Timeline: Christian counsellor Gary McFarlane gay row
A relationship counsellor from Bristol who claimed he had been discriminated against after being fired for saying he might have an objection to providing sex therapy to a same-sex couple on account of his Christian faith has had his case rejected by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Gary McFarlane was one of four Christians who claimed they lost their jobs as a result of discrimination against their beliefs. He took his case to the ECHR after losing his religious discrimination case at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in 2009.
-
Three Christians including Gary McFarlane today saw their discrimination cases rejected by the ECHR
Today, the ECHR ruled only one of the four Christians - Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee who was prevented from wearing a cross - had been discriminated against.
Mr McFarlane, a counsellor from Hanham, was dismissed by the Avon branch of relationship charity Relate in March 2008 for gross misconduct for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
Business Cards From Only £10.95 Delivered www.myprint-247.co.uk
View detailsOur heavyweight cards have FREE UV silk coating, FREE next day delivery & VAT included. Choose from 1000's of pre-designed templates or upload your own artwork. Orders dispatched within 24hrs.
Terms: Visit our site for more products: Business Cards, Compliment Slips, Letterheads, Leaflets, Postcards, Posters & much more. All items are free next day delivery. www.myprint-247.co.uk
Contact: 01858 468192
Valid until: Sunday, June 30 2013
Here we recap on the events which led up to today’s ruling:
May 2003: Gary McFarlane starts training with Relate. In the years that follow, Mr McFarlane provides relationship counselling to a number of same-sex couples.
October 2007: Mr McFarlane begins training as a sex therapist. He is asked by his employer what his stance would be on providing sex therapy to those in gay relationships once he qualifies.
Mr McFarlane is suspended following meetings with management after saying he might have a conscientious objection to providing sex therapy to a same-sex couple on account of his Christian faith.
March 2008: Following a further disciplinary hearing, Mr McFarlane is dismissed on March 18.
December 2008: Mr McFarlane takes his case to an employment tribunal, claiming unfair dismissal, harassment and discrimination on the grounds of religion.
He also claims his views are “evolving”.
January 2009: An employment tribunal rules Mr McFarlane was wrongfully dismissed. The panel dismisses Mr McFarlane's claims of unlawful discrimination and his claim of unfair dismissal, but upholds his claim of wrongful dismissal.
November 2009: Mr McFarlane loses his fight at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in London to prove discrimination by Relate. He is supported in his appeal by the Christian Legal Centre (CLC) which says a further appeal will be lodged against the decision.
April 2010: Mr McFarlane travels to the Court of Appeal in London to get permission to make a renewed appeal to prove religious discrimination by Relate. He says he wants his appeal to be heard before a specially selected panel of judges.
Mr McFarlane is backed by the former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey.
July 2012: Prime Minister David Cameron vows to change the law to make clear people can wear religious symbols at work if it turns out the law has the intention of banning the display of religious symbols in the workplace.
September 2012: It is announced Mr McFarlane will be taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights along with three other Christians.
They maintain their employers' actions went against articles nine and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protect their rights to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" and prohibit religious discrimination.
Mr McFarlane tells This is Bristol: “All I am asking for is a level playing field. I am not looking to champion one group of rights against another. The pendulum has swung too far against Christians in favour of the other.”
January 2013: The European Court of Human Rights rejects the cases of Mr McFarlane; Exeter nurse Shirley Chaplin who was banned from working on hospital wards for wearing a cross around her neck; and registrar Lillian Ladele, who was disciplined by Islington Council for refusing to conduct civil partnership ceremonies for homosexual couples.
The Court rules Nadia Eweida, a British Airways employee who was prevented from wearing a cross, was discriminated against, however.
Comments
by John Allman
Wednesday, January 23 2013, 3:11PM
“@ vrwrtuy
This might clarify.
66
ARTICLE 9
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, and to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
ARTICLE 14
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
99
Is there anything you would like to change? As far as I see it, the UK would not be allowed to make it illegal to "be homophobic".
- JohnAllmanUK.Wordpress.com”
by vrwrtuy
Wednesday, January 23 2013, 12:20PM
“Sorry John
As I'm sure you can guess I was being sarcastic but the point is, when people lose a judgement. all they do is take it to the next step up so it's annoying that there is a reluctance to accept the ruling and it's annoying that lawyers or whoever just earn more money from all this manoevering. For you to say there is a higher court than the ECHJ called the Grand Chamber says it all. Perhaps Interplanetary justice is the one after this one.
But people who believe in Gods may as well believe in Fairies. Why do we give these people any time. There is no doubt some people are gay and some people are straight. But there is no proof there are any gods and I refuse to accept they should have any more priviledges than some nutter barking at the moon. He or you can believe in what you want and that is your right, but don't force your judgement on others and don't be homophobic as this guy allegedly was. That is against the law.”
by John Allman
Wednesday, January 23 2013, 1:52AM
“Next stop, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.
He should never have claimed Article 9 religious rights. If he had argued that it was his conscience rather than his religion, and proved that he hadn't waived his right to conscientious objection by accepting the employment almost five years earlier, or by starting the sex therapy training, he'd have won.
He could have claimed Article 14 discrimination in conjunction with Article 9 conscience, if he'd proved that Relate would have been more tolerant of misgivings that weren't motivated by religion, which I suspect is true.
There are some important human rights issues at stake nowadays in these four cases and in the case of Celestina Mba. These include issues that are more perhaps slightly more likely to affect Christian people. The Christian Institute and Christian Concern are branding these five cases collectively as religious rights cases, for what I would call political reasons. People reading the stories tend to find this annoying. If instead they'd argue the cases with reference to rights other than religious rights, they'd get a lot more public sympathy, and probably have more success, but less of the sort of publicity they've been getting. They'd also help all workers, not just religious ones, in the victories for workers' rights, which took a battering when the Thatcher government crushed the trade unions.
Religious rights in the convention are qualified. Conscience isn't a qualified right, it's an absolute right. Ladelle would have won her case, if she'd argued it on conscience rather than on religious grounds.”
by vrwrtuy
Tuesday, January 15 2013, 2:03PM
“So he's taken it all the way through to the European Court of Human Rights.
Where next, 'Interplanetary Justice' ?”