Do British Courts Not Show Enough Respect To Christians?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2585769/British-courts-not-respect-Christians-says-judge.html

/// Lady Hale called for the law to take a new and less hardline attitude to the right of Christians to live by their beliefs when, for example, they want to wear a cross at work, or turn away gay couples from their hotels.///

Yet

/// Lady Hale herself was among the Supreme Court judges who rejected the arguments of the hotelkeepers, declaring that discrimination against gay people is an ‘affront to their dignity as human beings’. ///

/// Other high-profile cases involving Christians include registrar Lillian Ladele, who lost her job because she would not conduct civil partnership ceremonies and Relate counsellor Gary McFarlane, dismissed because he would not give sex advice to gay couples. ///

[naomi24]

It's wrong to afford the religious special consideration at all, but having said that people of non-Christian faiths do receive greater concessions - and not just in court.

[anotheoldgit]

Yes there are many who constantly fight for equality on certain matters, but seem to think that it is okay for other to be unfairly discriminated against.

[Zeuhl]

///or turn away gay couples from their hotels.///

people who run commercial enterprises such as a hotel have to consider whether any of their beliefs conflict with serving the Public to such an extent that they will not be able to offer services to everyone equally.

If they do, they should reconsider their career choices.

Running a Hotel, restaurant, pub or shop is not an opportunity to impose one's prejudices in choosing who one will, or won't serve.

[youngmafbog]

I suspect there will be quite a few Muslim establishments that fall foul of that Zehul.

But do we see the prosecutions against them?

[youngmafbog]

Zehul, would that include prejudice to Motorcyclists (yes even Hells Angels) too, or is that ok in your book?

[Zeuhl]

/quite a few Muslim establishments that fall foul of that Zehul/

Can you cite an example ymb?

/would that include prejudice to Motorcyclists (yes even Hells Angels) /

on what grounds? are you referring to some pubs and cafés who refuse service to large groups of bikers?

would that not be due to the behaviour of similar groups in the past leading to violence, disorder and destruction of property?

how are bans based on predicted destructive behaviour related to the case in the OP?

[naomi24]

Zeuhl, In fairness, as someone said on another thread, the B&B business was in operation long before the law on discrimination came into being. Not really that easy to reconsider career choices when you're getting on a bit and a business you've built over years suddenly falls foul of a new law.

[Gromit]

This just seems like a minority looking to claim they are persecuted, when really they are not.

The law is and should be same for everyone. You cannot opt out of laws because they conflict with your religious views. If you want exemptions you must convince lawmakers and get that exemption put into law, such as Sikhs are exempt from wearing crash helmets. If you do not get an exemption for your religious perculiarities then you cannot complain when you break the law.

// Other high-profile cases involving Christians include registrar Lillian Ladele, who lost her job because she would not conduct civil partnership ceremonies and Relate counsellor Gary McFarlane, dismissed because he would not give sex advice to gay couples. //

Both these cases are not about breaking the law. It is not against the law not to conduct a gay marriage service and it is not against the law not to give gay sex advice. Both those cases about breaking working contracts and therefore not breaking discriminatory laws when the individuals lose their jobs.

[mikey4444]

Being a Christian, or any other religion, doesn't give anybody the right to ignore the law of the land.

[emmie]

a i pointed out on another thread the Christian couple could well have had their business for years, so now according to the law have to accept the situation, so its not a case of don't go into the business,
i do feel, even as an atheist, Christians get unfair treatment in comparison with other religions, they may well be to blame for some of what goes on, but if you are going to have a ruling then it better be implemented across the board. Personally i don't see that happening, if Muslims can wear a symbol of their faith, working in a hospital, surgery, retail outlet, or running a B&B, hotel, then i am not sure why the courts
shouldn't accept that this couple have a faith that goes against the ruling.
I don't think they will win their case. You have to treat all people fairly, if you don't then the authorities will come across as bowing down to the wishes of one religion over another.

