Gay couple end hotel payout claim

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is supposed to be about equal rights but, as in George Orwell's Animal Farm, some are more equal than others in this Brave New World. In the second decade of the 21st century, gay rights completely trump Christian belief in their eyes. However, even they can see that grinding a Christian's nose in the mud is taking it a bit far. The homosexual couple who successfully sued the Christian owners of a hotel who refused them a bed are withdrawing a claim for more compensation, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said today. Legal director John Wadham said, "This morning we withdrew our cross appeal in this case. It was filed initially because of an error of judgment on the part of our legal team." Error, eh?

Mrs Bull, one of the hotel owners, said, "It is obviously a relief that we are not being pursued in the courts for more money. But I can't imagine this taxpayer-funded 'error of judgment' happening to anyone other than Christians." Exactly. John Wadham wouldn't dare try it on with Muslims. Or any other group. Christians are fair game for giving the other cheek a proper smacking!

Gay minister row deepens

The Church of Scotland is in a bind just like the Anglican Church is and other ecclesial bodies. The Rev Scott Rennie is a minister who has come out as a practicing homosexual. He lives openly with a partner, having been a married man and being the father of one. Some in his church complained that they did not know of his sexuality. It all came to a head on Saturday evening, when the General Assembly in Edinburgh voted by 326 to 267 in support of Mr Rennie, who is the Church of Scotland's first openly gay minister.

Now the Kirk is split. The difficulty that the Christian Faith has is reconciling new demands with the traditional teaching of the Church that sexual relations can only be within matrimony. For Catholics, this is a sacrament, for evangelicals this is more of an ordinance. However, all are united in accepting that this is what marriage is about. A proportion of believers are prepared to accept accommodation for new beliefs in order that Christianity "may be relevant to the present day". That's a fair position, but it can never be the accepted position of all believers.

The Church of Scotland is currently deciding whether to "allow gay ministers". If they do, they will have to allow provision for those who fundamentally disagree. I am of the opinion that a church is better off with impaired communion than no communion at all. It may not be the best result but at least it accommodates diversity. None of us is without sin and we should not come to this issue from a position of triumphalism.

It's not for me to tell the Rev Scott Rennie how to conduct his life. However, I would not like him to tell me that adherence to the traditional understanding of the Faith is something to be done away with. The vast majority of Christendom stills upholds the traditional teaching. The Faith is either revealed as a whole Truth or it is a partial truth yet to be fully revealed.

As a thought, I was wondering about the woman at the well. She had had five husbands and the man she was with was not her husband. If Scott Rennie was at the well, how would he reply?

Anglican priest in gay tattoo hullabaloo!

The Guardian reports that a "vicar" is possibly facing disciplinary action for saying gay men should have "sodomy" warnings tattooed on their bodies. Apparently the cleric thought it amusing to publish remarks on his blog, which have since been removed, denouncing homosexuality.

It is one thing to be against the sexual practices of homosexuals (as opposed to the person) and quite another to have a warped sense of humour likely to cause distress. The Rector (not a vicar!) of St Michael's, Cornhill & Chaplain to the Stock Exchange said, "Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan sodomy can seriously damage your health and their chins with fellatio kills."

It has caused outrage and Outrage said, "It's the kind of remark you might expect from a drunk on a Saturday night, not someone in a supposedly responsible position." Drunk or not, I can't understand why people don't think before they speak (or write, in this case).

Perhaps we should have tattoos on people's faces? "Remind me to think before I open my mouth" might be one message!