POP over to the Christian Legal Centre today, and you will find much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the refusal by Lord Justice Laws to grant Gary McFarlane permission to have his case heard before the Court of Appeal.
McFarlane, a relationships counsellor from Bristol, was sacked by the Relate Relationship organisation after he refused to provide sexual counselling to homosexual couples because of his Christian beliefs. He asked that his case be heard by different judges to those who ruled against Lillian Ladele in December 2009.
Senior churchmen believed that Mr McFarlane would not have received a proper consideration of the religious convictions involved if his case was heard in front of judges who, they argued, had already shown a lack of understanding of Christian beliefs in previous cases.
Gary McFarlane
In his judgment, Lord Justice Laws accepted that laws in Britain can be influenced by Christianity and said:
The Judaeo-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy.
But the CLC points out that the judge:
Then seemed to draw a distinction between some moral positions of Christianity, where on merit they should be adopted by others, to other positions of Christianity, where he stated that it is ‘deeply unprincipled’ to confer ‘any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture’.
Nobody, says the CLC, would disagree that laws should not reflect purely irrational and subjective views of religious believers.
However, it is deeply disturbing that Lord Justice Laws appears to place Mr McFarlane’s view on sex and marriage into the ‘subjective’ category as opposed to the ‘meritorious’ category. Hence it was held that the religious belief in question – namely that marriage as between one man and woman for life is the only proper place for sexual expression – could not be protected, because it is a belief held only on subjective basis with no objective merit to it.
Lord Justice Laws went on to say:
… in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.
Andrea Williams, Director of the Christian Legal Centre, said:
The notion that the Bible’s teaching, of particular focus in this case on sex and marriage is ‘necessarily subjective being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence’, is highly contentious to say the least. To put the reasonably held beliefs of Christians into a such a category is alarming and in effect seeks to rule out Christian principles of morality from the public square.
She added:
Mr McFarlane simply wanted his religious beliefs to be accommodated by his employer, which in the specific facts of the case was not unreasonable. It seems that a religious bar to office has been created, whereby a Christian who wishes to act on their Christian beliefs on marriage will no longer be able to work in a great number of environments.
McFarlane told the BBC today:
I have the ability to provide counselling services to same sex couples. However, because of my Christian beliefs and principles, there should be allowances taken in to account whereby individuals like me can actually avoid having to contradict their very strongly-held Christian principles.
The decision was welcomed by Terry Sanderson, President of the national Secular Society.
This is the right outcome for this case. The law must be clear that anti-discrimination laws exist to protect people, not beliefs. The right to follow a religious belief is a qualified right and it must not be used to legitimise discrimination against gay people who are legally entitled to protection against bigotry and persecution.
Fundamentalists are mounting one challenge after another in courts and Employment Tribunals. They are trying hard to undermine the laws that protect gay people from discrimination. They are seeking to create a hierarchy of rights that places Christian dogma over the rights of people to fair treatment. They must not be allowed to succeed.
He added:
Equality for all before the law must be non-negotiable. Special treatment for any religious group undermines the democratic foundation of our legal system. All citizens should be alarmed by this cynical attempt to carve out special privileges for Christians. The judiciary is absolutely right to resist this move, which is totally unworthy of a 21st century democracy.
The Christian Legal Centre and Lord Carey should be ashamed of themselves for calling into question the impartiality of the judicial system. Judges are more than able to set aside their personal viewpoints when dealing with the many different kinds of interest groups.
Ex-Tory candidate Philip Lardner
Meanwhile, news is just in that a former Tory candidate who was dropped by David Cameron because of his bigoted views on same-sex relationships has been suspended from his job as a primary school teacher.
Philip Lardner’s suspension from work follows a media storm earlier this week after his views on homosexual conduct were attacked on what the Christian Institute describes as “a homosexual news website”.
This, we assume, was Pink News, which reported:
Lardner wrote on his website that ‘most’ people agree that homosexuality is wrong, that it is not normal and that children should not be ‘encouraged’ to ‘indulge’ in it. He also gave his support to Section 28, the repealed law which banned promotion of homosexuality in schools.
He was told by Scottish Conservative Party officials to remove the comments on Tuesday but has now re-posted them.
Mr Lardner said that same-sex conduct is not “normal”, and that he wouldn’t encourage children to indulge in it.
But now Mr Lardner has launched a robust defence of his comments, and warned voters that Christian views are no longer welcome in the Conservative Party.
Speaking to STV, he said:
I believe ordinary people are sick and tired of political correctness. This is still a broadly Christian country, and I believe parents should have the right to oppose the promotion of homosexuality in schools.
By suspending me as a Tory, David Cameron appears to be saying there is no place in the Party for anyone with Christian beliefs.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
April 29th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
“By suspending me as a Tory, David Cameron appears to be saying there is no place in the Party for anyone with Christian beliefs”.
