 10 years, I haven't seen it have protection above any other faith anyway. As long as no faith has more or less than another, then it's fine. That's the basis of multicultural/faith society - one where all enjoy the same benefits, not where one is favoured above others.
 
Gaidin109 said:
What of the muslim medical staff who do not have to bare their arms from the elbow due to their religious belief, is this not the same?
Click to expand...

No it is not the same. The example you cited does not have any impact on patients, other than to offend people who get offended by the mere sight of someone in Muslim gear. Nothing is being denied.

Although, I'm all for anything which shows up any of the major monotheistic religions for what they are- Bigoted and backwards.
 
i know some may say 'oh well if they were muslims they'd have caved in', but atleast the first step has been made so we have a basis to turn away any minority if they make a complaint saying 'well we ruled this on a christian'
 
Seems a bit ridiculous. If a gay couple had booked a session, couldn't Relate just arrange the counsellor to be someone who doesn't mind? Surely that would be the sensible way forward rather than court rubbish and sackings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom