Wednesday, January 16, 2013

EU High Court Rules Gay Agenda Trumps Christianity

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Christians must accommodate, celebrate, and even participate in the homosexual lifestyle. The court ruled that Gary MacFarlane, a Christian British marriage counselor, was rightfully fired for refusing to enhance a patient's deviant homosexual lifestyle, and Lilian Ladele, a Christian civil servant, was likewise rightfully fired for refusing to perform same-sex "wedding" ceremonies.

The court also "threw a bone" to Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee, ruling that she shouldn't have been fired for wearing a tiny cross around her neck.

For background, read Lilian Ladele's Religious Liberty Upheld in London Tribunal after being Forced to Choose Between Her Job and Jesus, but then both the Ladele and MacFarlane Cases Go Back and Forth in British Commission

-- From "British Christian wins bias claim, three others lose" by Emily Alpert, Los Angeles Times 1/15/13

Religious freedom is “one of the foundations of pluralistic, democratic societies,” the European court wrote, but religious freedom can nonetheless be restricted where it “impinges on the rights of others.”

Although [the court] sided with Eweida, the court said a British hospital was justified in barring a nurse [Shirley Chaplin] from wearing a crucifix because it could touch an open wound or a patient might pull on it. Protecting health and safety were more weighty reasons to ban the cross than buffing a corporate image, it concluded.

Judges also rejected the claims of a relationship counselor and a former registrar who balked at providing their services to same-sex couples. The counselor was fired for violating company policies that he had agreed to; the registrar was disciplined and warned that if she did not perform civil partnerships, she would be terminated.

The three people whose cases were rejected are now planning to appeal to the Grand Chamber, the BBC reported. The chamber is a higher panel of five judges that would deliver a final judgment.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Wearing Cross Is Sometimes Protected, European Court Rules" by Stephen Castle, New York Times 1/15/13

The rulings Tuesday came from the European Court of Human Rights, which polices the European Convention on Human Rights, adopted by the 47 member countries of the Council of Europe. But the legal issues surrounding religious symbols are particularly complex, as they can also fall within the scope of national legislation or of anti-discrimination law adopted by the 27-member European Union. Those cases may be brought in the E.U. Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

The Strasbourg court has, in the past, tended to rule that the right to allow or prohibit the display of symbols is reserved to national governments, and it been reluctant to force them to adopt or relax bans.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Ruling on Christian's right to wear cross 'does not trump other human rights'" by Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent, UK Guardian 1/15/13

Secular groups have welcomed a Strasbourg court ruling that religious freedoms do not trump other human rights as a victory against discrimination.

John O'Doherty of the Rainbow Project, Northern Ireland's largest gay and lesbian organisation, said: "Religious belief cannot be used as a smokescreen for discrimination, and all service providers must recognise that they may not pick and choose which members of the public are worthy of accessing services."

Employment lawyers accepted the clear reasoning of the judgment. Jennifer Skeoch, an employment lawyer at the law firm Taylor Wessin, said: "The judgments clarify this long-running issue: employees may have the right to manifest their religious beliefs in some ways providing this does not adversely infringe on the rights of others or jeopardise health and safety.

The Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford also welcomed the decision, saying . . . "The insistence by registrar Lilian Ladele and Relate counsellor Gary McFarlane that their Christian consciences made them refuse to perform certain duties was unacceptable because it could result in unacceptable discrimination against gay clients."

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Christian registrar loses European court case" posted at The Christian Institute 1/15/13

Mike Judge, spokesman for The Christian Institute which backed Miss Ladele’s case, said: “Obviously, we are disappointed to have lost by a majority decision.

“But we are encouraged that two judges thought we should have won.

“What this case shows is that Christians with traditional beliefs about marriage are at risk of being left out in the cold.

“If the Government steamrollers ahead with its plans to redefine marriage, then hundreds of thousands of people could be thrown out of their jobs unless they agree to endorse gay marriage.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "European Court of Human Rights rules against Christians in conscience cases" by Hilary White, 1/16/13

Sophia Kuby of the European Dignity Watch NGO called the ruling a case of “obsessive political correctness trumping religious freedom.” These “equality and diversity” policies, she said, while claiming to be about safeguarding freedoms are having the opposite effect.

It is an “obvious paradox” that they are “creating new discrimination against Christians,” she said. The ruling has “marked a new step in the discrimination against Christians who act according to their consciences or wear a non-controversial sign of their faith.”

Two of the justices dissented and issued a minority ruling saying, “The state is obliged to respect the individual’s freedom of conscience.”

“Instead of practising the tolerance of the ‘dignity for all’ it preached, the Borough of Islington pursued the doctrinaire line, the road of obsessive political correctness,” said the dissenting ruling. “It effectively sought to force the applicant to act against her conscience of face the extreme penalty of dismissal – something which … cannot be deemed necessary in a democratic society.”

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

From "Human-rights panel: 'Gay' trumps 'faith'" by Alex Newman, World Net Daily 1/15/13

[GrĂ©gor Puppinck, Director of the European Center for Law and Justice, said] “The [court] majority obviously missed the fundamental difference between conscience and religion,” Puppinck told WND after the verdict was published. “Whereas the cases of Eweida and Chaplin are cases of ‘freedom of religion’ – freedom to wear religious items in public – the ones of Ladele and McFarlane are cases of ‘freedom of conscience,’ conscientious objection to homosexuality.”

“The state has the positive obligation not only to abstain from forcing someone to act against his moral conscience, but also to undertake positive measures to accommodate this person, as much as reasonably possible,” he continued.

“In the case of Ms. Ladele, the state not only forced her to celebrate same-sex unions, violating its negative obligation to respect individual conscience, but also made no effort to find a reasonable accommodation in order to respect her genuine conscientious objection, violating its positive obligation to respect individual conscience,” Puppinck said.

“It is not the same to force someone to abstain from wearing a religious item, and to force someone to act against his conscience, for example forcing someone to perform a homosexual union, or any other practice that can be genuinely considered as immoral such as abortion,” he concluded.

To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.

Also read U.S. Supreme Court Allows Gay Agenda to Trump Parental Rights

In addition, read 'Gay Rights' Winning, Loss of Religious Liberty Documented - Washington Post writer demonstrates it's a "zero sum" game: Winning homosexual 'rights' means Christians must lose freedom of religion.