Umm, and the problem with that is?
April 29th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I hate these twats.
In McFarlane’s case, the judges may have had “a lack of understanding of Christian beliefs”, but you can be sure they fully understood secular law.
Ex-tory Lardner bangs on about schools encouraging homosexuality. I thought it was all about the kids deciding for themselves when the hormones start flowing, and not to worry about who they fancy? I’m glad he won’t be in goverment and may not teach again.
I’m happy for them to have their religion but the cnuts make me so angry when they feel they must influence the way others live their lives.
April 29th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Yep Injun: what’s the problem? None to you or me, but christians who would love to live in a theocracy don’t have anywhere to go to, apart from the Vatican. Only muslims can choose in this matter and can opt to live in countries where stonings and beheadings are not uncommon. It’s kind of sad, really.
April 29th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
At least I can agree with David Cameron on one thing then.
April 29th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
I thought this was an interesting take on the McFarlane judgement:
Has one man the right to change the constitution?
April 29th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
If only 44 percent of the population being nontheists makes the UK a “broadly Christian country”, does only 44 percent of the population having IQs over 105 make it a broadly stupid country? Does having far less than 44 percent of the population graduate from university make it a broadly uneducated country? Does having less than half of the population male make it a broadly female country? Does having only 44 percent who recognize that “1+1+1=1″ does not compute, make it a broadly insane country?
It is not necessary to be insane to be a godworshipper. But it is necessary to be insane to be an incurable godworshipper.
April 29th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
To put the reasonably held beliefs of Christians into a such a category is alarming and in effect seeks to rule out Christian principles of morality from the public square.
To conflate bigoted anti-gay stance with ruling out all (including Christian) principles of morality is a typical piece of sophistry from the fundie-right.
They must think our judges dafter than brushes if they thought they were going to win this one.
April 29th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Interesting that Andrea Williams cites the Bible’s teachings on marraige as if they agreed with her views. The Old testament endorses polygamy and death by stoning for non virgin brides. The New Testament only grudgingly accepts marriage as a last resort and promotes celibacy as the ideal state. Oh yes and women should STFU and do as they are told.
I actually quite enjoy all this hysterical bleating when these people are told bluntly that they are entitled to their beliefs but do not have the right to impose them on everyone else. The long heritage that they speak of is basically a history of doing precisely that and now they don’t like the fact that they can no longer do it.
Lardner’s assertion that Britain is still a “broadly Christian country” is highly questionable but even if it were true so what? does he still think that non-Christians should abide by his rules anyway? well apparently so.
April 29th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
@RubberBaron, you have to understand that the Christian legal groups can’t lose, whatever the outcome.
If they win cases then they have a success for their client, on the other hand, if they lose cases, this can be used to affirm the persecution narrative and victim mentality. Either way they get further exposure, more donations and further legal cases.
April 29th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
@RubberBaron, sorry I spelt you name wrong by the way….
April 29th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
I heard McFarlane on the radio, and I have to say the lady doth protest too much. He sounded very camp indeed.
I have a hunch that he’s in serious denial and needs psychiatric treatment immediately – never mind for religion inspired delusion. If I was the judge I’d have sectioned him for evaluation. ha ha.
And mr Lardarsener, now hes not in the tory party, or teaching, he should go home and think long, deep and hard about homosexuality.
(sorry!)
April 29th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
H. L. Mencken wrote that we should respect the other fellow’s religious beliefs, but only to the same degree that we respect his belief that his wife is pretty and his children are smart. We should respect Christianity to the same degree that we respect voodoo, astrology, Scientology, and flatearthism. We should respect homophobia to the same degree that we respect Nazism, anti-Semitism, the KKK, and al Quaeda.
As for Christians who equate homophobia with Christianity, if it is their own contention that their religion is bigoted, intolerant and hate-ridden, who are we to argue with that?
April 29th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
excellent write up in The Times:
http://business.timesonline.co.....111593.ece
This judge (to my surprise!) clearly has all his nuts and bolts fully tightened!
April 29th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Excellent. Now let them go to Europe and get their arses kicked there.
April 29th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
When I found out yesterday that a Tory MP had been suspended for ‘deeply offensive’ remarks about homosexuality I looked up exactly what they were. Hmmm. If ‘normal’ in this context means not-part-of-overwhelming-majority, then I don’t think there is much getting around the fact the homosexuality, well, just isn’t. Was I offended by being described as not being normal? Not in the slightest, but Mr Lardner can spare me his tacked-on claim that he has nothing against gay people per say when he uses images of us gleefully wrecking marriage and using schools as recruiting grounds in a bid to garner votes.
