Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Huffington News
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/british-judge-christian-b_n_559244.html

By Al Webb
Religion News Service
LONDON (RNS) A top British judge has ruled that Christian beliefs have no standing under secular law because they lack evidence and cannot be proven.

Lord Justice John Grant McKenzie Laws made the declaration on Thursday (April 29) in throwing out a defamation suit by Christian relationship counselor who refused to offer sex therapy to gay couples.

Gary McFarlane protested that he was fired because offering sex therapy to same-gender couples violates his Christian principles.

But Laws said "religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence." He added that to use the law to protect "a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified."

No religious belief, said the judge, can be protected under the law "however long its tradition, however rich its culture."

Laws also dismissed as "misplaced" and "mistaken" former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey's warning that a wave of discrimination against Christians threatens "civil war" in Britain.
Story continues below

Carey described the High Court ruling as "deeply worrying," heralding "a 'secular state' rather than a 'neutral' one."

Former Anglican bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali wrote in The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London that Laws' ruling had "driven a coach and horses" through the ages-old ties between Christianity and British law.

But Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society in Britain, applauded the judgment as a defeat for "fundamentalism," adding that "the law must be clear, that anti-discrimination laws exist to protect people, not beliefs."

I'm a fairly hardcore secularist, but even I have a problem with forcing a christian person to give 'sex therapy' to a gay couple. However, it wasn't his own, privately owned, business - if his employer expects an employee to do something which is perfectly reasonable and within that person's job description, then they are well within their rights to fire that person.

I guess my point is that if the person was a self-employed Sex Therapist (wtf IS that, by the way?), then they shouldn't be forced not to discriminate by law - whilst people are still legally allowed to be religious, they should be legally allowed to act upon their conscience (however much I might disagree with their actions). If I own a shop, it should be up to me who I serve, and a sex therapist should be no different.

It is up to you, as long as you don't break the laws about discrimination.

Sex therapy?

Sex is therapy isn't it?

I'm confused..

Soladrin wrote:Sex therapy?

Sex is therapy isn't it?

I'm confused..

Your proberly not getting enough, try harder

loki old fart wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Sex therapy?

Sex is therapy isn't it?

I'm confused..

Your proberly not getting enough, try harder

Off course not.. there is never enough sex. xD

Hmmm.

Sounds like you have an addiction Soldarin.

You need therapy!

Haha actually, my girlfriend moved to Switserland half a year ago, so i only see her every 2 months now.

But, she's coming here for a month next wednesday, nuff' said.

Excellent, some common sense from a judge.

Albatross wrote:I'm a fairly hardcore secularist, but even I have a problem with forcing a christian person to give 'sex therapy' to a gay couple. However, it wasn't his own, privately owned, business - if his employer expects an employee to do something which is perfectly reasonable and within that person's job description, then they are well within their rights to fire that person.

I guess my point is that if the person was a self-employed Sex Therapist (wtf IS that, by the way?), then they shouldn't be forced not to discriminate by law - whilst people are still legally allowed to be religious, they should be legally allowed to act upon their conscience (however much I might disagree with their actions). If I own a shop, it should be up to me who I serve, and a sex therapist should be no different.

Indeed. If your beliefs prevent you from doing the job you are being paid to do like a professional them logical thing to do is change your job, not expect the job to change for you and then cry victim when you don't get your way.

I don't think it's fair to say this guy is being 'forced' to council gay couples any more than anyone else is 'forced' to do their job, after all anyone can hand in their notice tomorrow if they have that much of an issue with their work. But if you want to keep getting paid then you have to suck it up and knuckle down with the job you are being paid to do and to which you agreed when you accepted the job.

This guy didn't want to do his job, understandably got the boot and thinks his beliefs mean he should be allowed to cherry pick the parts of his terms of employment are applicable to him. He was wrong and the decision was the correct one. That his motivations where religious is nether here nor there.

Sounds about right to me Lucius.

Not familiar with the details but would have thought it possible to approach the line manager and express that they were uncomfortable with the situation and switch with someone else. It never really should have gone that far.

But imho the judge is right.

Anyone else think that Lord Justice John Grant McKenzie Laws is a great name for a judge?

As a Christian I'm not exactly sure what the counseler was trying to do in suing his employer over firing him. This kind of reminds me of the muslims that sue because their employers don't give them a room to do their daily prayers.

I think the counselor should have went to his boss and said "hey I don't counsil gays, if you don't like that, then I quit."

I.E. he should have received something in writing specifically exempting him from counciling gays, otherwise he needs to start a Christian counciling service.


GG

The counsellor was claiming that his dismissal was unfair.

