[...] But in the popular narrative discourse surrounding religion, ‘bigotry’ has become synonymous with contrariety: mere dissension is equivalent to a ‘closed mind’; to question religious doctrine connotes sectarianism; the ‘bigot’ has become the one with whom we simply disagree.
The speech being made today by Baroness Warsi would not be made by any Anglican on the Conservative benches. To talk of the marginalisation of Christianity and the diminution of Christian liberties would have the secularists and humanists foaming at the mouth.
But as His Grace has considered this judgment, he wishes his readers and communicants to consider that Labour’s Equality Act 2007 amounts to the provision for the state imposition of Satanism under your own roof.
The judgment in favour of Martin Hall and Steven Preddy was correct and fair in the sense that Mr and Mrs Bull appeared not to make their policy on the sanctity of the marital bed clear at the time of booking: if you journey hundreds of miles for a holiday, only to discover on arrival a restrictive regulation about which you had not previously been informed, then compensation is indeed due.
But the judge went further: he ‘clarified’ the definition of marriage beyond that decreed by Parliament in the Church of England’s liturgy; and he imposed a severe limitation in the right of a homeowner to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in one’s own home, where that home also constitutes a business.
Mr and Mrs Bull did not refuse Mr Hall and Mr Preddy a room on the basis of their homosexuality: indeed, a twin room would have been offered had one been available. This would have provided them with accommodation to enjoy their holiday. As the Judge observed: ‘Putting it bluntly the hotel policy allows them so to do albeit in the confines of a smaller bed.’
The rights of homosexuals, it appears, trump the rights of Christians.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.