TIMES ONLINE: Christianity deserves no protection in law above other faiths and to do so would be “irrational” , “divisive, capricious and arbitrary”, a senior judge said today, as he rejected a marriage guidance counsellor’s attempt to challenge his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples.
In the latest clash between the judiciary and Christian believers, Lord Justice Laws said that laws could not be used to protect one religion above another.
He also delivered a robust dismissal to the former Archbishop of Canterbury who had warned that a series of recent court rulings against Christians could lead to “civil unrest.”
To give one religion legal protection over any other, “however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled”, the judge said.
It would give legal force to a “subjective opinion” and would lead to a “theocracy”, which is of necessity autocratic.”
The judge went on to dismiss Lord Carey’s plea for the establishment of a specialist panel of judges to hear cases involving the practice of religious beliefs.
That would be “deeply inimical to the public interest,” he said.
Lord Carey had given a witness statement in support of the counsellor, Gary McFarlane, 48, from Bristol, a member of a Pentecostal church.
Mr McFarlane wanted permission to appeal against an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling that supported his sacking by Relate Avon in 2008[.]
The father of two, who had worked for the national counselling service since 2003, had alleged unfair dismissal on the grounds of religious discrimination.
But rejecting Mr McFarlane’s application to appeal, Lord Justice Laws said that legislation for the protection of views held purely on religious grounds could not be justified.
He said it was “irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective”, adding: “it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.”
“We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs.["]
“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.”
“If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens, and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. >>> Frances Gibb, Legal Editor | Thursday, April 19, 2010
