I have just been telephoned with the news.
The person who rang me added a comment, "No (something or other) Sherlock!"
I think they felt that it was obvious that they acted outside the law and this appears to have been the view of many that I encountered when the story forst broke.
A sadness but not an unexpected outcome. The problem is how can we apply equally the right to hold views and maintain rights?
This needs some real thinking and some proper investigation. It doesn't need posing, return episodes of entrapment or people rushing around screaming 'persecution!' It's not, it about being wise as serpents - gentle as doves.
The battle is engaged - let's use our heads and employ sound (and lawful) tactics - for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, are they?
Off to work!
3 comments:
I think the judge should have been asked about the increasing number of taxi drivers who refuse to take blind people (their dogs) on religious grounds - but of course, they're Muslim, so that's allowed. Basically, it's laws aimed at orthodox Christians, and anyone who doubts that has been deceived.
Indeedy. Any cabbie who refused a fare is breaking the law (unless they're a minicab in which case there are some who break it by merely getting into the car!)
A cabbie cannot refuse to take a fare because they have a guide dog and again, to be honest, many of the cabbies I have manoeuvred around in my driving life could have found a guide dog of great assistance!!!
thanks (as ever) for comments,
V
Was this a matter of discrimination, or of testing the law in regards to whether or not civil partnership is equivalent to marriage? The former would seem to be far to simplistic an interpretation.
Post a Comment