Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
British Judge: Christian beliefs have no legal standing
Consider this scenario: Had a devout Muslim counselor been asked to provide services to a non-Sharia complying lesbian couple, and objected on religious grounds, would you all be advocating he be shut down by the government; decrying his ignorance as reminiscent of the 1960s struggles? Would you all be gleefully viewing his defeat as a victory for progress and another nail in the coffin of reactionaries? And would the judge have been so dismissive of a Muslim man's religious opinions?
I sincerely doubt all of that. But if you answered yes to all of these questions, then at least you are consistent. And if any of you answered in the negative to any of my hypothetical questions, well then you just have an axe to grind and should admit it.
Do you honestly think that I'd have a different opinion if the counselor was Jewish or Muslim instead of Christian? If so, on what grounds?
It just so happens that in this particular case, the counselor refused to see people based upon their sexual orientation because it conflicted with his Christian views, but I would feel the same if they were Jewish, Muslim, Pagan or anything else for that matter. As I said before, in my opinion, religious bigotry shouldn't be protected by law any more than regular bigotry.
Does no one else find it ironic that McFarlane is of Afro-Caribbean origin and, only a few decades ago, would probably have been refused a job with Relate because of his 'colour'? And this happened in Bristol, one of the apices of the Triangular Trade?
Really...in 2010 America, how many closet-racist restaurant owners are just itching to turn away whole segments of society (ie. sources of income) from their eating establishments? And the only thing that stops them from doing so is potential penalties inflicted by the government? I find it extremely hard to believe that if discrimination laws were suddenly lifted, we would see "anarchy."
Discrimination isn't anarchy. It's a form of social order. And as I've pointed out, there have been recent attempts to organize discrimination.
I'm not campaigning here to get rid of such laws, but they become nothing more than a nuisance when a business owner is harassed and shut down by the government simply because he objects to providing services to certain individuals.
He took his employers money and refused to provide services to his employer's clients. He's not being banned from practicing his profession. The courts simply told him that he wasn't justified in refusing to follow his employer's instructions. He wasn't harassed and he wasn't shut down.
I'm not aware of any laws that shut down businesses that have been accused of discrimination. A business may go into bankruptcy because of law suits and penalties, but that's a different matter.
Ren, it's still no different than if your employers told you you couldn't practice buddhism because your beliefs caused conflict with the long term business plan. That is the whole problem here, is that it smacks of an individual's rights being reduced "for the greater good".
Does no one else find it ironic that McFarlane is of Afro-Caribbean origin and, only a few decades ago, would probably have been refused a job with Relate because of his 'colour'? And this happened in Bristol, one of the apices of the Triangular Trade?
Yes, Simon. precisely.
The Judge was going to mention that in his riposte, but there, you beat him to it.
The very law which would go to protect his position in the case of say, someone not employing him for his colour,. or refusing to be counselled by him, are the very laws which have nullified his complaint.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Ren, it's still no different than if your employers told you you couldn't practice buddhism because your beliefs caused conflict with the long term business plan. That is the whole problem here, is that it smacks of an individual's rights being reduced "for the greater good".
You're missing the complete point, Bushi.
If your beliefs caused conflict with the business plan, you wouldn't actively seek employment there, because the business plan conflicts with your Buddhist practice.
if you seek employment, and you know your beliefs might conflict with the business plan, you would either have to be prepared to set those beliefs aside, and conform with your contractual obligations - or you wouldn't work there.
You can't start waving the "I can't do this because I'm Buddhist/Christian/Sikh/Muslim/Hindu/Jewish" yellow card AFTER you've read, understood and signed a contractual agreement.
you should declare interest BEFORE you sign.
The Contract is a legally binding document under employment law. As such - yet again - it overrides subjective belief.
Similarly, if an employer tried to introduce a change to a contract (that would conflict with your previously known and advised religious conviction) later on, without prior discussion, warning, advice or agreement - They would be in breach of contract.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Do you honestly think that I'd have a different opinion if the consellor was Jewish or Muslim instead of Christian? If so, on what grounds?
It just so happens that in this particular case, the consellor refused to see people based upon their sexual orientation because it conflicted with his Christian views, but I would feel the same if they were Jewish, Muslim, Pagan or anything else for that matter. As I said before, in my opinion, religious bigotry shouldn't be protected by law any more than regular bigotry.
One of the alarming factors is that Christians believe themselves to be singled out for discrimination, and this simply isn't true. The Law applies to all Religious practises, or even those held to be strongly-held spiritual or moral beliefs (such as veganism for example....)
