Deputy President British Supreme Court: Laws That Ignore Christian Beliefs Might Not Be Sustainable

[BCSpace]

Peter and Hazelmary Bull run a bed and breakfast in the United Kingdom and were sued by two homosexuals when the Christian couple refused to rent them a bedroom in their business, which also is their home.

The fight brought on by the homosexuals went all the way to the nation’s highest court, resulting in an order that the Christian couple pay the “gay” duo a couple thousand dollars in damages.

All based on the idea of “nondiscrimination” laws where homosexuals are protected, but Christians are not. That Christians’ beliefs and practices must cede to the trendy notion of homosexuality.

It was one of the earliest cases – which now have spread across the globe and are being repeated in several locations in the United States – in which judicial authorities are ordering Christians to violate their faith in order to accommodate the desires of “gays.”

Now a key judge in that British court case is having second thoughts.

Serious second thoughts.

In fact, according to a report in the Daily Mail, Baroness Hale, the deputy president of the Supreme Court, said in a speech that her decision may have been wrong.

She is warning that the law, according to the report, “has done too little to protect the beliefs of Christians.”

Hale and four other judges ruled against the Bulls in the case that started in 2008 by determining that the rights of homosexuals outweighed the conscience requirements of the Christians couple who said they could not allow that behavior in their home, which also is their business.

At the time, Hale said society should be “slow to accept” the rights of Christians.

Now, however, the Daily Mail said she has acknowledged that laws that ignore Christian beliefs might not be “sustainable.”

She put her words into action, too, ruling in a very unusual move with other judges that the Bulls are not obligated to pay the legal costs of the case against them.

While the court ordered them to pay the 3,600 pounds to the homosexual duo, Steven Preddy and Martin Hall, the legal fees could have run many times that.

The courts had determined the Bulls violated the 2007 Equalities Act by declining to bend their religious beliefs for the homosexual duo. The case was supported by the legal defense fund of the Christian Institute.

For a time, the Bulls feared they would have to sell their guest house because of the cost of the case backlash to their income.

The Mail originally reported that the court’s results “effectively sealed the supremacy of gay rights over Christian belief under the Sexual Orientation Regulations.”

Hazelmary Bull said the court’s conclusion was that “Some people are more equal than others.”

Mike Judge, spokesman for the Christian Institute, said, “It’s a chilling view of equality which ends up treating a pair of honest Christians like this.”

The Mail said in a report this week that Hale, in a speech to lawyers, said the courts need to take a “more nuanced approach.”

Perhaps a “conscience clause” that would recognize the beliefs of people, should be developed, she said.

The Mail said she told lawyers, “I am not sure our law has found a reasonable accommodation of all these different strands.”

And she said, “An example of treatment which Christians may feel to be unfair is the recent case of Bull v Hall. Should we be developing an explicit requirement upon providers of employment, goods and services to make reasonable accommodation for the manifestation of religious beliefs?”

Colin Hart, a spokesman for the Institute, told the Mail, “The penny is beginning to drop among judges that the law is unfair. I hope the Supreme Court will find more room to protect Christian consciences.”

The Bulls have run their Chymorvah Private Hotel in Cornwall under Christian rules since they opened it in 1986.

“Such rules are so strictly adhered to that Mrs. Bull has admitted that even her own brother, when he comes to stay, is required to stay in a separate room to his female partner,” the Mail said.

The issue might not be as settled, however, as some may have been suggesting.

 

.

.

.

.

 

 

Judge has 'epiphany' in ruling against Christians - Suggests law include 'conscience clause' for business owners to live faith

 

 

 

Better late than never.

[frank_jessop]

Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary [of the law of the land] because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances. - United States Supreme Court, 1878

[thesometimesaint]

 

Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary [of the law of the land] because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances. - United States Supreme Court, 1878

 

 

Agreed, and "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". Treaty of Tripoli, June 10, 1797.

[BCSpace]

Yes.  In this particular case, the court ruled that one belief is superior to another and thus it has become a law unto itself.

[thesometimesaint]

Yes.  In this particular case, the court ruled that one belief is superior to another and thus it has become a law unto itself.

