Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Christian registrar loses appeal over 'gay marriage'

The victory was shortlived - 17 months, to be precise.

Christian registrar Lillian Ladele has lost her appeal against a ruling that she had not been discriminated against by being disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnerships in north London.

She became a registrar in 2002, when state-authorised unions were an exclusively heterosexual affair. When the law changed, she felt she could not carry out such ceremonies 'as a matter of religious conscience'.

She claimed she suffered ridicule and bullying as a result of her stance and said she had been harassed and discriminated against by Islington Council.

An employment tribunal found that the council had unlawfully discriminated against her, but this was overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which said there was no basis for concluding that any discrimination had occurred.

Last month, Ms Ladele's counsel, James Dingemans QC, told the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Dyson and Lady Justice Smith at the Court of Appeal that she had never wanted to undermine the human rights or respect due to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender communities. But he pointed out that human rights laws must also be there to protect people with committed views about marriage.

It appears not.

Or at least for Christians.

Perhaps if Ms Ladele had been a Muslim, her appeal might have been successful. For it is an odd country indeed in which a Christian registrar can lose her job for upholding the orthodox teaching on marriage while Muslims may win massive payouts for being obliged to handle bottles of alcohol, cook sausage and bacon or dispense the 'morning after' pill , or sell an 'unclean' Bible in the normal course of their jobs.

Dismissing her case, Lord Neuberger said: "It appears to me that, however much sympathy one may have with someone such as Ms Ladele, who is faced with choosing between giving up a post she plainly appreciates or officiating at events which she considers to be contrary to her religious beliefs, the legislature has decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy, such as the United Kingdom, include outlawing discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on grounds of sexual orientation, subject only to very limited exceptions."

But Mr Dingemans told the appeal judges that Ms Ladele believed marriage should be "between one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others". He added: "Modern human rights jurisprudence was not intended to obliterate religious beliefs held for millennia."

But the EAT found that the council was not taking disciplinary action against Ms Ladele for holding her religious beliefs, but because her refusal to carry out civil partnership ceremonies involved discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

They said: "The council were entitled to take the view that they were not willing to connive in that practice by relieving Ms Ladele of the duties, notwithstanding that her refusal was the result of her strong and genuinely-held Christian beliefs."

Cllr Ruth Polling, Islington Council's Executive Member for Equalities, said: "This is very welcome news. The judgement is the right one as it confirms all public sector employees must carry out their duties without discrimination and Islington was right to insist this of all our staff. We are delighted it provides much-needed clarity for employers across the country."

Since the legislature has also decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy include the right of a woman to terminate the baby within her womb (which is a 'facility' or a 'service' provided by the NHS), Cranmer awaits the day when Christian doctors and nurses will have their exemption on the grounds of religious conscience removed

197 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent news.

Gay rights should always come before religious rights given that a choice to be religious and go to church or believe what you want to believe is a lifestyle choice.

15 December 2009 at 11:42  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Even though this judgement was not altogether unexpected, I can still feel that sense of gloom moving in....

15 December 2009 at 11:45  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Actually anon, maybe belief in God is hardwired in the brain of some, so why should LGBT rights take precedence over ours?

15 December 2009 at 11:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I will also add that this woman was not willing to carry out her duties in a civil registry office.

If this had been in a church then her religious convictions may well have held some water, and if she wants a job where she can carry out her fanatical whims then she should become some sort of member of the clergy.

Oh, of course, many even within her own religion would prefer that she didn't wouldn't they. If she were a Catholic of course, there'd be no chance, the Vatican likes to keep women in their place, as well as forcing their flock to stay in abusive marriages for baby Jesus.

I wonder how she'd feel in those circumstances?

15 December 2009 at 11:48  
Anonymous Ian J said...

A very sad commentary on our times. Homosexual activity is a choice. It is not an imperative and is indeed a perversion of the original intention of the creator. This has been the belief of Bible believing Christians at all times as Scripture unequivocally condemns it. Lilian Ladele is one of the first of what will amount to many modern sufferers in this once great country, for loyalty to Christ and His cause.

15 December 2009 at 11:54  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Quite right.

She was not a christian registrar as the article makes out, she was a resgistrar who was a christian.

Just because here religious views don't agree with her job profile doesn't mean that the job should be changed to fit around her beliefs.

Gay people can't get married in a church, if she felt that strongly about it maybe she should have joined the clergy.

15 December 2009 at 11:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stuart, your suggestion is ridiculous, although i'm sure you could quote some fanatical sect which believes that to be the case, rather than respected members of the scientific community.

No, those who choose religion choose it for a number of reasons, or as I have been told many times by the religious "I was brought up with it", and "I don't know anything else as I was forced to go to church".

People either choose religion, or it's rammed down their throats at an early age.

15 December 2009 at 11:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Absolutely Glovner.

She was contracted to do a job. She refused to do a job. Simple as that.

Her religious beliefs have no place in a civil registry office, and she had a duty to either carry out her work in a non religious setting, or go and find work elsewhere.

15 December 2009 at 11:59  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Anon, maybe my argument is as ridiculous as saying the LGBT lifestyle is hardwired. Many would say that LGBT is a 'lifestyle' choice.

15 December 2009 at 12:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nonsense Stuart.

There is far more scientific evidence to show that being attracted to someone is not a "lifestyle choice".

There have been various scientific studies done on the issue, which consistently point to attraction being hardwired.

You can believe in whatever you wish, however, if you are providing a service to the public, paid out of all of our taxes, then don't expect opt outs from the law.

I know how you like your special priveleges. Thankfully, the court of appeal understood this woman was indeed seeking special priveleges.

15 December 2009 at 12:08  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Anon, this is not about special priveledges for Christians for me personally.

If folks want gay marriage, then they should have it. If they want a gay church, then they should set up the 'Church of The Gay Saint' in which gay couples can be married.

If gays want to boycott me because I am a narrow minded bigot, then they should be free to do so, without fear of being sacked.

However, these rights should be reciprocated.

15 December 2009 at 12:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course it's about special priveleges Stuart.

This woman wanted an opt out from both her duties, and the law.

This was not in a religious setting such as a church we are talking about here, this was in a civil setting, which our taxes pay for, which is precisely why the woman had a duty to do her job and follow the law regardless of anything else.

15 December 2009 at 12:31  
Anonymous Stuart said...

Well anon, the law is on your side now. Arguing now that the law changed within her employment or that the law biased, or is an ass, is moot and I accept this.

You raise an interesting point however with this comment:-

This was not in a religious setting such as a church we are talking about here

And this is why Christians are edgy, because we see the so called 'equality' laws, especially in regard to employment, as threatening to encroach directly into our churches.

But that discussion is for another time.

15 December 2009 at 12:40  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Anon @12.31, you said:

"This woman wanted an opt out from both her duties, and the law."

So you believe that duty to the state is more important than a duty to one's conscience then, regardless of what the issue may or may not be? What about if this lady was appointed to work for BNP councillors? What would you say then?

Your philosophical stance, to me, reminds me of the old saying "vee were only obeying orders".

15 December 2009 at 12:45  
Blogger Revd John P Richardson said...

I am a registrar of marriages, by merit of being a member of the clergy. I am also entitled, by law, to refuse to marry people who have a legal right to be married - I refer to the divorced. If the law can do this for me, why can it not make the same provision for others. The answer is simple - people in power don't want this option to be made available. Think on it!

15 December 2009 at 12:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stuart you said

"This was not in a religious setting such as a church we are talking about here

And this is why Christians are edgy, because we see the so called 'equality' laws, especially in regard to employment, as threatening to encroach directly into our churches."

Like I said you should have the right to believe as you please in your own life, and in your churches.

There is nothing to suggest any legislation will interfere with your rights to do so.

"Your philosophical stance, to me, reminds me of the old saying "vee were only obeying orders".

How silly Lord Lavendon. You have it all mixed up, Hitler was a "good Catholic boy" and therefore a Christian. He sent many gay people to their deaths.

The "vee were only obeying orders" quote may apply if you had your way.

15 December 2009 at 12:56  
Anonymous Robert Eve said...

What a hopeless judgement.

The UK is sliding further into the PC gutter.

15 December 2009 at 13:13  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

Revd John P Richardson said...

"If the law can do this for me, why can it not make the same provision for others."

Because you are not paid directly out of tax payers funds.

This woman was.

Gay people pay tax too, and are allowed to use any of the councils services without discrimination.

At the moment religions in the UK can still discrimate on these grounds, hence the "law still being able to do it for you", however the EU have ruled that the UK is not in full compliance with EU anti discrimination laws on this.

So your own right to discriminate via your religion will soon be removed.

What if a GP or a Policeman refused do do part of their tax paid job on the same grounds as Ms Ladelle?

A line has been drawn.

15 December 2009 at 13:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Revd John P Richardson, are you talking about church marriages or register office marriages?

I understand that in a Church Divorcees can not get married. But in a Register Office they can. So why is it that the Church and Lillian Ladele think it is OK for Adulterous Divorcees to get married in a Register Office but not two people of the same sex?

Why the big court case against homosexuals but not adulterous divorcees? I am glad she lost. God has punished her and that is the way it is. You can not pick and choose which part of the bible you want to believe in and ignore others.

And Stuart
If folks want gay marriage, then they should have it. If they want a gay church, then they should set up the 'Church of The Gay Saint' in which gay couples can be married.

If gays want to boycott me because I am a narrow minded bigot, then they should be free to do so, without fear of being sacked.

However, these rights should be reciprocated.


So you still believe that there should be this "tit for tat" society. I think you are wrong. No one should have to right to discriminate against any one. This includes all religions and peoples beliefs.

In a real society people should respect others choices and not discriminate against them because of their sexual preference, religion or belief, but the religion or/and belief should not be allowed to discriminate against other. Look at the Holocaust one mad mans belief caused all of that suffering. Should that be accepted? Is this what you are saying? It should be reciprocated? So does this mean that a Jewish person can now go and take revenge and use their religion or/and belief as an excuse to murder oh sorry cleanse some parts of the world? I think not.

Miss Ladele holds the belief that homosexuals are sinners but yet she did not condone marrying of adulterous divorcees. She seems to be picking and choosing which part of the bible she wants to believe in and this is the case because it came from her Church. Quite sad to see the a Religion (one amongst most of them) being so homophobic but not saying a word about the adulterous divorcees she married in the past.

(Some other Anon person)

15 December 2009 at 13:23  
Anonymous Carl Gardner said...

Your Grace,

With respect, your take on this doesn't stand up. You don't criticise the ruling in law, and I think you're right not to since Ms. Ladele's original win was at a tribunal that clearly got the law horribly wrong. It thought there was direct discrimination here (and so would not even permit Islington to argue its policies were justified) when it is quite plain that what Islington did - require all registrars to perform civil partnerships - could at most be indirect discrimination. Islington's wish to fulfill its statutory duties effectively and in a non-discriminatory way is clearly good justification for its stance.

Your Grace cited a number of other "cases" to support the idea that this is about Christianity "v" Islam, but I'm afraid they don't stack up.

For a start, the first two - the booze bottle and the pork thing - are merely claims or allegations. Anyone (for instance Ms. Ladele) can make a complaint about anything - I could sue Your Grace for allowing dangerous aliens to land on Your Grace's spire - and with the rise of the religitigation culture I have no doubt religious people will make all sorts of complaints like these. If you're saying the law or the courts support them, you need to cite court rulings upholding the complaints, not just the complaints themselves.

The other "cases" you cite are even more interesting: the religious pharmacist who refused to give out the "morning after" pill and the religious shop worker who refused to sell a Bible.

