THE orthodox Christian belief that the practice of homosexuality was sinful was a long-established belief of the major religions, and was not unworthy of recognition, Mr Justice Weatherup ruled in the High Court of Northern Ireland in Belfast, when setting aside a harassment provision in the Sexual Orientation Regulations which might have prevented Christians from expressing their disapproval of homosexuality in the provision of goods and services (News, 14 September).
The applicants for judicial review of the Regulations were: the Christian Institute; the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Ireland; the Congregational Union of Ireland; the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ireland; the Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland; the Fellowship of Independent Methodist Churches; and Christian Camping International (UK) Ltd.
Their application was supported by the Most Revd Sean Brady, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, who also acted on behalf of other bishops (“the Bishops”).
At the heart of the applicants’ case was the freedom to manifest religious belief in worship, teaching, practice, and observance as guaranteed by article 9 of the Human Rights Convention. Issues as to the manifestation of a belief must satisfy certain “threshold requirements”: the belief must be consistent with basic standards of human dignity and integrity; it must possess an adequate degree of seriousness; and it must be capable of being understood.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission argued that the religious beliefs of the applicants concerning homosexuality were not consistent with the basic standards of human dignity and integrity.
The Bishops described the Commission’s position as “fundamental secularism”. The Commission described its position as “liberal secularism”, recognising the protection that must be accorded to religious belief in a democratic society, but rejecting protection for the manifestation of a belief which involved discrimination.
The judge said that the belief in question was that that the practice of homosexuality was sinful. The manifestation in question was by teaching, practice, and observance to maintain the choice not to accept or endorse homosexuality.
The judge said that the belief was a long-established part of the world’s major religions, and was not unworthy of recognition. He was satisfied that article 9 was engaged in this case. The extent to which the manifestation might be limited, he said, was a different issue.
The judge was satisfied that “the introduction of the Regulations would result in instances of material interference . . . with the applicants’ freedom to manifest the religious belief in question”.
The applicants argued that in the provision of goods and services, and in the management of premises by a public authority, those who subscribed to orthodox religious belief on homosexuality would be required to promote that to which they had religious objection. The example offered was that of the Christian printer who would not object to printing material for a person who was homosexual, but would object to being required to print material that promoted homosexuality.
That issue had arisen in Canada in 2002, when the Ontario Human Rights Commission brought an action against a Mr Brockie, the president of a commercial printing business, who held the religious belief that homosexuality was sinful.
Mr Brockie acted for customers who were homosexuals, but would not assist in the dissemination of information intended to spread the acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle. He refused to print stationery for a company called Archives that promoted publications about homosexuals.
The Ontario Human Rights Code prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but it also protected the right to manifest religious belief. A statutory Board ordered Mr Brockie and his company to provide the same printing services to homosexuals and organisations that existed for their benefit as he did to others.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled that Mr Brockie had discriminated against Archives, but held that the Board’s order went further than was necessary in that it could extend to the printing of materials espousing activities repugnant to Mr Brockie’s religious tenets. The Court found that Mr Brockie was being forced to act in a manner contrary to his religious belief. He was therefore not required to print material of a nature that could reasonably be considered to be in direct conflict with his religious beliefs.
It was argued against Mr Brockie that religious freedom did not extend to the commercial arena. The Ontario Court, however, placed commercial activity on the periphery of rights to religious freedom.
Mr Justice Weatherup relied heavily on that decision of the Ontario Court, and said that the believer was not required to undertake action that promoted that which the essence of the belief taught to be wrong. The test for permitted action was objective in that it was only material that could “reasonably” be considered to be in direct conflict which he might refuse to print. The fact that he was engaged in commercial activity was not a complete bar to protection of religious belief.
The approach to Mr Brockie might provide a basis for the approach to some of the examples suggested by the applicants and the Bishops in relation to the provision of goods, facilities, and services, the use of premises, and the provision of public services, the judge said.
|
back to News
previous story
|
next story 
back to top
