Christians in Britain should leave their faith at home or accept that they might have to get another job, a Government lawyer has told the European Court of Human Rights.
The comment came as the Court heard the cases of four Christians, including that of registrar Lillian Ladele who was disciplined for her stance on civil partnerships. All four say the UK Government failed to protect their religious liberty.
Dinah Rose QC, representing Miss Ladele, told the Court that her client had been used as “an instrument” of social change by her former employer Islington Borough Council.
She warned the judges that the submission from the United Kingdom’s Government entails “permitting Islington to treat Miss Ladele as an instrument for the propagation of its public message.
“And we submit that to treat a person, an individual, as a means and not an aim in themselves, is fundamentally incompatible with individual human dignity and incompatible with convention rights.”
James Eadie QC, acting on behalf of the Government, argued that the rights of the four Christians were only protected in private, and that they could not “insist on being able to manifest their beliefs in any way they choose”.
He argued that a Christian “under difficulty” is not discriminated against if they have the choice of “resigning and moving to a different job”.
34 Comments
A weekend thought:
"Most of this disrespect was not necessarily brought on by the LGBT. But they have been effectively used by the powers that be. For three major reasons (among others).
3) To finally rip free of Christian laws and their limitations toward the exploitation of people and of market potential. And in no small way, to rip free of the last remaining active aspect of the Roman Empire. “The Roman Catholic church” with its far reaching, powerful and rich influence on much of the entire world (but most annoyingly, in what concerns them – the West). And so finally bring the Roman Empire to a close. And so bringing all the power up to England (The British Empire), Europe. Or better said, up to The City of London, Wall Street and friends, etc."
http://www.nomblog.com/27744/#comments (Post # 37)
Also in the news:
The "Homosexual" SS has mandated that all Christians must darn a Crucifix Armband at all times so that right-minded folks will be aware of their tendency toward bigotry.
The Queen, as head of the official Christian Church of England, must serve as a model and is hereby ordered to display said Crucifix at all times until a decision is reached on her official status within our secular nation.
Sincerely,
The Minister of Truth
Indeed, Randy. Make no mistake this is what the Obama regime has in mind for a second term.
No doubt everyone reading this is already aware that God was booed at the DNC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX11IUjkEKs
Nom you have some nutters on your sight....Why am I not suprized?
@Good News #1:
Bingo.
i subscribe comment #1, especially the final sentences
@Chris,
Denying you are doing what you are doing reminds me of an old Eddie Murphy joke:
Did you ever get the impression that Mr. T is stupid?
Mr. T: Eddy, I hear you been telling jokes about me
Eddy: No I Haven't!
Mr. T: You haven't...? I'm going to find that fool that has been spreading these lies.
"Who are you going to believe; me, or your damn lying eyes?" is not the winning strategy you seem to think it is.
I absolutely agree with the UK Government Lawyer.
If the Christian isn't discriminated against when they can quit and get another job, how is it discrimination when a homosexual couple could go somewhere else to have their "reception" besides my church hall?
Chris:
It's called "English", and why am I not surprised you can't spell it properly?
Religion is a personal thing. Keep it out of your work life, out of Government, and don't try to impose it on others. Your religion is a BELIEF, that doesn't make it the truth.
@ wade #9:
Bingo.
@AD 2 #11:
I am afraid you are apparently unacquainted with a little thing called the First Amendment.
Here it is, so you can understand why your anti-constitutional demands are irrelevant to the discussion, from the standpoint of the United States Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
AD2: religion is not only a personal 'thing'. But voting is indeed a personal 'thing'. You impose your religion on me when you vote, and i do the same vice versa. That is, you know?.... 'EQUALITY'.
Rick, if the "free exercise" of my religion required me to follow Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 to the letter, would you demand that the government allow me? Why, or why not?
If you don't like that specific example, let me ask more generally: if the "free exercise" of my religion required me to harm another person who didn't even share my beliefs, what should the government do?
Just curious.
Funny Christians have to leave their faith at home. But Gays must serve openly. Force it on us and let everybody know they are a homosexual.
sounds fair doesnt. Just nasty
@ John B #23
I think it is very safe to say that the free exercise clause protects my right to decline to be bound by AD2's remarkable "interpretation":
"Religion is a personal thing. Keep it out of your work life, out of Government, and don't try to impose it on others."