The Judge has a list as long as your arm of cases involving litigation with religious prejudice at the heart of them.
I'm sure he'd be happy to list them and show that this legislation functions right across the board.
Ren, it's still no different than if your employers told you you couldn't practice buddhism because your beliefs caused conflict with the long term business plan.
It's quite different from that. No one told McFarlane that he couldn't practice his religion, and he wasn't fired for his religion. He was fired for refusing to follow instructions. The court determined that he would have been fired regardless of religion.
That is the whole problem here, is that it smacks of an individual's rights being reduced "for the greater good".
To the best of my knowledge, neither Relate nor the court mentioned the greater good. It's generally understood that when you take a job, you voluntarily agree to some restrictions on your right to do as you please. My understanding is that McFarlane's rights were reduced for the purpose of earning a living. He tried to claim an exception, and the court rejected his claim.
This does come down to the problem of McFarlane listing the nature of his beliefs before he was hired. The problem with this situation isn't that it's applied across the board, it's that a person can't feel comfortable walking in and saying they're a qualified counselor provided the people he/she counsels fit within certain strictures according to religious beliefs. The judge here screwed up. He's favoring a business's right to dictate religion to someone. I shouldn't be forced to believe something or have my beliefs contravened in order to have a job, unless said job is with a sectarian organization. If stating your religious beliefs is a requisite for getting a job, discrimination is going to happen. And people are completely overlooking the point that the couple in question could have found another counselor. Period. The End.
Let us, for a moment, consider the clients. They approached Relate which is a charity which states that counselling is offered to LBGT clients, both anent relationships and sexual difficulties. Their partnership is legal. The 'grounds' on which Mr McFarlane refused to counsel them are, as the judge in the case stated, based on his own personal opinion about something about which is precisely that: an opinion. It makes no odds, before the law, if that opinion is religious, philosophical or political.
I doubt there would be so many posts on this thread if McFarlane had refused to work with this couple if his reason had been that, as a member, say, of the BNP (which I do not suggest is the case), he objected to their sexuality.
The real scandal here is that an ex-Archbishop of Canterbury, now a member of the House of Lords, thought it appropriate to intervene. There is no 'persecution of Christians' here. On the contrary, it is my opinion that Mr McFarlane and Lord Carey have brought their church(es) into disrepute.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
This does come down to the problem of McFarlane listing the nature of his beliefs before he was hired.
Yes. He is wholly responsible for his dismissal.
The problem with this situation isn't that it's applied across the board, it's that a person can't feel comfortable walking in and saying they're a qualified counselor provided the people he/she counsels fit within certain strictures according to religious beliefs.
A person cannot walk into a job and dictate the terms of their own employment according to their religious, spiritual or ethical beliefs.
A Job specification, is a job specification.
Exclusions are made at the time of defining the job and giving its description.
If McFarlane wanted to object to his job description on the grounds of religion, he should have done so initially. Chances are he would have been excluded. not on the grounds of his religion, but on the basis of his being unable to fulfil the job criteria.
The judge here screwed up.
NO.
HE.
DIDN'T.
He applied the law absolutely correctly.
McFarlane screwed up believing that his religious conviction would be sufficient clause for him to claim unfair dismissal.
There is nothing in law stopping a person from practising their religion.
What is unlawful is that they practice it where and when they wish, to the detriment and exclusion of others.
It's against the law.
can you not get this?
He's favoring a business's right to dictate religion to someone.
No, he's favouring a business' right to have the employee fulfil their contractual obligation. Religious practise is a red herring, here.
I shouldn't be forced to believe something or have my beliefs contravened in order to have a job, unless said job is with a sectarian organization.
That's not what McFarlane was asked to do.
McFarlane was dismissed on the grounds that he would not fulfil the pre-requisite duties required of him in his job. Had he been an atheist with the same opinion, he would still have been fired.
If stating your religious beliefs is a requisite for getting a job, discrimination is going to happen.
if you have beliefs which are going to interfere with the likelihood of your being able to do your job to the full requirement of your contract, then either you should not be applying for that job, or you should clarify with your employers whether this is going to pose problems.
A young man I know applied for a job as a chef. He applied for the post, clarifying the specific duties and the job outline. he told his prospective employer he was Buddhist, and he got the job. 7 months into the job, the young man had his duties changed, and was promoted.
