Judge rules Christians have NO special rights as he throws out case of sex therapist who refused to work with gay couples

[Tybourne]

what happens when a different religion, one completely at odd with Christianity, starts to receive more special exemptions?

The judge in question (ironically named Lord Laws) disingenuously portrayed this case as if it were about favoring one religion over another when it reality it’s about religious liberty in general. The secular states of Europe and the militant atheist thread in the culture is playing a game of divide and conquer with religious believers. Our best hope is a coalition of the religions (especially orthodox Jews, muslims, Catholics and evangelicals) in order to form a block of public opinion that’s less easy to ignore. Societies that cannot accommodate religious minorities with whom they disagree are quickly headed for despotism- witness Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. This is the ‘dictatorship of relativism’ that Pope Benedict warned us about writ large.

 

[sedonaman]

Not quite the full story.

The guy refused to pay the fine and had his day in court where the case was dropped by the crown prosecution services due to lack of evidence,

He was charged under section 5 of the Pulic Order act - the correct charge to file against him. He had been drinking, and was now making a nuisance of himself in a public place - and to a police officer on duty.

So much for these clever oxford undergraduates

Personally, I don’t have a problem with any of this.

The point of the story is that, “In a strange inversion of proper priorities, important matters are taken lightly and trivial ones taken seriously.” city-journal.org/html/16_2_oh_to_be.html . And you don’t have a problem with that?

 

[Stephentlig]

Forcing a Catholic therapist to give counselling to a homosexual couple would be the equivalent to asking/forcing a homosexual to have intercourse with member of there opposite sex.

Pax Christi
Stephen

 

[Supercatholic]

My question is why would anyone insist on seeing a therapist who thinks their relationship is unnatural, gravely disordered and sinful? Wouldn’t that be rather uncomfortable and counterproductive?

To cause trouble for the therapist and to grab some media attention. Gay people are sick minded twisted individuals that will stop at nothing to keep pushing their agenda on us, and with more and more weak minded spineless people working in law and government this is getting easier and easier to do. Isn’t it sickening that Christians (or any other believers of morality) have NO special rights, but anyone wishing to advance evil has ALL the rights in the world.

 

[NoMoreGames]

To cause trouble for the therapist and to grab some media attention. Gay people are sick minded twisted individuals that will stop at nothing to keep pushing their agenda on us, and with more and more weak minded spineless people working in law and government this is getting easier and easier to do. Isn’t it sickening that Christians (or any other believers of morality) have NO special rights, but anyone wishing to advance evil has ALL the rights in the world.

I think you mean gay activists.

I agree that the therapist should have the right to choose who he helps. I’m sure he’s turned away many heterosexual couples with out any of this atention. The point is, he shouldn’t have special rights just as much as the gay couple shouldn’t. Humanity is equal.

 

[sedonaman]

I think you mean gay activists.

I agree that the therapist should have the right to choose who he helps. I’m sure he’s turned away many heterosexual couples with out any of this atention. The point is, he shouldn’t have special rights just as much as the gay couple shouldn’t. Humanity is equal.

… back in August [2008], my jaw hit the floor when I read a column 365gay.com/features/082908-corvino Corvino wrote that was breathtakingly honest. You see, for many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” Yet Corvino provided a breath of fresh air, telling us what those who engage in homosexual behavior really want: moral approval.

Of course, many of us have known this all along, but it’s nice to finally hear about it from the other side. This groundbreaking concession now provides an opportunity for an honest public discourse on what homosexual advocates are really after. They want your heart and soul. It’s not enough to just be tolerant. …
Source: “Finally, ‘Straight Talk’ From the Homosexual Agenda” by Austin Nimocks
townhall.com/columnists/AustinNimocks/2008/10/20/finally,_straight_talk_from_the_homosexual_agenda

Is the right to follow your conscience a “special” right?

 

[KC91]

Well if you look carefully at the article, it says that if that Judge continues to be succesful, then the 1701 act forbidding Catholics to become the Monarch of England will be revealed. So let’s not all look at it from a negative side at the undermining of state Anglicanism in England - one of our Catholic brothers can then be the English King/Queen in the future.

And the therapist Mr McFarlane looks a bit like David Palmer from 24.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Is the right to follow your conscience a “special” right?

Once again, I think you mean gay activists. Not all homosexuals who want to get married want acceptance, or even need it. They just want to get married, but that’s a different topic entirely.

No, not at all. I said he’s probably rejected tons of clients and had no negative repercussions of it, as he shouldn’t. He should be able to reject who he wants.The point is that nobody should have special rights due to their beliefs under any circumstances, gays and Christians included.

 

[Soutane]

Forcing a Catholic therapist to give counselling to a homosexual couple would be the equivalent to asking/forcing a homosexual to have intercourse with member of there opposite sex.

