Updated Sunday morning
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued a statement apologising for a mistaken in their intervention in this case:
Earlier this week the case of Johns v Derby City Council, in which the Commission had intervened, attracted some attention. Unfortunately a mistake within our legal submission led to an inference that we did not intend and which was misconstrued as suggesting that the Commission equates Christian moral views with an infection. This oversight was caused by a drafting error in our submissions to the court. This should have been picked up in our internal clearance process for the legal documentation and does not represent the position of the Commission in any way.
Furthermore, the Commission entirely rejects any view (as reported in the media) that rights in relation to sexual orientation ‘take precedence’ over religious rights. The Commission fully upholds the rights of looked-after children to be supported in their chosen religion or that of their family, in the context of the paramount importance of the welfare of the child…
Christian Concern has issued Johns Fostering Case: Effects of the Ruling and Further Analysis.
There has been huge media interest regarding the Johns ruling by the High Court. There has also been some confusion over the nature and implications of the ruling.
We have produced the thoughts below to add further clarity to our original article here and press release here…
Update
According to this American report, there will be no appeal of this case. See Christian couple warned not to appeal decision barring them from foster care. Some extracts are below the fold.
1 CommentThe Church Times today has a news report by Ed Beavan Pentecostal couple find no comfort in the High Court.
A COUPLE’s views on homosexuality are relevant to whether or not they can foster children, the High Court ruled on Monday. The court also ruled that to ban them on these grounds would not be discriminatory, even when their views are informed by religion…
And there is a Leader: The Johns judgment: a useful corrective
8 Comments…Some Christians — we do not know how many — would agree with Mr Johns’s view that, were a foster child to express the view that he or she was possibly gay, an attempt should be made “gently [to] turn them round”. Others would disagree. Neither side could claim that theirs was the exclusive “Christian” view, and thus, even within the Church, an appeal needs to be made to authorities other than the Bible. For Anglicans, these are tradition and reason. Another quote from Lord Justice Laws: “The general law may, of course, protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves.”
This important point is repeatedly overlooked by those who cite scripture (or their interpretation of it) and then feel hard done by when they are ignored. It is not a new requirement that the Church, or a section of it, marshall evidence to demonstrate that what it proposes or defends is for the general good. This is the day-to-day task of bishops in the House of Lords. What is new, perhaps, is the laziness of Christians when it comes to reasoning their case, with the result that rationality is now thought, erroneously, to be the preserve of secularists. In such an atmosphere, the lack of investment by the Church in research and education has severely weakened its intellectual centre, leaving the field to be occupied by lobby groups of various persuasions. When these go to law, it is no surprise when their emotive, partial arguments are given short shrift. This is emphatically not the defeat of Christian principles or teaching. A few more press releases and a little more lazy journalism might, however, convince people that it is so.
The Evangelical Alliance has issued a press statement: Response to Derby City Council Fostering Case.
It is not true that Christians are being prevented from fostering and adopting children in spite of increasing evidence that they are being marginalised in public life, says the Evangelical Alliance…
…While the outcome is unhelpful for Christians and other religious believers with orthodox beliefs, it is unlikely that the case will carry any major landmark implications.
It is highly questionable whether British courts of law should be used as forums for debating the pros and cons of conflicting human rights created by equalities legislation. Instead, they should only be used to resolve disputed points of law based on evidence.
The Evangelical Alliance expresses doubt about the wisdom in bringing such cases to the High Court in the first place. While there is no doubt that equality laws appear increasingly controversial in the way they seem to disproportionately impact against Christians, there is a clear need for a more cautious and strategic approach when deciding to take matters to court…
Andrew Brown comments on this at Evangelicals reverse the ferret.
The Evangelical Alliance has disowned the tactics of the Christian Legal Centre, the fringe group which brought a case against Derby Council on behalf of a Pentecostal couple who feared that their views on gay people would prevent them from fostering children.
The Evangelical Alliance’s statement stands in sharp contrast to the hysterical coverage in some right-wing papers. Many reported without question the claims of the CLC that the ruling meant that orthodox christian views were now enough to bar anyone from fostering children…
The position taken by the EA is very clear. Less clear but also interesting was the distancing from the CLC that the Christian Institute took in its full statement earlier:
7 CommentsThe Johns’ case was supported by The Christian Legal Centre, an entirely separate organisation to The Christian Institute.
