Are the law’s Judaeo-Christian roots withering?
Peter and Hazel Bull are two devout Christians who, until a judge told them otherwise, sought to run their Cornwall hotel on principles they perceived to befit their religion. Judge Andrew Rutherford ruled that, under new equality laws, their policy of not allowing unmarried partners to share double rooms directly discriminated against civil partners Martyn Hall and Steve Preddy.
Rutherford began his judgment with that increasingly rare thing: judicial creative writing; in this case, a short lesson on the architecture of the Royal Courts of Justice. I think his introduction is worth reproducing in full:
‘In 1882 Her Majesty Queen Victoria opened a new court building. It is in the Strand just at the entrance to the City of London. It was built to house the superior courts of this land with the exception of the House of Lords. No one who enters can fail to be struck by the similarity of the great hall with the interior of those gothic cathedrals with which this kingdom is so richly endowed. But if, before entering, you gaze upon the façade of the building you will notice four statues.
‘There you will find King Alfred who made such a notable contribution to Saxon England by codifying the laws of his day. You will find Moses to whom was given the ten commandments and to whom, by tradition, is ascribed authorship of the first five books of the Bible in which you will find in great detail the laws governing the children of Israel. Also there on the façade is King Solomon whose wisdom has become a legend and who displayed outstanding qualities as a judge when sitting in the family division in the only reported case of which we have details. And the fourth statue is that of Jesus Christ who, I imagine, needs no introduction to those involved in this case.’
Rutherford suggested that the statues ‘emphasise the Judaeo-Christian roots from which the common law of England was derived’, but noted: ‘a great deal has however happened since King Alfred and his Saxon laws, and even more has changed since Moses, King Solomon and Jesus Christ walked upon this earth. Those Judaeo-Christian principles, standards and beliefs which were accepted as normal in times past are no longer so accepted'.
Thus, the law and religion are not equals; and furthermore, the law reigns supreme over religious belief…in the eyes of the law, that is. But what if the law is truly a reflection of our society’s ethical and moral standards? If this is the case, does Rutherford’s rejection of Peter and Hazel Bull’s orthodox beliefs reflect society’s rejection of one orthodox Christian principle – or perhaps all such principles?
The Bulls did not appear to be in any way vicious towards Hall and Preddy: Rutherford was convinced that their beliefs, whatever anyone thought of them, were honestly held orthodox Christian beliefs. This was no crusade. But according to their defence, the Bulls held the belief that ‘monogamous heterosexual marriage is the form of partnership uniquely intended for full sexual relations between persons and that homosexual sexual relations (as opposed to homosexual orientation), and heterosexual sexual relations outside marriage, are sinful.’ To many people, including myself and probably most moderate Christians, such a view appears to be outdated.
Be that as it may however, I don’t believe that the law is the arbiter of society’s moral will, but rather, a delayed and imperfect reflection of the moral thinking of the majority. Still, it often serves as an excellent bellwether.
Comments
As British society continues
As British society continues to reject religiousvalues the more Society's morals and values have plummetted. Aethists run this country!
Oh No! What a ridiculous
Oh No!
What a ridiculous unfounded statement you make (and is often stupidly repeated by fellow religionists). If you want the so-called morals and values of a religious country why not live in Iran? If you're religious you'd love living in a theocracy. Atheists don't, however, and with their superior moral values they see why religion has no place in 21st century Britain.
If atheists were running this country then why is the Prime Minister quoted as saying he is Christian; why is the Queen head of the Church of England and protector of the Faith; why does the House of Lords contain so many bishops (whose only qualification of being there is belief in an invisible friend)? Why not try something that Christians don't and use facts for a change.
As for the story, I think it is a great result. The couple are obviously in the wrong business. Religious beliefs don't trump the legal system - get used to it.
Re: Oh No!
