Earlier this week a move to remove the threat of prosecution from those who go abroad with a loved spouse or relative to help an "assisted suicide" was defeated in the unelected House of Lords.

Peers and bishops heve also again thwarted the government by voting 186 to 133 to keep a "free speech" defence to the law on inciting homophobic hatred

Lord Waddington, a Conservative peer whose voting record has opposed equal rights for homosexuals, argued that the government should be "declaring boldly" that letting people express their views, including views other people may not like is what a free society is all about.
He argued that strongly urging someone to change their sexuality or criticising homosexuality does not constitute any intention to 'stir up hatred'

"In theory this means that individuals – such as bishops and comedians – are free to criticise homosexuality without fear of legal reprisals"
points out Riazat Butt in yesterday's Guardian
but adds
"gay rights groups said the threshold for prosecution under incitement to hatred laws was set so high there was no danger that people who criticised homosexuality would be subject to police investigations should the clause be dropped.
This being the case, what is it that really worries the bishops?"

The new law against incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation is unlikely to be used frequently.

Similar laws against inciting racial hatred have only been used around 20 times in the 30 years since they came into force.


Law in practice?

Pentecostal Christian Theresa Davies, 58, is appealing her demotion to a desk job on the same salary after refusing to oversee same-sex civil ceremonies saying that it was contrary to her religious beliefs.
Her case mirrors that of Finsbury registrar Lillian Ladele. Ms Ladele, a devout Christian who believes gay couples are "sinners", took Islington Council to a tribunal in 2008 after they demoted her

Ms Davies wrote to every member of the Lords asking them to vote against Clause 61 of the Coroners and Justice Bill, which would remove a previous law allowing people to criticise homosexuality.

"This clause, if enacted, will have devastating effects on freedom of expression for citizens like me... The introduction of civil partnerships has caused many Christians (and adherents of other faiths) considerable disquiet; whilst they can exercise legal rights, it is entirely wrong that someone should be made to act in a manner contrary to their conscience. I do not want to participate in civil partnership ceremonies as I believe I would be violating clearly mandated biblical principles."

In a recent discussion on UK radio it was pointed out that the bible clearly 'mandates' the punishment for any woman living under her fathers roof who is not a virgin

"Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die"

As it also decrees -
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man..... for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."
I may be looking forward to a warm afterlife unless I get rid of my walking trousers etc :)