Updated again Wednesday afternoon
Stephen Bates reports for the Guardian Anti-gay Christian couple lose foster care case
John Aston and Jan Colley, PA via Independent Anti-gay Christian couple lose battle to become foster parents
The Telegraph has huge coverage, including this Leader Foster parents defeated by the new Inquisition
Tim Ross
Foster parent ban: ‘no place’ in the law for Christianity, High Court rules and
Foster parent ban: ‘extreme distress’ of ‘anti-gay’ Christians’ over ruling
and the following additional articles:
Foster parent ban: ‘this is a secular state’, say High Court judges
Foster parent ban: ‘we have not received justice’
Fostering row commentary: would-be parents must be non-judgmental
Foster parent ban: Lord Justice Munby ‘avid supporter of open justice’
Foster parent ban: Mr Justice Beatson ‘UK’s best academic lawyer’
Updates
Peter Ould has written Breaking – Christians with Traditional Moral Views can still be Foster Parents
Cranmer has written “…the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity, in whatever form”
Ekklesia has written Court rejects foster couple ‘Christian discrimination’ claim and Misleading claims about discrimination against Christians
The Christian Institute has published Christian Institute responds to foster carer court case and there is a fuller statement available as a PDF over here in which the Christian Institute is at pains to note that it is a completely separate organisation from the Christian Legal Centre.
Ruth Gledhill has posted a video on UTube which contains comments from Eunice and Owen Johns and also from Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Christian Legal Centre. See it here.
Symon Hill has written at Left Foot forward Lazy journalism surrounds the latest foster parents furore
Melanie Phillips has written for the Spectator The judges’ atheist inquisition
The UK Human Rights Blog has an analysis by Rosalind English Analysis: the place of religion in foster care decisions
23 CommentsAn open letter to the Prime Minister regarding Homosexual Marriage and the registration of Civil Partnerships in places of religious worship has been sent by three organisations, The Council of the Protestant Truth Society with the support of the Council of Church Society and the Management Committee of Christian Watch.
The Living Church has an article by John Martin Erastianism Debate Rears its Head.
The British Humanist Association published Church of England’s opposition to gay marriage highlights need for disestablishment.
At Episcopal Café Jim Naughton is still trying to unravel What exactly is Rowan Williams saying about the new civil partnership bill?
Cranmer has The Government are NOT about to force ‘gay marriage’ on the Church of England.
Andrew Carey wrote for the Church of England Newspaper Redefining what marriage means.
8 CommentsUpdated twice Monday evening
The BBC reports Court backs decision to bar Christian foster couple.
The full text of the judgment can be found here. The language used by the judges is really quite extraordinarily strong.
It has seriously upset Christian Concern whose article is over here. Another version of this appears as a Christian Legal Centre press release.
Andrew Brown has published an analysis, at The law of England is not Christian.
The Christian Institute and similar bodies have mounted a series of court cases over the alleged persecution of Christians in the last five years. Almost all have been based around the claim that Christians are entitled to discriminate against gay people. Each one has ended in defeat. From the cross worn by Nadia Eweida to the attempts to allow religious exemption to the registrants of civil marriage, or the owners of B&Bs, the cases have been pitched as matters of high principle, and the judges have responded with increasing asperity. None, I think, has been so brutal as Lord Justice Munby in his judgment on the case of Owen and Eunice Johns, a couple of Sheffield pentecostalists who were turned down as foster carers because they would not accept homosexuality…
…[T]hey wrote to the council “We take these statements and others to mean that it is either your policy, or your understanding of the law, that Christians and other faith groups who hold the view that any sexual union outside a marriage between a man and a woman is morally reprehensible are persons who are unfit to foster. In short you seem to be suggesting that Christians (such as us) can only adopt if we compromise our beliefs regarding sexual ethics”.
This is the view that Lord Justice Munby has described as a “travesty of reality”.
He quotes some substantial excerpts from the judgment, and then concludes:
Obviously, these judgments will have a considerable effect on evangelical protestantism in this country, which has always taken the view that we are, or should be, a Christian nation. But I think the greatest effect will not be on pentecostalists like the Johnses. They can adjust quite easily to the idea that they live under a heathen or godless regime. It is the old-fashioned evangelical wing of the Church of England which will be most upset and confused by these clear statements of principle.