I am troubled that any woman should be refused the "morning after" pill by any health professional: I'm not sure what the law is or should be. There may already be professional ethics rules protecting the religious pharmacist, as the article suggests. But I do think professional regulators should consider this - particularly the social consequences if there is a large proportion of religious "refusenik" pharmacists in one area. There must be no risk whatever that religious activists could try to control women in their area by gaining practical control of pharmacy supply.

As for the shop worker, I'm not sure this eccentric behaviour does all that much harm - not as much as the pharmacist's behaviour - but I do think it's clearly offensive, and would support the shop if it disciplined the worker. If it were an atheist worker who for some mad reason refused to sell a Bible - I'd take the same stance.

But is Your Grace saying that these people should be allowed to refuse the morning after pill, and should be allowed to refuse to handle the Bible? Should they be allowed to be free of any risk of touching booze and pork? And should atheists have all sorts of rights to refuse to have anything to do with religion?

That would seem to be the logic of supporting Ms. Ladele, unless Your Grace thinks only Christians should enjoy religious refusenik rights. I'd like a clear doctrinal statement from Your Grace.

15 December 2009 at 13:27  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

I can't say my heart is breaking for her. The narrow-minded and censorious do great damage to the name of Christian, giving the secular world the belief that we are all uptight little bigoits.

It ain't so (surprising as the information may come to some of you).

15 December 2009 at 13:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jeremy Hyatt,

Thank you, you are a true Christian.

15 December 2009 at 13:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Christian refusing to register a civil partnership on the grounds of their faith is as ludicrous as a Muslim refusing to cook a sausage. However you defend the former and mock the latter. Does that make you a bigot, or a hypocrite?

PM

15 December 2009 at 13:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Ms Ladele I believe attends an inner city church. The majority of the congregation probably voted New Labour. Indeed, it is inner-city areas where New Labour is the strongest. Many black Christians work in the public sector. I wonder how many of them, should they follow their conscience, will lose their jobs. And if they lose their jobs there will be a drop in the income of black churches.

What now for black pastors in inner-city areas?

My short experience of attending a ‘black’ church earlier this year advised that this New Labour government is being preached against.

Having said that, I watched a clip on television last weekend of Holy Trinity Church Brompton enthusiastically approve of an interview of ex-Prime Minister Blair by Mr Gumble (of Alpha course fame). I wonder if those Christians and Cliff Richard knew how much damage he has done to their own brothers and sisters by introducing the EU law that is responsible for Ms Ladele losing her case and the Christian conscience being driven from the public sector?

15 December 2009 at 13:58  
Blogger Grogipher said...

Good news indeed.

She was refusing to the job that she was paid to do, and so should have been paid off. Certainly, if I failed to fulfil my contract, the same would, and should, happen to me.

In a court of law, this is all that matters. Were her employers being unreasonable? No. This is not 'PC rubbish', this is a correct stance by the council to stand up for the LGBT Community.

15 December 2009 at 13:59  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Anon@12.56, you are sadly missing the point I was attempting to make, which was a macro, not a micro issue. The wider issue being the relationship between state employees and a religious conscience and how far this should go; his Grace mentions doctors and abortions as another example of conflict between the state command and the doctor’s own conscience, should it conflict, and there are regulations in place which satisfy both parties.

I would also pick up on a few issued raised by Dr Guthrie @13.17, which goes further than Anon’s posts, in that Anon says this is all about the state not being able to discriminate on a services basis, whereas Dr Guthrie has let the cat out of the bag and exposes the real agenda- an attempt to crush the Church, to set one part of the nation against another, by the use of false doctrines and the use of foolish equality rules.

That these equality rules come from a foreign power, which attempting to overturn British laws (which do at least attempt to allow protection of the religious beliefs of the Churches) is even more alarming and even more revealing. It would appear that not only are parts of the left quite happy to attack the Church, but also to be the agents of foreign powers, which are hostile to the making of ‘British laws by British Parliaments’, to misquote Brown.

Sadly this is the creed of the left nowadays; do what the state tells you because it is right and good for you and one in which people should agree with anything the state does, unquestioningly, regardless of using one's intellectual and emotional faculties which the creator has endowed us with. And if you are successfully opposed, rely on the EU to do your dirty work for you.

15 December 2009 at 14:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous@13:23
The Bible allows some divorcees to re-marry without themselves sinning. I agree that those in the church who do not should be s afir as possible about all sexual sins.

However, a registrar cannot invade the privacy of 2 people getting married to find out if a particular marriage is sinful or not. If 2 people of the same sex get married, it is obvously not in God's will, and therefore the conscience of the registrar may be aroused, without prying (which would be another kind of sin). And if a registar involves themselves in something sinful, they are harming the ones who are demanding that they bless something which will harm them. Love demands a gentle "NO".
The state forcing people to do things against conscience will lead to some consciince's getting more confused or harder - including those in the government, those told to violate their consciences and othes involved. This spreads like gangrene causing more sin and confusion, whether against the law or not. It harms society. Any loaws which force people to choose between violating law or provoking oficials, OR doing the right thing harms society. It leads to increased lawlessness, and one wherecriminals and the corrupt do not stand out as they should.

I am against not loving those who practice homosexuality as ourselves. I am against thefts or attacks or anything else which is criminal against those who practice homosexuality. But I cannot say that sodomy is nt a sin. It would not be loving or truthful to those who practice it.

15 December 2009 at 14:08  
Anonymous Abdul said...

Typical decision by the increasingly liberal establishment. We can be CERTAIN if one of those associated with the imported religions in UK had been in this lady's situation the decision would have been very different!

15 December 2009 at 14:09  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Was it too simple to allow this lady to keep her job and leave the officiating of gay marriages to registrars who don't hold any religious convictions about such unions?

If gays have rights then so does this woman. Both can be accomodated without this stupid song and dance. The biggest loser here is common sense.

15 December 2009 at 14:13  
Blogger Grogipher said...

Can we just set one thing straight?

The lady in question was not being asked to marry two people of the same gender. She was being asked to grant them a civil partnership. It is not the same thing, as your Church's lobby has ensured.

She was not being asked to extend her faith to cover these individuals, nor to pass judgement on them. She was asked to fulfil her role, as she was employed to do, and paid for by the same people she was meant to be providing the service to.

In my line of work, I must help a lot of people with very different viewpoints to my own. I have to help those who I know hate my entire belief structure. But it is my choice to do this.

This is not an attack on any Church, nor is it an attach on Christianity. I am sure if the lady in question was Jewish or Muslim, the situation would be the same.

15 December 2009 at 14:15  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Gnostic, regretably it was too simple to follow through the compromise you suggest. If only.....

15 December 2009 at 14:18  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"Was it too simple to allow this lady to keep her job and leave the officiating of gay marriages to registrars who don't hold any religious convictions about such unions?"

I agree that this could have been a solution. But if it was offered I would expect it to be with a pay cut since she can't provide the same service as the full requirements of her job profile dictate.

15 December 2009 at 14:30  
Anonymous Carl Gardner said...

@Lord Lavendon: the reference to the influence of "foreign powers" and EU law is interesting.

The prohibition on religious discrimination is new in UK law. Its origin is Directive 2000/78, the "Employment Directive", which our own Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations implement. They are what Ms. Ladele based her claim on. Without the EU, she'd have had no claim against Islington at all.

@Anon (14.08): you seem to want to apply different, lower standards of privacy to gay people. I can see that a registrar could suspect that two men entering into a CP could be planning to have anal sex in private at some point. Call that "having your conscience aroused" if you like. I think that the registrar should mind his or her own business, whatever is aroused, and keep sexual imaginings to him or herself.

But in fact you don't have to have anal sex, or any sex, or even be gay, to enter into a CP, any more than you have to be straight or have vaginal sex to get married, or indeed to avoid anal sex. Perhaps a full questionnaire about sexual intentions should be issued in advance of weddings and CPs, so the religious can decide whether they approve.

The fact that religious people are quite so anxious about the private details of other people's sex lives is one of those things that makes religion look silly. Sometimes you get the impression that resisting the overwhelming temptation of anal wickedness is the very heart of the Christian message.

15 December 2009 at 14:31  
Anonymous Mark Forster said...

This decision is blatantly contrary to Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." (My italics)

15 December 2009 at 14:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

And lo and behold! The great lawyer Carl Gardner speaks from the summit of Mount Mole Hill!

‘Without the EU, she'd have had no claim against Islington at all.’

Lord Lavendon he speaks with forked-tongue!

She was not excluded from brining the case under Article 9 (freedom of religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights – a non-EU instrument – to which Russia is a signatory.

What if a claimant triumphed under Convention right claim over an EU Directive?

Ho! Ho! Ho!

Two, four, six ,eight which would be the Supreme Court mate?

15 December 2009 at 14:44  
Anonymous Carl Gardner said...

"Was it too simple to allow this lady to keep her job and leave the officiating of gay marriages to registrars who don't hold any religious convictions about such unions?"

That may no longer be lawful - see paras 62-75 of the
judgment. I can understand Christians saying that shouldn't be the law. But they need to be clear what they do want the law to be.

Do they want (a) all religious people to be able to refuse to do all sorts of things at work because of their religious convictions - in which case they should support not just Ms. Ladele but the Muslims who want not to touch booze, pork, the Bible and the morning after pill, and expect M&S and Tesco to make allowances, not just Islington; (b) only Christians to have such rights of refusal; or (c) religious people to do their jobs the same as anyone else.

I suppose there's a fourth category, (d), which is to compromise with wider society by asking for some very limited exceptions - such as in abortion law, law on crash helmets and law on churches discriminating against women in recruitment, for instance - on a pragmatic basis. That was the sort of approach that obtained until a few years ago, and was relatively uncontroversial, before the recent culture of religious complaint, in my view typified by Ms. Ladele's case, took hold.

15 December 2009 at 14:49  
Anonymous Carl Gardner said...

@Mark Forster: I disagree. i don't see what Ms. Ladele's job has to do with her teaching, with her practice, with her worship or with her observance.

But let's say you were right: disciplining the Muslim who thought the Bible dirty and wouldn't sell it would then also breach her human rights, wouldn't it?

15 December 2009 at 14:55  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Gardner,

You commit the same error as the Supra-National Socialists on this thread. You equate Christianity as equivalent to other religions.

I know! Why don’t you take a course in theology at Cranmer theological College?

Eh?

15 December 2009 at 14:57  
Blogger Jonathan Hunt said...

As a Christian who understands the Bible's teaching on morality in the traditional way, whilst I feel sorry for Mrs Ladele, I think this decision is right.

Other religionists' treatment notwithstanding.

Yes, it isn't fair that others get exemptions, and I do think that Christians get a raw deal, but nothing changes the fact that she was paid to provide a service to ALL people.

All I would hope for is some consistency across the board. But we won't see it, of course.

15 December 2009 at 15:05  
Anonymous Carl Gardner said...

Where's the evidence for inconsistency, Jonathan?

15 December 2009 at 15:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1 – If you sign a contract of employment, particularly as a public servant funded by taxpayers' money, you are in duty bound to comply with it.

You are not entitled at a later date to decide that you would rather not implement certain parts of it.

If you are able to secure the indulgence of your employer in the matter, with the proviso that this does not impede the employer's fulfilment of his or her statutory obligations, then so be it.

If you cannot, tough. You have no basis for legal complaint. If you then feel that carrying out your duties in full does unacceptable violence to your conscience, resign.

I knew a Quaker magistrate in the 1980s who felt unable to penalise antiwar protesters who appeared before him. He resigned, as he recognised that he could not uphold the law selectively, privileging one group of convicted offenders against others.