"Don't Be so Stupid!" asserts that atheists have "superior moral values" but why does he/she believe that? Surely, it is a statement of faith which cannot be experimentally proved nor disproved. No mathematician can state absolutely that 2+ 2 = 4: they can only show that 2 + 2 = 4 based on the assumption that the 9 field axioms of real numbers are true. Even to doubt the gospel of Jesus Christ is to put one's faith in the belief that it is false.
Thus, "Don't Be so Stupid!" is asserting that the beliefs of atheism, which cannot be proved, are superior to the beliefs of Christianity because they cannot be proved. This is a contradiction.
Fact: Iran is an Islamic state. The UK has been shaped by the gospel of Jesus Christ for over 1000 years.
Fact: the bloodiest century in human history was the 20th century when it was believed that technological advance would supercede religion.
Fact: the greatest intolerance and violence of the 20th century were practised by those who believed that religious belief caused intolerance and violence.
It's not really a Christian country.
Let's face it, Christianity was a fad.
Christianity was the first major religion to force it'self upon the population in such a way that the masses were refused any say in the matter.
As time went by the generations were born into a religious identity where questioning of authority would have been unacceptable.
Many Christians are hypocrites who pick and choose passages from the bible to support their own moral judgements at the expense of equality. Because of this they can't be relied upon especially in the area of law making.
Due to travel, internet, books, discussions, interactivity with others and the capacity to reason and think for oneself has given us the ability to make the choices that our ancestors were deprived of.
Like others, I no longer label myself a Christian and the law must reflect changes in society.
On solid ground
Whilst Christianity has been the uniting force for centuries for this nation, and a cause for good worldwide, this decision highlights how it is being driven out of the English nation – the same English nation that sent out thousands of missionaries across the globe to preach from the Book it now rejects.
But the consequences of rejecting tried and tested principles? Perhaps we should allow the outlawed book to speak for itself?
“And judgement is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter." -Isaiah 59:14
"A force for good in the world"
Having been subjected to violent abuse by 'religious' parents and sexual abuse on my way through a 'religious' education I wholeheartedly disagree with this statement.
I'm not an atheist by accident. No one's invisible friend made it right to beat me or rape me however convinced they were that they were right.
Laws should be there to protect the innocent and the helpless, not the guilty or self righteous.
A bed for the night when you’ve booked it and relied on it should not be refused because of someone else’s petty delusion.
Some sympathy for the Bulls
I have some sympathy for the Bulls - they opened a guest house for a sub-section of the population, that of married couples like themselves. It's not immediately obvious why they shouldn't do this.
However, I've got more sympathy for the gays - we've decided that prejudice against them is intolerable and their civil partnership is to have the same legal effect as marriage. I think the Bulls knew it and they chose to turn a blind eye to the fact they'd have to treat all stable and legal partnerships the same.
FAO. Don't be so stupid Your
FAO. Don't be so stupid
Your the one who is stupid. Get a life mate! Grow up and live with the fact that it is the way of the world to have differing opinions. Just by your reaction to my previous piece, I can tell that your one of those 'bitter, always angry, I only care about myself' aetheists that rubbishes any notion of God existing. Unfortunately, I have come across far too many people like you in the legal profession and I have had the misfortune for working for some of you as well. All of my experiences were horrible. I have never forced my religious views on anyone and have chosen to keep them to myself. However, most of you aetheists seem to very disrespectful towards religious people, whenever given the chance to have a mature debate. I find most people like you are some of the most intolerable, self conceited and ignorant bunch of people on this planet.
The laws of this land are derived from the Christian struggle throughout generations(ie. the ten commandments), people like you who continue to spout your rubbish in order to get rid of us, will never succeed in your quest. Answer this question then, which one of the ten commandments is not relevant in today's society? You numpty! Christians always get verbally 'hit over the head' for not condoning homosexuality. However, I know several aetheists who oppose it, based upon 'scientific grounds' that it is unnatural.