The question of accommodation of belief within a job situation is a difficult one. Obviously, a bacon factory would not be able to accommodate the needs of Jews not to touch pork.

Similarly, it would be impossible for a sea fishing boat trip company, to provide a prayer room for Muslim employees on its trawler.

In these cases, there is nothing to stop a Jew or Muslim from taking the job if they want to, although obviously they won't due to their religious beliefs.

No doubt there are jobs that Christians and atheists should avoid taking for similar reasons.

The problem with the counsellor is that it is against UK law to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sexual orientation (and other reasons). It was only his own belief that prevented him from offering the services to gay people, which by law the company/agency was bound to offer. He could have given therapy without religious contamination. Contact with gay people would not have contaminated him in the way that contact with pork would contaminate a Jew.

It is the same thing as the case a year or so ago when a registrar refused to register civil partnerships, because it was against her religion. She also lost.

It seems to me that if someone's beliefs make they want not to do certain things, they shouldn't adopt a career path which would require them to do those things. It's not a specifically anti-religious thing. Pacifists shouldn't join the army. Vegetarians shouldn't become butchers.

(Amusing story; when my Muslim student asked for permission to go to Friday prayers, I said of course, but the quiet room does not have a mihrab. He said, "It's fine, my iPhone has an app for that.")

LuciusAR wrote:But if you want to keep getting paid then you have to suck it up and knuckle down with the job you are being paid to do and to which you agreed when you accepted the job.

Oof. Unfortunate choice of words when describing a sex therapist!

Kilkrazy wrote:
(Amusing story; when my Muslim student asked for permission to go to Friday prayers, I said of course, but the quiet room does not have a mihrab. He said, "It's fine, my iPhone has an app for that.")

One day, while out for a jog, I passed a parked cab. The driver of said vehicle was next to it, on the curb, saying his prayers. Problematically, he was facing roughly west-northwest, while the Qiblah (shortest path to the Kaaba in Mecca) in North America is roughly north-northeast. I stopped and corrected him, he thanked me.

Kilkrazy wrote:The counsellor was claiming that his dismissal was unfair.

I agree that it may have been unfair(although like you say why did he get in that profession, if he new he may have to council gays), however I don't think it was unlawfull.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:.. I stopped and corrected him, he thanked me.

wow........you got away with out threat of a beheading? I kid.....Ikid.....

edit...that actually was kind of a ballsy thing to do.

GG

dogma wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
(Amusing story; when my Muslim student asked for permission to go to Friday prayers, I said of course, but the quiet room does not have a mihrab. He said, "It's fine, my iPhone has an app for that.")

One day, while out for a jog, I passed a parked cab. The driver of said vehicle was next to it, on the curb, saying his prayers. Problematically, he was facing roughly west-northwest, while the Qiblah (shortest path to the Kaaba in Mecca) in North America is roughly north-northeast. I stopped and corrected him, he looked up and said "Son, quit your jibber-jabber and help me find my keys! I coulda sworn I dropped them around here somewhere...."

Fixed!

generalgrog wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The counsellor was claiming that his dismissal was unfair.

I agree that it may have been unfair(although like you say why did he get in that profession, if he new he may have to council gays), however I don't think it was unlawfull.

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:.. I stopped and corrected him, he thanked me.

wow........you got away with out threat of a beheading? I kid.....Ikid.....

edit...that actually was kind of a ballsy thing to do.

GG

Unfair dismissal is a technical term in UK employment law. It basically means unlawful. Someone may be dismissed from their post for a variety of fair reasons (such as, they are unable to undertake the work for some valid reason) or unfair reasons (such as, the boss doesn't like the colour of their skin).

So lets see.

A Christian cannot refuse to offer sex conselling advice to homoesexuals but this is acceptible:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23414476-muslim-checkout-staff-can-refuse-to-sell-drink.do

There has got to be a difference in crossing the line of a faith between scanning a bottle of alcohol you are not consuming and examining a couples sex life and being expected to advise on that.

I wonder what would have happened if the counseller was a Moslem.

Like a lot of these cases, this really depends. If assume there were plenty of straight couples wanting therapy, so the Christian fellow could have been accomodated fairly easily, with gay couples handed out to other therapists. On the other hand, there could have been sorts of reasons that kind of accomodation wasn't practical, and I can understand a court's reluctance to get involved with business judgements.

The prayer room is a similar issue, as it's a question of how difficult it is to provide a room. If, like Kilkrazy suggested the Muslim is working on a fishing trawler it isn't practical, but if he's in a building with dozens of spare rooms and the boss can't bothered finding the key to one, I can understand the complaint.

generalgrog wrote:wow........you got away with out threat of a beheading? I kid.....Ikid.....

edit...that actually was kind of a ballsy thing to do.

