Categories:Human Rights

Simon Forshaw and Marcus Pilgerstorfer, barristers, 11KBW

Religion vs sex: sex wins again

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

Readers' comments (2)

  • 1st paragraph: The perceived clash of rights does not really stand up, as the law cannot protect subjective content

    That's BS of the stinkiest lawyer sort. "Sexual orientation" is just as context subjective as my 1st Amendment rights to Freedom of Religion. There is a BELIEF in a "homosexual gene", but as yet no scientist has found it. A homosexual has the subjective BELIEF that they are homosexual, but there is currently no DNA test to prove it.

    Therefore, using your rationale, homosexuality is "necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence" and that "[they] lie […] only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by [them]. No-one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice". Well, Mr. Lawyer, the rest of us are being bound.

    The truth is that the courts are doing this because they *WANT TO* and not because there is a rational Constitution reason for it. The courts have ARBITRARILY chosen to defined "sexual orientation" to be a newly discovered race. The courts are not instruments of justice, but politics.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Mary,

    There is no 1st Amendment right in the UK, there is no Constitution, so no ones 1st Amendment rights are being impinged.

    On the subject of the B&B owners, they said they would only allow married couples to stay in the same room. As of now, that will include Gay married couples. So they shouldn't have a problem, should they?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields


Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (2)