Secular Society Threatened?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is why JP2 will be welcomed back from the dead by Catholics to be the next Pope when he is impersonated by the devil.

Um, "lol"?

[Megas Methuselah]

Um, "lol"?

I actually read that whole thing. Pretty funny.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Um, "lol"?

Don't worry, that's not what I believe. It's a Seventh-Day Adventist site after all (hence all the 'enforcing the false sabbath' rubbish).

Bet I had you worried though.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Today saw a big manifestation in Beirut for laïcité. Against sectarianism, in favour of civic rights!






That's the way, ah-ha ah-ha, I laïc it, ah-ha ah-ha!
(Sung to the tune of KC and the Sunshine Band)

[Rhyfelwyr]

The video's not working for me there Louis.

In any case, French laicite is doomed. Within the EU megastructure, secularism will never be promoted as superior as it is in France, it is just another ideology codified in with the rest. Even the Belgae aren't secular, simply pluralistic, don't they call humanism the "seventh organised religion" over there? Elsewhere on the continent, the EU itself is seen as a product of Christianity, and political Catholicism in particular, hardly suprising given role of the Christian Democractic parties in promoting European integration.

Doesn't article 16C of the Lisbon Treaty call for "open, transparent, and regular dialogue" with churches? The "laicite of recognition" as Leustean & Madeley put it. That's all that will be left of your vision of freedom from religion, integration isn't proving quite so one way anymore, no more exporting the enlightenment.

And who will head this theocratic European state?

This Babel?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This beast?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Could it be...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Louis VI the Fat]

A senior judge has launched a dramatic assault on religious faith, dismissing it as “subjective” with no basis in fact.



Lord Justice Laws condemned any attempt to protect believers who take a stand on matters of conscience under the law as “irrational” and “capricious”.
In comments likely to set the church on a collision course with the courts, he claimed that doing so could set Britain on the road to a “theocracy”, or religious rule.

His comments came as he dismissed a legal challenge by a Christian relationship counsellor who was sacked after refusing to offer sex therapy sessions to homosexual couples because it was against his beliefs.
Gary McFarlane, 48, challenged his dismissal at the Court of Appeal, arguing that forcing him to go against what he sees as the Bible’s teaching represented religious discrimination.
He was supported in his case by a highly unusual direct intervention Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote to the judge warning of a tide of discrimination against Christians that threatened “civil unrest”.

[...]

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.”
He added: “If they did … our constitution would be on the road to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

[...]

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which supported Mr McFarlane, described the depiction of traditional religious views on marriage as subjective as an “alarming” development.
“In effect it seeks to rule out Christian principles of morality from the public square,” she said.
“It seems that a religious bar to office has been created, whereby a Christian who wishes to act on their Christian beliefs on marriage will no longer be able to work in a great number of environments.”


But Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, hailed the judgment as a defeat for “fundamentalism”.
“The law must be clear that anti-discrimination laws exist to protect people, not beliefs,” he said.
“The right to follow a religious belief is a qualified right and it must not be used to legitimise discrimination against gay people who are legally entitled to protection against bigotry and persecution.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...pist-case.html

[Sasaki Kojiro]

On the one hand I agree...on the other hand, why is he being sacked for refusing to counsel them? I don't think religion works well as an excuse, but that anti-discrimination law needs more justification.

[Tellos Athenaios]

It looks to me that Mr. McFarlane chose to work in a place that explicitly does provide relationship therapy to all clients, refused therapy to a homosexual coupe and got himself fired over it. Therefore he was essentially fired for refusing to do the job he was paid for. In that context, I would say Justice Law's judgment is very valid and also correct. It would have been a different matter if Mr. McFarlane worked in an explicitly “Christian” establishment. In that case it could be argued said that the couple expecting therapy should have realized they were asking a service that is subject to religious beliefs and anticipated their request to be rejected, and moreover that the employer should accept that he/she hired a religious man (he/she presumably asked for it in the job description).