Christianity has done a lot of good around the world, there is nothing wrong with religion. The problem comes from bad people who use it for their own evil schemes. I think in our country right now we need God's intervention during these times of uncertainty. Especially our young people who continue to become parents at even younger ages, struggle drugs, alcohol and pornography. You try telling me what bright spark answer aetheists have for society's ills. The rule of law? Science? Only God is the answer my friend. You should open up your mind and try him sometime.
FAO Oh No!
You are quite right that the world is full of people with different opinions. However, that in itself does not mean that some opinions are justified or even to be tolerated if we desire to progress as a species. Can you tell me where your Christian beliefs came from? Can you explain why your Christian beliefs are so different from the majority of 'good' people across the world?
You talk about atheists being disrespectful towards religious people when giving the chance to have a mature debate. What exactly do you mean by a mature debate? Is that one where you refer to someone who has a different opinion to you as 'Stupid'?
I think you'll find that ignorant, intolerable, self-conceited people exist across all spectrum's of society - it's not a club exclusive to atheists ;-) I recall many situations over the years when 'Christians' have promised to pray for me and my sins. Which part of, 'I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU BELIEVE IN' do they not understand?
Couple of quick points:
What did the people of 'this land' do before Christianity?
What struggle are you talking about exactly?
The Ten Commandments are Jewish not Christian.
Please explain on what scientific grounds that people, (religious or otherwise) oppose homosexuality.
Whilst I would accept that homosexuality is not 'normal' when one considers the majority of what is considered 'normal' sexual behaviour, that does not mean it is 'unnatural'. For a homosexual to have a relationship with a member of the same sex is the most natural thing that they will ever experience. Please do not confuse 'normal' with 'unnatural' they are two very different things and I do not understand what business it is of anyone else to have an opinion or to make a judgement about that. Oh, I'm thinking 'ignorant, intolerable & self-conceited people' ring any bells my friend?
There are (at least!) two sides to every story, however you cannot justify religion just because it has got some 'good works' under it's belt. I could spend a considerable amount of time providing evidence when religion has done 'bad' things. What would be the point? What you have to understand is that people can be (and are) 'good' without religion. I am a good person, because I am. Simple. I do not have to subscribe to a particular set of beliefs in order to be good. Why do you feel the need? Can't you just be good without a structure to secure that? Is that the underlying issue for religious people?
and finally...
Where is your god then? In our supposed time of need?
Historically, girls would have had children much earlier than they do today. Come on, do your research. There is a reason why 'god' made girls fertile at 12/13 and that reason was to procreate, allowing for the fact that most wouldn't survive past 40 years of age.
At what point in history did humans live peacefully? At which point in history did humans not have drug abuse and pornography? What kind of Utopia are you referring to?
The answer to societies 'ill's' is not going to be answered by anyone - man or god. It is the nature of humanity. However I will say this...rather than looking to your 'god' to sort everything out, (and based on the evidence that isn't going to happen) why don't you do something more productive than spending your time being rude on web forums.
Ignorance is not an excuse, it's a disease.
Look beyond religion
There is much debate with this case on religion and its relationship to the law.
I do feel some sympathy for a couple being forced to go against their beliefs but that is the industry they have chosen.
Rather than being a debate on the place of religion, the case appears to me (although perhaps I am being too simplistic) to revolve on the status of civil partnerships and their equal status to marriage.
From my reading of the matter, if the couple had not been in a civil partnership then there would not be an issue as the policy of separate beds would apply equally to unmarried heterosexual couples and the only reason for the discrimination is that the hotel owners do not accept that a civil partnership has an equal status to marriage under the law.
FAO. Don't be so stupid Let
FAO. Don't be so stupid
Let me also remind you, that this country has a long history of aethists that have governed in high office. More recently we have Nick Clegg and David Milliband. It is a atheistic myth that we somehow run by a 'Christian mafia'. Yes, I do believe in my 'invisible friend' (Aka 'The Most High God') because I have a lot of proof that he has done great things for me. I would rather depend upon him to get me out of a situation than any of you atheists.