I think my favourite quote from the Gary McFarlane case so far comes from former Archbishop Lord Carey, who attempted to load the dice by writing to the courts to request a Christian panel:
‘The comparison of a Christian, in effect, with a “bigot” (i.e. a person with an irrational dislike to homosexuals) begs further questions. It is further evidence of a disparaging attitude to the Christian faith and its values.’
It is ‘disparaging’ to suggest that Christians are capable of bigotry?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZm47SrmuwM
April 30th, 2010 at 12:08 am
Stuart, when fundies use the term “not normal” they, at best, mean “abnormal”, or at worst, “perverted”. Both terms, of course, are inaccurate and offensive. A far better, more accurate description of homosexuality in the context of numbers is “unusual”.
April 30th, 2010 at 2:29 am
Gays constitute ten percent of the world population, amounting to 650 million people. That does not make them “unusual.” Believing in a god that orders parents to kill their children rather than give them lifesaving penicillin or blood transfusions is unusual. Believing that a space opera scenario is a documentary, even after learning that it was concocted by a science fiction author who created a new religion because “that’s where the money is”, is unusual. Respect for democracy in a religion-infested society is unusual. Being gay, or left-handed, or blue-eyed, or black-skinned, is not unusual.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Quote: Being gay, or left-handed, or blue-eyed, or black-skinned, is not unusual.
I suspect the fundies have a problem with this because being gay etc are all evolutionary variations – and we all know that the religious are a bit dim when it comes to evolution.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:25 am
@William Hardwood. Happy to see your reference to H.L.Mencken, a man who even back in 1925 was writing biting journalistic satire, underpinned with a deep knowledge both of literature and religion, that leaves him with few equals. To read Mencken is to be aware of the tepid mainstream journalism of today that offers few assaults on religious superstitions.
I seem to remember reading, a few years back, that one of David Cameron’s favourite authorities is David Hume. Or did I imagine that? Anyone else recollect this?
To end these two pleasant pieces of news here is a third, domestic, personal, but welcome. My wife, cat sitting in Brighton for ten days, met two Jehovas Witnesses at the door. Not being pressed for time she decided to push them for answers to their claim that the bible was the literal truth. After a some exchanges they, “Scuttled off saying that they must meet more people but giving the appearance they could not get away quickly enough.”
April 30th, 2010 at 1:04 pm
@William Harwood. Sorry for mis spelling your name. Doorbell went before I could read the thing through.
April 30th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
As a student of mathematics, I get pissed at the theft of the terms “normal,” “norm,” and “average” by these assholes. I agree with Barry Duke here that the term “unusual” would be a better one, though I think “variation” would suit best. These mathematical terms have much more powerful meanings in my world than in the fundies’. In the everlasting words of Inego Montoya, “That word you keep using; I do not think it means what you think it means.”
April 30th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Barry Duke said:
“A far better, more accurate description of homosexuality in the context of numbers is “unusualâ€.”
I rather like “mildly exotic”.
April 30th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Frankly, I can live with being described as ‘not normal’ provided this is not used as the intro to a negative spiel about gays which is the mistake Philip Lardner made. I just wondered who could seriously be deeply offended rather than bemused by a politician listing this banal fact of life amongst their beliefs as all you have do to disarm this is to say “So what?”. ‘Not normal’, ‘abnormal’, ‘unusual’, ‘deviant’, whatever you prefer to call it, all it means is that there aren’t as many of B or C than of A.
April 30th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
To be honest, if someone said I was normal, I’d be deeply offended!
April 30th, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I am 52 years old, but, when I was in 10th grade, some 37 years ago, the studies were released to be taught in biology class, that rats, in a simulated metro situation, formed same sex couples.
Chinstrap penguins form same sex relations in zoo captivity. In fact they adopt and rear chicks. One has to wonder if a focus on observation of homosexual relationships was blanketed across the entire animal kingdom, if one would find that all hetero species, as opposed to asexual, experience this phenomenon.
From my own observation, Malard ducks, as soon as the females nest and sit on a batch of eggs, you see the green headed males hanging out, two by two. While nature has a fearsome drive to make babies, and while science has failed to crack the code, the evidence is in, homosexuality is not a sin, it is a function of nature.
NeoWolfe
May 1st, 2010 at 6:33 am
One wonders how Mr MacFarlane would feel if he were refused service in a shop because he was black and it was against the shop assistant’s religious convictions to serve black people. It’s much the same thing.
Discrimination is ugly and so, in my opinion, is Mr MacFarlane.
May 1st, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I’m a christian who is all for gay freedom and gay marriage. Homophobia is NOT a “christian belief”!
May 1st, 2010 at 8:42 pm
To the person who confesses to being a Christian: Read //God, Jesus and the Bible: The Origin and Evolution of Religion//. The information in it cured me.