GAY TRUTH

GLOUCESTER – The Christian Legal Centre reports that a Christian group has received an apology from the Gloucester City Council, saying that they had been fully within their rights to hand out religious leaflets THAT SPEAK ON THE SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY and that it had been wrong to try to stop them. The apology comes after the city had attempted to stop members of ten city churches from handing out tracts during “Bible Day Gloucester”. The Council claimed that the group had breached city by-laws, but later apologized following the threat of legal action . Roland Parsons, a spokesman for Christians in Gloucester, said the group is “delighted that the council has seen sense”. “ Christians in Gloucester maintain that we have the basic freedom in Britain to hand out literature of a political or religious opinion to any other citizen in Gloucester,” he said. “We also refuse to live in a totalitarian regime where political and religious opinion is banned. The city MP would n

University of Oxford (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Oxford University caves to gay activist pressure: Male students may wear skirts to exams OXFORD – Oxford University has acceded to the demands of the university’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer Society (LGBTQ Soc) that male students be allowed to wear women’s clothes to exams and other formal occasions. The decision overturns centuries of tradition at one of the world’s oldest academic institutions, in which students are required to dress formally to sit exams. The academic dress code is in effect a uniform, called “subfusc,” and includes an academic gown, cap, and white bow tie for men and a black ribbon for women. It is traditionally worn at chapel services, formal meals as well as exams and academic assessments as well as matriculation. Before the August 4 decision, male students were required to wear a dark suit with black shoes, white shirt and collar, under their gowns. The new rules have abolished the rules

Image via Wikipedia The European Court of Human Rights ( ECHR ) has told the British government that they must clarify the rights of Christians with regard to the recently installed “equalities” laws. In particular the government must state whether they believe that the rights of Christians have been infringed in recent cases where individuals have been penalized for expressing their faith in the workplace, either by wearing a cross or refusing to affirm homosexuality. The court asked the British government, “In each case, did the restriction on visibly wearing a cross or crucifix at work amount to an interference with the applicant’s right to manifest her religion or belief, as protected by Article 9 [the right to freedom of religion] of the Convention?” Four British Christians who have clashed with the Equality Act, brought the complaint to the ECHR after they each lost their appeals in British courts. The case has been judged to merit further investigation by the ECHR. When Br

Image via Wikipedia A Christian psychotherapist may be “struck off” and barred from practicing after a tribunal declared last week that her efforts to help homosexuals leave the “gay lifestyle” was “reckless,” “disrespectful,” “dogmatic” and “unprofessional.” The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) found Lesley Pilkington guilty of professional malpractice after she let her “personal preconceived views about gay lifestyle and sexual orientation … affect her professional relationship in a way that was prejudicial.” The case against Pilkington was a  sting operation  conducted by homosexual activist and journalist Patrick Strudwick , who approached her in 2009 asking for help in overcoming his same-sex attraction .  Strudwick secretly recorded the conversations in their two therapy sessions and used the recordings to lodge a complaint against Pilkington with the BACP. Although the rulings of the tribunal were supposed to remain confidential, Strudwick pub

Image via Wikipedia For 15 years, Owen and Eunice Johns served as foster parents to British children. Social workers praised them as “kind and hospitable people” who “respond sensitively to” children. But London’s High Court has just ruled that the Johnses are unfit to foster. The reason: The Johnses are devout Christians , and their views about homosexuality may harm the children in their care. This opinion echoes that Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission , which, according to the Daily Mail, claimed foster children risked becoming “infected” by the Johnses’ Christian beliefs . The case came about when the Johnses re-applied to the Derby City Council to foster children after taking a break. But instead of welcoming them back with open arms, social workers expressed concern that the couple’s beliefs were in violation of the new Equality Act Regulations, which protect the rights of homosexuals. The Johnses could not believe that being Christians automatically excluded

Image via Wikipedia Following the decision of London’s High Court last week that a Christian couple could be banned from foster care due to their unwillingness to support the homosexual lifestyle, some commentators are pointing out that the decision amounts to a ruling on what is and is not authentic Christian doctrine. The court’s ruling found that Eunice and Owen Johns had not been the victims of religious discrimination when the Derby City Council declined their foster care application, based on the Johns’ alleged inability to “promote diversity.” Despite the Johns’ statement in a conversation with a social worker that their beliefs regarding homosexuality “stemmed from their religious convictions and beliefs,” both the Fostering Panel and the High Court attempted to disassociate the Johns’ religion from their views in support of traditional marriage in order to avoid charges of religious discrimination. According to the Court decision , in a 2007 Panel meeting considering the

Image via Wikipedia I have thought long and hard about whether to blog about a recent legal judgment that has made the headlines here in the UK , and about what I would want to say if I did. There has been much print spilled in some of our newspapers, many blogs written, and perhaps much confusion as a result. In particular there has been much attention drawn to a quote attributed to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission ( EHRC ) submission in this case, which apparently stated that children risk being ‘infected’ by Christian moral beliefs. The Commission  has since apologized for this , stating: Unfortunately a mistake within our legal submission led to an inference that we did not intend and which was misconstrued as suggesting that the Commission equates Christian moral views with an infection. This oversight was caused by a drafting error in our submissions to the court. This should have been picked up in our internal clearance process for the legal documentation and does n