Reader comments · Counsellor who refused to work with gays loses appeal bid · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Counsellor who refused to work with gays loses appeal bid

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Good.

    If he is unwilling to perform his job as stated in his contract of employment then he should not have been doing that job in the 1st place.

    Glad he lost his case, and glad that whatever bigotted group is backing him has wasted thousands of pounds to lose this case.

  2. silly billy 29 Apr 2010, 1:52pm

    “-Lord Carey added that decisions in favour of gay rights were “dangerous” to the social order and even went as far as to suggest they could lead to “civil unrest”.

    He wrote: “The effect of these decisions is to undermine the religious liberties that have existed in the United Kingdom for centuries.”-”

    Yahoo. There is light at the end of the tunnel….

  3. That old f***er Lord Carey can swing as far as I’m concerned.

    He has the gall to say ” “The effect of these decisions is to undermine the religious liberties that have existed in the United Kingdom for centuries.”

    Religion is by its very nature undemocratic as it tries to force people to abide by rules, supposedly laid out by an unproven ‘god’. The religions also try to pervert democracy by persuading governments to enact legislation in keeping with their own rules, regardless of whether other people agree with them or not.

    Religion is dangerous and Lord Carey is a moron.

  4. Civil Unrest? Cut to the scene – “A teacup is dropped in Fellowship at a Surrey Church…

  5. Absolutely the right decision. Religious beliefs shouldn’t mean an exemption from the law of the land.

    It’s reported that Lord Justice Laws said the protection of religious views could be irrational. He also used the words “divisive, capricious and arbitrary”. Quite right.

  6. Good. Nice to read a positive story!

  7. Is the microphone on? Good. Carey and McFarlane are two very bigoted men.

    “Religious figures” (whoever they may be, facts please PinkNews) “claim that her case shows that the rights of religious people come second to the rights of gay and lesbian people.” Yes, quite right, they do, and should, just as they should and are on race matters.


  8. Excellent news.

    I think maybe these people are suddenly realising that the LBGT community do have a voice, it’s there to be heard and mores to the point it’s every bit as valid as theirs.

  9. As soon as these homophobic “…strongly-held Christian principles” become irrelevant in our churches following their inevitable accceptance by those who deliberatly endeavour to keep the Gay Issue ball rolling, Mr. McFarlane will then presumably be able to return to his counselling job – which, remind me, is all about…………………………….

  10. well done to all involved in this case

  11. If you are unable to do the job you are paid to do then like everyone else you find another job or get sacked. I wonder how he would react if someone said they couldn’t work with him because he is black. All hell would break loose!

  12. “They administer the law in accordance with the judicial oath – without fear or favour, affection or ill-will,”. Lord Justice Laws.

    So, up yours Mr Carey.

  13. at last, some good news.

    I wonder if this christian thinks that BNP members should have the right to refuse to work with black people?

  14. I’ve been on a couple of counselling courses and it was drummed in to us that as a counsellor we are supposed to be empathic and non judgemental toward the people that come to see us. We are also not supposed to let our beliefs cloud out judgement. I guess he was ill and missed that day.

  15. It really annoys me that I continue to read “Religious figures claim that her case shows that the rights of religious people come second to the rights of gay and lesbian people.”

    Religious right do not come second to gay and lesbian people. They are equal in law. Legally, religious people are entitled to be protected from discrimination, yes, owing to them having a faith. FULL STOP. They do not have a legal right to have their actions (whatever they may be)- respected! It is simple: Everyone has the right to their own religion – they are not allowed to manifest any part of that in ways that harm others. Personally, I disagree that ‘Religion’ should form any category of anti-discrimination law at all. Religion is chosen (or, at least, can be un-chosen). Sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity etc… are immutable and therefore unchosen characteristics – so, in my view, whenever there GENUINELY IS a clash of the religious vs. the gays then gay rights SHOULD trump religious rights – not that I am saying that this went on in this case……

  16. Only one in ten people go to church each week and two-thirds of the population only go for weddings, funerals and baptisms. Out of those who go, you can imagine how few hold fundamentalist views. They must be a tiny, tiny minority. It’s time they woke up and smelt the coffee and recognised their irrelevance in modern society.

  17. some of the daily wail are defending this idiot unsurprisingly, Carey and other homophobes ignores that this guys duties we’re to work with couples so he can’t suddenly reject his duties! Carey’s religious liberties is a euphamism for homophobia and other bigotries!

  18. Paulo Nunes Jr 29 Apr 2010, 5:21pm

    I honestly don’t know what kind of sex counselling can Christians provide to people. Particularly, because most of them have a reputation of being sexphobic and repressive whackos when it comes to sex and sexuality. Leave this job to someone with the real credentials and competence — prefarably a certified sexologist.