I have a life (not one with
I have a life (not one with invisible friends either) hence why I don't belong to your cult. I am not angry or bitter, but rather perplexed as to why people feel the need for evil organisations like religion.
If you are going to attempt to insult all non-believers with your little "most intolerable, self conceited and ignorant bunch of people" rant, at least spell it right - it is ATHEIST. Secondly, your little rant perfectly describes christians as can be seen by your venomous post as well as interactions with bigotted christians like the hotel owners.
I'll do better than to name you one commandment, I'll give you a few, NUMPTY - worshipping other "gods" is not necessary as none exist; not making idols is a pathetic rule; remembering the sabbath. As for these scientific grounds that homosexuality - please share. I could do with a laugh.
Your "god" is not the answer to anything, being that he doesn't exist. More evil has been done in his name in the history of society than any other fictional character. Society will thrive without religion (as can be seen in Scandanavian countries) and evolution will take take of the stupid people who choose to believe in invisible sky fairies.
"Let me also remind you, that
"Let me also remind you, that this country has a long history of aethists that have governed in high office. More recently we have Nick Clegg and David Milliband."
And ...?
"It is a atheistic myth that we somehow run by a 'Christian mafia'"
So you can prove otherwise then?!
"Yes, I do believe in my 'invisible friend' (Aka 'The Most High God') because I have a lot of proof that he has done great things for me. I would rather depend upon him to get me out of a situation than any of you atheists. "
Then you won't mind sharing them then? Or are they simple coincidences, but your wishful thinking wants them to be "god"? So sad ......
I think Christianity has run
I think Christianity has run it's course.
Some things from the past we love to cherish like childhood toys that we prefer to keep.
However, Christianity reminds me of brick a brack, always taking up space and no longer useful in our modern lives.
Instead of blaming the atheists for the demise of religious rule some commentators should ask why all the nice Christians have left or are leaving the faith.
Could it be that very few of the remainder are in any way like JC?
What a thoroughly unpleasant pair
No, I'm not referring to Mr and Mrs Bull actually but "Oh No" and "Don't be so stupid" on this thread. It is possible to hold one's own beliefs whilst respecting the differing beliefs of others you know.
Oh No
has amused me with his or her rants. Slating atheists for being bitter in the most unchristian way exposing the sheer hypocrisy of it all. As the last resort all Christians have to point to some vague unspecified God as the answer. There is no answer.
I take no issue with people who wish to be Christian or indeed any other religion that is entirely their choice. What I do object to is so called Christians interfering in the lives of others. No bishop, priest or pope and certainly not 'Oh No' have any right to tell me how to live my life. I live a life by a moral code, because I was raised correctly (in a non religious household as it happens) not because I can quote the Ten Commandments.
Yet there are and have been throughout history countless immoral individuals who have hidden behind religion to excuse the inexcusable. Only recently the Vatican has been implicated in covering up allegations of child abuse.
Christian morality. Laughable.
So bizarre are 'Oh No's' posts I can only imagine he or she is simply posting to bait others and illicit a reaction. Surely the posts cannot be for real.
FAO. Dont be so stupid, well
FAO. Dont be so stupid, well my friend your best response is to spot a spelling error. Bravo! I predicted you would before your response. Your so predictable. As for other Gods and idols, I think there are many that exist for some people today, ie. drugs,sex, alcohol, vanity, money etc. They dont need to have names like Hercules or Thor to be considered Gods\idols. Unlike you I like having a day rest of rather than flogging myself to death. Even God realises there is more to life than work. You numpty!
"Even God realises there is
"Even God realises there is more to life than work."
Like a bit of smiting or child killing? You can keep your sociopathic "god".
Grammar.
'Your' does not mean 'you are'.
'You're' means 'you are'.
