I fully agree with you.

One of the stories I mentioned in my opening post was that of a Cumbrian street preacher who was harassed and wrongly arrested for exercising his right to free speech and preaching the Gospel. Thankfully, he later received an apology and compensation from the force.



Fair enough.

That example of a street preacher being arrested is plainly wrong, as long as they're not harassing people then they should be allowed to say what they want.

However there was a bit on the page Kirkstaller linked to that mentioned a registrar not wanting to do certain marriages, that's just tough sh|t. You can't pick and choose which laws you want to obey, if you feel you can't carry out the job then you need to resign.

Also, this made me giggle just a little -
"Earlier this year Lord Carey warned that Christians in Britain are being treated as “bigots” and sacked for expressing their beliefs.

The former Archbishop of Canterbury also warned of a “drive to remove Judaeo-Christian values from the public square”.

He accused Britain’s courts of consistently applying “equality law to discriminate against Christians”."
Is it their faith that leads to such fecked-up reasoning? Or were they born this thick?

That is an interesting case and I don't quite know where I stand on it.

On one hand the nature of this registrar’s job changed after she had already taken up the role. If she had known that she would be compelled to conduct services between same-sex couple beforehand she might not have taken the job. However on the other hand, her religious convictions do not seem to be compromised when conducting civil ceremonies between men and women.

My own view is that in situations like this is best to act pragmatically. If reasonable adjustments could be made whereby she only conducted civil marriages and that civil partnerships were picked up by other colleagues, then that would be the best course of action. I expect that many of the awkward squad will chirp up and say that this would lead to racists being afforded similar adjustments, but that’s just plain silly. We do not have case upon case of racists asking for their beliefs to be accommodated. A person’s religious beliefs should be respected in a civil society and if a resolution can be reached whereby no one is wronged, then such adjustments are sensible.

Indeed.

The 'harassment' aspect is interesting. What actually counts as harassment?

For instance, if a doctor tells a patient that he'll pray with them – is that harassment or on a par with someone knocking on your door to preach at you?

I don't think either is 'harassment', as such, but one does mean that someone is taking advantage of a position over someone who is in a more vulnerable one.

I tend toward the argument that there is – and should not be – any law against not being 'offended'. That has to work both ways.



The Lilian Ladele case was (is) deeply annoying. What it amounts to – and this was stated at tribunal – is that she wanted to be favoured over her colleagues, in terms of being able to dictate what parts of her job she carried out and what parts she did not.

The last I heard, she was still campaigning (sending letters to each member of the House of Lords) – and funded by a fundamentalist Christian organisation.

There's been at least one subsequent similar case that I am aware of – which does seem to suggest a situation of councils having a poor recruitment policy or people deliberately getting into such jobs disingenuously in order to provoke a situation over the issue of civil partnerships.



Carey is a particular prat. He also claimed, some time ago, that the court judgement in favour of Max Mosely over the [iNews of the Screws[/i 'story' was bad, since such dreadful behaviour as Mosely's should be revealed to the public for all to judge.

It seems to have passed the old cretin by thatJerry Springer or books of poetry or plays – acts not limited to adherents of any one religion.

I don't agree with this statement on any level, but particularly not in cases where those beliefs affect a person's willingness to do the job they are paid to do, or to obey the same laws everyone else obeys.

What if she had said that she didn't wish to officiate in same-sex marriages because she thought that all gay people had AIDS and that she could catch it by being in the same room? There would be absolutely no evidence to back up such a ridiculous claim, but it's no more ridiculous than the belief that there is an all-powerful being who doesn't want two people of the same sex to marry each other. Unsubstantiated religious beliefs shouldn't be afforded any more respect or consideration than any other unsubstantiated belief.

rlAnd speaking of such matters...rl

[i"Cardinal O'Brien has already authorised a plan to raise £100,000 through special church collections to support the Scotland For Marriage campaign against same-sex marriage."[/i

This says everything that needs to be said about the Catholic Church. If they can raise £100k, wouldn't their God prefer that they use it to help those in need rather than to oppress those who are different? Help starving children, or force their dubious 'morality' on others? It's easy to guess which path the Catholic Church will choose every time.

Spot on, Mintball. And personally I think that Christianity is feeling challenged in this country for the first time in recent history, by atheism, Islam and a general lack of respect for religion and Christianity. So some are trying to fight back and their true views on gays, women etc are brought to the fore from being hidden away when things weren't so bad and even if people didn't really turn up to church they still called themselves Christian. For the first time in their lives my parents didn't put themselves down as Christian on the Census. They've never attended church in their lives other than for weddings/funerals etc but have always hesitantly called themselves Christian. That's changed, and I think the more "devout" have noted this steady but gradual change over the last few decades and can see the end is nigh.

Did anyone else see rlthisrl last week?

It was a story about a medieval Welsh manuscript, [iThe Laws of Hywel Dda[/i, that was sold at auction in the US.

Where this is interesting in terms of this discussion is that this 10th century book indicates that, in Wales at the time, marriage was considered an agreement, not a holy sacrament.

In other words, it shows as factually incorrect the claims that marriage has always been religious.

Religion is part of our cultural heritage. To pretend otherwise would be ridiculous. But some of the claims of some people are far from having any historic accuracy. So when people either lie – or are utterly uninformed – why should they be able to have a special voice in public life on the basis of the beliefs that causes them to spout misinformation?

None whatsoever.


Yes.


They haven't been.

rlhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174181/Sales-rep-repeatedly-accused-gay-didn-t-like-football-wins-44-000-payout-harassment.htmlrl

Sometimes having strong religious views can lead to expensive court cases...

If your religious beliefs are compromised by your job its time to change profession.

On a side note, i have never understood why homosexuals would seek to be in a religion which demonises their sexual orientation. All religions, like this forum, have their rules and if you don't like them don't join.

If your religious beliefs are compromised by your job its time to change profession.

On a side note, i have never understood why homosexuals would seek to be in a religion which demonises their sexual orientation. All religions, like this forum, have their rules and if you don't like them don't join.

The sad and inexplicable thing is how, in the 21st century, so many people still feel the need to believe in some god or other, instead of just accepting full personal responsibility for their actions.

Adults should within legal limits have freedom of expression, which involvs beliefs, however dotty, as long as this odes not infringe on the rights of others to go about their lawful business.

However the law should ban any child being in any way indoctrinated in any form of religion. Religion should be allowed for adults only. The sad fact is that the overwhelming majority of the religious are only adherents of their flavour of religion because they were brainwashed into it during their infancy and youth, and are now pressurised in very many cases to conform.

I've got to agree with this, it baffles me.

Agreed. And if such a law was passed we'd see the (almost) complete disappearance of religion within a generation or two.