tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206230760891278528.post4554291989413055276..comments2023-10-31T17:09:36.316+00:00Comments on The Long Walk Home: Are The Drewitt-Barlow's Striking A Blow For Equality Or Fighting Against Religious Liberty?Jae Kayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17816403017115766947noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206230760891278528.post-86894770323063047212013-08-04T21:22:52.649+01:002013-08-04T21:22:52.649+01:00I find the itch to overturn a newly minted law pas...I find the itch to overturn a newly minted law passed by Parliament deeply troubling and wrong.<br /><br />I think it exposes the LGBT community to a lot of negative views like we are trying to destroy the church and don't believe in the freedom of religion. <br /><br />The whole 'I want' 'I want 'I want' thing is deeply embarrassing. No doubt flows from being rich where you are used to getting what you want, a kind of arrogance if you will.<br /><br />The only way the law can be overturned is if it is contrary to the case law of the ECtHR - it just isn't. If it came to a case the CofE will be able easily to produce evidence that it has a doctrinal basis for not allowing same sex marriages (Canon B30, General Synod 1986, Lambeth 1998). The energy the CofE will have to put into defending the antigay stance will set back hopes of asking them to relax it, possibly by decades so it will end up being totally self defeating. It might make them feel a bit better and relieve them of a few hundred thousand £s but it will make it worse for everyone else.Craig Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15041142601074251914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206230760891278528.post-48057886725277421772013-08-02T11:42:08.040+01:002013-08-02T11:42:08.040+01:00When we get rid of "gay men only" hotels...When we get rid of "gay men only" hotels, we can demand B&Bs grant us entry. Don't get me wrong, I constantly worry about whether there will be a problem at a hotel when my partner and I check in. Horrible feeling when they even just question your sleeping arrangements, and it is way more common that people like to admit. <br /><br />But we aren't in a position to lecture others when our own community bans heterosexual people (hell I even got questioned once going into the Box bar by bouncers who thought my policeman date and I might be straight! We had to kiss to prove ourselves, how embarrassing!) from our own businesses. Jae Kayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17816403017115766947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206230760891278528.post-67965312828256799422013-08-02T11:38:57.707+01:002013-08-02T11:38:57.707+01:00I don't agree with the way the couple are goin...I don't agree with the way the couple are going about this (mainly because they have no chance of succeeding), but I don't see how the principle is very different to the B&B cases. If religious freedom implies a right to discriminate, then it applies to everyone (not just churches), and all forms of discrimination (not just discrimination against women and LGBT people). If a shop put up a sign saying "no Anglicans allowed", or if someone set up a white supremacist church and refused to marry non-white people, I suspect the C of E would be among the first to complain - and they would have the law on their side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206230760891278528.post-6437449096355403972013-08-02T11:21:14.682+01:002013-08-02T11:21:14.682+01:00The "A church" we are talking about here...The "A church" we are talking about here is part of "The Church". It doesn't have to be. The priest and congregation are quite free to leave (although the actual building is owned by "The Church" hence part of the problem). So it isn't just a case of religious freedom for the priest. <br /><br />I'd actually say that by remaining within a anti-LGBT rights organisation the priest is doing more harm than good. It'd be far more radical if they left, and make a far greater statement against the church's policy. Jae Kayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17816403017115766947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7206230760891278528.post-34340172356819845562013-08-02T10:08:38.772+01:002013-08-02T10:08:38.772+01:00This is very eloquent but misses the fact that the...This is very eloquent but misses the fact that the church in question wants to perform the wedding. Hence, in this case it is not a question of LGB rights vs religious freedom, it is a question of religious freedom of A church vs the religious freedom of THE church. If the Drewitt-Barlows win their case then it will mean that it is the C of E churches that want to perform same-sex weddings and their LGB parishioners who are happy, instead of the churches that don't want to perform them being happy. Either way some churches will be upset, others happy and as such the religious freedom argument doesn't hold much water. I still hope they winMusings From Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07831489667564682523noreply@blogger.com