It's finally happened in Europe — a judicial body, in this case the European Court of Human Rights, has blatantly privileged Gay claims to rights above those claiming Religious-Freedom rights based on religiously-formed conscience. What the Court did, in proving its own incompetence, is avoid the solvable problem of allowing both orders of rights to stand, and to be resolved beyond conflict, simply in these cases by permitting a counsellor and a civil-servant to be substituted in each of the cases by another employee in the same profession at hand, without inconveniencing anyone. No, the Euro Court coudn't find a practical solution because it didn't want to. It clearly had its own prejudice, beyond a juridical norm, that chose to be offended by anyone under any circumstance having a personal scruple that caused that person to ask for a substitute. If there had been no substitute who coud possibly have been made available, then the Euro Court may have had cause to balk at giving equal freedom to both parties. But as it stands, the Court has shown it has a serious blind-spot, dictating that anyone who discriminates on the basis of not serving homos in matters relating to counselling or registrar-for-marriage duties is guilty of a heinous offence, simply because that one person did not perform the service, on the basis of conscience, that the service itself nevertheless coud provide by allowing substitution. That negative ruling in three cases out of the four tried on religious-freedom issues by the Court shows it is so juridically blinded and perhaps so afraid of Gay activism that conceivably be directed at the Judges personally and street-politically, that the Court surrendered its juridical responsibility to a hi-ly discriminatory incompetence. No juridically-recognizable harm was done to the people and their desires for service by the scruples of those having to go to court in the first place -- just to have a place, indeed a breathing space, for the scruples to which they conscientiously hold. Shame on the European Court of (in)Justice that it can't accommodate the needs of people who seek no harm to others, do no harm to others, but have an alternative view of what their own conscience permits. Judges, do no harm! You've put people out of work due to your own prejudices and fears but also due to your lack of creativity in resolving claims to rights for both parties in each of the cases. The European Court is now unable to invoke the solution of accomodation so that both parties get basically what they want. This arbitrary and punitive "justice" handed down by the Court has outlawed alternative forms of conscience that it thinks it is privileged to step on. It isn't.
—
Lawt, refWrite Backpage juridics newspotter, analyst, columnist
Catholic Culture.org (Jan15,2k13)
Mixed religious-freedom rulings
at European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that British Airways violated the European Convention of Human Rights in telling an employee in 2006 that she could not wear a cross around her neck at work.
“Ms. [Nadia] Eweida's cross was discreet and cannot have detracted from her professional appearance,” the court ruled. “There was no evidence that the wearing of other, previously authorised, items of religious clothing, such as turbans and hijabs, by other employees had any negative impact on British Airways' brand or image.”
The court, however, ruled against Gary MacFarlane, a British marriage counselor who was fired after objecting on religious grounds to offering sex therapy to homosexuals and Lilian Ladele, a registrar who refused to perform same-sex civil partnership ceremonies.
“In each case the employer was pursuing a policy of nondiscrimination against service-users, and the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation was also protected under the Convention,” the court ruled.
Finally, the court ruled against Shirley Chaplin, a British nurse who was fired for wearing a cross at work, because hospital administrators had safety concerns.
