Posts

Showing posts with the label McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd

Homosexual marriage agenda targets Christian freedom

Image
Three British Christians who argued that their beliefs saw them wrongly disciplined by their employers for actions such as refusing to counsel same-sex couples have lost their legal battle at the European court of human rights . Shirley Chaplin, Gary McFarlane and Lillian Ladele   had their appeals to the Strasbourg court rejected in January  as part of the same ruling as that in which Nadia Eweida , a British Airways check-in attendant, won her fight against being banned from wearing a cross at work. The three sought to resolve the matter in the court's grand chamber, its final arbiter. However,  judges at the court have rejected the request , in effect ending the legal battle. The success for Eweida, who was awarded €2,000 (£1,600) in compensation after a seven-year struggle with the airline – a decision welcomed by David Cameron among others – partly overshadowed the contrasting judgment in the cases of Chaplin, McFarlane and Ladele. Chaplin, 57, a geriatrics nurse f

Do ‘equalities’ laws violate rights of Christians?

Image
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