Homosexuality v Religion

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.express.co...er-religious-beliefs-

/// Divorced father of two and committed Christian Gary McFarlane was applying to the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge a ruling which backed his sacking as a rel­ationship counsellor for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual ­couples.///

Was Mr McFarlane discriminated against when he was sacked for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexual couples?

[sherminator]

*sits back with popcorn ready for watching this unfold*

[dothawkes31]

No he was sacked for being a small minded arrogant git and deserved to lose his job for thinking he can be anything less than professional, I hope the Court Of Appeal sent him packing the numpty.

[standian]

No he was not.

He's there to do a job, not decide who he will and will not work with depending on whether their life style is approved of by his religious beliefs.

We all have to work and provide services to people that we maybe would rather not work with, for whatever reason, including any faith - that's being professional.

[sandyRoe]

If religion plays such a big part in his life why is he divorced? Doesn't he bible say: 'What God has united let no man pull asunder'?

[jake-the-peg]

I don't think we know enough about the circumstances.

If his employers have changed their policy and this conflicts with a long held religious *requirement* (as opposed to a personal religious opinion) and the employers are able to accomodate this and have simply refused to do so that'd be quite different to someone who is simply being bigoted and using his religion as a smokescreen.

There is a difference between a genuine religous requirement - like Jews avoiding bacon or Seikhs wearing turbans and a personal opinion about something reinforced by religious teaching - like some forms of Christianity and homosexuality.

As such it sounds to me like the sort of question that should be heard by the court of appeal in order to clarify the position - but they might already have heard cases sufficiently similar

[DrFilth]

peg would you have given the same reply if that was the mail report

[R1Geezer]

yes, homosexuality is an abomination unto the lord! (tic)

[naomi24]

This reminds me of the recent discussion we had on here about the shop assistant who refused to serve a customer with a doctor's prescription for a birth control product. The religious are free to believe as they will, but they shouldn't be free to allow their belief to affect anyone else in any way whatsoever. Mr McFarlane wasn't discriminated against. He was discriminating against his clients. If people feel unable to fulfil some aspects of the job because of their religious convictions, then they shouldn't be in the job.

[jake-the-peg]

Yes,

If anything the Express is worse!

I'm no friend of religion but the law protects against descrimination against sexual orientation and religion so it sounds like a job for the court of appeal to me

[DrFilth]

peg what score do you give the guardian on your league table

[beso]

Religious people have no place as counsellors to anyone for anything but in particular relationships.

Wife, you must obey your husband. The Bible says so and we must not question the wisdom of men who lived over 2,000 years ago.

[jake-the-peg]

It's been a long time since I've read the Guardian - I do rate the BBC though

I know you'd love to privatise them because they have to be neutral and that makes them look like a bunch of pinkos in comparison to all the right wing propaganda rags desperately tring to get Cameron elected

[DrFilth]

do you honestly think i want the tory party back in power.
i hate brown but PLEASE give me some credit

[rowanwitch]

Relationship counselling is one thing and it might be considered reasonable to expect this to be similar across a wide spectrum of relationship types and therefore unreasonable to use personal belief as a reason for refusing but sex therapy is a different matter and if mr Mcfarlane had been a little more considered in his actions he could reasonably have avoided this situation by informing his employer he was not role competent and lacked the skills for this specific situation. As a therapist he would have a responsibility not to harm a client and to work as a sex therapist in this situation if not able to do so in a competent fashion would be negligent. if he or his employer were able to refer homosexual couples to a therapist with suitable experience probably everyone would be satisfied with the outcome

unfortunately making it a matter of principle seemed to be the source of the problem

[standian]

There's a bit more information here - local press reporting of the actual tribunal in 2008

http://www.thisisbris...7-detail/article.html

[IggyB]

he was paid to do a job - if his job requires him to assist same sex couples he should be a professional and get on with it, if he won't - then he should be let go.

If he was a milk man that wouldn't deliver to to gay men, or if he was a barber that wouldn't cut gay guys hair, or if he was a plumber that wouldn't fix a lesbians toilet would it be any different... no their employer would sack them because they are in the business of delivering, cutting or fixing and shouldn't let their beliefs in some homophobic supernatural being affect that.

[Symmetryigr8]

To beso about the wife obeying her husband, even the church has gone against what men said 2000 years ago. Female members of the clergy, allowing divorce, abolishing payments and the separation of church and state show the yawning gulf between the original bible and the modern church. They still have some way to go (contraception and gay rights) but there is still a difference.
And no he wasn't discriminated against, it is illegal to refuse to provide service to somebody on grounds of faith, sexuality, appearance, mental or physical state etc. You have a service job in this country and that's the law.