The real issue at hand is not whether or not Mr. McFarlane must provide therapy to homosexual couples, but whether or not his employer has grounds for dismissal if he does not provide it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It looks to me that Mr. McFarlane chose to work in a place that explicitly does provide relationship therapy to all clients, refused therapy to a homosexual coupe and got himself fired over it. Therefore he was essentially fired for refusing to do the job he was paid for. In that context, I would say Justice Law's judgment is very valid and also correct. It would have been a different matter if Mr. McFarlane worked in an explicitly “Christian” establishment. In that case it could be argued said that the couple expecting therapy should have realized they were asking a service that is subject to religious beliefs and anticipated their request to be rejected, and moreover that the employer should accept that he/she hired a religious man (he/she presumably asked for it in the job description).

The real issue at hand is not whether or not Mr. McFarlane must provide therapy to homosexual couples, but whether or not his employer has grounds for dismissal if he does not provide it.

I dissagree; freedom of concience is based on the holding of convictions. If you cannot refuse councelling to a homosexual couple you cannot invoke the right of conciencious objection in time of War.

This strikes directly to the freedom of concience we established in our society after the Restoration, and expanded up to the 19th Century. Now we are returning to a situation where only one ideaology is acceptable, but instead of Anglican Christianity it is secularism.

Individuals should have the right to act according to concience and conviction, it is institutions and the law which should be impartial.

[Tellos Athenaios]

No, hardly. We see a dismissal over a conflict between employer and employee and the Justice ruled the employer had cause to dismiss the employee. What Mr MacFarlane did is exactly equivalent to any other person working in a secular establishment refusing for instance to marry gay couples `because of personal held beliefs'. More strongly worded: personal held beliefs are all very laudable but if they are so strong that they render you incapable of doing a particular job you really should question why on earth you chose to be at that job: not why you are not allowed to force your own beliefs upon your employer. To continue your analogy this would be like someone who signs up for the army, discovers a few months down the road that war breaks out and only then becomes a conscientious objector. Something does not fit. If you sign up for the army expect to be required to fight in a war, even if you country is at peace when you join: yes that means a convinced pacifist can't work in the army as a soldier. Do you truly find that an issue? Or do you think you should use your conscience equally when applying for a job, that such evaluation of the duties you will be required to perform should be considered beforehand?

On the other hand the Anglican commentor nailed it when he questioned why such issues could not be settled in a reasonable fashion out of court. It's all very unprofessional.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, hardly. We see a dismissal over a conflict between employer and employee and the Justice ruled the employer had cause to dismiss the employee. What Mr MacFarlane did is exactly equivalent to any other person working in a secular establishment refusing for instance to marry gay couples `because of personal held beliefs'. More strongly worded: personal held beliefs are all very laudable but if they are so strong that they render you incapable of doing a particular job you really should question why on earth you chose to be at that job: not why you are not allowed to force your own beliefs upon your employer. To continue your analogy this would be like someone who signs up for the army, discovers a few months down the road that war breaks out and only then becomes a conscientious objector. Something does not fit. If you sign up for the army expect to be required to fight in a war, even if you country is at peace when you join: yes that means a convinced pacifist can't work in the army as a soldier. Do you truly find that an issue? Or do you think you should use your conscience equally when applying for a job, that such evaluation of the duties you will be required to perform should be considered beforehand?

On the other hand the Anglican commentor nailed it when he questioned why such issues could not be settled in a reasonable fashion out of court. It's all very unprofessional.

Conciencious objectors were permitted in the past to serve in non-combat support roles as medics. So your analogy is incorrect.

Further, we are increasingly moving towards the situation where someone can force an individual to forgoe their concience entirely, so that, for example, priests can be forced to marry homosexual couples. This has already happened, explicitely Roman Catholic adoption agencies were forced to close in this country, because they could not in good concience handle applications by homosexual couples.

If a marriage counsellor refuses to see a homosexual couple, or a registrar refuses to marry them, why can't they just go to another counsellor/registrar?

Why is Conciencious objection no longer acceptable in my country?

[Slyspy]

You'll find that pacifists don't tend to join the army willingly.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You'll find that pacifists don't tend to join the army willingly.

Yes: and therein lies exactly my point.