However, his promotion brought new duties and obligations his way, some of which involved killing and preparing shellfish.
His boss knew he was Buddhist. he'd outlined this at the beginning.
He went to his boss, and explained his situation, and stated his reluctance to kill animals on the grounds of his religion. His boss removed those specific duties from his contractual obligation.
This was worked exactly as it should be.
And people are completely overlooking the point that the couple in question could have found another counselor. Period. The End.
No, not period, the end....
Why should they?
They didn't go looking for prejudicial treatment.
Are you suggesting they should just have accepted the discrimination and quietly left and gone elsewhere?
They weren't the ones guilty, yet they should have been the ones to change their actions?
so we have homosexuals wishing to join the army, but some folks don't want them.
Do you think they should emigrate and find another army?
Simon, I can definitely agree that Lord Carey brought his church into disrepute. From what I can see, it wouldn't ahve mattered if Mr. McFarlane had claimed he was Muslim or Jewish, he still would have been fired. It's not necessarily persecution against Christians in general, just against religious beliefs altogether.
Fede, if someone has to fear asking for exemption to certain practices before hand, then that is discrimination in and of itself. If he is going to be considered disqualified for a job because providing services to a same sex couple contravenes his religious beliefs, then he is being discriminated against. Any such business I know of that has multiple counselors would easily have a counselor that could handle taking a case that someone else finds contrary to their religious beliefs. Personally, I think every person of an Abrahimic faith in Great Britain should boycott Relate over this matter, to include every person who works for them quitting their job.
If he is going to be considered disqualified for a job because providing services to a same sex couple contravenes his religious beliefs, then he is being discriminated against.
If the job involves providing services to same sex couples and he's not willing to do the job, then he's applying for a job that he's not willing to do. It's perfectly reasonable for employers to avoid hiring people who aren't willing to do the jobs they are applying for.
Any such business I know of that has multiple counselors would easily have a counselor that could handle taking a case that someone else finds contrary to their religious beliefs.
Despite the argument being put forward by Mr. McFarlane that he should be able to decline to give counselling to same-sex couples and pass the clients on to a different counsellor, it was held that this was not practicable...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Fede, if someone has to fear asking for exemption to certain practices before hand, then that is discrimination in and of itself.
That's rather like a soldier applying to enlist but then saying he doesn't want to go in the front line to shoot anybody, as it's against his religion.
In that case, should he be considered worthy material to be a soldier?
If he is going to be considered disqualified for a job because providing services to a same sex couple contravenes his religious beliefs, then he is being discriminated against.
If the same enlisted soldier is then sent to the front line to shoot people, then his religious rights are being contravened. How dare the army put him in such a position as to actually do the job thery've invested time, effort man-hours and money to train him to do....
Any such business I know of that has multiple counselors would easily have a counselor that could handle taking a case that someone else finds contrary to their religious beliefs. Personally, I think every person of an Abrahimic faith in Great Britain should boycott Relate over this matter, to include every person who works for them quitting their job.
The onus is not on the company to accommodate the wishes of the employee who would not do his job.
Simon, I can definitely agree that Lord Carey brought his church into disrepute. From what I can see, it wouldn't ahve mattered if Mr. McFarlane had claimed he was Muslim or Jewish, he still would have been fired. It's not necessarily persecution against Christians in general, just against religious beliefs altogether.........................
Bushi,
I would rather nuance this, although I understand that the case can be spun that way. As I understand it, we are in the middle of the rights dilemma, where the rights of one are confronted by the rights of others. The right to be in a homosexual relationship is enshrined in our laws and protected by them. The right to exercise one's religion is also lawful, up to certain limits set by law and custom. Where a certain action or refraining from an action is a defining aspect, it has to be within the legal and customary, otherwise it needs to be tested in court.
It would not be lawful for a Jewish or Muslim employee to be forced or conned into eating pork. Open-air cremation, as required by another faith family, has had to be reviewed by the courts.
Thus it is not 'religion' per se which is under review here. It is the question of 'whose right is it anyway'? The right of schools and universities in the USA to exclude non-'white' students, based in some areas on 'religious' grounds, was abolished a few decades ago. Congress and the Supreme Court agreed that the students' rights trumped the alleged religious arguments. The same applies to the rights of LBGT clients of Relate. A schoolteacher in a school cannot refuse to teach Afro-Carib. students on the biblical grounds that they are "children of Ham".
Do you see why I disagree that it is 'persecution'?
This article is telling of a future where "maybe" religious beliefs will have no place in our societies.