FAO. Amused. The fact that I
FAO. Amused. The fact that I am a christian does not mean that I must roll over and become a doormat for others who wish to slate my God by referring to him in a patronising way by calling him my 'Invisible friend'. I will not stand aside and allow others to belittle my faith whilst I do nothing. I like you, grew up in a family with high moral value, and I will not be browbeaten by anyone, especially by a keyboard thug like 'I am so stupid'.
FAO. Amused. The fact that I
FAO. Amused. The fact that I am a christian does not mean that I must roll over and become a doormat for others who wish to slate my God by referring to him in a patronising way by calling him my 'Invisible friend'. I will not stand aside and allow others to belittle my faith whilst I do nothing. I like you, grew up in a family with high moral value, and I will not be browbeaten by anyone, especially by a keyboard thug like 'I am so stupid'.
In 20 years time UK (United
In 20 years time UK (United Kaliphates) will be run under the Shariah law, so don't worry my friends! Muslims will make a peace upon you all: Christians and atheists. There won't be any quarrels about Christianity anymore. One will be able to hear term "Christianity" only during history-of-oppression lessons at Mark Dutroux University in London Ghetto For Homosexual Giaours ... So don't fight, it's no use. Rutherford's judgment is one small step for him, but one giant jumping into the precipice for english society.
Is this really about religion
If a hindu couple had treated Mr Hall & Mr Preddy in the same fashion, would they have been taken to court in the same way and would the outcome have been the same? If a muslim couple had treated Mr Hall & Mr Preddy in the same fashion, would they have been taken to court in the same way and would the outcome have been the same? How about an atheist couple, or a pagan couple? The court case was not about the Bull's religion even though they would like it to have been. The Bull's have tried to use their religion to excuse their behaviour but this has not been accepted for the simple reason that no religion should be granted special privileges in law.
I have been living and
I have been living and practicing law overseas for nearly 15 years. In that time during return visits and from following the news I have watched the UK change from a nominally "Christian country" to what could now best be discribed as a"secular" or just "Godless" society. It has become harder to find happy friendly people. Selfish, rude and arrrogant attitudes appear to prevail.
The above article is interesting in that it highlights the change in British attitudes to the Gay Movement; and they have changed. Over 20 years ago in the "quotes" section of the law society magazine a letter to the Times was reproduced. Presumeably because it was seen as amusing. The letter read something as follows:
"Dear Sir,
When I was a young boy homosexual acts were a criminal offence. During my working life it became acceptable between consenting adults over 25. When I got older the age limit was lowered to 16. Now there is talk of recognising gay marriage. I am 80 years old and I have decided to emigrate to Australia before it becomes compulsory
Yours etc"
When written this letter was presumeably seen as amusing to many. I suspect that today it would not be found funny by the school of political correctness, indeed it presumeably would not be published as it may be seen as "offensive".
And yet it seems to me that society is quite happy to allow a very agreesive gay lobby to push its agenda without any complaint. Sir Elton John has stated that organised religion should be banned. Christian organisations are being targetted to open up to gays, when quite clearly this is against their orthodox beliefs. In some cases undercover operations have sought to trap christians working in counselling services. Strange times?
My personal view is that the bible is correct when it states that homosexuality is just as wrong as stealing, it brings no benefit to society and is rooted in selfishness.
It is a great pity that the UK is going in this direction. Societies made uıp of individuals with no stable family units and broken communities cannot last long. Destroying the Judaeo-Christian roots will eventually mean the end of the law and order.
Funny how the God of "Law and
Funny how the God of "Law and Order" always historically seems to have won out against the God of "Love"in the minds of most of His adherents . The thought of one man loving another always seems worse for them than one man killing another. I would like to posit an alternative explanation for the undoubted decline of moral values in the UK,where our Heterosexual Roman Catholic ex-Prime Minister has broken international law and killed thousands of innocent civilians as a direct result.....the Gods of Money, Oil and Consumerism will trump any old bearded bloke sitting on a cloud.