@PVC: I am not too well versed in British marital law, but anyway over here a church marriage has no legal status in civil/criminal/military courts whatsoever. Of course quite a few people still choose to have a church ceremony accompanying the civic one as well, which is a different matter: that is an issue of personally held beliefs and you are free to live them. So the cleric having to set aside his religious values is by and large a non-issue here; but it may be an issue in Britain. In that case, perhaps it would be a good idea to separate Church and state some more so people who are at odds with the wider body of Church can still function within the social paradigms that are not exclusive to it (e.g. marriage, funeral rites, etc.). There is of course still the odd staunchly religious civil servant who refuses to do his job, but AFAIK often enough that is simply resolved by the employer (local municipality) and couple together drawing up the schedules so that these conflicts can largely be avoided (i.e. arranging for a different civil servant to perform the ceremony). That is however the employer being a good employer; not the civil servant being a good civil servant.

EDIT: Why can't they just go? Well as I see it; at least from the article it looked like that might very well have happened. The point is not that the couple took Mc Farlane to court; but that Mc Farlane took his ex-employer to court for dismissing him over the issue. The real conflict is between employer and employee, and the Justice ruled that in this case the employer was within his/her right to dismiss the employee. Essentially Mc Farlane as employee has not the right to effectively single-handedly rewrite his employment contract, and the employer has the right to insist on Mc Farlane either delivering on his part of the contract or terminating it.

Also the analogy is yours: the conscientious objection in time of War. Taken literally it is quite invalid because of the necessary chronology of events on planet Earth, or it is the pacifist signing up for the army. (You must apply for a job before you are employed to do that job.) If we have to continue with medics then they would be akin to accountants or other supportive staff, rather than the therapists who would be akin to soldiers. An army is an organisation in which the armed part is the very much the centre piece; a therapy shop is all about the therapy provided by the therapists. Mc Farlane is no such medic/accountant/secretary/cleaning-staff. He is a therapist. He is therefore a person who exemplifies his employer, and the service his employer offers his customers (therapy). He is therefore analogous to a soldier in the army. And he chose to do that job: he signed up for it.

[Brenus]

“If a marriage counsellor refuses to see a homosexual couple, or a registrar refuses to marry them, why can't they just go to another counsellor/registrar?”
No, the question why somebody applied for a job that goes against his principal then plays the victim?
A little bit like if a Muslim apply in a Alcohol Factory then refuse to participate at the production as Islam is against alcohol (or a vegetarian in a slaughter house, a Jew in a Pork Farm, example are multitude)

”Why is Conscience objection no longer acceptable in my country?” If a Conscience Objector join the Royal/US Marines or the Foreign Legion he can’t pretend not to carry weapons and be asked to kill...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

@PVC: I am not too well versed in British marital law, but anyway over here a church marriage has no legal status in civil/criminal/military courts whatsoever.

In Britain to be "married in Church" is to have a priest perform the legal ceremony, and this is not restricted to CofE clerics. In fact, we have very complex marriage laws to account for our plurality of religions. http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/answers/r...shtml#building

Of course quite a few people still choose to have a church ceremony accompanying the civic one as well, which is a different matter: that is an issue of personally held beliefs and you are free to live them. So the cleric having to set aside his religious values is by and large a non-issue here; but it may be an issue in Britain.In that case, perhaps it would be a good idea to separate Church and state some more so people who are at odds with the wider body of Church can still function within the social paradigms that are not exclusive to it (e.g. marriage, funeral rites, etc.).

CofE marriages are different in that the church is autonomous of the Registrar Office entirely, but in most denominations the minister, Rabbi, etc. is the one licensed to conduct the marriage. Additionally, it is the right of all UK citizens to be married in the state Church.

What you are suggesting, therefore is a severe restriction of religious rights on the grounds of "equal oppertunities" for homosexual couples. What about Equal Ops for Religious couples? Are those rights (by far older and pertaining to a larger portion of the population) simply to be brushed aside as unfashionable?

There is of course still the odd staunchly religious civil servant who refuses to do his job, but AFAIK often enough that is simply resolved by the employer (local municipality) and couple together drawing up the schedules so that these conflicts can largely be avoided (i.e. arranging for a different civil servant to perform the ceremony). That is however the employer being a good employer; not the civil servant being a good civil servant.

Given that an Iman, Rabbi, priest, is not (currently) required to accede to the demands of a homosexual couple, why should a registrar be forced to? Even allowing that civil marriages in the UK are required to be completely secular in nature, I fail to see the necessity of this in law. Your argument can be extended, it effectively bars religious persons from the following professions:

Registrar

Funeral Director

Doctor

Nurse

Any form of government functionary.