2 – There is no theoretical limit to conscientious objection on the basis of religious belief, as indicated by posters above.

Allowing dispensations under the law on the basis of it would undermine the rule of law completely.

3 – It is not clear why relgious conscience should be privileged under the law as opposed to other kinds.

Right-wing radicals don't believe in income tax; they have to pay up. Some cultural groups believe in violent revenge against those who injure them; they are prosecuted if they act on these beliefs. Marxists as well as some monotheists do not believe in the lending of money at interest; they would get short shrift from the law if they refused to pay it on a loan.

Let those who wish to discriminate against others in the course of public duty or commercial service on the basis of 'conscience' campaign for laws to enable them to do so (they quite often do).

I am glad to say that it is getting harder and harder for them.

15 December 2009 at 15:15  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Carl Gardener - I'm not banging a drum for any religion here because I'm not a practioner. I'm on the side of common sense which seems to be in very short supply these days.

To be honest, there was very little of this religious/politically motivated focus group whining BS before the introduction of that truly appalling Human Rights Bill. And of course we know who is to blame for that. Cui bono?

15 December 2009 at 15:18  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Anon 11:42

You are entitled to your views and to voice them and I applaud that right. Its just a shame that anyone that doesn't fit the PC agenda cannot do the same. I personally think it is an utter disgrace that this Christian lady has been treated like this and to put a, in my opinion, sick practise like homosexuality before this womans Christian religious conviction just sums up where we are. As has been pointed out, if this lady was a Muslim, no doubt her convictions would have been taken seriously and that is another disgraceful situation.

Never mind though, no doubt X factor is on later.

15 December 2009 at 15:20  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

"MatureCheese"

"sick practise like homosexuality."

Now the maggots are crawling out of the wood.

So its personal prejudice and not the good book that derives the bigotry.....

15 December 2009 at 15:37  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

anon@15.15: nonesense.

The Bible= The word of God

Marxism = the word of the anti christ.

15 December 2009 at 15:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Anon at 3.15pm

‘I am glad to say that it is getting harder and harder for them.’

You’d be surprised how many practising Christians would agree with you. The historical evidence shows that in such a situation Christianity grows.

One upon a time we were regarded as a Jewish sect. Then an Imperial power, Rome, persecuted us. Rome converted.

King Charles I took us on. He lost his head.

King George III took us on. He lost.

Now, it is your turn.

15 December 2009 at 15:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

t’s not the bigotry I find baffling – prejudice will always thrive where ignorance reigns – it’s the citing of religion as grounds for it. You can, if you are so minded, find a few bits and bobs in the Bible to justify disapproval, even condemnation, of homosexuality but you can find a hell of a lot more addressing ‘sins’ that are strangely ignored or afforded considerably less attention by the faithful.
And I don’t just mean the crazy stuff, like shellfish being described with same word (rough translation: abomination) as men lying with men in Leviticus or the apparent approval of slavery contained in Exodus. It’s more helpful to focus on the big, fundamental stuff like, say, the Ten Commandments which, just like Jesus, not only fail to mention homosexuality in any way whatsoever but also leave little doubt that adultery, theft and coveting your neighbour’s oxen are stone cold, copper-bottomed sins of the very first order. So where are the Christians foaming at the mouth about adulterers such as, oooh, Prince Charles or John Major or Amanda blooming Holden? Or the thieves? Or the people who covet stuff they haven’t got like, well, everyone I’ve ever met?
By all means cite scripture if you must as a justification for your opposition to homosexuality but if you want to be taken seriously you will have to adopt a similarly intolerant attitude towards lobsters, Tiger Woods and shoplifters!

15 December 2009 at 15:39  
Anonymous J. Roberts said...

Anon at 03:15pm

"King Charles I took us on. He lost his head.

King George III took us on. He lost.

Now, it is your turn"

My. The christian love and compassion on here is a wonder to behold.

At least it would be if I could find any.

15 December 2009 at 15:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My. The christian love and compassion on here is a wonder to behold.

At least it would be if I could find any."

It's very rare to find any J. Roberts.

It's why Hitler made such a "good Christian", and why Christianity and the BNP make such good bedfellows.

15 December 2009 at 15:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mature Cheese, the doctor is calling for you.

It's time for your medication.

15 December 2009 at 15:52  
Anonymous Gay rights for Gays said...

This is the right judgement - how dare Christians even think they have ANY rights compared to that of the gay. Gay rights is much more important, because gays have been a persecuted, downtrodden minority for millennia , underpinned by the bigoted views of religion. And it is this bigotry which the current government and European Union have been trying to redress- and thank goodness for that !!

15 December 2009 at 15:54  
Anonymous Pride said...

It is clearly the Christian who is perverted because they are in the clear minority compared to the majority of atheists, liberals and Marxists. The Christian has no right to persecute the Gay- in fact they should be fed to the lions as in the days of old or why not crucifixion? Long live gay rights, atheist rights, Marxist rights. But dam any consideration for the Christian. Thankfully we are moving into a new age in which religious bigotry, even religion itself will be exorcised from the British state.

15 December 2009 at 15:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carl Gardner
I stand corrected in part. What I meant was if 2 people(same gender) get married it is most probably a sin. Most married people have sex. I feel sad those lobbying for same sex issues demanded marriage rights rather than getting any injustices against them corrected via ethical means.
Homosecuals want sex with people of the same gender, or am I wrong? But the Bible says that is wrong, regardless of the kind of sex, as are some other sexual & non-sexual sins. Any argument you may or not have (you may like stirring things up to the detriment of Christians and non-Christians, including homosexuals, in a sensitive topic) is with God not man.
Re privacy. Dignity of people is Christlike. Malicious gossip, let alone intentional slander, is a wrong. Some of the furore to Mr. Woods & all affected is wrong, even if he wronged God & his family. He, his family & all affected deserve prayer and mercy because we have all done wrong or can wrong, & they deserve a chance to recover from the media onslaught & cruel hypocritical public shaming & mocking, as well as from the harm caused by his & others' wrongs. The prominent are also more in danger of entrapment or temptation due to the temptations of power & those who wish to tempt or entrap them. Prominent Christians & all real Christians also face greater temptation. Evil loves to see a Christian fall,& some sadly like to see others fall including the religious or famous. What a sad outlet for & distraction from life.
God cares about the mistreated, including those who are intentionally shamed in an unrighteous manner or mistreated, even if they have sinned.
Protecting the privacy of people made in God's image is Christlike - whether the people afflicted are Christian or not, & whether they are involved in an act of sin or not. Life, family, business, frendships, society including security need privacy to thrive.
A registrar would not be prying or obsessed with sex if they chose not to marry same sex couples, whether the registrar was Christian or not. You overgeneralise when you say religious people are overly anxious about the private details of others' sex lives. There are some, religious or not, who obsess on details, sexual or not, of others' lives. It is not Christlike. It is a common sin into which we can all fall. Gossip is terrible. It leaves a seed, including with innocent hearers, & harms relationships & livelihoods. It also is tempting & destructive for the listener as well as those who love to gossip. If you wish read Proverbs 6 verse 16-19 for the list of deadly sins.
Re details of others' lives - I didnt mean what you appear to think I meant. Do you believe what you wrote? Sorry if I was unclear. I don't want to know the about others' sex lives.Its occasionally relevant for public figures, crime or discussion but lurid details are unfair & shaming to those who have done wrong or not. Re Mr. Woods & his family & all affected (innocent or not) they need prayer & mercy and healing(not people profiteering out of others' sins or false accusations). He like all of us is more than any sin he has committed.
Again, I believe in treating people decently, but its not kind to bless a marriage between 2 people of the same sex, nor to entrap Christians or othes using homosecuality or try to divert the church from other issues. I am against crimes against those who practice homosexuality but for freedom of conscience.

15 December 2009 at 15:56  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Anon @15.50- more rubbish.

The BNP- Soviet style Socialism

Christianity = salvation for the world.

15 December 2009 at 16:00  
Anonymous Cyril said...

A solution might be to have a gay
break away church with gay bishops and priests.Gays would then have control over their church and could get married etc.
The fact that the christian factions would not support or recognise them should be of no concern to them.Gays have exclusive entertainment venues,holiday resorts,sporting activities,choirs,musical groups marching bands etc so why not do the church thing as well!

15 December 2009 at 16:02  
Anonymous Anon Mark 10 said...

I see the left have already lost the debate- the last few posts have all either been personal or abtuse.No suprise really.

15 December 2009 at 16:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bag Lady, it's you who is talking rubbish.

Christianity is bollocks. Hitler was a Christian and the BNP have more in common with you than myself.

15 December 2009 at 16:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cyril Said.

"Gays have exclusive entertainment venues,holiday resorts,sporting activities,choirs,musical groups marching bands etc so why not do the church thing as well!"

Just like you segregated people of colour in the 1950's.

Good idea.... NOT.

15 December 2009 at 16:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really Anon Mark 10?

How about the judgement?

Religion is a personal lifestyle choice, or something rammed down your throat as a child and you need it as a comfort blanket, keep it to yourself, thank you.

15 December 2009 at 16:04  
Anonymous THE 21ST ANON said...

Anon- As you have decided to start to bring a debate to the level of "christianity is bollocks", can I just say that your view is the same?

(I'm not going to back any of this up, because I follow your logic of making stupid points without any evidence).

15 December 2009 at 16:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to ask Christians how they would feel if gay businesses refused to serve Christians as a matter of conscience?

15 December 2009 at 16:08  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

This is most intolerant of Ruth Polling and Islington council. To me it's not about gay couples being denied their right to a ceremony, but someone being denied religious freedom.

It seems Christianity is out of Vogue these days which saddens me. But we only have ourselves to blame. Well no actually Liebore governments are to blame and the EU laws destroying Britian.

So since we have already compromised ourselves starting some decades ago by pandering to the whims of Sikh's allowing them the religious freedom to wear Turbans instead of crash helmets and Turbans instead of traditional wigs in Judicial Courts. Religious whims have escalated along with immigration. So in line with fairness and the religious freedoms that have been granted to others (If she were a Muslim employee who had complained no doubt she would have been granted exemption from duties of having to perform gay and lesbian partnership ceremonies. ) that now occupy our country we should also tolerate Christianity and allow this poor lady to rejoin Islington council and in line with her religious beliefs only perform the marriage ceremonies of heterosexual couples. I'm sure they employ more than one Registrar. That is of course if she did not break her contract of employment.

From an employers point of view there are interview processes, employment contracts ,staff handbooks containing guidelines for any perspective staff so that both parties can be informed. By signing the contract they agree to have read and understood what's expected of them. Performing abortions/ gay partnership ceremonies etc... So as I don't know the full case, was this thrust upon her or was she informed when it came into law and did she sign an agreement to do this I wonder?
And if she broke her contract then sorry the decision is right.

15 December 2009 at 16:09  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

Cllr Ruth Polling, Islington Council's Executive Member for Equalities, said: "This is very welcome news. The judgement is the right one as it confirms all public sector employees must carry out their duties without discrimination and Islington was right to insist this of all our staff.
Ah, Islington, champions of equality without discrimination. Upholders of dignity for staff, residents and service users alike.
Would that be the same Islington that so miserably failed to defend the rights of Baby P?
The Islington that trumpets “Dignity for all” on its Equality and Diversity web page and proudly proclaims:
People may identify with more than one "equality strand". For example, someone may be older, gay, disabled, and have a faith. Rather than pigeon-holing people according to one aspect of their person, what fundamentally matters is that we are whole men and women, each with our own needs and aspirations. As people, there is far more that unites us than sets us apart.