Pax Christi
Stephen

The time for civil disobedience and personal revolution is here.We must be willing to be persecuted and jailed for our faith as ST Paul was and suffer literal crucifixtion if we must.All this whinging and complaining on these Catholic boards is beginning to sicken me.We are speaking to the converted or arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin-it strikes me a Pharaisical.Christ didn’t argue HE DID.So did His apostles and every single one was martyred except John…Let’s not emulate the Muslims but Ghandi and offer up our bodies and become figurative and literal martyrs.Let us conduct worldwide sit ins and passive resistance.Some will be hurt and some will die but ENOUGH!!!
You Americans where is your revolutionary spirit?.The greatest flag in the world is the coiled rattlesnake with "don’t tread on me"Perhaps one of the Body,Blood.Soul and Divinity with the same slogan is more appropos.The time for talk is over.the time for action is now.I don’t have a clue as to how one can start a movement but historically movements were started by the Faithful.Now is the time for or a crusade against immoral secularism and the sidelining of Christianity.Christians are in the vast majority in both our countries by ut we feel alone and isolated and helpless.For GOD"S SAKE let’s DO SOMETHING.Come on we have smart powerful professional people here-LET IT BEGIN HERE…

 

[sedonaman]

…I said he’s probably rejected tons of clients and had no negative repercussions of it, as he shouldn’t. He should be able to reject who he wants.

Then to receive his services cannot be a right, much less a right to trump someone else’s right to conscience.

The point is that nobody should have special rights due to their beliefs under any circumstances, gays and Christians included.

Since receiving his services is not a right, and he can reject whomever he pleases, the government, therefore, cannot force him to accept a particular client. Consequently, he is not exercising any “special” right.

One sues to recover a loss. What loss did the plaintiff suffer, since he’s no worse off now than he was before he sought counseling? This appears to be nothing more than a case of malicious litigation.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Then to receive his services cannot be a right.

Since receiving his services is not a right, and he can reject whomever he pleases, he is not exercising any special right. This appears to be nothing more than a case of malicious litigation.

I think you might be confused on what I’m saying. In fact, I think we agree.

He was never brought to court for all of the other couples he rejected, so he shouldn’t for this case either.

I keep mentioning that no one should shave special rights due to their beliefs because the topic title seems to make is sound appalling that Christians don’t have any special legal rights. We shouldn’t.

 

[KC91]

I think you might be confused on what I’m saying. In fact, I think we agree.

He was never brought to court for all of the other couples he rejected, so he shouldn’t for this case either.

I keep mentioning that no one should shave special rights due to their beliefs because the topic title seems to make is sound appalling that Christians don’t have any special legal rights. We shouldn’t.

Society without Catholic rights, power and values is a sewer that should and will perish. God will stone such a disgusting satanic secularist society from the rubble of the damage the secularists have inflicted on the Church. Keep in mind the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX.

It is appaling that we don’t have special rights.

 

[sedonaman]

…
I keep mentioning that no one should shave special rights due to their beliefs because the topic title seems to make is sound appalling that Christians don’t have any special legal rights. We shouldn’t.

I was in the process of modifying my last post when you submitted this comment. I’m not arguing for special rights for Christians. I’m saying that everyone has a right to follow their conscience. If that’s not true, the government can force gays [or anyone] to do [or not do] something against theirs.

 

[NoMoreGames]

It is appaling that we don’t have special rights.

So you say it is appalling that Catholics don’t have special legal rights. Should Hindu’s? Should atheists? Should every single set of beliefs have a special set of rights?

Imagine this: a different religion becomes dominant and creates their own set of exclusive legal protections. This religion says it’s members cannot pay taxes. Should they have the right to not pay taxes?

 

[KC91]

The Roman Catholic and Apostolic religion should have special rights because it is the true faith. Not the same as for other faiths. This is what the Church and many Popes taught for many centuries.

 

[NoMoreGames]

The Roman Catholic and Apostolic religion should have special rights because it is the true faith. Not the same as for other faiths. This is what the Church and many Popes taught for many centuries.

But not all people believe this. That would result in forcing the faith upon others, which doesn’t work too well, as history shows.

 

[TMC]

The Roman Catholic and Apostolic religion should have special rights because it is the true faith. Not the same as for other faiths. This is what the Church and many Popes taught for many centuries.

The Church does not teach this.

 

[TMC]

I was in the process of modifying my last post when you submitted this comment. I’m not arguing for special rights for Christians. I’m saying that everyone has a right to follow their conscience. If that’s not true, the government can force gays [or anyone] to do [or not do] something against theirs.

Wasn’t the issue that the counselor wanted the government to force his employer to keep him on even though he refused to do certain kinds of counseling? It seems like he should find a job somewhere else if he has a moral disagreement with how his employer conducts his business. I don’t think the government should force someone to do work that is against their conscience, but the government also shouldn’t force an employer to keep employees that want to conduct business only on their own terms. I think the individual needs to find another employer or hang out his own shingle. Or is that not an option in the UK?

 

[Supercatholic]

I think you mean gay activists.

I agree that the therapist should have the right to choose who he helps. I’m sure he’s turned away many heterosexual couples with out any of this atention. The point is, he shouldn’t have special rights just as much as the gay couple shouldn’t. Humanity is equal.

Yes I mean activists, but activists wouldn’t exist if the categories didn’t exist. I don’t think anyone should have SPECIAL rights, but everyone should have fair and proper rights. And being able to refuse anything that imposes on your moral ethics should be one of them.

 

[mlund]

I think a better plan would be to cut off most of the slimy tentacles of usurpation the State has injected into our day-to-day lives. Conscience clauses wouldn’t be necessary if the State didn’t have it in its deformed, bureaucratic “mind” that it had a say in the matter.

The larger the state, the smaller the citizen, after all.

There should really just be a clear contract between the employer and employee to begin with. If your employer asks you to do something out-of-bound you can either cite that it wasn’t defined in your contract or you can leave your job. If a particular proviso is insisted upon by the employer and it constitutes unnecessary discrimination against the practice of a religion among your employees then it should be unenforceable.

• Marty Lund