Christians are, therefore, only acceptable as private citizens, not as members of civil society. I would point out that all the cases of people being fired for religious convictions or otherwise censured that were upheld by the courts were Christians. Consider the Christian nurese suspended for offering to pray for a patient against the Sikh schoolgirl who won the right to wear religious bangles. Or the Air-Hostess fired for her shall silver cross against all the Muslim women allowed to cover their heads at work.

EDIT: Why can't they just go? Well as I see it; at least from the article it looked like that might very well have happened. The point is not that the couple took Mc Farlane to court; but that Mc Farlane took his ex-employer to court for dismissing him over the issue. The real conflict is between employer and employee, and the Justice ruled that in this case the employer was within his/her right to dismiss the employee. Essentially Mc Farlane as employee has not the right to effectively single-handedly rewrite his employment contract, and the employer has the right to insist on Mc Farlane either delivering on his part of the contract or terminating it.

Here's a question, did Mc Farlane know he might have to counsel homosexual couples when he took the job?

Also the analogy is yours: the conscientious objection in time of War. Taken literally it is quite invalid because of the necessary chronology of events on planet Earth, or it is the pacifist signing up for the army. (You must apply for a job before you are employed to do that job.) If we have to continue with medics then they would be akin to accountants or other supportive staff, rather than the therapists who would be akin to soldiers. An army is an organisation in which the armed part is the very much the centre piece; a therapy shop is all about the therapy provided by the therapists. Mc Farlane is no such medic/accountant/secretary/cleaning-staff. He is a therapist. He is therefore a person who exemplifies his employer, and the service his employer offers his customers (therapy). He is therefore analogous to a soldier in the army. And he chose to do that job: he signed up for it.

what about Clerics? Those who choose to serve as pastoral carers to soldiers? They are granted the right to be non-combat personel. The army is an extreme example, but I seriously question where the current attitude will take us. The callous dismissal of religious beliefs must surely impact upon the figure of the conciencious objector.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Conciencious objectors were permitted in the past to serve in non-combat support roles as medics. So your analogy is incorrect.

Further, we are increasingly moving towards the situation where someone can force an individual to forgoe their concience entirely, so that, for example, priests can be forced to marry homosexual couples.

I think there ought to be plenty of leeway for conscientious objections. I feel uncomfortable in bullying people, in forcing them into doing, or refraining from doing, something against their heartfelt objection.


I do however, vehemently protest granting objection on religious grounds but not on other grounds. An end to that, for me, is the point with the court case in question, and why I applaud it.



The judge followed my line of reasoning: freedom of religion does not establish freedom of religion at all, it establishes the supremacy of religion over other ideology and thought. The Catholic would be granted the right to discriminate gays, but not somebody who receives radio waves with his 1980's hair metal big haircut telling him it is against the wish of Edward Van Halen that gays should enjoy equal rights.
This is an injustice.

Neither can claim any objective objection. So both their consciensesses* must be protected on the grounds of conscientious objection alone.


* somehow that doesn't look like proper English...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think there ought to be plenty of leeway for conscientious objections. I feel uncomfortable in bullying people, in forcing them into doing, or refraining from doing, something against their heartfelt objection.


I do however, vehemently protest granting objection on religious grounds but not on other grounds. An end to that, for me, is the point with the court case in question, and why I applaud it.

The judge followed my line of reasoning: freedom of religion does not establish freedom of religion at all, it establishes the supremacy of religion over other ideology and thought. The Catholic would be granted the right to discriminate gays, but not somebody who receives radio waves with his 1980's hair metal big haircut telling him it is against the wish of Edward Van Halen that gays should enjoy equal rights.
This is an injustice.

Neither can claim any objective objection. So both their consciensesses* must be protected on the grounds of conscientious objection alone.


* somehow that doesn't look like proper English...

I dissagree, violently.

What we have here is a dissagreement between two opposed belief systems. One believes that homosexuality is wrong, the other does not. Neither has a shred of actual evidence to back their claim beyond philosophical reasoning. Therefore, the belief that homosexuality is acceptable should not impinge upon another's belief that it is not simple because the former is currently in fashion.