Oh Islington, what “equality strands” did you observe for Ms Ladele? Didn't she have a faith? Wasn't she a whole person? Did she not have needs and aspirations? Have you not pigeon-holed her according to one aspect of her person?
And what is that if not discrimination?

15 December 2009 at 16:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll add to that last post.

You want to discriminate against us? Then we should be quite entitled to discriminate against you also.

No one who is a Christian employed by a gay person. How does that sound?

15 December 2009 at 16:10  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

BNP= Labour party policy on steroids, you silly socialist.

Just look at the party policies of both and they fit like a glove.

15 December 2009 at 16:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh dear Bag Lady you are reaching now.

By the way I hope that none of you Christians are typing these comments at work while working for a gay employer?

Could be another court case involving yourself if so couldn't there?

That would be interesting.

15 December 2009 at 16:16  
Blogger The Anti Christ said...

Rt Rev Anti Christ: “Queers can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.”

Sick bag please.

15 December 2009 at 16:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glovner is entirely correct.

I wish I didn’t have to deal with overtly bigoted followers of the Abrahamic faiths on a daily basis, but it is part of my job and I will engage with them in the same professional way I would approach any task because that is what I am paid to do.

15 December 2009 at 16:24  
Anonymous Cyril said...

I didn't actually segregate any coloured people in the 50's.Black people had no choice.They did not have a vote and segregation was enforced in the USA and South Africa.Gays have chosen to segregate themselves
from the straight community,probably because they feel more comfortable with their own.What's wrong with that? Some ethnic minorities choose to do the same thing.So why stop at religion?

15 December 2009 at 16:27  
Anonymous bergen said...

I feel it important to note that civil partnerships were introduced after she became a registrar.It was the Council that changed her duties.I must say that I believe it would have just to give a opt-out to existing employees with bona fide objections.

15 December 2009 at 16:28  
Anonymous Not another Anon, please! said...

"Could be another court case involving yourself if so couldn't there?"

Are, so the socialist shows their true colours. Shut down debate, when it is clear it is going against them.

Typical!

15 December 2009 at 16:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I discovered any of my employees found typing similar posts to some of the anti gay claptrap on here during worktime, using office equipment I would regard that as an act of gross misconduct, and they would be dismissed.

15 December 2009 at 16:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Religion is a personal lifestyle choice, or something rammed down your throat as a child and you need it as a comfort blanket, keep it to yourself, thank you."

Thanks for this Anon. I sometimes feel the same about gays. Why is that everyone has to know about the sexuality. I do not go up to people, upon first meeting them, and say "I'm hetrosexual", ergo I'm more important than you. I actually would like the gay people I meet to stop ramming their sexuality down my throat. It is the gays that make a big hoo har about the sexuality, no-one else.

15 December 2009 at 16:32  
Anonymous Cyril said...

Your definition of anti gay is anything not pro gay!

15 December 2009 at 16:33  
Anonymous joshua said...

Anon- presumably you are using the same office equipment to spout your claptrap, so you either have to sack yourself or try being a bit more consistent

15 December 2009 at 16:35  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

Cyril said...

"They did not have a vote and segregation was enforced in the USA and South Africa."

Segregation enforced by the Christian Majority Dear Boy.

Cyril said...

"Gays have chosen to segregate themselves from the straight community".

No they have not. They are simply being denied rights that the straight community enjoy by virtue
of you Jesus freaks discriminating
against us.

15 December 2009 at 16:43  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

"Christianity is bo**ocks"

Care to back that one up, with a bit of evidence or argument?

It is the rhetorical weapon of the last resort to start saying things like this. It is not that you have said it, but the lack of anything further to add, except for a vauge link between Christianity and Hitler and the BNP. Re the BNP- clearly you haven't read the ABC and ABY clearly condemn the BNP?

I'm a gay and also a Christian, so I am therefore speaking bo**ocks as well?

15 December 2009 at 16:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Thanks for this Anon. I sometimes feel the same about gays. Why is that everyone has to know about the sexuality. I do not go up to people, upon first meeting them, and say "I'm hetrosexual", ergo I'm more important than you. I actually would like the gay people I meet to stop ramming their sexuality down my throat. It is the gays that make a big hoo har about the sexuality, no-one else."

What kind of weird uptight people do you hang around with who declare thier sexuality on meeting?

15 December 2009 at 16:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is the gays that make a big hoo har about the sexuality, no-one else."

Like in this case with the registrar. Ladele seems to be the one making a big "hoo har".

Or perhaps like in the examples from the US, it's the Christians there who make a "big hoo har" about banning gay marriage.

In fact, seems to be the Christians who are obsessed. I wouldn't possibly even begin to contemplate why that is. Personally I try to avoid Christians as much as possible, and would never date one.

15 December 2009 at 16:45  
Anonymous Cyril said...

I am not pro gay or anti gay.As I don't consider the seahorse,I don't consider the gay.If I know any they haven't informed me.Perhaps this is unusual or I've been very vague.

15 December 2009 at 16:45  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Also, I am shocked by the way some of the pro-gay people are reacting about this news. It is as if we lost, but we have in fact one. Some of the pro-gay people really do suffer from a persecution complex,even though we are the winners today.

15 December 2009 at 16:46  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

"Personally I try to avoid Christians as much as possible, and would never date one."

Gutted!

15 December 2009 at 16:48  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

Gay Anglica said....

"Some of the pro-gay people really do suffer from a persecution complex"

Yes, some of us do. Try having 45 years of persecution and see how you feel. Given that they are still trying to defend her actions.

15 December 2009 at 16:50  
Anonymous Xerxes the Great said...

careful Anon, will all of these posts you may have to sack yourself for misuse of your own companies equipment at work !

15 December 2009 at 16:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

15 December 2009 at 16:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"careful Anon, will all of these posts you may have to sack yourself for misuse of your own companies equipment at work !"

That's capitalism for you! It's great isn't it? Works for me :-)

15 December 2009 at 16:52  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Why does being gay and Christian make me sado masochistic ?

You are just as bigoted as the right wing Christians- you only care, presumably about gay atheists with a nod towards the labour party? You are being just as narrow minded and petty as the right wing christians are being.

shame on you !

BTW- you should be celebrating , we have won a victory today for gay rights!

15 December 2009 at 16:54  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

Well,I can see you aren't a gay
from Sydney.

15 December 2009 at 16:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am celebrating. I have already said this is good news.

However, a lot of your fellow Christians don't seem to think so. I'm enjoying chatting to them as the news sinks into their tiny little peabrains.

Yes, your fellow Christians gay Anglican, not understand that?

15 December 2009 at 16:59  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Sydney, how you know I'm not a gay? You can't see me !

15 December 2009 at 17:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

15 December 2009 at 17:04  
Blogger valit said...

"But Mr Dingemans told the appeal judges that Ms Ladele believed marriage should be 'between one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others'."

So, was she also refusing to marry divorcees? Or did her religion beliefs kick in only when she saw LGBT people?

Besides, her beliefs on marriage should be irrelevant since she was registering civil partnerships. Same-sex marriage is not yet legal in this country so I don't see why her views on a separate institution should be relevant.

15 December 2009 at 17:04  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

You should show some respect for
the gay Anglican as he may be presiding over your marriage one day in the Gay Church of God!

15 December 2009 at 17:05  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Sorry old cock, I have a life outside of posting on this blog, got better things to do that discuss these issues with you. Off ,off, to celebrate!

AND A VERY HAPPY AND MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ONE AND ALL!!

15 December 2009 at 17:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I doubt it sydney.

I wouldn't have a church marriage, but a civil marriage. I wouldn't even want to force the church to perform a gay marriage.

15 December 2009 at 17:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happy Yuletide to you also Gay Anglican : -)

15 December 2009 at 17:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Robin Guthrie

Since some gays have been persecuted, all the more reason for those to speak up when some gays persecute some Christians.

Persecution includes punishing people for not acting against conscience.

I have suffered persecution and severe harassment including threats, framing and harm for years. I try to stick up for those peresecuted, even if they have views I don't agree with.

I am a Christian. I am against acts of homosexuality but also against persecution of those who practice homosexuality. Can I have freedom of conscience? And, even in writing this, I know there may be some who wish to attack me because that is the reality of some of the homosexual lobbyists.

If there is one thing that those who are harassed should learn it is: don't harass others, including those who harassed you.

People who want to force the Christian churches to approve of their sins - whatever they are, (sexual or not) - have an argument with God - they might consider telling Him what they feel about the Bible. Noone is forcing them to serve Christ or go to a Christian church. Noone is forcing them into heterosexual marriage or even approving of it either. Please could they not force their mores on Christians or non-Christians, especially the Christian church.

15 December 2009 at 17:11  
Anonymous Confused said...

Anon @17.11, eh?? Half an hour a go your were saying that you didn't like christians and would never date one? Now your saying you are a Christian? Confusing or what?

15 December 2009 at 17:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Confused, that's a different annon.

15 December 2009 at 17:16  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

A cordial comment to all our gay communicants here today

Personally, I agree with the decision, since it represents the law as it now is. But the appellant was employed under previous legislation, and should, therefore, have been provided with a handsome pay-off since it was her employers position that had changed, not hers.

I'd be far happier, though, if recent cases with our Muzzie friends had been treated in the same way. It does appear, guys, that if you're a muzzie, then the law is expected to be changed to suit you....no such luxury being afforded to Christians.

However, folks, I'd just temper your victory today with a caution. I give it 20 years before the Islamic state takes over in the UK, and you can bet that you'll all be on the chopping block first....a couple of years before we Christians, of course, so don't feel I'm getting at you

15 December 2009 at 17:17  
Anonymous Confused said...

Different Anon, thanks for clarifying.

15 December 2009 at 17:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The anon who confusd confused also wished to add - that's why I have to comment anonymousely, and also, there has been framing of suspects, so the harssment is a morass (if anyone knows who I am, don't believe a word, including accusations of who has done what).

15 December 2009 at 17:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are so many anons.

However, i'll say finally

It's been all fun and games for the Christians for hundreds of years persecuting others, until the worm turns.

And the worm has turned. Don't think you can so easily trample over our rights to equality as you have done for so long.

Good evening.

15 December 2009 at 17:26  
Blogger valit said...

Lord Lavendon @ 14:07 said: "these equality rules come from a foreign power".

You cannot claim that a body of which you are a member is a "foreign power". It would be like someone in Manchester claiming the UK is a foreign power because the government resides in London.

15 December 2009 at 17:30  
Anonymous Carl Gardner said...

@Old Grumpy: what's the case involving Muslims that has been dealt with in a different way?

@Anon (16.51 and 17.04): I've no idea what you intend with these comments, but they sound nasty, and put you in a very bad light. I hope you'll stop.

15 December 2009 at 17:30  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Lillian Ladele became a registar before the law was changed , her vocation was to carry out the christian or civil marriage between a man and woman , somthing no doubt she did with great respect and importance .There was no incompatability between her religon of faith.

The idea of gay marriage was badly handled for it continued to be interchanged with marriage and it would have perhaps been better to make the case more in line with what the origonal legal problem was namely , that there were no inheritence rights should one partner die or should a split occure.

On reflection perhaps regsistars should have been considered , for the clergy it was obviously difficult , although some were more than happy to qualify this god ordained , without much thought to the subsequent devaluing of proper/origional marriage.

Lillian Ladele does not think the law created is not what god had in mind and she feels she/her faith cannot truthfully recognise what the law requires . As a state employee she has to do as requested by the law . the goverment has created a two teir sytem of conscience yet only facilitated its one tier view of things , how very socialist !!