Others have issued statements:
Stonewall Stonewall welcomes ‘landmark’ fostering decision
British Humanist Association High court upholds decision to bar anti-gay Christian couple from fostering: BHA comments
Gavin Drake has also written an analysis, see Misplaced outrage over High Court “ban” on Christian foster parents which makes some good points. One thing he says is this:
The Christian Legal Centre have issued a press release about the case which they open: “In a landmark judgment, which will have a serious impact on the future of fostering and adoption in the UK, the High Court has suggested that Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics are unsuitable as foster carers, and that homosexual ‘rights’ trump freedom of conscience in the UK.”
This is nothing less than a lie and I am appalled that a Christian group should seek to misrepresent the truth in such a way. I’d go so far as to suggest that the Christian Legal Centre’s press release may amount to a contempt of court.
Lawyer Neil Addison has commented at Religion Law blog see Johns v Derby Council – Christian Foster Carers Case and he concludes:
All in all this does appear to be a case that should not have been brought and which, from the point of view of orthodox Christians has done more harm than good.
Perhaps in fulfillment of Andrew Brown’s last sentence (see above) Chris Sugden has weighed in at Anglican Mainstream with High Court ruling on Foster-Care parents.
39 CommentsThe Guardian has published a strongly worded editorial, which criticises both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, for the public statements made by some of their leaders.
Read it (and follow the excellent links) at Civil partnerships: bluster in bad faith.
The heart sinks at the prospect of another battle between faith and the state, in which the churches wring their hands and find themselves sustaining discrimination against gay and lesbian couples. But such a dispute has begun with the government’s confirmation that it plans to lift the total ban on holding civil partnership ceremonies in religious buildings. First, the Church of England warned of “unexplored impacts”, “confusion” and “difficult and unintended consequences for churches”. In sum, because the church can’t make up its mind, everyone else ought to hold back. Now the Catholic church has joined the fray, railing against the proposal in even more strident terms…
It concludes with:
8 Comments…This is a proposal which the Church of England – whose own bishops split on the issue in the Lords last year – should find unexceptional. Equality, one bishop claimed in that debate, is not the same as making the laws for everyone the same. But nor should the principles of some faiths be imposed on others. The blanket ban on religious institutions hosting partnership ceremonies is a lawful infringement of their liberty. It must be swept away. Doing that will not eradicate every ancient prejudice or protect everybody from them, it will merely give progressive believers the right to do things in new ways. As such, it will strengthen and not compromise freedom of conscience. Claims to the contrary are illogical bluster.
Updated
Jonathan Wynne-Jones reports in the Sunday Telegraph that Archbishop says the Church will resist Government moves on gay marriage.
…Dr Rowan Williams has refused to be drawn on the issue publicly, but has broken his silence to tell MPs he is not prepared for the Coalition to tell the Church how to behave.
He told a private meeting of influential politicians that the Church of England would not bow to public pressure to allow its buildings to be used to conduct same-sex civil partnerships…
And in more detail:
…Challenged by Simon Kirby, the Tory MP for Brighton Kempton, to explain what he would say to a same-sex couple wanting a church union, he said that the Church is welcoming to homosexuals and permits its clergy to enter civil partnerships.
However, he stressed that it would not countenance weakening its teaching on marriage and said that it would not be dictated to by the Government.
But Mr Kirby said that the Dr Williams’s comments threaten to alienate homosexual churchgoers and would give rise to accusations that the Church out of touch with society.
“I hoped he might be more measured in his response and reflect on the cases for both sides of the argument more evenly, but he was very one sided,” he said.
“Public opinion is moving faster than the Church on this issue and it is increasingly in danger of getting left behind.
“Obviously it is a difficult issue for the Church, but it has many gay men and women who want to be treated the same way as everyone else.”
Doug Chaplin has written a detailed analysis of this story on his blog, see A politician’s PR, or, stitching up the Archbishop. And I have commented there.
80 CommentsJudith Maltby writes in the Guardian today (in the Face to faith column) that Churches should celebrate bringing God into civil partnership ceremonies.
…Some leaders in my own church, the Church of England, as well as the Roman Catholic church have described this as an assault on religious liberty – and no doubt there is an aggressive secularist agenda to embarrass the churches, though aggressive secularists should note that we are pretty good at doing that ourselves without their help. Indeed, the religious liberty defence has a patronising and hollow ring to it when Quakers and Reform Jews are asking precisely for the liberty to register and bless civil partnerships in their own places of worship. They do not need Anglican or Roman Catholic bishops to “save them from themselves” – especially since both our churches have a shameful history of persecuting these very same faith groups.
