[Miguel]

Government is facing mounting
pressure over SOR court case

http://www.christian.org.uk/soregs/catholicevidence.htm

The High Court in Belfast has given the Roman Catholic Church the right to submit substantial evidence against the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) in Northern Ireland.

The new evidence will be considered during the judicial review launched by The Christian Institute and others in December.

Under High Court rules any individual or organisation can apply to the court for permission to take part in proceedings on an independent basis.

The Roman Catholic Church is not a co-applicant in the case but their initiative demonstrates that the regulations have upset both communities in the Province.

Due to the weight of evidence submitted against the Government the judge has extended the time set aside for the court case from two to three days and set a new date for the hearing of 4 June.

This development will increase the pressure on the Government over the regulations.

[Miguel]

Christian fostering agency faces closure under Sexual Orientation Regulations

A Christian fostering and adoption support service today announced it faces closure because the Government will not grant an exemption to the Sexual Orientation Regulations.

Following on from the statements of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England, Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Service wrote to the Prime Minister calling for protection from the regulations.

All prospective carers with Cornerstone (based in Stockton-on-Tees) must be Christians and they agree to live by the Bible's teaching. This means that among others, people of no, or other faith, heterosexual unmarried couples and practising homosexuals, are currently referred to alternative providers.

Following a meeting of carers, Trustees and staff, The Chairman of Trustees, Robin Singleton, said today:

"Cornerstone was founded as an agency for Bible believing Christians who want to provide a 'forever family' to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. By any measure Cornerstone is a very successful agency with outstanding outcomes for children. In our 7-year history more than half of the children have been adopted by their foster carers and our breakdown rate is exceptionally low.

"We are deeply concerned that our freedom to provide this service within a faith-based organisation is being denied. Cornerstone provides a unique service in the North East where the faith of its foster and adoptive carers is understood, supported and valued. Carers come to us in preference to other agencies for this reason. Other carers in society can readily have their needs met by an abundance of other providers. This lack of tolerance of Christians expressing their faith through service provision is of real concern and an outrageous infringement of our freedom.

One of our young adults says:

"I am one of the first children to be placed, and adopted, in a family by Cornerstone and I think it is totally shocking that you are going to shut down a good fostering agency just because they don't believe it's right for any fostered child to be brought up by people of the same sex whether they are gay or lesbian. There are plenty of other agencies out there who would be happy with allowing gay couples to foster children"

Robin concluded by saying:

"The implications of this proposed legislation are far reaching and will have a profound effect on services to the public through the reduction of faith-based organisational activities."

The Director of The Christian Institute, Colin Hart, said:

"Cornerstone is providing an excellent service for children. They want to do so because they are Christians, but under the regulations they face closure.

"Most reasonable people would question why our elected government would want to legislate in favour of gay rights supporters who want to close down welfare organisations offering public services which disagree with them. It is not only Cornerstone but many other religious charities will be affected, such as nursing homes, homes for the elderly, guest houses, the list is endless."

http://www.christian.org.uk/pressrel...ry_05_2007.htm

[Miguel]

These regulations will outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services and education. In some areas they clash directly with religious freedom. Exceptions exist for religious activities like baptism, communion and church membership. But some
faith-based social projects could be put out of business simply for acting upon their religious beliefs on sexual ethics. Where they bite, these regulations enshrine discrimination against Christians.

The Sexual Orientation Regulations outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities and services and
education. Parallel regulations have already come into force in Northern Ireland. The regulations covering the rest of the UK have now been
published. These regulations largely follow the wording of the Northern Ireland
regulations (except for a new ‘harassment’ law which is not present in the Great Britain regulations). No one argues that a homosexual should not
be able to buy groceries or have his bins emptied. But a problem arises for faith-based bodies when the provision of a good, facility or service would
necessarily involve endorsing homosexual practice (such as placing children for adoption with a homosexual couple). This is where the regulations
clash with religious liberty. There are some exceptions to protect religious liberty in the Great Britain regulations, as in Northern Ireland.
However, these exceptions are limited and do not apply to Christian-owned businesses or to publicly-funded welfare provision. They could face
closure simply because of their religious beliefs on sexual ethics. Examples of who is, affected by these regulations.