15 December 2009 at 17:40  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

Like everyone who holds convictions based on what they consider to be eternal verities, she should be content to live by her convictions and willing to die by them.

Stop the moaning, accept persecution, name it for what it is, but stop trying to have Christianity privileged by law.

15 December 2009 at 17:55  
Anonymous Mark said...

It has been in the press, though, that Ms Ladele herself has a child by a man to whom she is not married, so is she not being completely hypocritical in claiming to represent traditional Christian family values?

15 December 2009 at 17:55  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Mark said...

'It has been in the press, though, that Ms Ladele herself has a child by a man to whom she is not married'

:-O

:-O

:-O

etc

Presumably that's her off to hell too then.

15 December 2009 at 17:58  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

@valit- so you are now equating the EU's relationship with the UK as that between Manchester City Council and the UK Parliament. Indeed that is the real balance of power between the foreign EU and the UK.

15 December 2009 at 18:01  
Blogger valit said...

@Lord Lavendon -

At all levels of political activity you have the single versus the whole, whether the individual versus the community they inhabit, the district vs the country of which it is part or the country vs the supranational body of which it is a member.

If you are part of something greater and involved in its institutions, you cannot by definition claim that it is foreign to you.

Germany is foreign to the UK because the UK is not involved in the German government.

The EU is not foreign to the UK because the UK is part of the EU and is involved in its institutions in the same way that the City of Manchester is part of the British political process in spite of most decisions not being taken on Mancunian territory.

It is an issue of participation vs opposition.

15 December 2009 at 18:19  
Anonymous Carl Gardner said...

The crucial point is the one I made earlier: that the religious discrimination law Ms. Ladele relied on itself came from the EU.

15 December 2009 at 18:24  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Hitler may have been born into a Christian family, but he was certainly not a 'good Christian boy'. Not only did he deviate substantially from the faith of his fathers, he actually despised orthodox Christians. There is a saying that 'God has no grandchildren'. Without a personal committment to Christ no-one can legitimately call themselves a Christian. Hitler was committed to a different agenda.

15 December 2009 at 18:33  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Carl - there was the recent case of the supermarket warehouse driver who claimed that his inalienable religious values were being trampled on by virtue of his being required to drive, on occasion alcohol, human rights, you see.

I believe he won his case

15 December 2009 at 18:34  
Anonymous anon anon said...

The euSSR is a foreign entity that has invaded this country - its relationship to us is illicit because it is based on lies, deceit, corruption, and the destruction of every freedom and every other thing that made this country fit to live in. We owe it nothing, we should ignore the pronouncements it imposes on us as 'laws', and we should stop paying it 55 bn a year.

We need to tell it to get out of Britain, and to stay out.

PS: It's getting close to Christmas - I hope we're going go interpret His Grace's metre the right way. Let's get him up to Dog's Breakfast before the New Year :)

15 December 2009 at 18:43  
Blogger The Anti Christ said...

It's like a Monty Python sketch. Cranmer could do a tidy number selling bags of otter's noses.

"apart from destroying the fabric of society, what did queers ever do for us?"

15 December 2009 at 18:49  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

@Valit, thank you for this information, however, the EU is still a foreign power. It has its own legal personality, it dictates what it wants to enforce, via 'directives' (mini-enabling acts) at a whim, and not via Parliamentary election or scrutiny.
Unaccountable EU Commissioners decide the fate of half a billion people, yet in the UK we have a Parliamentary system, which in theory provides accountability and scrutiny of the government- thus EU rule is foreign to the British way of governance.

Furthermore, you say that Germany is foreign, because we are not involved in the German government -rubbish via your logic- Germany is part of the EU and as such the EU dictates to Germany (as with the other states) what her policies should be via way of directives. Therefore we are involved in the governance of Germany, so Germany cannot be classified as a foreign power; in fact none of the other EU states, by your rational are foreign powers. I guess you would call them provinces or states in the same way as Canada or the USA?

Thus the EU is in every sense of the word a foreign concept and power to the UK- philosophically, legally, historically and constitutionally.

15 December 2009 at 18:51  
Anonymous Carl Gardner said...

@Old Grumpy:

He lost.

Those who claim Muslims are being treated more favourably than Christians need to come up with evidence of their winning claims - not just making them, as Ms. Ladele did.

15 December 2009 at 18:52  
Blogger Grogipher said...

Lord Lavendon, by your logic, the UK is foreign to Scotland. To paraphrase:

"Unaccountable UK Ministers decide the fate of 5 million people, yet in Scotland we have a popular system of sovereignty, which in theory provides accountability and scrutiny of the government- thus the UK's Parliamentary sovereignty is foreign to the Scottish way of governance."

15 December 2009 at 18:54  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Newsflash

"Women who refused to do job, gets fired!"

Next week

"Rain falls, and ground gets wet!"

"Sun rises in the morning!"

"Man fired for flashing penis at boss!"

"Muslims get violent after being accused of violence!"

15 December 2009 at 18:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

15 December 2009 at 19:00  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Oh, some more!

"Gravity attracts ball to Earth!"

"Creationists Wrong!"

"Cow that can't do quadratic equations!"

"Christian Institute moans about persecution, even as it advocates persecution"

"Internet Explorer still sh*te"

"Eco-mentalist lies about climate change!"

I look forward to Cranmer covering all these thrilling and surprising stories, and many more besides, in the following weeks.

15 December 2009 at 19:01  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Grogipher- incorrect analogy I am afraid. Scotland sends MPs to Westminster and can therefore bring UK government ministers to account and even be Ministers themselves (isn’t our current Prime Minister Scottish, what about the Chancellor of the Exchequer?). There is no such mechanism in the EU and even if one were devised, I would still say better off out.

15 December 2009 at 19:06  
Blogger Grogipher said...

Is Baroness Ashton of Upholland not the EU's foreign secretary type?

Do decisions at the Council of Ministers not include members of the UK Cabinet?

Is the UK's head of state not present at the Summits?

Do we not have UK MEPs?

I seem to find an equal UK representation in all three branches of the EU there...

15 December 2009 at 19:09  
Blogger indigomyth said...

Oh, and just a matter of correction, the Muslim you referred to
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063590/Devout-Muslim-sues-Tesco-making-carry-alcohol.html)

actually LOST the case-

http://www.islamist-watch.org/1017/muslim-worker-loses-out-in-tesco-booze-bid


As did Hasanali Khoja (the Muslim who refused to handle pork)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8064474.stm

Can't be bothered to check the rest, since the first two sort of utterly destroy your entire argument that Muslims are winning where Christians are loosing.

Care to make a comment Cranmer? Perhaps you ought to follow up the sensational stories you skim read?

15 December 2009 at 19:10  
Blogger valit said...

@Lord Lavendon -

The reason the majority of power in EU institutions resides in the Commission is that eurosceptics insist on not wanting to give more power to the European Parliament so the European "government", known as the EU Commission continues to be nominated by the national governments and not more directly by the people. However, national governments are in turn voted in power by people in the individual countries, so as you can see, this process is also not entirely foreign to us, the People.

I said that Germany is a foreign power to Britain because those political decisions that are purely at the discretion of the individual member states are taken independently in the two countries. Of course, those issues that are affected by European institutions will affect us both, so in that sense you could say that we influence each other to an extent. In the same way that you and I, although we probably live in different parts of the UK, are equally influenced by UK laws but may be subject to different local government regulations that we help define for our area but not for each other's.

It really isn't a very innovative concept, I'm not sure why you insist on seeing the EU as a foreign body, but not the UK, or whatever your local government is.

15 December 2009 at 19:13  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Indigomyth,

Of course His Grace knew these cases were lost. And he also knew that the others were not remotely comparable, since they were not public bodies.

You really have not learned His Grace's puirpose in life, have you?

15 December 2009 at 19:16  
Blogger valit said...

Lord Lavendon - "isn’t our current Prime Minister Scottish?"

Isn't the incoming EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy a Brit? That's one of the 2 top spots in the EU. Talk about foreign...

15 December 2009 at 19:19  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

His Grace has decided to delete some offensive anonymous contributions, including the two referred to earlier by Mr Carl Gardner (thank you).

It is perfectly possible to discuss the religio-political issues of this matter without abusing (or blackmailing?) those anonymice who purport to be homosxual (or gay, if they prefer).

His Grace prefers that anonymice adopt a nom-de-blog. It is the only way of distinguishing one anonymouse from another. This is a polite request. Traps with cheddar will be set for those who continue to irritate His Grace. He is already a little irritated by the events of the day, and his fuse is shortened.

15 December 2009 at 19:28  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

And please no-one correct His Grace's typos this evening. He has had two glasses of red, and needs them.

15 December 2009 at 19:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lavendon, just ignore the socialist trolls who are baiting you- they want to throw the thread into chaos, this thread is not about the EU- keep your powder dry for another day.

15 December 2009 at 19:30  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr GRogipher,

His Grace wishes you had not mentioned Baroness Ashton of Upholland, for he sincerely wishes he had put £500 on her when Mr Morus told us she was 50-1 (and His Grace is not a betting man).

15 December 2009 at 19:31  
Blogger Grogipher said...

If we are not to discuss the EU, could we discuss the very, very decent points put forward about the different treatment of Christians and Muslims?

All too easily, the Christian lobby group like to lay claim to the victim mentality, saying that everyone gets it better than them, but are unable to put forward any evidence of such treatment.

I can show you blatant examples, either in real life or enshrined in law, where I, as a gay man, am not given equal treatment. Can you, as a Christian? Or will you continue to just post complaints made my members of the Muslim community, that were not held up by the courts?

15 December 2009 at 19:33  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Yes, I agree that this thread is not about the EU and I should not have taken the bait. It is clear that myself and the other commentators will simply not agree on the issues we have exchanged. So I trust his Grace will forgive my irrelevant indulgence on matters not relating to this thread .I trust his Grace will enjoy his red; good vintage is it sir?

15 December 2009 at 19:41  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

The Anti Christ said...

"apart from destroying the fabric of society, what did queers ever do for us?"

Where do I begin........

I think the following queers did quite a bit for society...

Aristotle, Greek philosopher

Alexander the Great, Macedonian ruler

Emperor Hadrian, Roman ruler

Richard the Lion-Hearted, British ruler

Richard II, British ruler

Leonardo da Vinci, painter-scientist

Oscar Wilde, Irish playwright

Proust, French author

E. M. Forster, British author

John Maynard Keynes, British economist

Sir Harold Nicholson, British author-diplomat

T. E. Lawrence, British soldier-author

Jean Cocteau, French author

Christopher Isherwood, British author

Dag Hammarskjold, Swedish secretary-general U.N.

W. H. Auden, British-American poet

Jean Genet, French playwright

Tennessee Williams, Playwright

Brendan Behan, Irish author

Alan Turing, Computer Inventor

Hans Christian Andersen, writer

Pete Townshend, The Who [bisexual]

Gus Van Sant, filmmaker

Versace, fashion designer

Gore Vidal, writer

Tchaikovsky, composer

Socrates, philosopher

Sir Isaac Newton, scientist and celibate homo.

Morrissey, singer

Armistead Maupin, writer

Joseph McCarthy, Senator and persecutor

Sir Ian McKellen, actor

Freddie Mercury, singer, Queen.

Greg Louganis, Olympic diver

Elton John, musician

J. Edgar Hoover, longtime head of the FBI.

Rock Hudson, actor

Sir John Gielgud, actor

Jodi Foster, actor

Brian Epstein, managed The Beatles

William S. Burroughs, writer

David Bowie, musician [bisexual]

15 December 2009 at 19:43  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Lord Lavendon,

Not particularly, thank you for asking, but it'll do for a Tuesday. Takes one's mind off the excrement of the day.