So why does the liberty to introduce God into civil partnership ceremonies devalue marriage? It would appear that there just isn’t enough of God to go around. One cannot, apparently, honour and bless one pattern of living a faithful and committed life, without somehow devaluing another. It is the theological equivalent of printing too much money…
Some other opinions that we failed to report earlier:
LGCM LGCM welcomes another step towards full marriage equality
Peter Tatchell Religious civil partnerships welcome, no progress on gay marriage
Quakers Quakers welcome government move on civil partnerships
Cutting Edge Consortium Cutting Edge Consortium asks Government to press ahead with Marriage Review
1 CommentWill churches really be sued for not allowing civil partnerships? is the title of an excellent, detailed analysis by Matthew Flinn at the UK Human Rights Blog.
Matthew provides a detailed explanation of the wording of all the relevant sections of the applicable statutes and regulations, with links to the text. I may reproduce some of that detail in a later article here.
He then goes on to discuss whether or not there is any risk of a successful discrimination claim being brought against anyone for refusing to make religious premises available for such an event. His conclusion:
In the round, the concerns of religious institutions that the changes will, in themselves, require them to facilitate civil partnerships are probably unfounded. Although this is certainly not the only question posed by the changes; there are other dilemmas which may arise pursuant to the operation of ecclesiastical law. For example, the Church of England, which has made clear it will forbid its churches to be used to facilitate civil partnerships, may face difficulties in preventing rectors who have freehold title to parish property for using their premises for that purpose, and there may be issues in disciplining a clergyman who invites a civil registrar onto his premises to conduct a civil partnership ceremony.
And he ends by saying:
19 Comments…In the meantime, it is possible that some religious institutions are really more worried about the ever closer prospect of full marriage equality for homosexuals, than of the risk of being sued.
Updated Wednesday
Ruth Gledhill has interviewed Giles Fraser on YouTube, watch Canon Giles Fraser tells Ruth Gledhill why Church should celebrate gay marriage.
Austen Ivereigh has written a further article about this for America see Bishops to challenge UK laws allowing gay marriage in churches.
Colin Coward has written about Changing Attitude England’s campaign for civil partnerships to be held in Church of England churches.
Michelle Hutchinson has written at Practical Ethics about Civil Partnership, Religion and the BNP.
Updates
Riazat Butt reports in the Guardian the remarks of RC Archbishop Peter Smith, in Catholic archbishop accuses coalition over gay marriage in church move
The Catholic church is on a collision course with the government after declaring it will oppose in the “strongest terms” changes to the Equality Act that will allow gay couples to register civil partnerships in places of worship.
A statement from the archbishop of Southwark, the Most Rev Peter Smith, said it was neither “necessary nor desirable” to allow gays and lesbians to have civil partnership ceremonies in religious premises and accused the government of “considering a fundamental change to the status of marriage”.
You can read the full statement made by the archbishop over here.
Austen Ivereigh has continued (see link above) to defend the archbishop’s position on this, at Cif belief, see In marriage we trust.
32 Comments…But civil partnerships are not marriage. The last government made that clear when it said they could not be religiously solemnised. Implicit in that restriction was a final vestige of recognition that marriage is a natural institution, beyond the state or churches to redefine. Now a Conservative government (committed, now there’s the irony, to restoring the vigour of civil society) wishes to use the power of the state to refashion the primary cell of civil society. Allowing churches to solemnise gay marriages is one of the most statist acts ever attempted by a government, and an assault on religious freedom.
The fact that Quakers and Unitarians are happy to host this government’s totalitarian fantasy is neither here nor there; they have no more right to redefine marriage than has the state…
The Economist has published I thee bless.
BRITAIN took a small step this week towards eroding the legal distinction between gays and straights in the matter of matrimony. The civil partnerships that came into force in 2005 grant same-sex couples essentially the same legal rights (over property, pensions, inheritance and parenting) as opposite-sex marrieds; but the law stipulates that the ceremonies must be secular. Last year, after fierce opposition, Parliament voted to remove the prohibition on civil partners tying the knot in churches, synagogues and other religious settings. On February 17th the government said it would begin consultations on implementing that decision—with a view to changing the regulations this year…
Fulcrum has published a statement: On the Use of Religious Buildings for Registration of Civil Partnerships.
