Tag Archives: Freedom of Association

News

UK Equalities Minister introduces law allowing gays to marry in churches

2 Comments

From the UK Daily Mail. (H/T Lex Communis)

Excerpt:

Gays and lesbians will be able to ‘marry’ in church under new laws to be unveiled this week.

The historic decision by Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone will end the legal definition of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

A gay couple will be able to refer to one of the partners as a ‘husband’, and a lesbian couple will be able to refer to one of the partners as a ‘wife’.

A key part of the reform will bring an end to the ban that prevents civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship.

In a major concession to Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s Lib Dems, the Government will announce that for the first time, such ceremonies will be allowed to have a religious element, including hymns and Bible readings. They could be carried out by priests or other religious officials.

[…]Ms Featherstone will also say gays should be able to hold traditional weddings in register offices and other civil settings such as country houses and even football grounds.

[…]The change could also lead to legal action by gay couples denied the right to marry in church.

Gay marriages are already legal in Canada, South Africa, Sweden, Spain, the Netherlands and some American states.

The Liberal Democrats are to the left of the Labour Party in the UK. They are like the New Democrats in Canada.

Even though the Liberal Democrats are hostile to Christianity, there were probably many Christians who voted for them as a way of promoting “equality” and “social justice” through redistribution of wealth. But the more government grows, the more they meddle in civil society. No billionaire business owner has the power to coerce and control a private citizen as much as the lowest level politician has. Businesses can only sell you things if you freely choose to buy them – hardly oppressive. But the most feeble government bureaucrat can coerce you and sanction you for failing to comply with his will – you don’t have a choice of whether to comply or not.

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
(Thomas Jefferson)

Note that this sort of thing happens in Canada, too.

Related posts

News

Is the secular left repectful of academic freedom?

Leave a comment

A story from the Vancouver Sun. (H/T Mary)

Excerpt:

Since 2006, the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has been targeting small, private, accredited, and invariably Christian, universities. Its method is to emit vague accusations that codes of conduct of such institutions somehow violate CAUT’s definition of academic freedom. It then appoints its own “commissioners” to “investigate” whether the schools are guilty as charged.

Last year, it used these tactics against Trinity Western University in the Fraser Valley. More recently, it has turned it sights on a Mennonite school in Manitoba, a Baptist academy in the Maritimes and similar Christian schools across Canada.

What’s risible about CAUT’s singling out of these Christian schools is that, by its own admission, it has absolutely no legislative or administrative authority to conduct such investigations.

CAUT has been around since 1951, primarily as a labour advisory body for academic staff. It also plays the role of equal opportunity foghorn on campus free-speech issues. Demonstrating classic mission creep, though, it has appointed itself Canada’s guardian of academic freedom and launched its campaign to root out attempts by universities to “ensure an ideologically or religiously homogeneous staff.”

The meaning of academic freedom is what CAUT says it means. A CAUT document has a footnote to give authority to what it calls the “conventional understanding of academic freedom” — and then cites itself as the authority.

CAUT’s campaign impugns the legal rights of faith-based institutions to require employees to conduct themselves in ways consistent with their affiliation to the organization’s religious mission. Settled human rights law and religious freedom rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada entitle such organizations — non-academic and academic alike — to do just that.

As Don Hutchinson, senior counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said recently about the case of Heintz versus Christian Horizons: “Christian institutions … have particular rights that permit them to engage in selective hiring, requiring their employees to agree with their mission, beliefs, and behaviours — provided the institution adequately explains … why they are essential to the performance of the individual’s work . . . .” Such rights are not, Hutchinson stressed, special exemptions or loopholes or simply sneaky ways to impose “Christian morality” within the academy. They are legal rights, straight up.

Sending unauthorized “commissioners” to snoop into entirely legal conduct is not just impudent. It offends the very fundamentals of freedom.

This is the kind of danger that needs to be on the map in Christian circles. Is it?

News

Supreme Court hears arguments on whether to allow Christian campus groups

1 Comment

Story from the Wall Street Journal.

Excerpt:

Conservative and liberal justices on the Supreme Court dueled verbally over whether a student religious group has a constitutional right to receive state college funds while excluding homosexuals and others who violate its beliefs.

The case, argued Monday, stems from San Francisco, where the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law says its policy requires that student groups seeking benefits such as school funding or preferred access to meeting rooms admit any interested student.

Hastings refused to accept the Christian Legal Society as a registered student group because, starting in 2004, the organization has held members to a “statement of faith” prohibiting “fornication, adultery and homosexual conduct.”

The society sued, contending that the Hastings antidiscrimination policy violated its First Amendment right to associate with those it chooses and to select members and officers committed to promoting its beliefs. Lower courts agreed with Hastings, setting up a Supreme Court argument with both sides represented by lawyers who gained prominence during the administration of President George W. Bush.

[…]The student group was represented by Michael W. McConnell, a conservative scholar who has challenged prevailing views requiring a rigid separation between church and state. President Bush appointed him to a federal appeals court, but Mr. McConnell stepped down last year to head a center at Stanford Law School and litigate cases like this one.

“If Hastings is correct, a student who does not even believe in the Bible is entitled to demand to lead a Christian Bible study,” Mr. McConnell told the Supreme Court. While the school could bar discrimination based on “status”—such as race—it could not stop a student group from limiting membership to those who pledge fealty to its beliefs, he said.

And what about the wise Latina, who was appointed by Barack Obama, and hailed as a moderate?

Liberal justices said Hastings’s policy reflected a wish to avoid parsing the specific form of discrimination each student group might employ. Outside groups could still use campus facilities even if not officially registered, they said.

“Your group is not being excluded or ostracized completely,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. “You can meet in the cafeteria, you can meet in open spaces in the school.”

Elections have consequences.

Now I guess that there were apparently some people who thought that voting for Obama was consistent with authentic Christian faith. But look at how Obama’s judges like up on the issue compared to Bush’s judges. Real Christians are having their fundamental rights attacked by the secular left on campus, and the judges on the Supreme Court and going to decide what happens to those real Christians. University campuses are run by secular humanists who have no reason at all in their worldview to care about protecting anyone else’s rights – morality on naturalism is survival of the fittest and might makes right. They have no principles.

I vividly remember having a talk with two “Christians” who were heavily into NBA basketball and memorizing movie dialog in the parking lot of our office prior to the 2008 election. They assured me that all that was necessary to be a Christian was to attend church and to have a good time at church. They would not listen to a word I said about policies that were consistent with the Christian worldview – not even on abortion or traditional marriage. Obama had the right color of skin, and that’s all there was to it. And now we see the results of their voting. What will happen when they meet the authentic Christians they helped to persecute in Heaven?

In addition, let this be a lesson to Christians who are interested in making a difference in the world – we need more experts in the law like McConnell who have top tier credentials. Don’t waste your life – think about the most effective thing you think you might be able to do, and do that thing. It’s not meant to make you happy, it’s self-sacrificial service.

You can read more about McConnell here.