15 December 2009 at 19:47  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Carl Gardner said (at 6.24 pm):

Lord Lavendon

‘The crucial point is the one I made earlier: that the religious discrimination law Ms. Ladele relied on itself came from the EU.’

What Mr Gardner said at 14.31 was this:

‘Without the EU, she'd have had no claim against Islington at all.’

Which is entirely different.

The fact is that Ms Ladele was not prohibited from relying on human rights law - but Mr Gardner insists: ‘‘Without the EU, she'd have had no claim against Islington at all.’

And to cap it all, Mr Gardner claims to be a lawyer!

15 December 2009 at 19:51  
Blogger valit said...

I love it when people say "I shouldn't have taken the bait… and actually tried to defend the claims I make".

Enjoy the rest of the evening.

15 December 2009 at 19:53  
Blogger Stefan said...

Gay or straight, in no civil partnership is the couple married in the eyes of God, so I really don't see why she's making such a fuss.

15 December 2009 at 20:03  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

In answer to my critics for the use of 'sick' to desribe homosexuality, what is 'normal' about inserting ones penis into another mans anus? I'm sorry if I offend but to me that is sick.

I am not on the other hand about to call for said 'sick' people to be persecuted but neither do I believe that they should be seen as 'normal' and what they do as 'acceptable'.

I am not using the Bible to put forward my prejudices. I was raised with Christian values and one of them was finding homosexuality wrong. In fact it is something we share with Islam. It makes me wonder what the state is going to legitimise next.

15 December 2009 at 20:05  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Actually Valit you have added a sentence to his Lordship's one. He has acted hounrably because he realises this is neither the time nor the place to debate the EU question. When that happens I am sure he will give you an intellectual thrashing.

15 December 2009 at 20:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Gay Anglican stated:

'Also, I am shocked by the way some of the pro-gay people are reacting about this news. It is as if we lost, but we have in fact one. Some of the pro-gay people really do suffer from a persecution complex,even though we are the winners today.'

Madam, it's because they are afraid of tomorrow.

By the way, Your Grace, your site is under severe attack from those who wish to trace us.

15 December 2009 at 20:05  
Anonymous anon 2 said...

This comment strikes me as both primitive and anti-British: "Stop the moaning, accept persecution, name it for what it is, but stop trying to have Christianity privileged by law."

In Britain and Ireland we developed our law and literacy in the vernacular and under the aegis of Christianity. That is, Christianity brought the law to the people, who subsequently developed a tradition of participating in law, and asserting and demanding their rights.

To remove Judaeo Christianity from our law, furthermore, is to pollute, infect, and weaken the justice upheld by the religion. It opens the way for imposition of power by foreign government. It is interesting to note that the Romans also promoted vice while they were busy destroying the British:
"[...]and so the Britons were gradually led on to the amenities that make vice agreeable–arcades, baths,* and sumptuous banquets. They spoke of such novelties as ‘civilization', when really they were only a feature of enslavement." (Agricola 21)


*Puble Bath houses...

15 December 2009 at 20:08  
Anonymous anon 2 said...

*Public

15 December 2009 at 20:09  
Blogger Grogipher said...

MatureCheese - your argument is oversimplistic. If your problem is purely based on sodomy, and not homosexuality, then really, most of this argument is nonsense.

Could then the lady in question "marry" lesbians then, since the majority of them don't practice sodomy?

I know quite a number of gay man who don't partake in anal sex; is that OK?

I do know of rather a lot of heterosexual couples however, who do like the odd bit of buggery now and again; should these be prevented from marriage also?

15 December 2009 at 20:10  
Blogger D. Singh said...

anon 2

Outstanding fire-power!

By the way Your Grace the attack on your site has decreased in its intensity. Naturally, we are tracing them.

15 December 2009 at 20:29  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

I have done ny best to read through the 140-plus comments on this thread so far, and I think I am raising a point that no one has raised previously, but please forgive me if I am wrong.

It is this. Your Grace writes: Perhaps if Ms Ladele had been a Muslim, her appeal might have been successful.

Why the "perhaps" and the "might have been", Your Grace? Presumably there are Muslim registrars, and presumably cases have arisen where a Muslim registrar has been required to conduct a "civil partnership" between a homosexual couple. With what result? Has it ever happened that a Muslim registrar has refused to conduct the ceremony on religious grounds? If so, what action ensued?

15 December 2009 at 21:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robin Guthrie replies to Rev John Richardson's question,

"If the law can do this for me, why can it not make the same provision for others."

Because you are not paid directly out of tax payers funds.

This woman was.
-------
But this overlooks the fact that the fee that couples pay is what effectively pays registrars - as it does, more directly for vicars.
Suppose the ex-spouse of a registrar appeared before his/her ex-spouse to be married. Should the registrar be punished for not wanting to fulfil a task that another could very easily do? Or would the registrar's conscience and feelings be respected?
If so, why?
Similarly, would you expect a judge to try his own wife or child?
If not, why not?

15 December 2009 at 21:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D. Singh @20:29 from "anonym"

Your Grace, I have to comment anonymously right now. Is "anonym" ok? If this irritates you please say so. I do not wish to offend Your grace in this matter - it is your blog.

"Naturally we are tracing them". Even His Grace does not have the right to ilegally trace those who might abuse His site. He has some rights, but we commentators and readers have none. Ends don't justify means. Good boundaries, and the appearance thereof are important, though we all fail (myself included). Do you wish for others to use such methods against you? I mean this in kindness - I hope you were not serious or that I did not misunderstand what you wrote. Sorry if I did.

anonym

15 December 2009 at 21:15  
Anonymous Carl Gardner said...

@Anonymous, 21.15

I wonder what that means, too. I'm not sure what D. Singh is up to, or on about. It does sound at first blush like some sort of implied threat though, doesn't it?

What I do know is that he/she sometimes makes snide remarks about me in his comments - there are two examples in his/her comments on this post. It's that repeated behaviour that makes me now uninterested in, and unwilling to engage with, his/her views.

I think His Grace should know it's that sort of thing that gives blogs a bad name, and makes commenting less attractive for those of us who try not to argue by personal remark.

15 December 2009 at 21:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Petram,

Under the European Convention on Human Rights and under EU federal law, where gay rights collide with religious rights: gay rights win.

A chap who claims to be a lawyer, Carl Gardner, has provided a link to Ms Ladele's appeal.

The key to understanding the case is that the judges concluded that Ladele was not disciplined for her religious belief but, because she failed to prosecute a statutory duty that Islington Council is obliged to carry out (supported ultimately by EU law (federal)).

The case amounts to this: Official X of Islington Council failed to carry out duty A. Therefore, Islington Council by disciplining her has no case to answer.

The case is question begging: why would Official X fail to carry out a duty given that the judges agreed that Official X was not disciplined for her religious beliefs?


P.S. Gardner why don't you tell them the truth about your claimed status as a lawyer?

15 December 2009 at 21:55  
Blogger The Anti Christ said...

I am envious of His Grace's red wine. I am not allowed. I have still enjoyed the thread though.

Merry Christmas to everyone - it was fun. If His grace gets anymore of those betting tips....please email me because I am utterly potless and in desperate need...and I have no restrictions placed on my gambling ambitions.

God Bless this Blog.

15 December 2009 at 22:03  
Anonymous Carl Gardner said...

It was great fun indeed, Anti Christ - apart from the nasty veiled threats from one anonymous commenter (since removed) and the snide and nasty remarks from D. Singh.

D. Singh's commenting style is exactly the kind of thing that brings blogs into disrepute. And his/her presence here is, as far as I'm concerned, a real deterrent to visiting. I'm looking for discussion and argument, not snark or insinuation.

15 December 2009 at 22:25  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

Mr D Singh, thank you for your comment at 21:55, replying to my earlier query. The point I was trying to make, however, is not quite the same. I wished to suggest to His Grace that it might be interesting to ascertain whether or not there have been similar cases to this one, involving registrars who are Muslims and who raise the same objection to homosexual "civil partnerships". If there have been such cases, and if the Muslim registrars have been treated with greater leniency than was shown to Miss Ladele, then this would clearly be a very strong point in His Grace's favour. But conversely, if there haven't, it wouldn't.

By "greater leniency" I mean, for example, accommodating their wishes and arranging for other registrars to take over their duties for them on these occasions, an alternative which has not been offered in Miss Ladele's case.

P.S. I see some commenters are objecting to some of the things you write, Mr Singh. May I just say I have never spotted anything in your posts that I would consider objectionable in any way.

15 December 2009 at 22:30  
Blogger Tarquin said...

She was holding a public office and refused to carry out her duties as prescribed by law

She might as well be saying

'I'm not marrying you because you're black'

or 'I'm anti-semitic, I refuse to serve jews'

extreme cases, and I'm not saying she is either of these things - but she bases her view on personal religious belief, which could be *anything* - if your job requires you to do something you feel you cannot do (eg an alcoholic running a bar) then don't do it, we all have our beliefs/opinions, religious or not

15 December 2009 at 23:21  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Grogipher

Yes I concede you do have a point and yes it is the act of sodomy that I find offensive. I suppose its the way that some of the Gay community and their supporters promote themselves in a way thats in my face so to speak. I don't hate somebody just because they are gay but I just don't think it is natural.

15 December 2009 at 23:26  
Anonymous len said...

Any Christian who takes a stand for Biblical values will be attacked.This is fact of life.

However we press on regardless of opposition, having grasped the truth as revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ we share this truth to whoever has ears to hear.

15 December 2009 at 23:30  
Anonymous len said...

Tarquin,
Being Black or jewish is not a lifestyle choice.
And evidence for the 'gay' gene is very weak.

I wonder if there are any muslim registrars( that will be interesting)

15 December 2009 at 23:36  
Blogger Tarquin said...

len

they are respected by the law regardless of whether it is a lifestyle choice or not - I mention both these examples because both of these groups didn't used to be respected by the law either

do you know what is a lifestyle choice? - Christianity, should I refuse to serve someone in my job, particularly if it's a public service, because I dislike christians/muslims/vegetarians etc - no, I get on with it or I don't do the job

15 December 2009 at 23:52  
Anonymous Bob said...

It is interesting that Cranmer brings up cases that have not been finalised - as others have mentioned they are only complaints, which we can all make willy-nilly

The alcohol in Tesco one is a case in point, it looks very unlikely he will win - a company can be sensitive about this issue, but is not obliged to honour an employee's unrealistic demands when it comes to job descriptions (likewise the M and S case, while the Met case revolves around a job offer allowing him to not cook meat)

Clearly with this registrar it was open and shut - she refused to do the job as she is expected too - this is not a case of Christian rights vs gay rights as no one has the right to enforce their bigotry through their job, the gay people have a legal right to be married* by a registrar, if she cannot perform the job then she can't be a registrar

Put the shoe on the other foot - could a gay person refuse to marry a straight Christian couple? Of course not, and it wouldn't be about gay rights then any more than this case is about Christian rights - it's a nonsense

16 December 2009 at 00:46  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Len - if there were a Mozzy registrar, I would refuse his or her services.

16 December 2009 at 00:49  
Anonymous sydneysider said...

I don't know what has happened to you Mr.Singh
For a while now you seem to have gone right off the rails.
A few verses from a good poem or a psalm seem to be order.Even a nice surreal deep sea fishing story would do!

16 December 2009 at 06:19  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Sydneysider,

It is all right for you. I suppose you spend your time surfing, fishing and swinging in a hammock under the sun.

