If Only U.S. Courts Would See It This Way

We are losing the battle with “Religious Freedom” to the Evangelical Christians judges that the Republicans have been appointing, in England the judges see it differently.

He Opposed Using Transgender Clients’ Pronouns. It Became a Legal Battle.
A British agency employee said a policy on pronouns went against his religious beliefs. A tribunal found his stance to be “incompatible with human dignity.”
The New York Times
By Iliana Magra
October 3, 2019

LONDON — A British government agency did not discriminate against an employee who refused to use transgender clients’ pronouns because he felt it violated his Christian beliefs, an employment tribunal has ruled.

The employee, David Mackereth, 56, had argued that the Department for Work and Pensions acted in breach of the country’s Equality Act when it instructed him to use clients’ preferred pronouns, or face the loss of his job.

But the tribunal, in a ruling made public this week, found his stance to be “incompatible with human dignity.”

Do you think that the Supreme Court will see yesterday’s cases the same way?

The government clerk even quoted the Bible passages…

The tribunal heard that Dr. Mackereth believed in “the truth of the Bible and, in particular, the truth of Genesis 1:27.” By his interpretation, that biblical verse — “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” — supported the view that people are immutably male or female.

While the tribunal panel found…

In its ruling, the tribunal panel found that Dr. Mackereth had not been discriminated against or harassed under the Equality Act. Christianity is protected under the act, but the panel found that Dr. Mackereth’s specific beliefs were not.

It ruled that “belief in Genesis 1:27, lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others, specifically here, transgender individuals.”

While here in the U.S. the courts have put religious bigotry ahead of "human dignity and in conflict with the fundamental rights of others."

Refusing housing, public accommodation, and employment to others because of their race, color, religious creed, age, marital status, national origin, ancestry, sex, gender identity or expression, mental retardation, mental disability or physical disability is in conflict with your religious beliefs is wrong.

The tribunal got it right.