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."
With due respect how on earth could a straight man offer same sex counseling ? :rolleyes:
You are assuming that counselling and advice are the same thing, which they are not. On the basis of your comment, male counsellors should not see female clients and vice versa, alcoholics should only be counselled by alcoholics, abuse victims by abuse victims, etc.
What is more, relationships are relationships, whether same sex or hetero. Theyt all suffer from similar tensions and problems. The orientation and gender of the counsellor is irrelevant. What matters, as Carl Rogers would always stress to us, is genuineness, warmth, congruence, and the ability to shut up and listen.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2010
Caz, That's not the issue.
That's like asking how a black relationships counsellor could offer advice to white couples.
The Third Precept - refraining and abstaining form immoral or inappropriate sexual behaviour - doesn't simply apply to either one gender, or one persuasion.
A psychosexual counsellor knows that fundamentally, sex is sex, whether it's between consenting adults of the same gender, or of different genders. The issues are the same.
It really doesn't matter who is sitting in front of the counsellor. The matter is what their issue is about.
And a properly trained counsellor will be able to counsel on that. Irrespective of who's asking.
Comments
Do you honestly think that I'd have a different opinion if the counselor was Jewish or Muslim instead of Christian? If so, on what grounds?
It just so happens that in this particular case, the counselor refused to see people based upon their sexual orientation because it conflicted with his Christian views, but I would feel the same if they were Jewish, Muslim, Pagan or anything else for that matter. As I said before, in my opinion, religious bigotry shouldn't be protected by law any more than regular bigotry.
He took his employers money and refused to provide services to his employer's clients. He's not being banned from practicing his profession. The courts simply told him that he wasn't justified in refusing to follow his employer's instructions. He wasn't harassed and he wasn't shut down.
I'm not aware of any laws that shut down businesses that have been accused of discrimination. A business may go into bankruptcy because of law suits and penalties, but that's a different matter.
Yes, Simon. precisely.
The Judge was going to mention that in his riposte, but there, you beat him to it.
The very law which would go to protect his position in the case of say, someone not employing him for his colour,. or refusing to be counselled by him, are the very laws which have nullified his complaint.
You're missing the complete point, Bushi.
If your beliefs caused conflict with the business plan, you wouldn't actively seek employment there, because the business plan conflicts with your Buddhist practice.
if you seek employment, and you know your beliefs might conflict with the business plan, you would either have to be prepared to set those beliefs aside, and conform with your contractual obligations - or you wouldn't work there.
You can't start waving the "I can't do this because I'm Buddhist/Christian/Sikh/Muslim/Hindu/Jewish" yellow card AFTER you've read, understood and signed a contractual agreement.
you should declare interest BEFORE you sign.
The Contract is a legally binding document under employment law. As such - yet again - it overrides subjective belief.
Similarly, if an employer tried to introduce a change to a contract (that would conflict with your previously known and advised religious conviction) later on, without prior discussion, warning, advice or agreement - They would be in breach of contract.
One of the alarming factors is that Christians believe themselves to be singled out for discrimination, and this simply isn't true. The Law applies to all Religious practises, or even those held to be strongly-held spiritual or moral beliefs (such as veganism for example....)
The Judge has a list as long as your arm of cases involving litigation with religious prejudice at the heart of them.
I'm sure he'd be happy to list them and show that this legislation functions right across the board.
To the best of my knowledge, neither Relate nor the court mentioned the greater good. It's generally understood that when you take a job, you voluntarily agree to some restrictions on your right to do as you please. My understanding is that McFarlane's rights were reduced for the purpose of earning a living. He tried to claim an exception, and the court rejected his claim.
I doubt there would be so many posts on this thread if McFarlane had refused to work with this couple if his reason had been that, as a member, say, of the BNP (which I do not suggest is the case), he objected to their sexuality.
The real scandal here is that an ex-Archbishop of Canterbury, now a member of the House of Lords, thought it appropriate to intervene. There is no 'persecution of Christians' here. On the contrary, it is my opinion that Mr McFarlane and Lord Carey have brought their church(es) into disrepute.
A Job specification, is a job specification.
Exclusions are made at the time of defining the job and giving its description.
If McFarlane wanted to object to his job description on the grounds of religion, he should have done so initially. Chances are he would have been excluded. not on the grounds of his religion, but on the basis of his being unable to fulfil the job criteria.
NO.
HE.
DIDN'T.
He applied the law absolutely correctly.