 

Non sequitur. You have the right believe anything you want. But your right to swing your fits ends at my nose.

[strappinglad]

I wonder if the owners had said, " are you married? no? then you must occupy separate rooms", would there have been a law suit.

[thesometimesaint]

I wonder if the owners had said, " are you married? no? then you must occupy separate rooms", would there have been a law suit.

 

Possibly. Drive-in Movies used to be called "Passion Pits". Never found cars all that comfortable myself.  

[The Nehor]

Non sequitur. You have the right believe anything you want. But your right to swing your fits ends at my nose.

 

And being able to refuse service is definitely analogous to physical assault.

[thesometimesaint]

And being able to refuse service is definitely analogous to physical assault.

 

I was a mandated reporter. If a child came to me with a report of physical assault, or neglect, I was required by law to report it to Child Protective Services.

[Sleeper Cell]

Non sequitur. You have the right believe anything you want. But your right to swing your fits ends at my nose.

 

 

Why is this sentiment never expressed:  “my right to swing my fist ends at your nose?”

 

In this case, what about the homeowner’s nose?  Doesn’t it deserve at least the same degree of protection against the gay couple’s right to swing their fist?  

[Calm]

I was a mandated reporter. If a child came to me with a report of physical assault, or neglect, I was required by law to report it to Child Protective Services.

What does that have to do with Nehor's comment?

[The Nehor]

I was a mandated reporter. If a child came to me with a report of physical assault, or neglect, I was required by law to report it to Child Protective Services.

So it is analogous to child abuse too?

[frank_jessop]

And being able to refuse service is definitely analogous to physical assault.

You did read the article didn't you? And since you did, you know the article is about RELIGIOUS BELIEFS vs the laws of the land.

Are there people who still follow the law of Moses? Or other religions which permit physical assault on a person?

[ERayR]

 

Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary [of the law of the land] because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances. - United States Supreme Court, 1878

 

 

IMNSHO a better question is: Can a person refuse service or the use of his assets to someone else?  In other words do you have a right to control your own property?

[ERayR]

Non sequitur. You have the right believe anything you want. But your right to swing your fits ends at my nose.

 

And your rights to your own beliefs and practices ends at my property line (nose).

[ERayR]

I was a mandated reporter. If a child came to me with a report of physical assault, or neglect, I was required by law to report it to Child Protective Services.

 

Another inane comparison that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[thesometimesaint]

 

Why is this sentiment never expressed:  “my right to swing my fist ends at your nose?”

 

In this case, what about the homeowner’s nose?  Doesn’t it deserve at least the same degree of protection against the gay couple’s right to swing their fist?  

 

 

Works for me. But I've seldom actually felt the need to arbitrarily pop someone in the nose.

 

As a homeowner I have every right to exclude anyone I don't want from my home. However the minute I open my home as a business enterprise I am subject to the same laws that govern every other business.

[thesometimesaint]

Another inane comparison that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

 

Back with your inane objections.

[ERayR]

 

As a homeowner I have every right to exclude anyone I don't want from my home. However the minute I open my home as a business enterprise I am subject to the same laws that govern every other business.

 

Whatever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". 

[thesometimesaint]

Whatever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". 

 

The reality is that is a dead letter in virtually all cases.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/16/us/kfc-dog-mauling/

[frank_jessop]

Whatever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

The right to refuse anyone, still exists.

To refuse anyone because of skin color, race, religion, national origin, gender, and in some place sexual orientation does not exist, and has not existed for a very long time; and the Church supports such prohibitions being placed on a store owner, landlord, and other proprietors.

What certain people are asking for is exemption from law because of an "professed" religious believe; which takes us back to Reynolds in 1878 wherein Reynolds claimed he did not have to follow the law of the land because of his religious believe. To which the Supreme Court of the United States responded "Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary [of the law of the land] because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."

[frank_jessop]

Of course those followers of any particular religion (in the United States) who claim it is there right (if not duty) as a follower of to exclude certain people, could always form exclusive private clubs and, if properly established as a private club, avoid anti-discrimination laws