Until 50 years ago all Western culture considered homosexuality unnatuaral and varrient, seperate from whether it was considered acceptable, Greek philosophers prefferred it on the grounds of its unnnatural and therefore civilised nature.

Now, in about the last 20 years, there has been a drive to make homosexuality seem the same as "normal" heterosxuality, cullinating now in demmands for equal marriage rights. So, the question is whether Mc Farlane can be prejudiced for holding an opinion on sexuality that, while at varrience with current fashion, has a stronger claim to historical-philosophical consistancy.

With regard to your point that "religious freedom" is the freedom of religion to discriminate, I would point out that religion comes under "belief", which, as one lawyer pointed out, covers everything up to and including environmentalism.

So I submit that the Judje is unjust and prejudicial.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What we have here is a dissagreement between two opposed belief systems. One believes that homosexuality is wrong, the other does not. Neither has a shred of actual evidence to back their claim beyond philosophical reasoning.

Isn't philosophical reasoning the only thing backing this kind of relativism?

[Brenus]

So, do all Muslim must be banned to be employed in a bank, as it is forbidden by the Curran to have interests on loan and to gamble?
As every individuals have their own view and level of religion, that will be tricky…
So some will suit the bank for discrimination because the banks refuse to employ them on religious background, then some will suit the banks because they are refusing to give loans as they religion forbid it and it is their conscience and their religious so-called rights to refuse to give them…

By the way, why the “Religious” always focus on the “gay” on the 7 main sin. Do they refuse the fat people under the gluttony one? Or do they refuse to help men and women wearing nice clothes/jewellery etc under the Pride one?

They just pick and choose, and it is always the one implicating the gay.
So it is not based on a Religious command but by a simple plain prejudice.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The judge followed my line of reasoning: freedom of religion does not establish freedom of religion at all, it establishes the supremacy of religion over other ideology and thought. The Catholic would be granted the right to discriminate gays, but not somebody who receives radio waves with his 1980's hair metal big haircut telling him it is against the wish of Edward Van Halen that gays should enjoy equal rights.
This is an injustice.

I support the right of people to discriminate in both cases. The problem is we keep talking about religion as if it is something special, as if it needs to be privileged unlike any other ideology (as happens in the US), or protected against unlike any other ideology (as in France). Whether or not you draw your beliefs from the guy in the sky should be irrelevant.

So some will suit the bank for discrimination because the banks refuse to employ them on religious background, then some will suit the banks because they are refusing to give loans as they religion forbid it and it is their conscience and their religious so-called rights to refuse to give them…

The obvious solution is to remove employment discrimination laws. So does a Muslim not want to serve pork in a restuarant? Then the owner can chuck his application in the bin. Same if a vegetarian didn't want to serve any meat. If your beliefs affect your work, don't expect special treatment.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Isn't philosophical reasoning the only thing backing this kind of relativism?

Yes, which is why:

I support the right of people to discriminate in both cases. The problem is we keep talking about religion as if it is something special, as if it needs to be privileged unlike any other ideology (as happens in the US), or protected against unlike any other ideology (as in France). Whether or not you draw your beliefs from the guy in the sky should be irrelevant.

In other words, the judge should not preference the belief that homosexuality is a good thing (the employer) over the belief that it isn't (the employee). Both are philosophical stances, and biological reductionism is on the side of the employee in this case.

By firing the employee the employer has inflicted its own belief system on him. Essentially, "agree with us or find another job", and now a judge has upheld that argument. So the message is, "you can discriminate against someone's beliefs so long as they are Christian/ religious."

What if the employer had been a Christian counselling service, and the employee had demanded the right to offer counselling to homosexual couples? The dismissal would not have been upheld in that case, you can be sure of that. We know this because the government changed the law to say that Christian organisations could not discriminate in such a way, leading to the closing of adoption agencies.

So, do all Muslim must be banned to be employed in a bank, as it is forbidden by the Curran to have interests on loan and to gamble?
As every individuals have their own view and level of religion, that will be tricky…
So some will suit the bank for discrimination because the banks refuse to employ them on religious background, then some will suit the banks because they are refusing to give loans as they religion forbid it and it is their conscience and their religious so-called rights to refuse to give them…

I don't know, but loaning at interest is (as you point out) explicitely against the teachings of the Koran. Although, I suspect Muslims get around this in the same way Christians do, by considering the loan "capital".

