British Judge: Christian Beliefs Have No Legal Standing

[John Dibble]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/british-judge-christian-b_n_559244.html
      
British Judge: Christian Beliefs Have No Legal Standing
By Al Webb
Religion News Service

LONDON (RNS) A top British judge has ruled that Christian beliefs have no standing under secular law because they lack evidence and cannot be proven.

Lord Justice John Grant McKenzie Laws made the declaration on Thursday (April 29) in throwing out a defamation suit by Christian relationship counselor who refused to offer sex therapy to gay couples.

Gary McFarlane protested that he was fired because offering sex therapy to same-gender couples violates his Christian principles.

But Laws said "religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence." He added that to use the law to protect "a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified."

No religious belief, said the judge, can be protected under the law "however long its tradition, however rich its culture."

Laws also dismissed as "misplaced" and "mistaken" former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey's warning that a wave of discrimination against Christians threatens "civil war" in Britain.

Carey described the High Court ruling as "deeply worrying," heralding "a 'secular state' rather than a 'neutral' one."

Former Anglican bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali wrote in The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London that Laws' ruling had "driven a coach and horses" through the ages-old ties between Christianity and British law.

But Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society in Britain, applauded the judgment as a defeat for "fundamentalism," adding that "the law must be clear, that anti-discrimination laws exist to protect people, not beliefs."

--------------------

I'm in agreement in so much as that in this case there is no protection that should be granted by law here. Mr. McFarlane refused to do part of his job, and he got fired for it. That his objection to that part of the job was religious is not relevant. You can't expect a company to accommodate you every time you have a religious objection to some part of your job.

[useful idiot]

I don't have any objection legally to what his employer did in firing him, that's their right if he doesn't want to perform certain tasks required of him. The ruling in my mind, is ridiculous, because it opens up what could be a lot of discrimination in other situations. If this was a Muslim counselor we'd no doubt be hearing a completely different story...

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't have any objection legally to what his employer did in firing him, that's their right if he doesn't want to perform certain tasks required of him. The ruling in my mind, is ridiculous, because it opens up what could be a lot of discrimination in other situations. If this was a Muslim counselor we'd no doubt be hearing a completely different story...

Nah, I bet the decision would've been the same.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Very good decision. Sanity isn't (totally) dead in this world.

[afleitch]

I don't have any objection legally to what his employer did in firing him, that's their right if he doesn't want to perform certain tasks required of him. The ruling in my mind, is ridiculous, because it opens up what could be a lot of discrimination in other situations. If this was a Muslim counselor we'd no doubt be hearing a completely different story...

The ruling was entirely correct. His was another 'test case' pushed by Christian groups in the UK who have a difficulty in accepting that the law does not allow them to deny the provision of goods and services to anyone on account of 'religious belief' particularly the provision of services by local or national government bodies (as in this case) Secondly it is galling to many devout Christians to have people like this saying that it is part of their faith to discriminate against gays or indeed anyone.

You cannot have a situation where people are allowed not to provide anything to anyone of their choice on account of the profession of a religious belief and certainly not if you are providing a service (and being paid by the government to provide it) to everyone that is referred to you.

You cannot claim to be discriminated against as this man was doing in his submission to the court if you are choosing to discriminate against another individual.

[Verily]

I don't have any objection legally to what his employer did in firing him, that's their right if he doesn't want to perform certain tasks required of him. The ruling in my mind, is ridiculous, because it opens up what could be a lot of discrimination in other situations. If this was a Muslim counselor we'd no doubt be hearing a completely different story...

Yeah, we'd be hearing about how Islam is corrupting good Christian British society, and all the Mooslims should be kicked out.

[afleitch]

Christians keep testing equality laws...and they keep loosing.

http://gay.pinknews.co.uk/2010/11/17/christian-doctor-loses-gay-adoption-case/

"A Christian doctor who claimed she was a victim of religious discrimination has lost her case against Northamptonshire County Council.

Dr Sheila Matthews, of Kettering, claimed she was forced out of her post on the Northamptonshire Council Adoption Panel after she asked to be allowed to abstain from voting in cases involving same-sex couples, on the grounds that she believes gay couples should not adopt.

She went to an employment tribunal in Leicester to argue she was a victim of religious discrimination but the panel dismissed her claim and ordered her to pay the council’s legal costs.

According to the BBC, Dr Matthews told the tribunal the Bible was clear that “homosexual practice is not how God wants us to live”.

She told the hearing that she had seen research which claimed that lesbian couples may bring up children with an “anti-male bias” and that children brought up by gay couples are “more likely to consider or be involved in homosexual relationships themselves”.

Regional employment judge John MacMillan said: “The complaints of religious discrimination fail and are dismissed. This case fails fairly and squarely on its facts.”

He added: “In our judgment, at least from the time of the pre-hearing review, the continuation of these proceedings was plainly misconceived… they were doomed to fail. There is simply no factual basis for the claims.”

The tribunal said there was no evidence she had been treated unfairly on the basis of her Christianity and that there was no evidence that she was treated differently to any other panel member who asked to abstain from voting on whether parents should be allowed to adopt.

Dr Matthews said she was considering what action to take next."

-----

Keep them coming.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Now, what about all the other ones?

[afleitch]

Now, what about all the other ones?

Other what?

[k-onmmunist]

Awesome!

[You kip if you want to...]

Good! Now, just get rid of the Bishops in the Lords and we'll be alright.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Now, what about all the other ones?

Other what?

Other Religious Beliefs

[k-onmmunist]

Good! Now, just get rid of the Bishops in the Lords and we'll be alright.

And disestablish the Churches of England and Scotland.

[afleitch]

Now, what about all the other ones?

Other what?

Other Religious Beliefs

Why would they be treated any different from Christianity? To my knowledge they have not tested the law, but equality law when applied consistently says you cannot discriminate against someone due to their sexuali orientation (with a few exceptions)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think the issue with some of the comments here is that the headline doesn't exactly match the precedent. The important fact is that you can't invoke anything to justify discrimination due to sexual orientation; though as the law is pretty clear on that from what I remember, you have to wonder why these groups bothered.

[afleitch]

I think the issue with some of the comments here is that the headline doesn't exactly match the precedent. The important fact is that you can't invoke anything to justify discrimination due to sexual orientation; though as the law is pretty clear on that from what I remember, you have to wonder why these groups bothered.

To my knowledge no Muslim or Jewish groups has challenged the law. The Catholic Church did on the matter of adoption and state funding but the super-majority of cases brought are by evangelical Christians (and their supporting law group)

Which is quite telling really.