The website of the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship does not seem to have their briefing up as yet so here is a chunk from the main part of it as received by email:
Although there are many positive proposals, there also elements of considerable concern to Christians who want to be able to speak freely about the Bible’s teaching. The main concerns are:Here is a link for the official Discrimination Law Review consultation. The consultation formally closes tomorrow but there is no reason not to make further submissions to show the concern that there is about these proposals. (Contact details for responses are at the above link.)
1. The Government are proposing to make it illegal to harass someone on the grounds of their religion or belief. However, the definition of harassment is extremely broad, and substantially depends on the perception of the person who makes an allegation of harassment and not the intention of the person accused of harassment. So, a Christian that went to a largely Muslim area to hand out tracts which said that Islam was a false religion, could be sued if a particular Muslim felt that the tract had either ‘violated their dignity’ or put them in an ‘offensive environment’
2. The Government have also brought back one of the most controversial proposals that they previously tried to bring in via the Sexual Orientation Regulations only a few months ago. They are proposing that it should be made illegal to harass someone on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Again, the problem is the really broad definition of harassment. This proposal would mean that although a Church is free under the SORs to gently refuse membership of the church to an unrepentant practising homosexual, that person, if they felt that they had been put in a ‘humiliating environment’ could sue the Church. Similarly, a homosexual could sue a church if they heard a sermon about sexual morality that included condemnation of homosexual practices
3. The Government are also consulting on whether there should be a duty on public authorities to promote sexual orientation equality. This will mean that local authorities and other bodies will take active steps to ensure that all sorts of organisations do not discriminate based on homosexual practices. The danger is that this will be taken too far and will mean that Government funding is removed from Christian projects or that support is given to projects promoting homosexuality.
4. The Government are further consulting on whether there should be a duty on public authorities to promote religion or belief equality. There is a similar danger here that the sort of politically correct decisions (like local councils banning Christmas cards) that increasingly make the headlines, will be multiplied, with public funding being focused on promoting ‘minority’ religions like Islam and Hinduism
5. Another part of the consultation paper seeks views on whether Churches should be able to treat people differently because they have had gender reassignment. If the Government subsequently decided not to allow churches to do so, then a church would not be able to object to a male member of the congregation, who had a sex change (taking on the appearance of a woman), from attending a women’s retreat weekend.
6. The Government are further proposing that the law should protect transsexual people from practices that require them to disclose the fact that their actual sex differs from their physical appearance. So, for example, the Government would allow a man that has had a sex change operation, to be able to keep it secret that he has had that operation.
These are just some of the main provisions of the DLR that are of concern to Christians.
6 comments:
The dictatorship of relativism: another turn of the screw.
Frightening & it gives me the creeps!
Don't forget also the reform of charity law, which requires a "public benefit" - likely, over time, to be interpreted so as to deny charitable status to churches.
Actually, this could be more fun than I thought.
Look at point 1, that it will be "illegal to harass someone on the grounds of their religion", and that "harassment is extremely broad, and substantially depends on the perception of the person who makes an allegation of harassment".
Now, who feels that, as a Catholic, a Gay Pride march is harrassing, demeaning our religious beliefs? Any volunteers to launch the first court case?
The sooner we get the 'test cases' into the Courts the better. Then we can really call 'a spade a spade' in full light of the media.
The important point is to get so many test cases into courts all over the Country that the courts will be overwhelmed by this nonsense and these idiotic laws will then be seen for the assinine codswallop that they really are!
I agree with Richard - if we play our cards right, are cunning as snakes and gentle as doves, this could be more fun that we all think!
With truth and right on our side there is nothing to fear. We cannot pander to secular laws that we know are just plain wrong!
The king's good servant but God's first.
The following quote from the consultation easy read version shows this may not just be fun, but hilarious;
"At the moment organised religions can treat transsexual people unfairly,in places like churches, mosques and when preaching and worshipping. We want to balance the rights of transsexual people and organised religions in the new Bill.
7a Do you agree that when public authorities make decisions or provide services, it should be against the law for them to treat transsexual people unfairly?
7b Do you think that organised religions
should be allowed to treat transsexual people unfairly? If so, in which situations?"
This Government is responsible for the bloody deaths of tens of 1000s of Iraqi men, women and children, and the total disintegration of Iraqi society, but no one can accuse it of failing to attend to the millions of transsexuals being unfairly treated in Britain's churches and mosques... Pity the poor transsexuals who crowd the synagogues,-they'll really feel left out.
Note how the concern for equality leaves out completely children! But if you allow these most vulnerable members of society into the picture you might have to stop killing them in womb.
Ken
Post a Comment