By the way, why the “Religious” always focus on the “gay” on the 7 main sin. Do they refuse the fat people under the gluttony one? Or do they refuse to help men and women wearing nice clothes/jewellery etc under the Pride one?

Most religious people do not, "refuse gays", they refuse to endorse homosexual relationships (but often not homosocial ones). The analogy is at fault, bacause there's nothing on the scipture or tradition about proud people or fat people marrying. However, a Christian would also not allow someone to overeat to the extent it harmed them. The fact is that Christian views of sexuality are no longer in fashion, whilst Christian views on most other things still are.

So, there is no conflict.

They just pick and choose, and it is always the one implicating the gay.
So it is not based on a Religious command but by a simple plain prejudice.

No, this is wrong, and I would like an apology.

[Tellos Athenaios]

So does a Muslim not want to serve pork in a restuarant? Then the owner can chuck his application in the bin. Same if a vegetarian didn't want to serve any meat. If your beliefs affect your work, don't expect special treatment.

Aha. So we're we getting then is: employers do not have to treat you specially just 'cause you believe in something they don't. They can ask exactly the same thing of you as they would do any other, and as you are the employee it is up to you whether you chose to work & comply, or chose to seek a different employer who fits your world views better. Now, getting back to what the Justice wrote: isn't that the same thing? Mr Mc Farlane is a religious man. Good for him. But he has no business enforcing his religious value in the capacity of employee on his employer by rejecting prospective clients based on the idea that they do not fit in his world as defined by his belief system: it his employer who sets the rules of the shop, not him, and this includes who is admitted as part of the clientèle.

@PVC: Mr Mc Farlane presumably did not realise but should not have been surprised to find that one day he did have to counsel homosexual couples. Presumably the relationship therapy is inclusively defined as for `all' couples, and the therapy is not based on religious teachings. So Mr Mc Farlane might originally have thought that he would never have to deal with homosexual couples, but then again there was nothing that explicitly exempted him from it. Much like how the employer might originally not have expected religion to be an issue at all, and simply expect that his/her employees do the job that they are paid for. From the point on (the refusal to counsel), incidentally, it is no longer strictly a conflict between belief systems but possibly also breach of contract.

[Tellos Athenaios]

By firing the employee the employer has inflicted its own belief system on him. Essentially, "agree with us or find another job", and now a judge has upheld that argument. So the message is, "you can discriminate against someone's beliefs so long as they are Christian/ religious."

No to the first sentence. Yes to the second. And no to the third. The employee `was first' and that is what counts here: the employee did do the unwonted discriminating, the employer attached consequences to that act. The employer fired the employee for failing to do his job, which is an objectively provable statement -- not a subjective, personal philosophical stance.
Yes to the second: it is the employer who has the right to set up his/her business based on his/her own philosophical considerations. That's essentially simple market capitalism: if you think there is sufficient market for it, go ahead and make your business out of it. Others are encouraged to do likewise.

No to the third. If a homosexual employee would refuse counseling to a Christian couple based on the fact that Christianity rejects homosexuality, then again the employer has every right to fire the homosexual employee for that. If the Christian couple decides they'd rather not be counseled by the homosexual employee then they can find another shop; much like how if the homosexual couple in the original story had *themselves* rejected Mr Mc Farlane nothing would've been an issue either.

[Brenus]

“No, this is wrong, and I would like an apology.”
Is it wrong?
The only “sin” that the believers in all the monotheist religions are keen on condemning is homosexuality…
They went over sex before marriage, divorce and others. They even don’t speak about the others (Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Anger, Greed and Sloth) as they became more or less the standards of the new capitalist society…

By the way, there is nothing about homosexuals to be married as it is just completely forbidden…

As eating some kinds of animals, and not working some days, the so-called religious people pick and choose what they can do or not…
And homosexuality is most of the time their favourite target, based on their prejudices, as the Hotel owner which refused a bed room to homosexuals, not to the fat, not to the too rich/vain people.

[LittleGrizzly]

I suppose to make the example more relevant if would have to be a person over eating at a resturant, are there many examples of religious owners throwing out paying customers for eating too much ? or perhaps a religious businessman refusing a business deal on religious grounds as his potential business partner just cares about making more money ? or maybe a takeaway company (sloth and greed possibly there) ?