Would you agree?
John the Baptist confronted Herod the evil king. We need to be like John and get into the faces of these evil people!
Freedom of conscience is an unalienable right. Sexual perversion is not; nor is redefining marriage.
Someone is sticking a gun to these people's heads and FORCING them to do a job. Just like every time I had to do something at work I didn't want to, I was being held at GUNPOINT by TERRORISTS.
Religion is personal, it is between you and your God, keep it that way.
Religion is personal, it is between you and your God, keep it that way.
Marriage is based on biology, it is between a man and a woman. Keep it that way.
DoE:
"Freedom of conscience is an unalienable right. Sexual perversion is not...."
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the first amendment. Everyone has freedom of conscience, and that includes not just Daughter of Eve and others whose consciences have led them to similar places but also people like me, a group I'm fairly certain Daughter of Eve would place in the sexual pervert category. I don't have the right to tell Daughter of Eve where her conscientious considerations should lead; similarly, she has no right to put her own conscience over mine.
@Bruce,
We have the unalienable right of conscience and the free exercise thereof as defined by this nation’s history and traditions. The depravity you pimp has no connection to this nation's history and traditions aside from the fact that your proclivity has always been regarded as a crime against humanity - by the laws of God and nature.
You have no firm basis from which to draw from; your entire proposal is built on the shifting sands of time; completely dependent upon the bastardization of language just to lend an appearance of acceptability to your depravity.
Bruce, I don't make up the rules of virtue vs. perversion. Everyone is accountable for their own choices; the consequences are inescapable. You don't answer to me. Your conscience is your own. We each get one vote. Cast it well. Please don't conflate standing up for virtue w/ compelling another to be virtuous. BTW, what are the virtues of homosexual behavior?
Rick, it would be interesting to compare parts of your constitution and the Eurpean Convention on Human Rights under which these cases have been brought to court of final appeal.
I wonder what you think about Articles 9 and 10?
"Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject
only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in
a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection
of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others."
I forgot to say... the cases largely rest (re: Article 9) on the question of legitmate aims under Art 9 Clause 2 and the proportionality of its application in each case.
Paul Mc brings up a good point, and why it is important not to subvert our Constitutional sovereignty to any other human court. There is no greater law nor guarantor of freedom than the U.S. Constitution.
Hi DoFE; actually I was trying to make a more esoteric point. SCOTUS don't generally take other jurisprudence into account however, they may take note that the ECHR Court does have interesting things to say about limits to the manifestation of religious belief.
First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression but SCOTUS case Employment Division v. Smith 1990 established legitimate restriction to such manifestation wrt application of "neutral law of general applicability". This is an important limit placed on religious expression. This amounts to much the same as European Convention Article 9 Clause 2 (text above).
The current cases before the European Court are very likely to lose except the case of wearing crucifix on the job where legitimate aims and proportionality is harder to establish.
Most European governments and European courts are governed by Statists, who put the wants of the state before the unalienable rights and needs of the individual; this is counter to the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, and our own Constitution. Again, we would do well to avoid patterning our decisions after those of Europe.
Hi DofE. Elections in most of Europe are a good deal more free from corruption (big business) than the US. The people remain sovereign. The European Convention does a very good job in stating the balance of rights that a free people live under. The US Consititution is no longer fit for purpose. That's a different argument though.
I was trying to steer things back to the subject of entitlement to manifest your religious belief and whether there can be justifiable constraints on these arbitrary personal expressions. Are there? Can any belief be considered religious if it is sincere, deeply held?
What are the lawful limitations on the expression of faith in the gay identity? The gay identity group is often rather cult-like. Why has that faith become the Government's newly established religous belief as expressed in UK government policies? It hardly seems religiously neutral.
Methinks you need to go back and re-read the Constitution, with regards to natural law and Nature's God. If you reject the Constitution, you also are rejecting its recognition that rights come from God. Instead of debating with another mortal, as to the meaning of religious belief, why don't you go straight to the source, and ask of God (James 1:5) as to how He wants to be worshipped, and which religion of them all, is correct? In the mean time, I'll be defending the Constitution, as it is not out of date, still to the purpose, and the only government document on earth which will protect personal liberty and protect against tyranny.