The Evangelical Alliance has this statement: Religious liberty must be guaranteed – Alliance responds to proposals to enact section 202 of Equality Act 2010 and also Government proposes allowing civil partnerships in religious settings.
The Tablet has this editorial: Marriage a La Mode.
Throughout the West, the issue of gay marriage has been used as the spearhead of a secularising agenda, propelled by those who want to rid modern civilisation of all traces of its Christian roots. Paradoxically, within the gay community itself the most vociferous supporters of gay marriage have been gay Christians, who want to be given an equal place in the life of Christian institutions rather than to overthrow them. Both these views are reflected in church reactions to government proposals in response to gay pressure, for instance for allowing a religious element in civil partnership ceremonies – at present forbidden by law – and even allowing a partnership or marriage ceremony in a church or synagogue. The Quakers, some liberal synagogues and the Unitarian Church would welcome that permission…
Austen Ivereigh has written in America The Church will have to fight this attempt to redefine marriage.
It’s hard so far to see the tempest behind the first clouds and hastening winds. But an announcement yesterday by the UK government that it intends to lift the ban on civil partnerships being celebrated in places of worship is set to unleash a storm which could well redefine the relationship between Church and state; and have profound long-term consequences — especially for Anglicanism…
The Plymouth Herald printed Will gay church marriages end up in the courtroom?
71 CommentsThe Church Times website has a report by Ed Beavan and me, Civil partnerships will not be forced on Church, says May.
This expands the earlier report by Ed which appears in the paper edition, to include an interview with Lynne Featherstone which I conducted on Thursday. The portion of the report containing the interview is copied below the fold.
8 CommentsUpdated
Among all the noise about this, there have been some thoughtful articles.
Independent
Leading article: A welcome blow against discrimination
Much attention around the expected change to the law will concentrate on whether the churches will now have to allow gay marriages to take place in their places of worship. Certainly, it will be interesting to see how the Church of England, which remains bitterly divided over the ordination of gay priests, responds.
If changes to the law force what is still the Established Church in England to clarify its muddled and often disingenuous thinking on the question of sexual equality, so much the better. But in an age when a growing number of marriages take place in civil settings and have no religious element to them at all, this is at the same time a peripheral matter.
Much more important than anything the churches have to say is that Britain is now a world front-runner in the field of equality for sexual minorities. If the Coalition Government succeeds in following through on Ms Featherstone’s expected proposals, it will be to its credit.
Tom Sutcliffe What’s undermining about gay marriage?
Guardian
Michael White Same-sex marriage cannot be the same as heterosexual marriage
Giles Fraser 500 years of church intolerance
…But just as the government ought not to impose gay marriage on churches that are still not ready for it, so too the church must not impose its own institutional homophobia on gay Christians who want to use the Bible in a civil marriage ceremony. Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat equalities minister, is currently preparing plans for marriage equality. She must not be distracted by a nervous church protecting its control of biblical hermeneutics. People ought to be free to use the Bible as they feel the spirit leads. The word of God exceeds the limited imagination of the church. It always has.
Update
Another good article, which first appeared in The Times has now appeared at the website of the Australian, see Gay marriage is good conservatism by Daniel Finkelstein
13 CommentsWhen civil partnerships were first suggested, the idea was advanced that providing legal status for gay couples might undermine heterosexual marriage. The means by which this would happen were obscure, but whether or not this was ever a sensible argument, it is apparent the fear is groundless.
The opposite point should recommend itself to Tories. Marriage strengthens commitment between couples and therefore brings stability into the lives of those who enter in it. The advantage of extending that to gay people is obvious. Nevertheless, there is an objection that the difference between marriage and gay civil partnership should be maintained, because marriage is intended for procreation. Another odd argument. Lots of people marry when they don’t intend to have children, cannot have children or are too old to do so. Should these people be forced to have civil partnerships?
Against this is the important fact – that to deny gay people the right to marry in the full sense is to deny people the dignity and respect they deserve. And who better than a Conservative can understand the desire of an individual for dignity, respect and social status?
Last weekend there was a flurry of speculative news reports about a forthcoming government announcement in this area. These reports prompted several religious organisations to issue statements, even though there was as yet no actual government announcement. For example, the Communications Office at Church House, Westminster, issued this on behalf of the Church of England:
“We have yet to see the proposals, so cannot comment in detail. Given the Church’s view on the nature of marriage, the House of Bishops has consistently been clear that the Church of England should not provide services of blessing for those who register civil partnerships. The proposal as reported could also lead to inconsistencies with civil marriage, have unexplored impacts, and lead to confusion, with a number of difficult and unintended consequences for churches and faiths. Any change could therefore only be brought after proper and careful consideration of all the issues involved, to ensure that the intended freedom for all denominations over these matters is genuinely secured.”
