The full article is at www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Foster-parent-ban-no-place-in-the-law-for- Christianity-High-Court-rules.html
Abbreviated extracts follow:
There is no place in British law for Christian beliefs, despite this country’s long history of religious observance and the traditions of the established Church, two High Court judges said . . . Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson made the remarks when ruling on the case of a Christian couple who were told that they could not be foster carers because of their view that homosexuality is wrong . . .
The judges underlined that, in the case of fostering arrangements at least, the right of homosexuals to equality “should take precedence” over the right of Christians to manifest their beliefs and moral values. In a ruling with potentially wide-ranging implications, the judges said Britain was a “largely secular”, multi-cultural country in which the laws of the realm “do not include Christianity” . . .
The ruling in the case of Owen and Eunice Johns . . . is the latest in a series of judgments in which Christians have been defeated in the courts for breaching equality laws by manifesting their beliefs on homosexuality. In their ruling, the judges complained that it was not yet “well understood” that British society was largely secular and that the law has no place for Christianity. “Although historically this country is part of the Christian West, and although it has an established church which is Christian, there have been enormous changes in the social and religious life of our country over the last century.” . . .
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the former bishop of Rochester, described the judgment as “absurd”. . . . “To say that this is a secular country is certainly wrong . . . However, what really worries me about this spate of judgments is that they leave no room for the conscience of believers of whatever kind. This will exclude Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews from whole swaths of public life, including adoption and fostering.”
Speaking personally, Canon Dr Chris Sugden, the executive secretary of Anglican Mainstream, said the judges were wrong to say religion was a matter of private individuals’ beliefs: The judges "are treating religion like Richard Dawkins does, as if Christian faith was on a parallel with Melanesian frog worship.” . . .
What is being done in the U.S. on such matters?
no worries man.....just licked a toad and Im feelin ...........heavenly...........LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
I just like saying "holy crap" in a george carlin kind of way.
I've got some bondage tape, but no butterfly net. Sorry.
One thing they forgot to mention.... Melanesians can prove the existence of frogs!!
Red-eyed tree frog, yes. They're actually fairly common here in Costa Rica (or at least they were until the chytrid fungus pandemic wiped out most of them).
Not so sure about that god thing, though. They're certainly not worshiped here. Except maybe by the tourism ministry and the eco-lodge owners.
Do any of the aboriginal natives fry and eat them instead, then?
Or at least the legs, as in Europe.
I just Asked Jeeves. I kid you not.
"French people eat frogs’ legs. Consumption of frogs' legs in France totals 3000 to 4000 tons per year (60 to 80 million frogs). . . if cooked correctly, they are delicious, having a delicate flavor tasting somewhere between chicken and fish. Frogs' legs are one of the better-known delicacies of French and Cantonese cuisine."