Well here in Britain and Northern Ireland it has rained for fifty days; we are constantly under attack from the silly socialists; Mr Glovner has admitted that he has no objective basis for condemning the holocaust; His Grace needs some money (please wire it); and I am still fighting the Left-liberal (I love it!):

To everything there is a season,
a time for every purpose under the sun.
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
a time to kill and a time to heal ...
a time to weep and a time to laugh;
a time to mourn and a time to dance ...
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to lose and a time to seek;
a time to rend and a time to sew;
a time to keep silent and a time to speak;
a time to love and a time to hate;
a time for war and a time for peace.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

16 December 2009 at 08:54  
Blogger Philip Cole said...

Not a machine

You are right on the mark, sir! The government introduced the law on civil partnerships after Lillian Ladele became a registrar. The state changed her conditions of employment, which of course it is entitled to do with due process.

It was quite forseeable, however, that this situation of consciencious objection would arise. Similar situations have arise, and continue to arise, over abortion. In this case, doctors and nurses are allowed to conscientiously object to performing an abortion as long as they refer the women to a doctor who will. This would have been the obvious, and sensible, compromise to implement in the case of civil partnerships.

But that was not acceptable to the government. They want to force Christians to perform actions against their conscience. And, yes, I do mean Christians: it is blatantly obvious that these types of cases never involve any of the many other religions that believe homosexual practice is a sin.

The wider objective increasingly becoming clear. It is to entrench a secular humanist view of law, order and society and to punish any that find this unacceptable. Conscience simply has no place in the government scheme of things.

I think talk of Christians being persecuted in the UK is laughable when compared with the many countries where Christians are regularly put to death for expressing their beliefs. These are, of course, almost all Islamic or Communist countries. However, whenever a state has, with determination, set itself to deny consciencious objection to its Christians, tyranny has surely followed in due course.

These are not good times or good signs!

16 December 2009 at 09:39  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

Grogipher

"I don't hate somebody just because they are gay but I just don't think it is natural."

Read and learn you idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

16 December 2009 at 10:14  
Blogger Grogipher said...

Dr Guthrie,

I can only presume that your attack was meant at Maturecheese, rather than myself? I am very, very well aware of how natural homosexuality is. I would struggle to love my boyfriend if I thought he was 'unnatural'!

16 December 2009 at 10:19  
Anonymous Dr Robin Guthrie said...

Apologies Grogipher.

I must have cut and pasted the wrong comment.......

16 December 2009 at 10:26  
Blogger Grogipher said...

Not a problem. :)

16 December 2009 at 10:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A bad start to the morning.

Car wouldnt start. Battery issues.

Now him indoors bleating about buying another budgie to keep the current budgie company.... Aarrghh..

16 December 2009 at 10:48  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Anon said people choose religion. Do you choose whether to believe something that is true? Of course not, unless you are mad. If you are convinced of the truth of something (whether or not you may be mistaken) choice does not come into the matter of belief.

16 December 2009 at 11:36  
Blogger D. Singh said...

I saw several pockets of small fires across Europe – The fires of wicked men and organisations – And the Lord said “Holland” – Holland was very strong – then France – and then Spain and Italy – then the Lord said – “And to the North” – it was very clear and the Holy Spirit’s voice was insistent and very strong – “The NORTH – the North – the North” – and I had no clear understanding at all what the Lord meant and then I sensed a circle and heard the Holy Spirit say – “North London - Northern England – Northern Europe” and then I heard “North Africa” – this was the circle and the circle seemed to me to be linked in some way.

These fires, God said were kindling fires – they were very small – hardly noticeable on the map – but they burned furiously – and had fiercely burning blue flames – and then I saw that some kind of NET was being loosed from the heavenlies down to earth – and I heard the Lord say – “THIS IS THE SNARE OF HEAVEN” – and I saw a great angelic host – the warring host of Heaven being dispatched across Great Britain and Europe and other Northern-most and Middle-Eastern parts of the earth with swords that glistened like flaming fires – And the Lord said – “As in the ancient of times – so as My people humble themselves and pray – a great and mighty roar of battle shall be unleashed from the heavenlies – and My mighty warring angels shall go forth – for I shall send them from the North and from the South.” God was saying these were the fires of wicked men and organisations across Great Britain and Europe and beyond.

Then I saw prayer start to rise – first from small pockets of intercessors across the British Isles – these were not just prayer movements and organisations – but they were the heartfelt prayers of the saints from towns and villages all across Great Britain – these were the praying mothers and grandmothers and grandfathers – these were the prayers of the intercessors across great Britain – and yes – they were mostly women in their homes and in tiny prayer and home groups – fallen on their knees and on their faces – and I could see that they had the full attention of the Lord – and then I saw the men – and the men were the ministers of God – and the pastors and the ministers from all across Britain rose and joined their prayers in the Spirit with the prayers of the handmaidens – and the prophets started to prophesy – and join with the apostles and the intercessors – and then they were joined by the praying saints from across pockets in Europe and then from the North, East, South and West – and I saw a great hand arise from the North and the South and the East and the West – And the Lord said “Because of the heartfelt prayers of My saints – I shall send my Angelic Host and the sound of their battle cry shall resound through the four corners of the earth as they prepare to meet the Princes of Darkness – For I tell you My children – A great and terrible darkness has been unleashed upon the earth in these days – BUT I am raising up an army – I am raising up a mighty army of My people who will gird themselves up for battle – and as the sound of their voices rises up to me – and as the sound of their prayers – of their supplications comes before my throne – so in turn – My mighty warring angels be unleashed to do battle in the heavenlies.

From the Journal of the Unknown Prophet

16 December 2009 at 11:47  
Blogger D. Singh said...

“And through the prayers of my saints in Great Britain – through the prayers of My saints in Great Britain – through the prayers of the saints and My followers in Great Britain – the stupour and the slumber and the secular humanistic spirits that have bound My people in this nation shall start to uproot – for my Church has had an outward semblance of power – yet its sound has been a whisper – even as My children have raised their voice in the streets of Great Britain – so the spirits of secularism and humanism have bound the mouths of My saints – but I tell you my children – there dawns another day – says the Lord – there dawns a different hour – and I call you Oh Church – I call you My saints – This is the day and this is the hour to arise" – says the Lord – “This is the hour to stir yourselves even as the mighty men of old – lift your voices and your hearts up to my throne – for this is the day and the hour of supplication.”

Then as the saints rose and started to pray – not with lip service but fervent heartfelt prayer from the heart – I saw another fire – with fierce white and orange living flames – start to burn – the prayers of the Church in Britain – and although it too started in pockets – this was the most incredible fire in the way that it spread across the nation – It was so fierce that as it took on power – it seemed that nothing could stop its path – but the people who created the fire were fallen on their knees – and God said “Penitent hearts” – and I knew somehow that these praying saints were repenting on behalf of Britain for the sins of the nation and for the sins of omission of the church in Great Britain.

And these prayers gave the angels much strength – and the Snare of the Lord fell like a net across the dark hidden places of the earth – and I saw the terrifying whirlwind of the Lord like a fierce black whirlwind literally chase some of the evil blue pockets down – the winnowing whirlwind of the Lord of Hosts.

Then the Lord showed me a large lion – and He said – “This lion represents the nation of Great Britain” – And it was a shocking sight – for where the lion should have been filled out and sleek and gleaming – it was almost a skeleton – and its mane was barely visible – and its coat was covered in mange – and its roar which should have shaken the nations in its power and in its ferocity was strangled and barely audible. And the Lord said “This represents both the glory of this nation at present and the state of My church as a whole in Great Britain. And I saw in great letters – the words – “THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED FROM THE LION – BUT THE GLORY OF THE LORD OF HOSTS SHALL RETURN AND THE LION SHALL ROAR AGAIN.”

16 December 2009 at 11:47  
Blogger D. Singh said...

And the Lord said – “Bring back My glory – Bring back My glory that your nation may once more walk in the glory of its destiny – and the Church may show forth My glory” – And the Lord showed me huge a green flourishing green tree that was planted in the European mainland – its huge trunk seemed to be planted in Brussels and the foliage had grown so dense that the trees branches and foliage had grown over the English channel and covered Britain in a great dark shadow and thousands of smaller offshoots and branches had taken deep root in Great Britain – and I saw the roots tangled and grown into London and then through the British Isles up all the way to Scotland.

The Lord said – “These are the deep roots of secularism and humanism that have taken deep root in this nation – these are the roots that are eroding this nation’s faith! – And I saw thousands upon thousands of people bowing in obedience to this tree and the roots were tightly twisted around their ankles – but they seemed totally unaware of this – that they were bound – and so they rejected the faith of their fathers – and I saw a great scoffing and a great decline in the traditions and the foundations of the past – and this mass of people was divided into two camps – the first huge mass of people whose ankles were bound by the gnarling roots of the green tree from Europe were younger and seemed more modern in their approach – and I saw written over their head – ‘UNBELIEF’ – ‘CYNICISM’ – ‘HUMANISM’ – and the foliage and green leaves seemed to shadow their heads – and I sensed that they were being attacked at a cerebral level.

16 December 2009 at 11:48  
Blogger D. Singh said...

But the second group seemed to be those whose roots and foundations were from the established traditional denominations of Britain – yet they were just as affected as this first group – but I saw written over their head – ‘PRIDE’ – ‘SKEPTICISM’ – ‘CLOSED MINDEDNESS’ and I sensed that the roots around their ankles had bound them in a different manner – that even if they heard the call of the Spirit in these days that the spiritual forces had them so bound that they could not move with the tide and the times of God – and I saw the green foliage literally cover and shadow their foreheads and eyes and I saw the word blinding.

And I said to the Lord, “Father – what does this mean?” And He said – “The spirits that led Europe into post Christian decline – have invaded Great Britain over these past decades – and have infiltrated and overshadowed the nation with the same humanism and paganism and secularism – and yet Britain is still so blinded by her roots and her foundations that she is still declaring herself a Christian nation” – but the Lord says – “That she has been shackled by the enemy.” And I said “Lord what can break the shackles?”

And the Lord spoke and said “The prayers and fervent supplications of my saints in Great Britain – the repentance for the sins of commission and omission on behalf of the governments of Great Britain – on behalf of the people of Great Britain.” Then I asked the Lord about the Church – and He showed me thousands of people all belonging to different denominations with divisions and literally multitudes of OPINION – and somehow it seemed that the people’s opinion was all more important in their eyes than Gods opinion and I heard Him say: “Until their opinions become My opinion the Church will continue to be divided among itself and be weak and underfed and lack the true POWER of GOD – Oh yes,” says the lord – “There are many meetings – there are many committees – there are many opinions – opinions – but it is not the opinion and the thoughts of men’s hearts that will change the destiny of Great Britain – but the opinion and the thoughts and intents of the word of the Living God – Humble yourselves – Humble yourselves and put aside your opinions and press into me the Living God for a living Word” – And the Lord said – “A humble and penitent heart I will not despise” – and I saw the words written – ‘DIVISIONS AND FACTIONS’.

Then as people dropped to their knees all over Britain from every walk of life and denomination – the lion started to change – and He grew strong and sleek and his roar grew stronger. And I saw written in the spirit – “Create in me a clean heart O God – and renew a right spirit within me”. And as the people started to seek the face of the Lord I saw the word ‘COURAGE’ – and I knew that in the spirit realm that Great Britain had been endowed from the beginning of time with the mantle ‘COURAGE’ – and the Lord said ‘LIONHEART’

And God said Britain has yet to move into her end time destiny in the nations - And I saw again in great letters – the words – “THE GLORY HAS DEPARTED FROM THE LION – BUT THE GLORY OF THE LORD OF HOSTS SHALL RETURN”. And the lion’s roar by now had gained strength.

