BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:34 PM

""Why in God's name (or anyone else's) would a gay person, or gay couple, insist upon receiving advice and counseling from someone with no sympathy or knowledge of their sexual practices? Just to stir up shit, and score some kind of political point?

I am certainly not defending discrimination, but common sense (seems to me) would dictate that not every therapist is right for every client, and that a case of incompatablity should not lead to a therapist losing his/her job.""

I suspect that it wasn't quite like that Poppagator. The sexuality of a client would only become evident in the course of the first session, and if the person you are paying for counselling suddenly says something along the lines of "Get out of here, I don't do queers", I suspect it might constitute a valid reason for complaint.

What do you think?

Would you just quietly go, or would you want the bigot dismissed.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:30 PM

If one is employed by an organisation that counsels relationships, and they have an equality and diversity policy (which I am almost sure Relate will have), then one signs up to that code when you sign your contract. If he did not raise the issue in interview (for example, "I am a Christian and will not expect to counsel Gay couples") and signed the contract then he has agreed to carry out Relate's policies.

The subject matters not. Had he said he was a black male who only wanted to councel non whites I suspect the ruling would have gone the same way. I think this judgment is not totally about religion but is totally about contactual obligation.

What if a vegan applied for a job at a butchers, got the job, and then refused to serve anyone wanting to buy meat? Would that not be similar? How far do you think the vegan would get in a tribunal?

Couples turn to relate for help. People at Relate should be able to offer that help or not be employed. That goes for us all. If we cannot do our job, or refuse to do it, then we would be sacked.

I think this ruling has come about more on employment law than anything to do with religion and sexuality

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 05:26 PM

""I am not a god-botherer. But this verdict seems to remove any conceivable basis for conscientious objection to anything, ranging from participation in genocide to eating pork and beef in school lunches.""

Conscience is not a religious belief Jack. Atheists have consciences too, and conscientious objection to killing is a moral, not a religious, concept.

It is unaffected by this ruling, which concerns only religious belief, not moral or ethical viewpoints(accepted norms of right and wrong), which are in fact what most law is originally based upon.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 04:27 PM

Well said poppagator, and why should sexual orientation be any more valid in law than religious belief?

How are the "liberals" going to spin this!

From The Sunday Times September 14, 2008

Revealed: UK's first official sharia courtsAbul Taher Recommend? (88) ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network's headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: "We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are."

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future "seems unavoidable" in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of "smaller" criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. "All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases," said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a "parallel legal system" based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: "If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so."

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: "I think it's appalling. I don't think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: PoppaGator
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 03:43 PM

Why in God's name (or anyone else's) would a gay person, or gay couple, insist upon receiving advice and counseling from someone with no sympathy or knowledge of their sexual practices? Just to stir up shit, and score some kind of political point?

I am certainly not defending discrimination, but common sense (seems to me) would dictate that not every therapist is right for every client, and that a case of incompatablity should not lead to a therapist losing his/her job.

Now, if the job description specifically stated that anyone hired as a sex therapists must be qualified to tender advice regarding all possible sexual practices and preferences, then Mr McFarlane deserved to be dismissed as lacking specified qualification. I would think it more reasonable to accept that different staff members be recognized as having different strengths and specialties, and that clients be matched up with therapists in an intelligent and sensitive manner.

(On the other hand, one might also ask why a person with religious scruples about certain aspects of sexuality would make a career of sex therapy if the profession customarily requires every practitioner to be conversant with every possible variety of human sexuality.)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 01:13 PM

I am not a god-botherer. But this verdict seems to remove any conceivable basis for conscientious objection to anything, ranging from participation in genocide to eating pork and beef in school lunches. I don't believe the judge was thinking very carefully about the logical implications of this decision, and I would be very surprised if it doesn't get kicked into limbo in a legal millisecond.

There were far less drastic ways to legally declare that bigot out of order.

(The sadomasochism case was known as "Spanner" to most of us, the law may have a different name for it).

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 12:46 PM

It also depends on whether the sheep is over the age of consent.

Some sexual acts cannot be consented to - I think the case is "Jaggard": some people who indulged in beating and flogging for sexual satisfaction were convicted by the UK courts of GBH (or was it ABH?) despite the victims' consent. UK law did not recognise the possibility of a valid consent to such things. I think it was the ECHR not the European Court eventually concluded that their human rights had not been infringed.

But I wonder how Laws' actual words would play in the context of a ban on wearing garments that impeded recognition of the face?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 12:45 PM

I hope this ruling will be applied to, and observed by, adherents of all religions, as only Judeo-Christian has been specified in the OP.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 12:32 PM

Excellent decision by the courts. Religion has no standing in law for a very good reason; we are a free country. Freedom of worship includes freedom from worship.