Whether you are religious or
Whether you are religious or not. Atheist or Agnostic. Hindu/Jew//Muslim. May God bless you all for 2011.
By the way, I agree with most of the comments made by Johnathan overseas, espcially about rudeness, and selfishness in the UK
May I remind people, religion can be used by men for good as well as bad, so the comment about Tony Blair leading us into a war mainly backed by America's greed for Oil, I totally agree that this is an example of someone using religion to carry out evil.
It is no different from atheists/Darwinists who refer to bogus 'scienitific facts' that a lighter skinned race of people are intellectually superior to darker skinned races, or dark skinned people have a greater sexual drive than lighter skinned people, and therefore they need to controlled. Everyone who has an ounce of sense knows that this is utter garbage!
This proves my point, that the world cannot be seen from a 'black and white' perspective, there are far more grey areas in this world. For example, in today's world we have openly gay men and women who are are God-fearing and n some cases Christians. In addition to that, there are many Atheists that I know, who are violently opposed to homosexuals and they point to what they consider to be 'scientific facts' that homosexuality is unnatural.
Anyway, I'm done with this page.
Peace and love to all.
God Botherers
Christians like to focus the decline of moral values on the gay agenda.
But the gay agenda (if you insist on labelling) is simply asking for a world free of discrimination that developed under the watch of the church.
I suggest people watch the film "Magdalene Sisters" where the young innocent girls were imprisoned against their will, brutalised and institutionalised by the church and then come back here and convince non religious people that the LGBT community are the root of the worlds problems.
Ignorance (as demonstrated above by the god botherers) is the root of the worlds problems.
I have seen the 'Magdalene
I have seen the 'Magdalene Sisters' it was painful to watch. However, what in Ireland during that period of time is an example of what I have said above, people can hide behind religion to do evil. God is not the problem, people are. If some of you took the time out to read the Bible, you would see that God does not condone sexual abuse of children at all! The Bible is full of enlightment and has a events that are very relevant today. Like I have said, you name one of the ten commandments is not relevant today?At with atheism/Darwinism I took the time out to study it, before I can argue that it is flawed.
As I final point, even if Christianity was banned in the UK(forget the world for a moment), do you honestly think that discrimination would end in this country? Are you serious?
Bearing in mind, that a lot of people in the UK, right now have no belief or faith in God, I see more open racism, bigotry and prejudice around me everyday. In terms 'Society' controlling these ills, 'Society' has failed miserably. The rule of law is a joke in this country. You try proving a discrimination case at court, its one of the hardest things to do. I have my own personal experiences to talk about regarding discrimination in the UK, I suffered bigotry and racism at the hands of guess who... atheists(openly atheist) working in the legal profession.
Over and out. Peace and love to all.
I think you will also find
I think you will also find that the people who were sexually abused as children at Haut de la Garenne in Jersey will tell you that their abusers often carried out the sexual abuse as part of a satanic ritual. There is nothing Christian about that is there?
While the judgement is IMO
While the judgement is IMO disturbing you are all missing the point
On a different day with a different judge this could easily have gone the other way
This is all about the judge's perception and not about the law
Hope the Bull's get legal aid and that the judgement is appealed
Thankfully we've come a long way...
Thankfully we've come a long way since the days of King Alfred and the other three fictional characters depicted in the Law Courts of Justice. We don't lock up or execute people for being gay anymore (as we used to, based on biblical teaching), neither should we descriminate against them.
The fact that we have a long histiory of being ruled by Christians who passed laws over us all shouldn't mean Christians somehow get special treatment in the law courts if they display bigotry or descrimination against anyone. We now have the freedom not to believe, and not to be ruled by Christian laws and beliefs, but this is only a very recent phenomenon. For most of Britain's Christian history, you would have been executed, tortured, flogged or jailed for suggesting that their god doesn't exist or their beliefs shouldn't take precedence over our lives. Christianity was upheld in this country in the same manner that Islam is still upheld in countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
Level of debate on the Bull case
If these entries accurately reflect the level of debate and considered views of members of our legal profession on civil v religious rights then I think most of them need a) to get out more and b) consider undertaking a GCSE English revision course.