  19. Joe Sponje 29 Apr 2010, 5:43pm

    Did anyone ask him 1 simple question, did he go against church philosophy and officiate marriages to people that were not officially divorced through the catholic church? If he did, then that shows his discrimination. Also the Catholic church believes that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, then no woman should be allowed to marry if she is infertile or has gone through menopause.

  20. Will Carey now put his money where his mouth is and man the barricades?

    No, because he talks through his arse because his mouth is worn out.

  21. Pink News seems to have missed this story about the BBC’s Evan Davis and the B&B issue. He thinks it’s OK to discriminate in Bed & Breakfasts –

  22. dave – you didn’t mention that Evan uses the same terms as homophobes do like ‘agenda’

  23. Dr. Robin Guthrie 29 Apr 2010, 7:58pm

    Don’t you just love exposing the hypocrisy of these idiots.

  24. Reason previals in the face of bigotry.!!!

    The Lord Justice Laws shows that the law is just towards gay men in this case.

    Mr McFarlane appears to have no shame. . .

  25. Lord Justice Laws – what an amazingly appropriate name for a reassuringly rational legislator!

    Thank goodness for people like him and, on rare but wonderful occasions, the triumph of reason.

  26. de Villiers 29 Apr 2010, 9:14pm

    Laws LJ found:

    (1) There is a difference between belief and conduct. The fact that an employee’s motivation for conduct is a wish to manifest religious belief, this does not stop the employer from disapproving of the action rather than the belief behind it.

    (2) Where an employer has a policy of non-discrimination, it can require all employees to comply with this even if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

  27. de Villiers 29 Apr 2010, 9:24pm

    I should add – it is not safe to praise Laws LJ for his judgment. It was not a political decision. He followed precedent from previous decisions on the law.

    If it were the statute law that religious beliefs take priority then he would have ruled differently.

    Do not thank people like Laws LJ, the brilliant mind that he is. Thank the legislation.

  28. Is Relate a public counseling service? If so, then Mr. McFarlane should be following public policy. If his religious beliefs conflict with his job requirements, then obviously he should be seeking employment elsewhere. If he was working for a religious counseling service, that would be something else. But as a public servant his religious beliefs have no place in who and how he counsels.

  29. I suppose he was also looking forward to a big compensation award if his appeal for upheld. Shame.

  30. Assuming Jehova’s Witnesses are still against blood transfusions (?), what does the Christian Institute or Dr. Cary think should happen if a nurse became a JW and refused to take part in the procedure as part of their job?

  31. @John, yes it’s a national service

  32. He’s ‘disappointed and upset’. Good!

  33. @John (contd), It’s a national charity, non religious; it was called the Marriage Guidance Council until 1988, when it was renamed Relate, to reflect it’s broader remit, which also included same sex couples.

  34. Mr McFarlanes state of mind . . .

    “He’s ‘disappointed and upset”

    Progress at last, lets hope as a counsellor he has the capacity to reflect on – and learn from this. Shamelessness is a very tricky, dangerous and narcisitic road. Perhaps he will change his direction now that he has hit a cross roads.

  35. Just for a moment let’s look at this from the devout Christian viewpoint, which is basically that “God will provide”.
    If this is so, then what on earth is this ‘so-called devout Christian’ bleating about? If his faith is as strong and as precious as he seems to be claiming then he should have resigned and trusted in his God to find him alternative employment at an equivalent or better salary!
    Faith is not a ‘pick and mix’ option, it’s all or nothing.
    This guy should be intelligent enough [I assume] to recognise that the new legal position made his current employment impossible for him and resigned on the spot and trusted in his God to provide a suitable alternative for him.
    SO pleased the Court of Appeal had the good sense to reject his plea.

  36. Philip Chandler 29 Apr 2010, 11:42pm

    I have no sympathy for this counsellor whatsoever.

    Religion does not permit those individuals who are devout to ignore or to flaunt laws of general application. As a society, we have made a policy decision, reflected in the laws of the land, to the effect that stamping out the cancer of discrimination is a compelling government interest, and that the exercise of religion should not be permitted to interfere with this policy objective in such public spheres as the provision of commercial services. Every citizen is perfectly free to practice his or her religion in the privacy of the home; however, when a person enters the public domain and offers commercial services, that person loses rights which he or she would otherwise enjoy as a matter of course. Nobody has the right to impose his or her religion on the populace when providing commercial services – we do not live in a theocracy, and any person who believes that he or she is unable to abide by the tenets of his or her religion should not enter the public domain. We live in a diverse, pluralistic society in which many different persons of vastly different belief systems live together, cheek by jowl, and permitting any one group of persons to discriminate based on their religion threatens to undermine the agreement which we have reached as a nation. Make an exemption for any one religious group or organization, and there is no end to the process whereby other groups could carve out special rights. For this reason, McFarlane deserves to lose his case.