McFarlane screwed up believing that his religious conviction would be sufficient clause for him to claim unfair dismissal.
There is nothing in law stopping a person from practising their religion.
What is unlawful is that they practice it where and when they wish, to the detriment and exclusion of others.
It's against the law.
can you not get this?
No, he's favouring a business' right to have the employee fulfil their contractual obligation. Religious practise is a red herring, here.
That's not what McFarlane was asked to do.
McFarlane was dismissed on the grounds that he would not fulfil the pre-requisite duties required of him in his job. Had he been an atheist with the same opinion, he would still have been fired.
if you have beliefs which are going to interfere with the likelihood of your being able to do your job to the full requirement of your contract, then either you should not be applying for that job, or you should clarify with your employers whether this is going to pose problems.
A young man I know applied for a job as a chef. He applied for the post, clarifying the specific duties and the job outline. he told his prospective employer he was Buddhist, and he got the job. 7 months into the job, the young man had his duties changed, and was promoted.
However, his promotion brought new duties and obligations his way, some of which involved killing and preparing shellfish.
His boss knew he was Buddhist. he'd outlined this at the beginning.
He went to his boss, and explained his situation, and stated his reluctance to kill animals on the grounds of his religion. His boss removed those specific duties from his contractual obligation.
This was worked exactly as it should be.
No, not period, the end....
Why should they?
They didn't go looking for prejudicial treatment.
Are you suggesting they should just have accepted the discrimination and quietly left and gone elsewhere?
They weren't the ones guilty, yet they should have been the ones to change their actions?
so we have homosexuals wishing to join the army, but some folks don't want them.
Do you think they should emigrate and find another army?
Fede, if someone has to fear asking for exemption to certain practices before hand, then that is discrimination in and of itself. If he is going to be considered disqualified for a job because providing services to a same sex couple contravenes his religious beliefs, then he is being discriminated against. Any such business I know of that has multiple counselors would easily have a counselor that could handle taking a case that someone else finds contrary to their religious beliefs. Personally, I think every person of an Abrahimic faith in Great Britain should boycott Relate over this matter, to include every person who works for them quitting their job.
The court did consider that.
Bushi,
I would rather nuance this, although I understand that the case can be spun that way. As I understand it, we are in the middle of the rights dilemma, where the rights of one are confronted by the rights of others. The right to be in a homosexual relationship is enshrined in our laws and protected by them. The right to exercise one's religion is also lawful, up to certain limits set by law and custom. Where a certain action or refraining from an action is a defining aspect, it has to be within the legal and customary, otherwise it needs to be tested in court.
It would not be lawful for a Jewish or Muslim employee to be forced or conned into eating pork. Open-air cremation, as required by another faith family, has had to be reviewed by the courts.
Thus it is not 'religion' per se which is under review here. It is the question of 'whose right is it anyway'? The right of schools and universities in the USA to exclude non-'white' students, based in some areas on 'religious' grounds, was abolished a few decades ago. Congress and the Supreme Court agreed that the students' rights trumped the alleged religious arguments. The same applies to the rights of LBGT clients of Relate. A schoolteacher in a school cannot refuse to teach Afro-Carib. students on the biblical grounds that they are "children of Ham".
Do you see why I disagree that it is 'persecution'?
With due respect how on earth could a straight man offer same sex counseling ? :rolleyes:
You are assuming that counselling and advice are the same thing, which they are not. On the basis of your comment, male counsellors should not see female clients and vice versa, alcoholics should only be counselled by alcoholics, abuse victims by abuse victims, etc.
What is more, relationships are relationships, whether same sex or hetero. Theyt all suffer from similar tensions and problems. The orientation and gender of the counsellor is irrelevant. What matters, as Carl Rogers would always stress to us, is genuineness, warmth, congruence, and the ability to shut up and listen.
That's like asking how a black relationships counsellor could offer advice to white couples.
The Third Precept - refraining and abstaining form immoral or inappropriate sexual behaviour - doesn't simply apply to either one gender, or one persuasion.
A psychosexual counsellor knows that fundamentally, sex is sex, whether it's between consenting adults of the same gender, or of different genders. The issues are the same.
It really doesn't matter who is sitting in front of the counsellor. The matter is what their issue is about.
And a properly trained counsellor will be able to counsel on that. Irrespective of who's asking.
Race/gender/ isn't the issue.
The problem is that, by permitting a small act of discrimination, you may open the door - again - to much worse:
News from Malawi