Today, the Government Equalities Office has issued a press release which is headed New push for LGB and T equality will allow civil partnerships in religious buildings.
The full text of this is reproduced below the fold. This has provoked a further series of news stories and of statements.
News reports:
Guardian Alan Travis Gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships may soon be welcomed and Gay marriage v civil partnership: what’s the difference?
Telegraph Tim Ross Gay couples will be allowed to marry under Coalition plan
BBC Gay church ‘marriages’ plan to be announced
The Church of England has not issued any further statement. But two conservative evangelical groups have done so.
Reform and several other organisations have made a joint statement: Homosexual marriage and the registration of civil partnerships in churches:
Anglican Mainstream sent out a “press release” which has been reproduced over here.
Earlier this had been published: Statement from Anglican Mainstream on proposals for civil partnerships to be contracted in churches.
38 CommentsUpdated Monday morning
Here are two articles from religious sources that express criticism of the judgment previously reported here.
The Tablet has an editorial headlined Not equal before the law.
…Compelling people to act against their conscience, or forcing them out of business unless they are prepared to do so, can never be regarded as an unqualified victory for human rights. When rights clash, the appropriate way to resolve the issue is before an objective tribunal, which will weigh up the pros and cons on either side. That means there ought to be occasions where the right to religious freedom prevails, and the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation has to give way. But the latest case confirms, and as County Court Judge Andrew Rutherford said in his judgment, the balancing of one right against another is not what the law requires. In effect, gay rights trump religious convictions every time. There is something wrong with such a law. Judges should have discretion to probe further. Did the gay couple in this case, for instance, have a convenient alternative? Were the religious convictions merely a mask for homophobic prejudice? Above all, the court should be obliged to give due weight to the undesirability of overriding deeply held religious convictions, which is at least as wrong as offending the feelings of gay people. Religious believers have human rights too.
The Guardian has published a column by Jonathan Chaplin director of the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics titled Law can be influenced by religion.
…But quite apart from the merits of the case, judges should be warned off any future reliance on the ill-considered opinions about law and religion ventured last year by Lord Justice Laws. Laws rightly asserted that no law can justify itself purely on the basis of the authority of any religion or belief system: “The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.”
A sound basis for this view is Locke’s terse principle, in his Letter on Toleration, that “neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry with it the certain knowledge of other things; and least of all the true religion”.
But Laws seemed to ground the principle instead on two problematic and potentially discriminatory claims…
This is a continuation of Chaplin’s earlier argument against what Lord Justice Laws said in the McFarlane case.
Update Monday morning
Here are two further articles, from a legal perspective, about the case:
In yesterday’s Observer Afua Hirsch the Legal Affairs Correspondent of the Guardian wrote Gay couple’s hotel battle is latest case of religion clashing with human rights
She mentions the trend of “Religitigation” and she concludes with this:
the Bulls’ case confirms that, in the meantime, Christians will have to accept that civil partnerships are intended to be its equivalent as far as the law is concerned. But the interesting issue in this case lurks in the judge’s commentary. “It is no longer the case that our laws must, or should, automatically reflect the Judaeo-Christian position,” said Rutherford, that is in regarding marriage as the only form of legally recognised binding relationship.
It is this issue that concerns religious groups – the ability of the law to move on from its religious roots to a more equitable formula of guaranteeing fundamental rights, including the right against discrimination. Of course where those rights come into conflict, a more nuanced exercise of balancing takes place – one that the judiciary has so far approached with the utmost seriousness. Rutherford confessed he found the Bulls’ case “very difficult”, and Lord Phillips – president of the supreme court and the UK’s most senior judge – said earlier this year that the Jewish school decision had been the hardest of his judicial life.
That has been of little consolation to religitigants, however. What they seem to want is a trump card that puts them above the subtle considerations of fairness. And that, the courts have repeatedly said, is not going to happen.
At the UK Human Rights Blog Catriona Murdoch wrote A Cornish hotel and the conflict between discrimination law and religious freedom.
The judgment itself is now available as a web page here.