GG

Why?

Orlanth wrote:So lets see.

A Christian cannot refuse to offer sex conselling advice to homoesexuals but this is acceptible:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23414476-muslim-checkout-staff-can-refuse-to-sell-drink.do

There has got to be a difference in crossing the line of a faith between scanning a bottle of alcohol you are not consuming and examining a couples sex life and being expected to advise on that.

I wonder what would have happened if the counseller was a Moslem.

The two situations are different.

Muslims believe it is a sin to handle alcohol. Christians believe it is a sin to be a practising homosexual.

In the sex therapy case, the therapist is not being forced to commit a sin by doing his job. He is discriminating against clients out of personal choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The reason why his wish not to treat homosexuals could not be accommodated is because it is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals, etc, as I have pointed out before.

1) The man who did not wish to treat homosexuals probably could have been accomodated informally, but there is no reason why his company should have to do so. Although counselling a gay couple may not directly contravene the teachings of the Bible, I am not sure where the Bible stands on helping/encouraging someone else to commit a sin.

2) Did the Muslim student have a little picture of a mirhab on his phone, or an app to tell him the direction of Mecca, or a combination of both?

3) Actually, it is widely considered to be the consumption of alcohol that is barred for Muslims, but there are plenty who take that further and won't enter pubs, etc... However, when you consider there are no restrictions on the use of alcohol for other purposes (as a handwash in hospitals, for example, or as a fuel), it seems a bit silly. Had an interesting discussion with my (moderate) Muslim colleague, a science teacher who uses alcohol in science lessons for various permitted reasons.

1) I don't know but I expect the Bible is against helping someone else to commit a sin.

2) He had an app which gave the direction of Mecca with a sort of compass. I think it works by GPS.

3) Like all things there is a range of views.

However the key point is that it is legal to discriminate against someone wanting to buy alcohol, so there is no reason for the company not to accommodate the views of the muslim staff.

It is not legal, though, to discriminate against someone because they are a homosexual.

To put it differently, you can lawfully tell a customer he can't buy a bottle of whisky at this till because the cashier is a muslim, but you can't tell a customer he can't buy a bottle of whisky because the customer is a homosexual.

Legally, I see the judge's point. It's just such a shame that rationalism has infected our culture to the extent it has. Spiritual things can't be proven because they TRANSCEND material things. That's why there is no proof of God; He's beyond it, there only being anything to study since He willed it into being. The materialist mindset is therefore a form of spiritual blindness, a blindness which judgements such as the one in this case just reinforce and spread even further.

Orky-Kowboy wrote:Legally, I see the judge's point. It's just such a shame that rationalism has infected our culture to the extent it has. Spiritual things can't be proven because they TRANSCEND material things. That's why there is no proof of God; He's beyond it, there only being anything to study since He willed it into being. The materialist mindset is therefore a form of spiritual blindness, a blindness which judgements such as the one in this case just reinforce and spread even further.

You just proved why the judge is right, not just that he has a point. Everything you said after the first sentence could be debated even within a single religion, let alone expanding beyond that to other traditions.

But the point is that God is beyond the framework of a debate.

"Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens--what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave--what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea." - Job 11:7-9

/\ only if you believe.

notprop wrote:/\ only if you believe.

And only if you follow a certain line of theological reasoning. If all Christians believed the same thing there wouldn't be radically different sects.

But the point is that God is beyond the framework of a debate.

You need more information on Christianities history and philosophy. It has been debated for a long long time. We all are living in the wake of these debates, as future generations will live in the wake of ours.

Kilkrazy wrote:To put it differently, you can lawfully tell a customer he can't buy a bottle of whisky at this till because the cashier is a muslim, but you can't tell a customer he can't buy a bottle of whisky because the customer is a homosexual.

Ah, I see where you are coming from now.

Orlanth wrote:So lets see.

A Christian cannot refuse to offer sex conselling advice to homoesexuals but this is acceptible:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23414476-muslim-checkout-staff-can-refuse-to-sell-drink.do

There has got to be a difference in crossing the line of a faith between scanning a bottle of alcohol you are not consuming and examining a couples sex life and being expected to advise on that.

I wonder what would have happened if the counseller was a Moslem.

It is not the same
the article says that the cashier can raise their hand and call for someone else.
Customer gets served, Muslim does not feel compromised, store gets cash in the till.
everyone is happy.

If the councellor was a Muslim same thing would happen as per the Christian if they refused.

Despite religious beliefs often being metaphysical it doesn't mean they have to be irrational. They'd be utterly pointless if it were the case.