16 December 2009 at 12:01  
Blogger D. Singh said...

“Oh Great Britain, Great Britain – Isle of walls and of fortresses – I tell you that even as the glory of the Lord has departed from the Lion – so the glory of the Lion of Judah shall return – and My glory shall rest upon the Lion and the Lion once again shall open its mouth and its roar shall be heard again among the nations of this earth.

“For even as in times past, the Lion whelped many, many cubs and sent its missionaries even to the uttermost parts of the earth, so I tell you that the glory of these latter days shall be greater than that of the former – and even though in centuries past – so I sent missionaries out from this nation even to Africa, to India, to China and beyond – so I tell you, beloved, that in the decades to come, a great mobilising of My called out ones shall occur - of men and women and boys and girls from these shores – those who even slumber at this time shall start to arise,” says the Lord.

I AM ABOUT TO BLOW THE TRUMPET

“For even as many of My children – even as much of My Church in Great Britain slumbers even this day – so I declare that I am about to blow the trumpet,” says the Lord, “Yes – I the Lord God of Hosts am about to blow the trumpet in Zion – and it shall resound with a mighty roar from the heavens – and My glory shall start to fall – and My Church and My called out ones shall rouse themselves from their stupor and from their slumber,” says the Lord.

“For even now – I have heard the prayers of My people – Even now – although it be but a remnant – I have heard the prayers of the watchmen on the walls of Great Britain – the watchmen who neither slumber nor sleep – and even as they have cried out to me in the midnight hour for Britain to heed My voice and to seek My face – so I tell you My children – that the day of the Lord is appearing –
And they shall rise from the East and from the West of this Isle – they shall rise from the Southernmost tip to the North – and Scotland – yes Scotland,” says the Lord.

“Yes – My burning fire shall be ignited in the furthermost parts of the North – and My glory shall light a flame,” says the Lord, “that shall sweep across divides and denominations – and the Pentecostals and the Evangelicals and the Anglicans, the Methodists, the Catholics and all who revere My Name and the sacrifice of My Son shall unite with one heart and as one body – and that flame shall be seen across this land – and the cities and the villages of this nation shall start to burn with the fervency and the hunger of the Living God. For even as My Church has been bound by the shackles of compromise and passivity – I tell you that in this coming day and in this coming hour – My firebrands shall start to rise.”

LIKE WILBERFORCE MY APOSTOLIC VOICES SHALL RISE IN THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT

16 December 2009 at 12:01  
Blogger D. Singh said...

“And like Wilberforce – My apostolic voices shall rise in the Houses of Parliament – they shall arise in London – they shall arise in Edinburgh – they shall arise in the North of England – and even as the unions had a voice in past years that was strident and rose above the crowds and became the voice of the masses – so in like manner shall My Church’s voice start to be heard in a manner far above and beyond this present days.

“And so I shall raise My apostles – and they shall stand at the city gates and the gates of trading – and they shall stand in the government – and they shall stand in the media – and in the banking institutions and in businesses – and they shall stand in the clergy of this nation. And I shall raise up My prophets – and they shall rise – and their faces will be as flint – and even as John Knox voice rang out above Scotland – I tell you that My prophet’s voices shall start to rise in this nation – and I call My intercessors – I call My intercessors – Pray, Pray – do not desist from your prayers – for even that which you have perceived in your spirits and that which you have yearned for – it is almost upon you.

A MIGHTY FLOOD OF EVANGELISTS

“For surely the day of the missionaries dawns once more upon these shores –
For surely the day of the Gospel going forth to the uttermost parts of the earth dawns once more upon these shores. And as My fire starts to fall across Great Britain – I tell you that the men, the women, boys and girls – shall feel the call to leave theses isles and to travel to the continents of the earth to preach My Gospel – And a mighty flood of evangelists – a mighty throng of missionaries shall leave this nation – and I shall thrust them into the four corners of the earth – and they shall go to Japan – and they shall go to Beijing – and they shall go to Africa – East and West – and they shall go to Europe – and to the Middle East – and I shall spread them as a net over the continent of Asia.

“And I shall open doors to My Gospel that have previously been shut – Even the doors of iron and of brass shall be opened unto the missionaries from the British Isles – Vietnam – North Korea and beyond. And there shall be a great flood and a torrent of My Gospel that shall once more go forth from this land – And I shall send Bibles from this land – and I shall send resources – resources – resources from Great Britain – that will feed – that will clothe – that will build – that will teach – that will establish My Gospel in the four corners of the earth. For this is the destiny of this land in latter days,” says the Lord – “To resource – to nurture – to establish – to preach My Gospel. And even as in past days – this Empire was established – so I tell you that in this coming day and this coming hour it shall be the Empire of the Great King of Heaven that shall be established.

THE RISE OF ONE IN GREAT BRITAIN WITH A ROD
OF IRON AND MY GOVERNMENT UPON HIS SHOULDERS

“And there has yet to rise from these shores one who has a rod of iron – in the decades to come – you shall yet see one rise who has My government upon his shoulders – and he shall rise in the government – and he shall rise in this nation and he shall rule with a rod of iron,” says the Lord. “And he will come at such a time when Great Britain is faltering – and I shall do this because of the prayers of My people – For there shall be a great swarm that shall rise against these isles in the decades to come – A great swarm as an army will arise across the waters around this nation – but this man with the rod of iron shall stand firm – And the nation shall take courage – and the lionheart of Britain shall arise as one – and the great swarm shall turn back and even in an instant – be stopped in their tracks,” says the Lord.

16 December 2009 at 12:02  
Blogger D. Singh said...

THE GREAT JOINING OF THE LION AND THE EAGLE

“And there will be a great joining of the Lion and the Eagle – and even as the voices in the streets and the byways – the murmuring, the complaining of any alliance between the United States and Britain – so I tell you that these voices neither discern the times nor the purposes of the Living God – For even as the Eagle came to the Lion’s aid in times gone by – so I tell you that in this coming season – once again this alliance between the Lion and the Eagle shall be forged
and the forge shall not be broken,” says the Lord, – “because it is destined by Heaven.

“And a great wave of prayer shall rise up from the East Coast of America through the heartland to the West – and that wave of prayer and intercession shall wash across Britain as a fiercely burning flame – and shall cleanse and protect – but in the years ahead – so the prayers of the saints in Britain shall rise and like a wave they shall spread across America – and preserve and protect – and a great joining shall occur and this joining shall not be the joining of man,” says the Lord “but the joining of Almighty God

“And this nation shall return to its Christian roots – It shall RETURN to its Christian roots – and the glory of the Lion of Judah shall once more return and rest upon the Lion.

“IF my people repent of the sins of this nation and humble themselves and pray.”

16 December 2009 at 12:02  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

My last word on this subject, Homosexuality is NOT equal to Christianity and I think that is the point.

16 December 2009 at 12:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D. Singh said...

A load of complete under utter waffle....

16 December 2009 at 12:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maturecheese said...

"My last word on this subject, Homosexuality is NOT equal to Christianity and I think that is the point."

You are correct they are not equal.

Homosexuals have an inborn trait and cause no harm to others.

Christians persecute anyone that doesnt agree with their fairy stories.

16 December 2009 at 12:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Anon

Relax.

There is time.

Even the light from the stars takes time to reach the Earth.

But if the Christians say sorry for their wrong-doing and turn away from the evil that they do – then game on.

16 December 2009 at 12:38  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Anonymous at 12.24 and 12.26, could you not have at least complied with his Grace's polite request to use a name, rather than post as an Anonymous?

You have said you peace,so why not let matters rest?

16 December 2009 at 12:41  
Blogger Hugh Oxford said...

This decision is very wrong. The lady in question signed up to be a marriage registrar, to celebrate and affirm the institution of marriage, which is coherent with the Christian faith.

She did not sign up to sanction same sex unions. Although the wording of the law makes not mention of homosexuality (any two unrelated, unmarried people of the same sex can enter them), these are, de facto sodomitic unions, and as such are against all morality and the Christian faith, and contradict marriage.

It is wrong for an employer to change a job to incorporate the exact opposite of its original description.

Councils should keep the apparatus of marriage registration and "civil partnership" registration distinct and separate from one another. They are unrelated and incompatible roles.

16 December 2009 at 12:58  
Blogger Grogipher said...

Hugh, that is a nonsense.

Should then, there be separate registrars for registering births and deaths, since these too are very different roles?

And I really would love someone to explain the relevance of a 'sodomitic union' to two ladies wishing to make one another their legal next of kin.

16 December 2009 at 13:10  
Blogger Hugh Oxford said...

Should then, there be separate registrars for registering births and deaths, since these too are very different roles?

No, because they aren't morally, practically and ideologically in contradiction. Civil Partnerships and Marriage are.

16 December 2009 at 14:01  
Anonymous Chubby Chops said...

Hugh Oxford you said

"No, because they aren't morally, practically and ideologically in contradiction. Civil Partnerships and Marriage are."

How about someone who for example commits suicide, or in the countries which have the death penalty registering the death for those cases?

16 December 2009 at 14:32  
Anonymous len said...

Great post Mr Singh!
The Christian voice will not be silenced.
In fact I believe opposition only strengthens it.

16 December 2009 at 17:36  
Anonymous len said...

Apparently some animals ( not sure which) are homosexual, so its OK for humans? Yeah,
What else do animals do? I was watching my cat the other day.......

16 December 2009 at 17:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr len,

It is from the Journal of the Unknown Prophet (the American Wendy Alec). There is something 'strange' yet familar about what she cliams the Lord has revealed to her.

Her work is on the Internet.

One issue that has grated on my mind is this: unless we repent. It appears, that if the Lord has spoken to her, then none of it is going to come true: unless we repent.

There was something else today; whoever Archbishop Cranmer is i believe he is going to Parliament. And I have a feeling, in time, many men will pledge their alliegance to him.

And as for you and Mr Preacher, well, if we repent both of you shall see an UNPRECEDENTED Christian revival.

The Lord be with you.

16 December 2009 at 17:51  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Mr. Singh - Thank you!!

That wae' reight upliftin'!

Especially in light of today's later post...

17 December 2009 at 00:11  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"Mr Glovner has admitted that he has no objective basis for condemning the holocaust"

Mr Singh, I think you really are a sad and pathetic little twit.

But hey on the bright side, now you can take my last paragraph, leave out what you don't like move the words about and say that "Mr Glovner said he is a twit and a little pathetic".

17 December 2009 at 13:27  
Anonymous The PullOver said...

To the Glovner, you were moaning on today's article that we had descended into school yard banter. So calling a fellow commentator, especially one as prestigious as D.Singh "a sad and pathetic little twit" isn't name calling? I suppose I can't complain- as atheists have no grounds with which to base their morals and decency.

17 December 2009 at 15:16  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

If I can draw your attention to the final paragraph you may see that the preceding paragraph was being set up to prove a point.

But I can't complain, since religious people tend to only see what they want to and if something doesn't agree with what they think they just block it out.

17 December 2009 at 15:55  
Anonymous len said...

Yawn

17 December 2009 at 19:05  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Thanks len, like always a valuable contribution that adds to the debate.

I envy the way your subtle mind works its way through the presented points, strips out the important detail and is then able to formulate a reply that is both insightful and succinct.

You are without doubt a benefit to the human race.

18 December 2009 at 09:34  
Anonymous len said...

That`s the kindest thing you ever said to me Mr G
You must be mellowing.
See, prayer does work!!!!

God Bless you Mr G.

19 December 2009 at 00:02  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

MMMmmmm, quite.

Never know, maybe one day it will be returned.

Merry Christmas then.

19 December 2009 at 10:12  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older