The Biblical Covenant of Marriage
The concept of marriage finds its origins in the Holy Bible. In fact the New Testament speaks of the marriage between a man and woman as a physical representation of the greater reality of the relationship or "marriage" of Jesus Christ to His Church (a phrase we often hear cited at weddings even today).
The underlying basis for such relationship is the concept of "covenant" (another familiar word). One example is the covenant which God made with Abraham in the Old Testament. A common feature of biblical covenants were that they were ratified by the shedding of blood. In Abraham's case, it was ratified by circumcision, which undoubtedly involved blood.
The marriage covenant is also ratified by the shedding of blood. As is probably common knowledge, the act of consummation (when the woman is a virgin), brings the flow of blood.
This, of course, is no accident as it was clearly designed for this purpose. (Hence the reason why the bible defines all forms of sex outside of this covenant as "sin").
On this analysis it is not possible for two individuals of the same gender in a civil partnership to cut a biblically acceptable covenant of marriage. The civil partnership must therefore belong to a completely different plane. In other words, we are not comparing like for like.
However, our law would conveniently overlook such minor details for the sake of political correctness.
The Old Testament is full of extra-marital sex
it's just that the men do it, and women are to have extra children for them. There is a really good evolutionary case for mail genital mutilation as it reduces fertility and sperm competition. A ceremony undertaken in public, so all the other men can see it has happened, and much more common in polygynous cultures than monogamous one, where men might be afraid that other men will service their wives whilst they are with other wives. See Wilson, 2008, Evolution and Human Behavior. I love science.
Why is it, that in every
Why is it, that in every chatroom, blog, internet forum, Youtube etc. Whenever there is a debate about a subject there is always an idiot who spends 30 seconds or more of their life(depending upon their typing speed) by pretending to be the custodian of the English language. By trying to discredit someone else's point of view (no matter how succinct) by spotting spelling errors, typographical errors or correcting bad grammer. Instead of contributing to the debate with something helpful they would rather sit on the fence and talk about bad grammer. Let me remind you, we are expressing our thoughts on the Internet, we are not trying to compete for a literary award. Hence, there is no reason to do spell checks or checks for punctuation.
Strange people....
Grammar
Surely you meant "grammar" and not "grammer"?
No capital in "[W]henever" either.
How is this contributing to this debate then "Oh No!"?
GCSE English isn't just about
GCSE English isn't just about grammar but about the basics of presenting logical arguments in a non-abusive way. It would be helpful to hear more considered views on how the law should balance religious freedom against civil rights and less hotheaded personal prejudice. At least that is what I would expect from contributors to The Law Gazette...
"The marriage covenant is
"The marriage covenant is also ratified by the shedding of blood"
Alright, but not near the cake please !
yes, blood shedding,
yes, blood shedding, damnation, mental and physical torture, murder- it is a jolly little yarn...
Marriage covenant
I'm surprised Anonymous that you do not know - the covenant is usually ratified after the cake is cut and eaten and all the guests have left...
"yes, blood shedding,
"yes, blood shedding, damnation, mental and physical torture, murder- it is a jolly little yarn..."
Is that a comment on the state of your marriage?
"yes, blood shedding,
"yes, blood shedding, damnation, mental and physical torture, murder- it is a jolly little yarn..."
"Is that a comment on the state of your marriage?"
good god no, that's far worse...
but thanks for caring- can we stay at your B&B?
Reading a number of the
Reading a number of the contributions above is really quite depressing, especially the ones from Oh No!
The internet was meant to usher in a period of i-citizenry, where honest exchanges of information would result in a better and more informed i-citizenry.
Religious and anti-religious ranting leads absolutely nowhere. It is an utter waste of time.