Nice to note the only contribution by a God Botherer is about being shot for being a conchy. Yeah, and even further back in history, you were put in a wicker man and burnt for upsetting your non existent God.

Regarding the sheep; the last time I looked, sheep shagging was a bestial crime whereas people making love to each other wasn't. Putting love making in the same category as the crime of bestiality is a rather sickening move on your part? Resorting to such hate and vitriol just goes to prove that god is love at any cost eh? ZZZ

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 08:01 AM

"So what would the leagal situation be if he had refused to counsel a sheep-shagger?"

I suspect it would depend on whether it was consentual sex on the part of the sheep.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:59 AM

Some of these rulings go one way. Some the other. But thank heavens the general flow of history at the moment seems to be in favour of tolerance of other peoples' sexuality, and removing bigotry from public life.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:54 AM

This is an interesting Canadian case of human rights versus "Catholicity" in a RC school.I suspect there will bbe significant legal wrangling over this one, since the Canadian Constitution makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

A lesbian is hired to teach music (employer did not know she was a lesbian, and I suspect it is not legal to ask), and signs a contract that included a clause "indicating that as a non-Catholic she would not speak out against the Catholic faith or try to influence students with non-Catholic values" She has a baby, and the church learns she is a Lesbian. She is told she cannot teach in the classroom, and is given a non teaching post, which keeps her out of the school. The teacher says she never discussed her sexual oriantation in the classroom and her sexual orientation was never discussed.

The womans job was teaching music...nothing more. So, I suspect that any claim that she could influence "Catholicity" through her teaching job would be a hard case to make. While she was not fired, her employment and career were likely impacted by reasignment, based only on her sexuality.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Sexual+orientation+firing+teacher+claims/2963249/story.html#ixzz0maDxMFrx




http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Sexual+orientation+firing+teacher+claims/2963249/story.html

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Emma B
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:51 AM

In 1914, after compulsory call-up for British men looked increasingly likely, pacifist members of the No-Conscription Fellowship, set up in 1915, successfully campaigned to secure 'the conscience clause' in the 1916 Conscription Act: the right to claim exemption from military service.


The story of Harold Bing who was not thought to qualify for exemption....

" '18? - you're too young to have a conscience,' said the chairman. But not, apparently, too young to be sent to war. A policeman came to his home to arrest him, and he was taken to Kingston Barracks. When he refused to regard himself as a soldier, or obey military orders, he was court-martialled.
The sentence: 6 months hard labour. In the end Harold spent nearly 3 years in prison."

was not unusual but they were not actually shot for their beliefs - not all of which were, as CD points out, based on religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:50 AM

So what would the leagal situation be if he had refused to counsel a sheep-shagger?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:49 AM

Good for Laws, LJ.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:44 AM

"If your God and conscience tell you not to kill for the state, expect to be shot as a deserter. "

Don't follow you logic here. We don't shoot people for desertion these days and haven't done (with, I think, 1 exception) since the end of WW1.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:27 AM

"If your God and conscience tell you not to kill for the state, expect to be shot as a deserter."

I thought it was specifically aimed at beliefs based *purely* on religious faith, rather than otherwise supportable secular (and perhaps humanitarian) ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: Jack Campin
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:22 AM

If it was reported correctly, that appears to take conscientious objectors back to the status quo as of 1914. If your God and conscience tell you not to kill for the state, expect to be shot as a deserter.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: bobad
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:21 AM

Hear, hear!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:15 AM

About damned time. A light in the darkness this ruling is.

thanks Leveller.

Subject: BS: Religious beliefs - no standing in law
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:04 AM

When Gary McFarlane was fired from his job as a Relate sex therapist because he refused to advise homosexual couples on the grounds that it was against his Christian beliefs, he took his case to an industrial tribunal. He has lost his case.

The Telegraph reports:
"Lord Justice Laws ruled that while everyone had the right to hold religious beliefs, those beliefs themselves had no standing under the law.
"In the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence," he told the court.
While acknowledging the profound influence of Judeo-Christian traditions over many centuries, he insisted that no religious belief itself could be protected under the law "however long its tradition, however rich its culture".
"The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified," he said.
"It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary." "

IMO this is an excellent judgment, as to permit any antisocial actions, be they homophobic, racist, anti-feminist or whatever, on the grounds of religious belief would be the thin end of the wedge that would allow any bigot to defend the most loathsome of opinions by claiming that they were his/her religious views.

Let's not forget that the bastion of South African apartheid for many years was the Dutch Reformed Church.

Good judgment or bad - what do you think?