Is this the face of 21st century Britain?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....n-employer-court.html

/// A Christian housing manager had his salary slashed after allegedly being ‘entrapped’ by a lesbian colleague into criticising gay marriage on his private Facebook page. ///

/// It is the latest in a series of claims by Christians that they have been discriminated against for expressing their beliefs at work. ///

[New Judge]

"...these proposals are for civil marriage equality, not religious equality. "

Very true,sp. But as soon as the proposals are enacted there will be people demanding same-sex marriages to be carried out in churches and mosques (some hope!) and taking legal action under equality law if their demands are not met. If you think this is unlikely simply look at the situation faced by adoption agencies.


In 2005 the Adoption and Children Act came into effect and for the first time allowed unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, to apply for joint adoption. As a result of this same-sex couples applied to adopt to State agencies and were often successful At this time religious organisations placing children for adoption refused to consider same-sex couples because of their religious beliefs.

Then in 2007 laws were enacted which made it unlawful for providers of goods and services – including adoption and fostering services - to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. This law continues to be enforced under the Equality Act 2010.

The result? A number of religious organisations involved in adoption withdrew from the business entirely rather than betray their beliefs.

So, from the above, substitute “marriage” for “adoption” and do not be surprised if, when faced with holding weddings for same-sex couples, religious organisations withdraw from the marriage business.

[naomi24]

//taking legal action under equality law if their demands are not met.//

Since matrimony is, according to the church, a ‘holy state’, I can’t see how it can withdraw from the marriage business. I understood that if the law comes into effect, such organisations will have the choice to opt out on religious grounds. Is that not the case?

[New Judge]

It was the same "opt out" facility that was suggested would prevail when religous adoption agencies raised their concerns when the 2005 Act was being drafted. Marriage is not only a holy state it is also a State convention. The 2010 Equality Act will almost certainly see religous organisations as "providers of goods and services" and that legislation will almost certainly trump any provisions made in same-sex marriage legislation when tested in the courts.

[naomi24]

Morning NJ. // It was the same "opt out" facility that was suggested would prevail when religous adoption agencies raised their concerns when the 2005 Act was being drafted.//

You might be right, but I have my doubts simply because religion, in this instance, has what it deems to be valid evidence that same sex marriages are unacceptable in the eyes of God. As far as I’m aware, in the case of adoption, no such pre-existing religious tenet exists. The two are very different scenarios.

[anotheoldgit]

LazyGun

/// Its still not entrapment AoG. Neither statement he makes should be considered a misconduct offence- its an overreaction by his employers ///

His employers would have known nothing about it if he hadn't been 'shopped' by is colleagues.

[anotheoldgit]

Mick-Talbot

/// Dramatic header ....what does it mean, could you enlarge upon that statement? ///

We hear more and more cases such as this, where some people who perhaps have been a little stupid on what they have chosen to express on the web, and have had their lives almost ruined by doing so.

And yet certain people who are quick to accuse some posters on AB who don't fit in with their leftie views, as Fascists, Nazis etc. but fail to see that cases such as this one are the true Fascist, Nazi actions, where speaking one's mind can sometimes end one in very serious trouble.

So perhaps the headline should be,

"Is this the face of 21st century Britain, or a resurgence of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union"?

[dave50]

It could only happen in the public sector, they are obsessed with this kind of thing.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....cent-man-beliefs.html

/// One of the colleagues who complained about Mr Smith’s comments said they showed he was ‘blatantly homophobic’. ///

/// No they didn’t. Yet such is the ludicrously PC world we now live in (fuelled by the metropolitan views of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and their liberal elite circle) that anyone who does not agree with gay marriage is automatically branded a bigot and a homophobe. They are no such thing. ///

[sp1814]

New Judge - gay people will not call out for religious same sex marriages. The proposed change in the law allows for civil same sex marriages and allows religious ceremonies (because there are some denominations who want to perform these ceremonies, and current legislation denies them).

The reason why you're wrong about this, is because IF there was a demand for religious same sex marriage, there would be a demand for it to enacted in the bill now.

This is a civil matter. A matter for state not church.

I will out it to you again - gay people will not want to celebrate the most important day of their lives in an establishment that loathes them.

Who would?

[New Judge]

The fact, sp, that the church might loathe gay people (though I don't think this is strictly true - it's just that many religions do not accommodate same sex unions) is no reason to suspect that same-sex couples will not want to test the law. After all, same-sex couples must have been loathed by religous adoption agencies but that did not stop some of them applying to adopt through them.

It may well be clear that various religions show "...valid evidence that same sex marriages are unacceptable in the eyes of God.", naomi. I dare say they can show equally valid evidence that the practice of raising children by same-sex "parents" is equally unacceptable. After all, if same-sex marriages are frowned upon then raising children in same-sex marriages must be equally abhorent.

There are countless examples in the UK of properly enacted legislation being declared "unlawful" by the courts because of incompatability with either Human Rights or Equality legislation. I see this as no exception. We'll have to wait and see.

[sp1814]

NJ

What you wrote about Christian adoption agencies isn't true. The reason the closed is because they didn't want to place children with same sex couples. There isn't a single record of any same sex couples actually applying to adopt from Christian agencies.

No-one tested the law in that regard.

Also, the arguments put across from the CofE and Catholic hierarchy states that same sec unions are against their beliefs, but there's nothing in the Bible relating to same-sex parenting.

Then again, we should be careful of using the Bible as a touchstone for moral guidance, what with the rules it puts forward on how to treat slaves, menstuating women and how much you can physically assault your daughters (if they don't toe the lie).

[naomi24]

New Judge, //naomi. I dare say they can show equally valid evidence that the practice of raising children by same-sex "parents" is equally unacceptable. After all, if same-sex marriages are frowned upon then raising children in same-sex marriages must be equally abhorent.//


I think you’re missing the point. As far as I’m aware there is nothing in scripture to say that two people of the same sex cannot raise a child – in fact, when the books were written, I don’t believe that prospect was ever a consideration. However, scripture specifically forbids sexual relationships between people of the same gender. Hence, religion has no demonstrable argument against same sex couples raising children, but it has a very definite, and from its point of view, a very valid argument against same sex marriage. If religion is to continue to benefit from the deference and protection it has so far enjoyed, I really don’t think it will be possible to introduce legislation that forces religious organisations to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples - simply because it is in direct contravention of doctrine – and religion has evidence to prove it.