Considering that this is a legal forum, I am amazed that no one has referred to the facts of the case under review and drawn the distinction that the owners of the B&B have two different roles.
They have a private and a public role.
In their private capacity, they are fully entitled to impose conditions upon people who stay with them as their private guests.
However, if they are running a public service in the form of a hotel, then the public law also comes into play and they must – by definition – accept that they can only run their business in accord with the provisions of public law, which means that any form of legally proscribed public discrimination is unlawful.
It has been suggested that the two B&B owners may have been “set up” by the complainants. This may or may not have been the case but it is clear that the involvement of a privately funded religiously motivated legal team appearing on behalf of the B&B owners has resulted in an attempt to get public law over-ridden by private means.
I think the judge in this case is absolutely right. Public law and public morality change and evolve over time. It is part of the case law of this country that it should evolve. If not, we will all end up being trapped into some sort of time zone which permanently reflects the values of the Dark Ages.
cherry picking
Do Mr and Mrs Bull open their B&B on a Sunday -provide breakfast etc which would break a very straighforward commandment or are they just cherrypicking their religion to satisfy a very common form of bigotry in conservative people
Christians v Atheists
I can't believe members of the legal profession going as they have above! Illogical logic and tit for tat slagging off. Very unprofessional. For goodness' sake, believe whatever you want to believe and get on with your thing and let others do the same. As if there isn't enough to be worrying about in this country. Come on now!
IMO the guest house owners
IMO the guest house owners should be entitled to refuse a bed to same sex couples if they so wish. I dont agree with their views at all but they are entitled to hold them, however bigoted it makes them.
Religion and intolerance make such good bedfellows. God bless atheism.
It's their business
Just a few thoughts from someone who is a Christian and who stayed there with his wife a few years ago and had a lovely weekend - shoot me down in flames if you like.
1. As long as the Bulls' rules were made known to the two gay people before they completed their booking, they were surely, in moral terms at least, entitled to say who they were prepared to do business with.
2. Let's move on to a time when gay people will be allowed to have marriages. Presumably the Bulls would no longer, even under their own rules, be able to exclude a gay couple as long as they had got married.
3. My other thought - how much is this all costing, especially if they do appeal as seems likely? Wouldn't it be more in the service of God to have spent that money on a donation to an eye hospital for the poor in Africa or India?
In 20 years time
The simple message stemming from the article is that 'the law reigns supreme over religious belief' (when it wants to). Not that you need the article to be made ware of this.
A complete legal system in the UK based on Shariah law in 20 years? Sigh... anyone reading this with an ounce of knowledge understands how far from reality and uneducated that comment is.
Muslim Caliphate
.. the way things are going in then UK (Islam being promoted above Christianity), it will all be Sharia law soon - unless the silent majority wake up.
A Modest Proposal
We should reintroduce eccesiastical courts in the UK. These courts would naturally be run by respected men of the cloth who would administer justice at a much cheaper unit cost than our relatively expensive lawyers.. They would be able to offer inexpensive summary justice at a fraction of the cost of our long winded and unnecessarily protracted current legal system.
In a spirit of free enterprise and in order to update the principle for the 21st century, different faiths could have different courts so, for example, those who wanted sharia law could select that route, while those who preferred Catholic or Protestant courts (etc) could choose according to their preference. Those who wanted an atheist court could of course select the current court system. Laws would vary according to religious affiliation, thus bringing them closer to the individual and his/her needs. There is an admirable track record in delivering justice through religious courts going back to the Middle Ages and beyond. Many of the sentences handed out were highly imaginative and delivered a lot more cheaply ansd swiftly than our current expensive custodial system, even allowing for several centuries of inflation.
This modest proposal, which I have submitted to the Minisrty of Justice as my response to the Green Paper on Legal Aid reform, would have the added advantage of meeting several Government priorities, slimming down the legal aid bill, going back to 1949 principles- actually going back much further than that- producing an internal market in legal services, and increasing local choice. It is of course at the heart of the "big society".