http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpubli...er_march07.pdf

[Miguel]

QUOTEUNQUOTE What others have said:

Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright “This completely fails to take into account the
views and beliefs of all those involved. ...the idea that new Labour can come up with a new morality which it forces on the Catholic Church
after 2,000 years; I am sorry, this is amazing arrogance on the part of the Government.” The Times, 30 January 2007

Federation of Synagogues “This legislation is forcing religious groups to operate
against their convictions and that sets a very dangerous precedent.”
The Jewish Chronicle, 2 February 2007

Muslim Council of Britain

“The Muslim Council of Britain fully supports the principled stand taken
by the leaders of the Catholic and Anglican churches on the Sexual
Orientation Regulations (SOR). The right to practise one’s faith... is a
cornerstone of our society...” MCB Press Release, 25 January 2007

Cardinal Keith O’Brien

“The role of the state is overreached when it tramples legitimate moral freedoms and when it imposes values which are without rational
and sociological merit...” The Catholic Herald, 21 July 2006

[Miguel]

The Sexual Orientation Regulations do effect

Schools

Whatever the Government says, the regulations will be interpreted as applying
to teaching in schools. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has called for the GB regulations to make clear that they apply to the
curriculum - to stop schools teaching that homosexuality is sinful or morally

wrong.1 The Committee said that schools should not be able to
teach “…a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true.” Parallel religious discrimination laws have exceptions for the school
curriculum and acts of worship, but the Government has refused to provide such exceptions in the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Without clear exceptions for the curriculum and acts of worship, schools will come
under huge pressure to endorse homosexual lifestyles. Education bodies are already training teachers to use pro-homosexual resources.
Moreover, an aggrieved pupil could sue a school which does not endorse homosexuality in sex education or citizenship lessons.
Interpreted in this way, the regulations would also undermine devolution. The
Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales

are meant to be responsible for the school curriculum. The regulations apply
to all schools – state and independent. The Government argues that the regulations only apply to school admissions and exclusions, or to access
to school trips. But the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whilst not giving a legallybinding interpretation, has shown that homosexual activists will interpret the regulations as applying to teaching in schools.


Old people’s homes

A Christian old people’s home which refused a double-bed to a homosexual couple could also be sued under the regulations. The operators of a Christian home could face an action for discrimination under the regulations if the
claimant or the home is funded by the state. Although such homes
restrict double rooms to married couples only, and also refuse
unmarried heterosexual couples, the regulations require a person in
a civil partnership to be treated like a married person. Even if the legal
action is unsuccessful the expense of defending themselves could
be huge. A Christian conference centre may be protected by
the exception for religious organisations. No such protection
has been given to Christian B&Bs or guest houses because they are
‘commercial’.


Adoption agencies

Publicly-funded adoption agencies that refuse on principle to place
children with homosexual couples will breach the discrimination
provisions under the regulations. These agencies could be forced to
close, particularly if an expensive legal action is mounted against
them. The Government has refused to grant them an exception, giving the
agencies until the end of 2008 to comply with the regulations.

Doctors

A Christian GP who refuses on moral grounds to refer a lesbian
couple for IVF treatment will be unlawfully discriminating under the regulations. The medical practice to which he belongs or the NHS trust which
funds the practice may face litigation. Even if the medical practice is based on a publiclystated Christian ethos, it could still face a legal action. It would
not be able to use exceptions for religious liberty because it is deemed to be ‘commercial’ and it receives public funding.

Professionals involved

in weddings A Christian wedding photographer could be sued if
he refuses to attend and take pictures of a civil partnership
ceremony. A florist could be sued for not providing
flowers. Caterers, hoteliers, car-hire firms, tailors could
all face expensive lawsuits if they refused to provide their
facilities, goods or services for a civil partnership ceremony.
Christians working in these professions should not face
crippling legal actions simply because of their religious
beliefs on sexual ethics.


http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpubli...er_march07.pdf