“Respect the laws of the state but let your first loyalty be to God’s purposes. If you feel impelled by strong conviction to break the law, search your conscience deeply. Ask your meeting for the prayerful support which will give you strength as a right way becomes clear” (no. 35).

I think that could be one helpful starting place: note that that paragraph assumes you’re part of a worshipping community which can help in your discernment. But I’m not trying to imply that’s anywhere near a full answer.

in friendship, Blair

quoting para 5 of the judgement: “she remained employed by Islington as a registrar until she resigned with effect from 30 September 2009″.

in friendship, Blair

I read a bit about it last night and there seemed to be some suggestion that Islington Council redeployed her registering births and deaths? If this was the case and if the pay was the same, I can’t see what grounds she would have to complain? It would seem to me then that her employers made more than reasonable allowances for her objections and that, in fact, they were inconvenienced as much as she was – if not more.

Rather than being mischievous, I think the verse you quote from Romans raises an important and very pertinent point Blair. If for example, the Government passed a law saying that all UK citizens must worship images of Gordon Brown then most Christians would not obey the governing authorities let alone the secular population.

Yet the Manhattan Declaration appears to be drawing a line as to where Rom 13:1-3 ought tso be obeyed. So my question is how do Christians decide whether they should obey the governing authorities or not? When does the “Governing Authority” cross the line and Rom 13:1-5 becomes inapplicable to them?

Also on another note I’ve just had a mischievous thought – is anyone going to quote Romans 13:1-5 in the context of Lillian Ladele’s case?

in friendship, blair

And I wonder if that may form part of the case going to the Supreme Court.

Be great to get your comments on my lengthier analysis.

point taken re the JFS case – I didn’t read your comments attentively.

However, not sure that that argument works on the Lillian Ladele case (didn’t think she was sacked by the way…?). At the top of the thread Peter quotes para 74 of the judgement which says that Islington could have not designated her a civil partnership registrar, and that this likely would not have fallen foul of the regulations. If this is so then arguably it’s not the case that the law “restricts the rights of orthodox Christians more than those of other groups” – though maybe Islington’s application of the laws and its own policies in this case, had that effect.

in friendship, Blair

The point of the Supreme Court ruling on the JFS school is that “anti-discrimination” law in the UK assumes a certain thought framework. That framework works for most religion’s schools but not for orthodox Judaism. Therefore, the rights of orthodox Jews are restricted by equality legislation more than the rights of people of other faiths, without any real substantial benefit to other groups that might justify that discrimination against orthodox Jews religious beliefs.

Similarly, the framework used to construct the laws which allowed Ladele to be sacked for “discrimination” assume a thought framework that works for many people but was too rigid for orthodox Christians. Effectively it restricts the rights of orthodox Christians more than those of other groups, especially those people of no faith, without any real substantial benefit to the groups that are being protected by the laws.

My argument is that the framework of the anti-discrimination law is discriminatory because it assumes that what you do for your employer is not your moral responsibility unless the law says it is. But for many Christians the law is not the only or primary arbiter of right and wrong!

As long as “anti-discrimination” law doesn’t allow for having reasonable and proportionate regard to people’s religion as a legitimate reason to dissent, “anti-discrimination” laws are themselves unjustifiably discriminating against such people!