"Regarding human sacrifice, don't be silly."

I agree it's silly. But it's your argument that I'm taking to its logical conclusion.


It is the principle in Laws' decision that is dangerous, not the specific case. You apparently believe this is a progressive decision that will protect the rights of the weak. Well, if so, your faith is touching. Do you realize it would be very easy to apply the logic of this decision AGAINST religious minorities? Against ANY who object to a law based upon matters of conscience?

""Well, as no such law exists, that's pure conjecture." No, it isn't. It follows logically from Laws' decision. "

No it doesn't. In the UK the laws are made by Parliament and the legislature applies them. You can't apply the judge's decision in one case to a law that doesn't exist - unless you're claiming to be able to see into the future. Is that so? In which case, can you give me the exact wording a this future conscription legislation - oh and how about the winning numbers for next week's lottery?

"And, finally, let's be clear: Gary McFarlane certainly inconvenienced the couple and likely offended them, but he did not "infringe upon their rights.""

Wrong again. He infringed the right of his employer to expect an employee to meet his/her contractual commitments, and he infringed the right of the couple not to be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Pretty fundamental stuff - at least it is in UK law.