Church of England clergy challenge civil partnership stance
Published by BBC News on 2 February 2012.
Secretary general William Fittall wrote that no religious premises would be allowed to host the registration of civil partnerships without written permission from the general synod - the Church's governing body.
The government said no religious group would be forced to hold ceremonies.
However, the Church's stance angered pressure groups and gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell urged clergy to defy the ban, which he called "dictatorial and homophobic".
The government will open a consultation on the issue of same-sex marriages - as opposed to civil partnerships - in March.
A consultation on the subject by the Scottish government ended in December.
On Wednesday, more than 50 people protested outside York Minster at comments made by the Archbishop of York on same-sex marriage.
Dr John Sentamu had told the Daily Telegraph that marriage must be between a man and a woman, adding it was not "the role of the state to define what marriage is".
Civil partnerships give same-sex couples the right to the same legal treatment across a range of matters as married couples but the law does not allow such unions to be referred to as marriages.
Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16848402
Bideford Town Council prayers ruled unlawful
Published by BBC News on 10 February 2012.
Action was brought against Bideford Town Council by the National Secular Society (NSS) after atheist councillor Clive Bone complained.
Mr Justice Ouseley ruled the prayers were not lawful under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.
However, he said prayers could be said as long as councillors were not formally summoned to attend.
The judgement was being seen as a test case which could affect local councils across England and Wales.
Mr Justice Ouseley ruled the prayers as practised by Bideford Town Council had been unlawful because there was no statutory power permitting them to continue.
The NSS, which said prayers had no place in "a secular environment concerned with civic business", argued the "inappropriate" ritual breached articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect an individual's right to freedom of conscience and not to face discrimination.
However, the case was not won on human rights grounds but on a point of statutory construction of local government legislation.
Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16980025#TWEET75793
Christian guesthouse owners lose appeal over ban on gay guests
Published by The Telegraph on 10 February 2012.
The challenge by the Bulls, who run Chymorvah House in Marazion, Cornwall, was rejected by three judges in the Court of Appeal in London.
They had appealed against a conclusion by a judge at Bristol County Court that they acted unlawfully when they turned away Martyn Hall and his civil partner Steven Preddy in September 2008.
Judge Andrew Rutherford ruled in January last year that the Bulls had breached equality legislation and ordered them to pay the couple a total of £3,600 damages.
The appeal judges heard that the Bulls thought any sex outside marriage was a ''sin'', but denied they had discriminated against Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, from Bristol.
Today's ruling was given by Sir Andrew Morritt, Chancellor of the High Court, Lord Justice Hooper and Lady Justice Rafferty.
During the hearing of the appeal in November, James Dingemans QC, for the Bulls, argued that the couple were entitled to hold "outdated" religious beliefs.
He said the Bulls operated a policy directed towards sexual practice not sexual orientation and said they believed that permitting unmarried people - whether heterosexual or homosexual - to share a double bed involved them in "promoting a sin".
Mr Dingemans said the Bulls were not trying to undermine the rights of Mr Hall and Mr Preddy and judges had to carefully balance all human rights involved.
Robin Allen QC, for Mr Hall and Mr Preddy, argued that his clients had a "lawful civil partnership" and the guesthouse should have been "open" to them in the same way it was to heterosexual married couples.
The judges heard that the Bulls were being backed by the Christian Institute and Mr Hall and Mr Preddy by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
After the ruling, John Wadham, the Commission's group legal director, said: "I have genuine sympathy for Mr and Mrs Bull, as their beliefs are clearly strongly held. We believe that this case will help people to better understand the law around freedom of religion. When offering a service, people cannot use their beliefs - religious or otherwise - to discriminate against others."
"As the discrimination ruling has been upheld, Mr Preddy and Mr Hall are entitled to the compensation ordered by the county court. However, the Commission has no intention of enforcing its entitlement to legal costs."
Simon Calvert, of the the Christian Institute, which funded Mr and Mrs Bull's appeal, said: "Peter and Hazelmary have been penalised for their beliefs about marriage. Not everyone will agree with Peter and Hazelmary's beliefs, but a lot of people will think it is shame that the law doesn't let them live and work according to their own values under their own roof. Something has gone badly wrong with our equality laws when good, decent people like Peter and Hazelmary are penalised but extremist hate preachers are protected."