[Rhyfelwyr]

The only “sin” that the believers in all the monotheist religions are keen on condemning is homosexuality…
They went over sex before marriage, divorce and others. They even don’t speak about the others (Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Anger, Greed and Sloth) as they became more or less the standards of the new capitalist society…

Generalise much? Every Christian I know that opposes homosexuality is equality strict on things like sex before marriage, divorce, and such matters.

I agree pride, envy, gluttony, anger, greed etc are all problems with many Christians today. I like Weber's explanation of the phenomenon, in that once the Protestant work ethic fuelled the way to industrialisation, the mass producation of goods made luxuries seem less decadent, and have allowed a more decadent lifestyle to be seen as more acceptable or less shocking as a result.

But even then, that's only looking at a tiny part of the picture, both in terms of history and geography. You couldn't make the same complaints against all the Christians in places like Zimbabwe and Zambia and all the 'third world' countries where religion is currently thriving.

By the way, there is nothing about homosexuals to be married as it is just completely forbidden…

As eating some kinds of animals, and not working some days, the so-called religious people pick and choose what they can do or not…
And homosexuality is most of the time their favourite target, based on their prejudices, as the Hotel owner which refused a bed room to homosexuals, not to the fat, not to the too rich/vain people.

You referring to this case?

Also the examples you give do not show picking and choosing. The thing with eating animals was part of the ceremonial law which for a start was given only for ethnic Jews, and furthermore there are countless example where it is shows in the New Testament to have been "a shadow", or symbolic for the coming of Christ. With the animal example, Peter even gets a vision in the Acts where he is told all animals are clean. The issue with not working on the sabbath is less clear, since it is part of the moral law (Ten Commandments) which Christians should try to live by, but at the same time Jesus himself was liberal with it, and suggests that the sabbath as a day of rest was symbolic of the rest in him.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No to the third. If a homosexual employee would refuse counseling to a Christian couple based on the fact that Christianity rejects homosexuality, then again the employer has every right to fire the homosexual employee for that. If the Christian couple decides they'd rather not be counseled by the homosexual employee then they can find another shop; much like how if the homosexual couple in the original story had *themselves* rejected Mr Mc Farlane nothing would've been an issue either.

I said a Christian Councelling service that employed someone who wanted to counsel homosexual couples, not a homosexual refusing to counsel a Christian couple. However, in both cases you would find the law would come down on the side of the employee.

I refer you, once again, to the Roman Catholic adoption agencies.

“No, this is wrong, and I would like an apology.”
Is it wrong?

Yes, it is.

The only “sin” that the believers in all the monotheist religions are keen on condemning is homosexuality…
They went over sex before marriage, divorce and others. They even don’t speak about the others (Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Anger, Greed and Sloth) as they became more or less the standards of the new capitalist society…

Homosexuality is, irrc, considered a venal sin under the umbrella of lust, i.e. unlicensed sexual activity. I can tell you from personnal experience that the priests I have heard preach condemn all Deadly sins, and I have yet to hear anything specifically about homosexuality. On the other hand, I did here a whole sermon last year on Sloth.

As I said, the reason sexuality is in the secular news so much is it is the only issue on which society has seriously diverged from Christrian teaching. When the Archbishops (all of them, Anglican and Roman) castigated the City of London for Greed that led to the financial crisis, everyone nodded, agreed, and then forgot about it. Excpet for the hate mongers, that suggested the Archbishops sell their official residences.

By the way, there is nothing about homosexuals to be married as it is just completely forbidden…

Homosexuals can be married.... to women. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman for the fruitful raising of children. Only in this setting does Christianity license sexual activity. Anything outside this is unlicensed, be it homosexual or heterosexual.

However, it is the act that is condemned, not the individual.

So, would you please withdraw your innacurate and generalised comment?

As eating some kinds of animals, and not working some days, the so-called religious people pick and choose what they can do or not…
And homosexuality is most of the time their favourite target, based on their prejudices, as the Hotel owner which refused a bed room to homosexuals, not to the fat, not to the too rich/vain people.

Incorrect, I refer you to Acta X, where God explicitely repeals several of those laws. Also, I don't know what hotel owner you are talking about, but I assume he would also refuse a room to an unmarried couple if he has that attitude.

