Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Political correctness successfully challenged at last, I guess.
However, that doesn't change my view that the owners deserved to be taken to court. What a fuss!
|
Why did they deserve to be taken to court? They refused to act against their conscience by refusing to provide one very specific service that they would have refused anyone, regardless of their sexual orientation. The law, as enacted, does not make that a crime. It really ought to have been obvious from the start that no crime had been committed here and it’s shocking that this has had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to establish what the letter and spirit of the law is here.
What has in fact been revealed is a willingness not just on the part of State-funded bodies like the equalities commission, but also within the judiciary, to a fairly senior level, to elevate equalities above conscience. We were perilously close to allowing a precedent that created a thought-crime, which of course was precisely the aim of the activists behind the case and within the EQ that used public money to fund it.
Need I add that recent history shows you don’t have to have a religious faith to fall victim to those who try to use law to force issues of conscience and belief.