[emmie]

as i also pointed out before i have found websites that specify Muslim only flats to rent, same as Christian only room, flat for rent, and as this link shows its not just those religions, if you want equality, then you shouldn't discriminate on any grounds. The law should be equal, you cannot favour one over another, otherwise it's double standards.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18588612

[LazyGun]

She is confusing several things here, I think. Firstly - it is not their beliefs that the law does not recognise or respect- it is their actions to others, based around their interpretation of their beliefs. Denying someone service over their sexual orientation -as in the case of the B&Bs, or the Marriage Registrar that did not want to officiate at gay marriages -is discriminatory. You can hold whatever religious beliefs you like but you cannot, through your actions, impose your beliefs on others, and if you deny people service because of their sexual orientation that is what you are doing.

And advocating that a religious sect become more fundamentalist about their beliefs so that they can claim an exemption for their actions is just wool-headed.We have in the past made exemptions for religious beliefs -Sikhs get an exemption from wearing crash helmets whilst riding a motorcycle. That's wrong, in my view.

If your religion demands certain things of you - never cutting your hair, or not working on a Sunday or whatever, then it is you that needs to change your behaviour to accommodate the laws of the land you happen to be living in, rather than bending the laws to accommodate your beliefs, unless any change in the law is trivial and effects no one else not of your religion.

So if, as a devout Sikh male you have to wear a turban at all times, then you should not expect to get a job where health and safety considerations demand the use of safety helmets, or ride a motorbike.

I do agree though that the law should be seen to work equally, so for example gay resorts or hotels advertising as men only, or gay bars turning away people who are straight, that kind of thing.

[naomi24]

LG //If your religion demands certain things of you - never cutting your hair, or not working on a Sunday or whatever, then it is you that needs to change your behaviour//

I agree entirely – but the problem arises when some sections of society are allowed concessions denied to others. Take for example a case of a supermarket worker who objects to handling pork or alcohol. They are more often than not allowed to work away from those areas, whereas the registrar who objects to conducting marriages between two people of the same sex is expected to resign. We have an excellent example within the NHS where the rules of hygiene state arms must be bare – but, regardless of hygiene, that ruling has been relaxed for Muslims who are allowed to cover their arms. As for courts, a woman accused and found guilty of terrorist related crimes last week stood in a court of law shrouded in a burqa. I doubt very much that anyone other than a Muslim woman would have been allowed to wear a mask when standing trial. This is why people get miffed. Rules are not rules - some animals are more equal than others – and it shows. In our futile attempts to please everyone we are tying ourselves up in knots.

[Gromit]

Naomi

There is no law that forbids wearing a burqa in court. She was breaking no law. The fact that you think there should be such a law does not make it illegal.

[naomi24]

Gromit, I know that - and I didn't say that.

[whiskeryron]

//
mikey4444
Being a Christian, or any other religion, doesn't give anybody the right to ignore the law of the land.//

This is fair comment mikey4444, but I am uneasy about certain aspects appertaining to all of this. When any group of people first get together to form lets call it a co-operative they decide by mutual agreement to have certain rules & laws to govern their lives & behaviour. They then live by these rules & laws & everything goes along smoothly & happily ( some of them even start businesses like B & B establishments) then one day some clever person comes along & decides to alter the rules & laws under which all have been operating WITHOUT consulting all of the population involved, this now places people in an unenviable position of accepting changes in the way of life they have built up & spent a lot of money on or giving up the lot because of the changes in rules & laws that they were never consulted about. It seems to me to be going all in one direction only to appease one group of people. Whilst trying to stop a necessary discrimination another one has been created. I feel that people who run guest houses & b&bs should be allowed to accommodate who they choose, & of course this also applies to gays who run these establishments.

[anotheoldgit]

/// The law is and should be same for everyone. You cannot opt out of laws because they conflict with your religious views. If you want exemptions you must convince lawmakers and get that exemption put into law, such as Sikhs are exempt from wearing crash helmets. If you do not get an exemption for your religious perculiarities then you cannot complain when you break the law. ///

Changing the law so as to allow Sikhs to be exempt from the wearing of crash helmets, and allowing another faith to attend court with their face covered are prime examples of what this thread is addressing.

Regarding the crash helmet example, the law can be changed which could have very serious if not fatal implications for the rider, yet refusing admission to a guest house only causes personal disappointment and upset to the person refused admission.

Which has the most serious implications, possible death or person upset?

[Gromit]

How many more times...

// Changing the law so as to allow ... another faith to attend court with their face covered are prime examples of what this thread is addressing. //

The law has not changed. It isn't and never has been against the law to wear a burqa in Court. No law has ever existed and no law has been changed.