Some Gays Turn Attention to Civil Unions

A Christian relationship counsellor was sacked because he refused to give sex therapy sessions to gay couples, a tribunal heard today.
Gary McFarlane, 47, had given advice to straight couples but felt his religious beliefs prevented him from offering advice on sexual intimacy with same sex partners.

He was sacked by the national counselling service Relate for breaching its equal opportunities policy.

Read more: Counsellor sacked for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples because it was 'against his Christian beliefs' | Mail Online
.
 
A Christian doctor has been removed from an adoption panel after she refused to endorse applications by same-sex couples.


Dr Sheila Matthews was removed from the panel after she asked to be allowed to abstain from voting in cases involving same-sex couples, on the grounds that it contravened her beliefs.


She was told that her beliefs on gay adoption were incompatible with equality legislation and council policies.

Doctor removed from adoption panel for refusing to consider gay couples - from Pink News - all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News
 
They are devoted foster parents with an unblemished record of caring for almost 30 vulnerable children.


But Vincent and Pauline Matherick will this week have their latest foster son taken away because they have refused to sign new sexual equality regulations.




To do so, they claim, would force them to promote homosexuality and go against their Christian faith.

.
 
If the same people were to deny a adoption for African American couple a child based on their skin color, they would be fired.

It's all about equal opportunity. When you choose to take a job in the public sector like that, you have to follow the rules set. Their beliefs hold no water.

You don't see this affecting the church at all.
 
Missourian, all those people broke the rules.

Remember that pesky First Amendment Robert?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof​
;​
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is Rule #1...literally.
 
Last edited:
"In reality the Mormon church gave no money to those groups fighting prop 8"
Source or STFU
Was your head in the ground while this was going on last year? Do your own googleing. What I said is correct, the Mormon church did not give any money to groups over prop 8. You don't like it, I can tell. Still looking for a scapegoat, are you?:lol:

45 percent of out-of-state funding for pro-Prop 8 came from Utah.

And of course, no one lives in Utah but Mormons. :cuckoo:
 
Remember that pesky First Amendment Robert?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

The Constitution protects you from the Government, not from your fellow citizens.

If you work for a company or the state government, you have to abide by their rules.
 
Remember that pesky First Amendment Robert?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

The Constitution protects you from the Government, not from your fellow citizens.

If you work for a company or the state government, you have to abide by their rules.

Wrong...the government is restricted from making or enforcing laws that prohibit freedom of religion.

The Congress shall make NO LAWS that prohibit the exercise of that freedom - period.
 
Last edited:
Wrong...the government is restricted from making or enforcing laws that prohibit freedom of religion.

The government. Notice your examples do not involve the government I'm pretty sure? And when they do, the rules are clear on equal opportunity. By those people denying an adoption for example, they are violating someone else's rights by law.

The Government is not private companies either. If a private company says you can't discriminate on the basis of Gender, Religion, Sexual Orientation, etc then you can't. Don't like it? Someone else is more than willing to take your job.
 
Was your head in the ground while this was going on last year? Do your own googleing. What I said is correct, the Mormon church did not give any money to groups over prop 8. You don't like it, I can tell. Still looking for a scapegoat, are you?:lol:

45 percent of out-of-state funding for pro-Prop 8 came from Utah.

And of course, no one lives in Utah but Mormons. :cuckoo:

Head in the sand...

Sure average citizens in Utah are concerned about gay rights in California
 
Wrong...the government is restricted from making or enforcing laws that prohibit freedom of religion.

The government. Notice your examples do not involve the government I'm pretty sure? And when they do, the rules are clear on equal opportunity. By those people denying an adoption for example, they are violating someone else's rights by law.

The Government is not private companies either. If a private company says you can't discriminate on the basis of Gender, Religion, Sexual Orientation, etc then you can't. Don't like it? Someone else is more than willing to take your job.

It's not the company Robert, the sued photographer owned the business.
 
It's not the company Robert, the sued photographer owned the business.

In that case, the state would be wrong. However, I would like a different link if you don't mind. WND is about as good of a source as toilet paper.
 
People who resent the truth generally cast aspersions on it.

And some stories the mainstream media won't touch except to further an agenda. This is one of them.
 
It's not the company Robert, the sued photographer owned the business.

In that case, the state would be wrong. However, I would like a different link if you don't mind. WND is about as good of a source as toilet paper.

:lol: Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel. :lol:

I'll see if I can find a more middle of the road source.

If I remember correctly, the was also a landscaper in Houston.

This is a Federal law.
 
:lol: Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel. :lol:

I'll see if I can find a more middle of the road source.

If I remember correctly, the was also a landscaper in Houston.

This is a Federal law.

I would like to see the issue in a more middle of the road perspective as you said. I have a feeling there are more to these stories.

And hey, I don't trust the website that says Obama is a Communist Atheist Muslim Spy from Kenya. :lol:
 
:lol: Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel. :lol:

I'll see if I can find a more middle of the road source.

If I remember correctly, the was also a landscaper in Houston.

This is a Federal law.

I would like to see the issue in a more middle of the road perspective as you said. I have a feeling there are more to these stories.

And hey, I don't trust the website that says Obama is a Communist Atheist Muslim Spy from Kenya. :lol:


Here is the actual case with judgment from Georgetown Law.

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/moralvaluesproject/News/documents/ElainePhotographycase.pdf
 

Forum List

Back
Top