I suppose to make the example more relevant if would have to be a person over eating at a resturant, are there many examples of religious owners throwing out paying customers for eating too much ? or perhaps a religious businessman refusing a business deal on religious grounds as his potential business partner just cares about making more money ? or maybe a takeaway company (sloth and greed possibly there) ?

Cadbury's, before being taken over by Krafts had an exemplary record regarding its businness practices and its treatment of its employees. This is because it was run according to Christian Quaker principles. So there's an example for you.

[LittleGrizzly]

Cadbury's, before being taken over by Krafts had an exemplary record regarding its businness practices and its treatment of its employees. This is because it was run according to Christian Quaker principles. So there's an example for you.

Thats slightly different, what we are discussing is refusing service for religious reasons, doing good works is a different discussion. Unless part of cadburys good work for example was to refuse to sell someone greedy more choclate bars, which seems unlikely given wholesale ect. Or perhaps they refused business deals with greedy bisnuesses ? (although they sold to Krafts in the end which probably as a business is always looking to get more money, as they should in a capitalist system)

I wouldn't doubt that there are examples but I think they probably get targeted more often as a cover for some people's prejudice's. On the counsellor surely they shoud be expected to counsel couples, not pick and choose what is acceptable, are they allowed to refuse service to those with a huge age gap (because thats kind of wrong) ?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cadbury's, before being taken over by Krafts had an exemplary record regarding its businness practices and its treatment of its employees. This is because it was run according to Christian Quaker principles. So there's an example for you.

Thats slightly different, what we are discussing is refusing service for religious reasons, doing good works is a different discussion. Unless part of cadburys good work for example was to refuse to sell someone greedy more choclate bars, which seems unlikely given wholesale ect. Or perhaps they refused business deals with greedy bisnuesses ? (although they sold to Krafts in the end which probably as a business is always looking to get more money, as they should in a capitalist system)

I wouldn't doubt that there are examples but I think they probably get targeted more often as a cover for some people's prejudice's. On the counsellor surely they shoud be expected to counsel couples, not pick and choose what is acceptable, are they allowed to refuse service to those with a huge age gap (because thats kind of wrong) ?

Cadbury's didn't sell to Krafts, they were taken over. Irrc they fought the takeover for months, but eventually Krafts offered the shareholders so much that the Cahirman et al. were basically forced out. It was quite a big story here. Cadburys was known for dealling ethically, and not being wholly product driven (keeping production in the UK, for example).

You asked for an example of a Christian company eschewing modern mores for the sake of traditional morals, and I have given you one.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I said a Christian Councelling service that employed someone who wanted to counsel homosexual couples, not a homosexual refusing to counsel a Christian couple. However, in both cases you would find the law would come down on the side of the employee.

I refer you, once again, to the Roman Catholic adoption agencies.

Yes. I do not say I agree with the general “$religion is secondary to $life-style-choice”. For me it is yet another “lifestyle choice” and should be accepted as such. But I also think that if an employer fires an employee because the employee discriminates against his/her customers then that is valid reason for dismissal. If the ex-employee takes the matter to court and challenges his/her employer on this issue, saying that this is discrimination against his/her religious belief then I find such beliefs should be judged as equal to those of the employer (in which case the employer also has a right to conscience, which may be wholly incompatible with such discrimination).

And now, in this particular case we find that the ex-employee Mr Mc Farlane refused to do his job based on grounds that are presumably not valid criteria according to his job description (e.g. counseling for all couples leaves no room to discriminate against homosexuals). Therefore, when his/her employer fires him over it in this scenario he cannot claim his religion as valid defenc for his actions IMO; because of (a) the job description and the inclusive attitude of his workplace, with which he should be familiar; and (b) his actions imply breach of contract. So his employer did have the right to terminate his contract over it (b).

Of course that does not mean that either party acted in a reasonable, grown up manner, as the Anglican commenter down the bottom of the article observed. Nor does the verdict imply that the current law is reasonable. And to get back to the Catholic adoption agencies: personally I am not familiar with that, but myself, I do not see an issue with an adoption agency or indeed any private organisation being run on religious grounds. These should be able to co-exist with other organistations, and if the current law leaves no room for that then it is a pity.