What a silly thing to say. Paying tax doesn't afford everyone the right to every service.

Do 40 year olds have the right to go to primary school?

Do male victims of domestic abuse have the right to go to a publicly-funded women's shelter?

Do the non-disabled have the right to home help?

If you try not to blaspheme, how come you post continuous hatred and bigotry?

the sooner you are reunited with your god the better

They are not supplemented by taxes at all. Churches pay their taxes, same as any other organisation. They are funded by churchgoers and investments made by the relevant denomination.

Some church schools are part financed by taxes.

That is what the situation is at present. A church can, if it so wishes, bless a civil partnership. However, Stonewall wants to go further than that and people of faith - Jews, Christians, Muslims and maybe other faiths too - do not want that.

As for the OP, I am very glad that the man has won his case. However, he has not been reinstated to his old job and therefore he has only half won his case. He should now sue to be reinstated, if that is actually possible. Given that the judge decided his contract had been breached then he should now be returned to the terms of his original contract as otherwise surely Trafford Housing are acting unlawfully?

It would have been a sad day for this country if he had lost: to not be free to post your personal opinion on your (private) Facebook page in your own time about an issue that was not even directly connected to your employment without fear of being punished by your employer would have been a sinister development.

The ruling sets a positive precedent IMO. For too long Councils have been enjoying increasing freedom to interfere in areas they have no right to interfere and this was a particularly vindictive example. The message is now out that there is such a place as private and such a thing as a valid personal opinion, and work has no reach there.

Jesus, are you still feeding this troll?

Don't argue with Kirkstaller, don't give him chance to air his medievel views, he'll get bored and go away.



(Or, as I suspect, create another identity and come back with a different set of beliefs.)

Very interesting, so religious organisations in the UK only receive funding for schools?

Actually the ruling says nothing whatsoever about the validity of the opinion expressed. It simply upholds the right to express one in private without being punished by an employer.

That's not what I said.

You referred to 'specific churches'. The taxpayer funds no churches at all. The churches fund themselves. The churches also fund their own diocesan or other organisational bodies, and other monies will come in through investments. For example, the Church of England is a massive land owner. At one point it was second only to the Queen I think in the amount of land it owned. That's simply historical. It makes money on that land or from it when it sells it and/or the property on it. And it's been selling a lot of church buildings and vicarages in recent years.

Religious charities are open to applying for the same external funding as are all other charities. So, for example, the Salvation Army (a religious charity) will be able to apply for stuff like lottery funding. I'd like to see you criticise their work.

Some religious schools - Jewish, Muslim, Roman Catholic and Church of England - receive funding either in part or wholly from the government (some receive no funding from the government). The church or churches do not receive that funding and nor do their diocesan or organisational bodies. It goes to the school in the same way as funding goes to any other state sector school. If a religious school receives such funding then it is subject to all the same rules, etc, that a non-religious school is which is to say not much difference really.

Clearly you haven't read the judgement then.

Read from point 62. The judge has clear opinion about what was said.

If the "salvation" army are anything like their Australian sect I'd happily critise them.

66% of they're income gets lost in "adimistration" and of course they refuse help to homosexuals.

I've no idea what the Salvation Army is like in Australia, I've only spent three months in Australia and I didn't come across any Sally Army people there, to my knowledge.

Here in the UK though they are the ones who do the real dirty work, mostly cleaning up homeless drunk people and stuff like that. I have heard nothing to say they don't clean up gay homeless drunk people but hey, you never know. They may in fact ship them off to the north pole to freeze their bits off.