Christian rights cases go before Strasbourg court - a case of double standards?

[scottycelt]

Erm, nice try scotty but I think that most people would expect the problems of lesbian and gay couples to come up in this line of work, irrespective of changes in the law.He's behabving as if it were exceptional.

I would support Mr McFarlane's right to free speech but of course when he is in his job working for Relate he is accepting payment for it and thus has to abide by their rules which in this case include the law of the land created by the government of us all

But problems arise in most forms of work and accommodations are made by sensible employers towards valued employees. I'm not aware that it's the law of the land that one must provide sex counselling to anybody if one is a counsellor though it would appear that it now is. (in all but name)

Of course, Relate may have wanted rid of McFarlane for other reasons as well and considered 'discrimination' might be the easiest route towards that goal ... employers are a bit like that at times.

BTW, It is the principle that is the important thing here not the particular individual about whom I know as much as the ever-digging Amsey and Flossie.

[amateur51]

But problems arise in most forms of work and accommodations are made by sensible employers towards valued employees. I'm not aware that it's the law of the land that one must provide sex counselling to anybody if one is a counsellor though it would appear that it now is. (in all but name)

Of course, Relate may have wanted rid of McFarlane for other reasons as well and considered 'discrimination' might be the easiest route towards that goal ... employers are a bit like that at times.

BTW, It is the principle that is the important thing here not the particular individual about whom I know as much as the ever-digging Amsey and Flossie.

I wonder how many former Relate clients he's taken with him. He's found the sensible accommodation to his not-so-valued employer's requirements, it seems Shame he wasted so much public money in making the jump to self-employment.

[Flosshilde]

But problems arise in most forms of work and accommodations are made by sensible employers towards valued employees. I'm not aware that it's the law of the land that one must provide sex counselling to anybody if one is a counsellor though it would appear that it now is. (in all but name)

Good grief, Scotty. It is the law that goods and services should be provided to everyone, without discrimination. See the Equality Act 2010 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publica...rt?view=Binary), and see my post no. 93 in which I provided some educational reading for you.

[Resurrection Man]

He seems to be managing very well on his own since he was dismissed by Relate - http://www.garymcfarlane.com/

And jolly good luck to him, I say.

[Resurrection Man]

.... Shame he wasted so much public money in making the jump to self-employment.

What tosh. What waste?

[amateur51]

What tosh. What waste?

Ah constructive criticism as always, RM

I assume that Mr McFarlane's second appeal cost somebody something to prosecute and to defend. I assume that Mr McFarlane was not that person. As Mr McFarlane has solved his employment problem, then this was not the motive behind his appeal on an appeal.

So he was just chancing his arm

As it turned out.

That sort of waste

[Resurrection Man]

Ah constructive criticism as always, RM

I assume that Mr McFarlane's second appeal cost somebody something to prosecute and to defend. I assume that Mr McFarlane was not that person. As Mr McFarlane has solved his employment problem, then this was not the motive behind his appeal on an appeal.

So he was just chancing his arm

As it turned out.

That sort of waste

But then if he was trying to prove a point of principle? Or to seek to get clarification then hardly a waste. If the boot had been on the other foot then would you have said that it was a waste?

[amateur51]

But then if he was trying to prove a point of principle? Or to seek to get clarification then hardly a waste. If the boot had been on the other foot then would you have said that it was a waste?

The boot had been on that other foot for so long that I'd almost given up caring, RM

I think there comes a time when we have to accept that the law's intentions have been clarified. Mr M claimed yesterday that the likelihood of a further appeal was in the hands of his lawyers. Either way his lawyers will get their fees.

[scottycelt]

Good grief, Scotty. It is the law that goods and services should be provided to everyone, without discrimination. See the Equality Act 2010 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publica...rt?view=Binary), and see my post no. 93 in which I provided some educational reading for you.

Yes, it was really super fun read, Flossie, but we aren't really talking here about 'equality' or a denial of 'services', are we now?

I'm sure there might be plenty of counsellors around who would be perfectly happy to discuss sexual techniques with gay couples. It is surely 'horses for courses' a tidy little phrase already used by another member. I would have thought a gay counsellor would have been the man or woman for the job of gay counselling, but I do concede that many managements today do have a curious tendency to pick the most unsuitable person for a particular job in hand.

If Relate doesn't have any gay counsellors maybe it, itself, has some explaining to do on similar grounds of 'discrimination'? In any case, if I were part of a gay couple the last person I would want counselling my partner and I would be someone like McFarlane!

This has nothing to do with so-called 'equality', it is state-sponsored 'politically correct' dogma, nothing more or less.

Anyway, time for my pre-dinner Bells, Flossie. Priorities now well and truly sorted!

[amateur51]

This has nothing to do with so-called 'equality', it is state-sponsored 'politically correct' dogma, nothing more or less.

As opposed to the centuries of state-sponsored 'Biblically-correct' dogma we've suffered from hitherto, scotty?

Better make that a double

[Flosshilde]

Yes, it was really super fun read, Flossie, but we aren't really talking here about 'equality' or a denial of 'services', are we now? [etc]

I don't know why I bother trying to educate the uneducable.

[scottycelt]

I don't know why I bother trying to educate the uneducable.

If even these cunningly crafty Jesuits miserably failed the test you'd certainly be wise not to bother over much, Flossie ...

[Barbirollians]

I am surprised that some people find it so difficult to understand that religious belief does not entitle you to discriminate against others in the course of your employment no more than it would entitle a person who objected vehemently to a religious belief to discriminate against the holders of it . If you find that you are in a job where your conscience makes you object to some of the lawful requirements then find another career .

[MrGongGong]

I am surprised that some people find it so difficult to understand that religious belief does not entitle you to discriminate against others in the course of your employment no more than it would entitle a person who objected vehemently to a religious belief to discriminate against the holders of it . If you find that you are in a job where your conscience makes you object to some of the lawful requirements then find another career .

I don't see (there are some individuals who do I know) the CofE or the Catholic church as institutions speaking out forcibly against the arms trade for example which is in direct contradiction of the so called "faith" . These folks seem to be attention seeking self publicists.

[AuntyKezia]

Re msg 118, it does seem as if some of these cases originally arose because colleagues or employers "objected vehemently to a religious belief" held by the worker in question ...