Religious Civil Partnerships & Lazy Journalism?

[fredv3b]

I have just read this article, in the Telegraph. It concerns the effects of the recent House of Lords vote, to ammend the Equality Bill to allow for religious Civil Partnership ceremonies, on the Church of England. The article repeats a claim that vicars could be sued if they refuse to conduct Civil Partnership ceremonies. The article makes no attempt whatever to explain or question this claim. Surely, somebody at the Telegraph should have the number of a lawyer who could say whether there may be legal grounds for such litigation or whether it would be dismissed? Or am I asking too much of journalists?

[marshlander]

I understood the legislation would provide an opportunity for those who wished to avail themselves of a blessing on their union. I suppose the actual effect would only be seen as the detail begins to emerge in case law. I agree, though, that an opinion more informed than those sought would have been helpful.

And so a thousand-year contract between government and religious believers begins to fall in on itself like the roof of a redundant church.

They say that like it's a bad thing :confused:

It's not like the Church of England wasn't founded on matters of expediency!

[fredv3b]

It may have been expedient for His Majesty, however for others including his son and second daughter it was a chance to Reform the whole of England.

[marshlander]

It may have been expedient for His Majesty, however for others including his son and second daughter it was a chance to Reform the whole of England.

That sounds fairly expedient to me

[fredv3b]

I've just checked the dictionary to review its definition of expedient. As well as advancing self interest, it also gives appropriate to a purpose. So I bow to you, it was expedient.

[marshlander]

Only you, Fred, only you