Britain’s suicide continues

Britain, in love with death, has passed the Sexual Orientation Regulations, pursuant to the Equality Act 2006, that prohibits any discrimination against homosexuals in the provision of goods and services. The legislation seems to be quite sweeping and without exceptions, based on the definition of prohibited discrimination in the Equality Act:

(1) A person (“A”) discriminates against another (“B”) for the purposes of this Part if on grounds of the religion or belief of B or of any other person except A (whether or not it is also A’s religion or belief) A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat others (in cases where there is no material difference in the relevant circumstances).

Here is anti-discrimination liberalism brought to its logical conclusion. If you treat anyone less favorably than anyone else on the basis of your beliefs or the other person’s beliefs, that is a crime. For decades liberals have been telling us that all discrimination is wrong and must be eliminated. That principle has now been made effective for all of Great Britain, down to every single human interaction involving the provision of goods and services.

While the Equality Act is directed at discrimination based on religion or belief, the Sexual Orientation Regulations apply the same principle to sexual orientation. How would this work out in practice?

As explained at the website Christian Concern for our Nation,

Consider a Christian couple who own a bed and breakfast. They provide a “service” according to the law. Therefore if the SOR become law, it would be illegal for that Christian couple to refuse a homosexual and his partner (who had a registered civil partnership) a room with a double bed for the night, even if they also refused an unmarried heterosexual such a room: according to the new Regulations a registered gay civil partnership is equal to a marriage, and to discriminate against gay civil partners would constitute discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Consider a Christian Community Centre which receives public funding. If that Centre hired out its premises to local groups but refused to hire the hall out to a homosexual group who wanted to promote homosexual practices, that would be illegal discrimination under the new Regulations.

Consider a Church of England school. They offer education, and were the SOR to become law, it would be illegal for the C of E school to have a “bias” in their curriculum in favour of heterosexual relationships—this would discriminate against any possible homosexual pupils or homosexual parents who wanted their child to be taught about the acceptability of homosexuality.

The bill will also make it illegal for Catholic adoption agencies to refuse to adopt to homosexual couples. Tony Blair had asked his cabinet for an exemption for Catholic adoption agencies, and his cabinet has refused. This will likely force Catholic adoption agencies to close their doors.

Here is a petition to the Queen, reminding her that in her Coronation Oath of November 4, 1952, she swore that she would “to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel,” and asking her to use her influence with the government against this Act.

- end of initial entry -

Dimitri writes:

Don’t you think that liberals go to extremes because they are starting to feel their end? Just like Hitler wanted to shut the door loudly, with the destruction of everything, when he felt he was going to disappear.

LA replies:

That is interesting. Liberalism, according to Seraphim Rose, is the first and most moderate stage of nihilism, followed by Realism, Vitalism, and the full flown Nihilism of Destruction, as represented (among other figures) by Hitler. But liberalism is now going so far that it is turning into the Nihilism of Destruction. “We want it all to be over!” I’ve been saying that about the British, in a variety of ways, since July 2005.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 25, 2007 10:44 AM | Send