And, as Catriona reminds us, the Northern Ireland version of these regulations was the subject of a high court challenge, see An Application for Judicial Review by the Christian Institute and others [2007] NIQB 66). We reported the outcome at the time: Northern Ireland: judicial review of SoRs. Among other things the judge said at that time:
33 Comments“The applicants contend that the regulations treat evangelical Christians less favourably than other persons to the extent that they are subject to civil liability for manifesting the orthodox religious belief in relation to homosexuality. I am satisfied that the Regulations do not treat evangelical Christians less favourably than others.”
Judgment was issued yesterday in the discrimination case brought under the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 against a Cornwall hotel in Bristol County Court. As the local paper reports: Bristol gay couple win legal case against Cornwall hotel.
The full text of the judgment can be found in a PDF here.
Press coverage is considerable. Here is a sample:
Guardian
Telegraph
The Christian Institute itself reported the judgment this way: Judge rules against Christians in B&B case, but allows appeal
The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued Court finds hotel owners discriminated against gay couple.
41 CommentsThe former archbishop, Lord Carey has written a letter to the current prime minister, David Cameron. This is reported in a news article by Tim Ross under the headline Only half of Britons say UK is a Christian country. The text of the letter itself doesn’t appear to have been published yet.
In the letter to the Prime Minister, Lord Carey said Christians were too often “ridiculed” and dismissed as relics of “a bygone age”.
“Notwithstanding its vast and varied contribution to our society, there appears to be a suspicion about the validity and value of the role that the Christian faith plays in our national life,” he said.
“This has been highlighted by the spate of recent instances in which ordinary Christians who have sought to manifest their Christian faith in the workplace and have allowed their Christian conscience to direct their public service have fallen foul of new employment practices and then discovered that rather than protect them, the law has sided against them.”
Lord Carey suggested that recent legislation was unclear on where the balance of rights fell between different groups. One particularly contentious subject has been the clash of rights between homosexuals and Christians.
“Whatever the explanation, this situation needs urgent review and action from government,” he said.
“It is a remarkable state of affairs that, in such a short space of time and in a country that has been so shaped by, and benefitted so significantly from, a Christian foundation, those who hold traditional Christian viewpoints, in common with millions across the globe and across history, can suddenly find their position labelled discriminatory and prejudiced and then discover that it has effectively become a legal bar to public service.”
Earlier, on a BBC radio news broadcast, the Bishop of Winchester, Michael Scott-Joynt also criticised the legal system. Again the Telegraph has the story, see Bishop of Winchester: legal system discriminates against Christians by Rosa Prince.
93 CommentsBishop Scott-Joynt told the BBC’s World This Weekend: “The problem is that there is a really quite widespread perception among Christians that there is growing up something of an imbalance in the legal position with regard to the freedom of Christians and people of other faiths to pursue the calling of their faith in public life, in public service.
“Probably for the first time in our history there is a widespread lack of religious literacy among those who one way and another hold power and influence, whether it’s Parliament or the media or even, dare I say it, in the judiciary.
”The risk would be that there are increasingly professions where it could be difficult for people who are devoted believers to work in certain of the public services, indeed in Parliament.
“Anybody who is part of the religious community believes that you don’t just hold views, you live them. Manifesting your faith is part of having it and not part of some optional bolt-on.
“Judgement seemed to be following contemporary society, which seems to think that secularist views are statements of the obvious and religious views are notions in the mind. That is the culture in which we are living.
“The judges ought to be religiously literate enough to know that there is an argument behind all this, which can’t simply be settled by the nature of society as it is today.”
The Telegraph is observing Christmas Eve by publishing a clutch of articles relating to possible changes in the law relating to marriage and civil partnerships.
Tim Ross writes that Coalition ministers consider gay marriage plans.
He also provides a Q&A: same-sex marriages and civil partnerships.
The Bishop of Truro, the Rt Rev Tim Thornton writes that Marriage should be between a man and a woman.
And the Rev Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of LGCM, writes that We were brought up to believe we would fall in love and get married.
18 CommentsThe Tablet this week has an article about those organizations that support people who make claims of discrimination on the grounds of their Christian faith.
Read Just cause? by Sam Adams.
12 CommentsA new campaign to encourage Christians to show their religion openly has been launched, echoing a concern felt by some that they feel discriminated against because of their faith. But the legal groups that advise them may be simply worsening divisions as they fight their corner…