The BBC reviews the decisions made in the cases of four Christians, three of whom lost their bids to defend their conscience rights:
Andrea Williams of the Christian Legal Centre says at one point: "... in the case of Lillian Ladele, [there was never] any refusal of a service to any homosexual couple. So I think here we have to really get a sense of perspective on what is happening, what have the English courts said? They've said this: your freedom to manifest your faith is your freedom to resign. Well of course that's no freedom at all."
8 Comments
Obviously the guy won over her.
Does NOM support the rights of non-Christians to refuse to provide services to Christians? For example, if someone came into an office seeking a marriage license,and this person was wearing a cross, or identified themself as a Christian in some other way, should someone who finds Christian marriage offensive be entitled to refuse the license, or refer this person to another member of the staff? Suppose the clerk is an Orthodox Jew, and a mixed religion couple appears at the window. Does NOM respect the right of those who are deeply offended by the marriages/intermarriages of certain religious persons? After all, if one can use religious beliefs to deny a license to one group of people, then a person who dissaproves of someone else's religion should be able to behave in the same way.
Susan wrote: "For example, if someone came into an office seeking a marriage license,and this person was wearing a cross, or identified themself as a Christian in some other way, should someone who finds Christian marriage offensive be entitled to refuse the license, or refer this person to another member of the staff? Suppose the clerk is an Orthodox Jew, and a mixed religion couple appears at the window."
================
I don't know or speak for NOM. But who finds Christian marriage offensive? Orthodox Jews don't think people of other religions should get a marriage license? On what planet?
If having two brides for one groom were legal, would you ever refuse such a license? Would you marry a father to a daughter, if they were both adults? What if two people wanted a license so that one of them could get a green card? Who are you to use your beliefs to deny anyone a marriage license?
People with a homosexuality problem need to take responsibility for being psychologically dysfunctional and try to resolve their problem.
Alessandra, good point about marriages of convenience.
SSMers have insisted that they want the government benefits that are available to married people. Not only is SSM a specious substitution for marriage, it is a relationship-of-convenience closely analogous with the notion of a marriage-of-convenience.
Alexandra, you are the only stating that homosexuality is a psychological problem. Professionals who know don't.
If you wish to be credible, then don,t keep on saying it. It has been dismissed. It is an existential given that it is not any kind of mental illness.
Getting back to the point, there is no universal , complete and absolute right to manifest ones religion. Attaching the words, sincere, deeply held, does not make it more so.
Such manifestations, particularly by public officials, require strict scrutiny where they impinge on the rights of others to be treated the same as everyone else. Allowing this woman to refuse to carry out civil partnerships was against the law of the land. All the Courts in the said so and so have th highest Court in Europe.
There were two dissenting opinions. You might care to read them. Inventing new rights on the fly. Involving the non-legal terminology of 'too much political corrections'. A joke opinion.
This is why we are winning. The Law. RAtionality. Logic. Common Sense. Justice. Truth.
Susan Rosenthal: Without reading your entire paragraph, the simple answer to your question (if it was a question) is "yes".
Someone stated: "you are the only stating that homosexuality is a psychological problem. Professionals who know don't. . .If you wish to be credible, then don,t keep on saying it. It has been dismissed. It is an existential given that it is not any kind of mental illness. "
Which professionals? (Actually, that has been dismissed).
Please explain what is meant by 'existential given' (would seem to be one would have to be an Existentialist. . .)
I will also state that homosexuality is a psychological problem in itself, leading to SSm instead of 'gay' marriage, but this blog is about marriage, not private matters. It is a problem for the specific so-called homosexual, as well as the behavior's effect on society in general (including SSm). But i must clarify that many people who are effeminate might look/move like so-called homosexuals (a religion) to some extent, but they are not. There's a wide spectrum of manly verbal and motor expression.
Homosexuality cannot be proven, either as a behavior (it can be feinted), nor as a genetic makeup. And so-called SSA can only be 'proven' by a show of hands (unless they are in the closet, still, so we wouldn't know). And homosexuality is disproved by the so-called bi-sexuals. The word heterosexual would not be needed, except for the unnecessary words 'homosexual' or 'lesbian'. The noun construct of these words do not refer to an existing person which can be validated. As an adjective, it refers to homosexual behavior - and that does exist as an aberration of the sexual act between man & woman. The behavior is not even sex.
Marc Paul: Alexandra, you are the only stating that homosexuality is a psychological problem. Professionals who know don't.
====================
I take it you are not a professional nor can you evaluate what any professional does or says, right? I'm sorry but if you can't evaluate any professional text or study or research, you could at least have a little self-awareness about how much you can't understand. I guess that's asking too much from liberals. You are truly like a deaf person shouting. Are you aware that you are incapable of investigating a person's psychological dynamics? Do you believe that everyone else is equally incapable?
What you are ignoring is a very large number of professionals who have all investigated how a person's psychology can get deformed regarding sexuality in every possible way, including homosexuality.
The basis for sexuality is a combination of present emotions, past experiences, social conditioning, trauma, power dynamics, early childhood development, unconscious forces, cultural and ideological attitudes and norms, to name a few.
Desire is elastic, can degenerate, can be perverted, in fact, it can be completely deformed, just as a large core of a person's psychological dynamics can too.
A person with deep dysfunctional psychological problems will have a dysfunctional sexuality, because the very framework that sustains sexuality in a person's psyche are largely non-sexual.
For people who may be interested in reading some very interesting work on the dynamics that can produce a homosexuality problem in a person's mind, take a look at Nicolosi's work. Anthropological studies showing how people in completely different cultures normalize all kinds of abuse, perverted orientations, and sexual dysfunctions enlighten us as to how plastic human beings are in their psychology about sexuality.