  37. friday jones 30 Apr 2010, 12:25am

    If an atheist counselor refused to counsel Christians because of their beliefs, would that counselor have a case with the European Commission of Human Rights? How about if that counselor also happened to be gay? If not, then why the HELL would this woman think for a second that she had a case in the exact same circumstances except with the roles reversed?

  38. Commander Thor 30 Apr 2010, 7:55am

    [begin sarcasm]
    He should be allowed to refuse to councel them for being gay – afterall I don’t want a christian providing sexual advice.[end sarcasm]

  39. De Villiers, #27: “Do not thank people like Laws LJ, the brilliant mind that he is. Thank the legislation.”

    Good point, thanks for that.

  40. Good result which should finally put paid to people using faith as a cover for discrimination. Pity Carey is not still Archbishop of Canterbury: he and the Pope together would be – or cause – a riot.

  41. Stan James 30 Apr 2010, 8:54am

    Send him now to Uganda. With “gay” tattooed on his forhead and his sex organ.

    Lets just sit back and see what happens. Christins 0 Lions 1

  42. “With “gay” tattooed on his forhead”

    Did anyone here/see him on the news? He set my gaydar off. Something about him.

  43. Did McFarlane ask the straight couples if they were married before offering assistance with `intimacy issues’? The NT have a lot more to say about sex outside marriage than it does about gays. This man is a hypocrite and I am pleased at the decision.

  44. There are so many of these cases in the UK – just shows you that despite the law changes there is still alot of Homophobia in the UK

  45. Peter @ 43, he was on the Christian propaganda tv programme on the BBC presented by Nicky Campbell (Big Questions?) and said that he would be perfectly happy to counsel unmarried couples. Of course Campbell barely challenged him on his hypocrisy.

  46. I found Call-Me-Dave’s performance on the third debate last night FRIGHTENING! He showed a ruthlessness, a bullishness, and a firmness which really scared me.

    I see that Carey has warned that this issue of Christians not being allowed to disobey the law in order to go along with what’s written on their bits of old parchment will lead to “civil disorder” (quote).

    So if Call-Me-Dave gets in, then I believe there is a real possibility that being a church-loving Tory he will gave in to the demands of Carey and the Christians and all of we LGBTs will be pushed down the ladder by one or more rungs.

    We’re still not treated as first-class citizens in this country. Carey will ensure that Cameron demotes us from second-class to third.

  47. This case simply highlights what I’ve long considered,that is that religion should never play a part in state legislation.When McFarlane decided he wanted to enter a career in,(sexual),counceling he surely could have worked it out that there may come a time when he’d encounter issues which were contrary to his belief system.He has absolutely no case to contest,and the correct decission was made.

  48. Erroll Clements 30 Apr 2010, 2:15pm

    At least the law is being carried out correctly, same goes for the Ladelle B***h, you’re employed to do a job and you cannot choose whom you do or don’t want to serve! Commonly known as public service!!! Carey’s only got himself into a tiff because the church and the people who funded this biggots case have been proved to be anything but christian, just two faced biggots wanting their own rules and regulation.

  49. Rev Laurie Roberts 30 Apr 2010, 8:31pm

    Carey talks small minded rubbish and hasnt the decency to recognise that Justice Laws went to a lot of trouble in his ruling to help Carey over-come his misunderstandings of the the Law and how it works in our democracy.

    It makes me sick and asshamed of Christianity — even though Carey and co misrepresent their views as being IT. Whereas plenty of christians have long supported gay rights and worked for them in various ways.

    Most anglo-catholic churches are like olde fashioned gay clubs of yester-year ! – and while Evangelical churches are less obvious they are hardly lacking in lesbian and gay individuals, as well as couples.

  50. Jean-Paul 1 May 2010, 7:34am

    Hang down your head, Lord Carey;
    Hang down your head and cry.

    Hang down your head, Lord Carey;
    Gary’s saying: “Goodbye”.

    Gloating? Who me???!!

  51. gentle lamb 1 May 2010, 11:35am

    There must be the maximum secular space for all. If the special demands by Christians were upheld, there would be a big clash of religious battles where each group insist to control the other.

  52. “the rights of religious people come second to the rights of gay and lesbian people” And so they should. Religion is a belief, homosexuals are a reality. Surely living breathing humans come before myth and superstion.

  53. Jean-Paul 1 May 2010, 7:23pm

    @51 gentle lamb:

    That’a a new slant: an anti-gay ministry such as yours, (RAINBOW HARVEST)

    saying things like:

    “There must be the maximum secular space for all.

    If the special demands by Christians were upheld, there would be a big clash of religious battles where each group insist to control the other.”

    Now, what exactly are you doing on a gay website like PinkNews on the eve of a national election??? m-m.

    Don’t run away, now.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.