English judge rejects 'divisive' protection for Christian beliefs [CWN]
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
It is sad to see one English judge enforcing the belief principles of one group as opposed to another. Same sex relationships are a recent construct, and while the Catholic Church recognizes that people can live as they wish, it has certain defined beliefs that also rest on natural law.
This judge apparently does not recognize natural law, but views Catholic beliefs as divisive.
God bless,
Ed
This judge apparently does not recognize natural law, but views Catholic beliefs as divisive.
God bless,
Ed
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
This was a bad ruling regardless of the religious aspects. The counselor was acting in the best interests of the client in referring them to someone else, just as a doctor or other professional refers someone to a specialist. In effect he said, "I’ve got nothing to offer you because of my (Christian) counselling approach, let me refer you to someone who would be able to provide you with the sort of counselling you’ve requested. It’s been long accepted that a professional can refuse to retain a specific client when the professional honestly believes that there is someone who can offer better service. This was the case here.
By bringing religion into it, we’re now faced with a Dawkins/Hitchenesque ruling that, unless appealed, will be a precedent to bar Christians from public service and public life as George Carey indicated in his testimony.
By bringing religion into it, we’re now faced with a Dawkins/Hitchenesque ruling that, unless appealed, will be a precedent to bar Christians from public service and public life as George Carey indicated in his testimony.
E
edwest2
Guest
The ruling was based entirely on religion. It could not have been clearer. Perhaps civil unrest will occur since novelty has replaced justice in this case.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
S
Santi2
Guest
Our problem over here is that it is not just one judge. There have been quite a string of very bad court decisions. christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=1052
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
This was the context for my statement that his legal team’s decision to base his defense on a vague statement of “religious freedom” rather than good professional practice was a grave mistake on their part. Now there is another legal decision that has further restricted the actual right to religious liberty.
S
Santi2
Guest
The Hight Court judge already refused the right to appeal before the Court of Appeal.
S
Santi2
Guest
The “good professional practice” chokes as well because of the way equality laws are applied here, which unfortunately, is rather titled against us. I posted the background in the McFarlane case in a duplicate thread but, here it is all the same.This was the context for my statement that his legal team’s decision to base his defense on a vague statement of “religious freedom” rather than good professional practice was a grave mistake on their part. Now there is another legal decision that has further restricted the actual right to religious liberty.
dailymail.co.uk/news/arti…y-couples.html
christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=915
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
Please forgive my rather rusty knowledge of the English legal system, but couldn’t the House of Lords decide to look into the matter of its own volition? Or couldn’t the HoL or the EU Human Rights court be petitioned to do so?
D
dennis01
Guest
“Rejecting the argument of Lord Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, who had testified on behalf of McFarlane, the judge said that it was “deeply unprincipled” to seek legal preferences for religious beliefs.”
Don’t most Western nations, including England, base their legal systems on Judeo-Christian law? Wonder how the judge would define “principles.”
Don’t most Western nations, including England, base their legal systems on Judeo-Christian law? Wonder how the judge would define “principles.”
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Just for information, there’s no such court as the ‘EU Human Rights court’. The European Court of Human Rights is entirely separate from the EU and has members who are not part of the European Union.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
It reads very much like the article I read in (I think) the Telegraph. He recognized fully that the individuals were within their rights to seek and receive counseling, and also realized that he was not the best choice to provide it to them. Much the way a male counselor might pass a domestic violence client to a female counselor for that particular client’s comfort.
It was a bad decision by his employer, I believe a bad one by his legal team and now there’s a horrible decisions on the books, any way you slice it.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Thanks for the clarification.
Hence my describing myself as rusty. 
S
Santi2
Guest
One must obtain leave to appeal from the lower courts although some cases can leapfrog on a point of law. I do not know whether they would do that in this case.
The European Court is last resort and only when the domestic appeals have been exhausted. But they are just as tilted. There is a pending appeal by Italy over a decision from the European Court to remove all crucifixes from classrooms.
S
Santi2
Guest
There “used” to be a saying over here that the laws are Judeo-Christian but the courts are’nt. It is eroding over time and we have a court that gives effect to the intention behind the current laws on equality…that seems to be the case anyway.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Oh, there’s a great tradtion here on CAF of confusing the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights - especially with those American (yes, sorry) posters who see the European Union as a great evil. The Italian crucifixes issue was quite good fun - people getting terribly cross with the EU and it took many posts from European members of CAF before people were convinced that they were hitting out in the wrong direction.forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Thanks for the clarification.
S
Santi2
Guest
Oh, there’s a great tradtion here on CAF of confusing the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights - especially with those American (yes, sorry) posters who see the European Union as a great evil. The Italian crucifixes issue was quite good fun - people getting terribly cross with the EU and it took many posts from European members of CAF before people were convinced that they were hitting out in the wrong direction.
N
Non_Serviam
Guest
No apologies necessary, I’m not an American poster.Oh, there’s a great tradtion here on CAF of confusing the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights - especially with those American (yes, sorry) posters who see the European Union as a great evil. The Italian crucifixes issue was quite good fun - people getting terribly cross with the EU and it took many posts from European members of CAF before people were convinced that they were hitting out in the wrong direction.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Well, apologies for that then - it always pays to be careful about what one says about our American hosts though!No apologies necessary, I’m not an American poster.
T
Timothy17
Guest
So much for Her Majesty being the Defender of Faith.
- Status