Cascading Tragedy in the Catholic Church

This is how tragedy can and eventually will cascade out of unbelief: first, secular media and popular culture persuade Catholic schoolboys that happiness lies in self-indulgent materialism and sensuality. Then, the Church suffers a "crisis of vocations" (not enough volunteers for the priesthood).

Then the Church lowers its standards and enlists manifestly depraved candidates who in earlier generations would never have been considered suitable for the priesthood. Then the predators, clothed in the garments of the Church, act out their lusts on the powerless and the vulnerable. And when - in the fulness of time - the victims roar, it is not the spent perverts who pay the piper, but the Body of Christ.

The immense Diocese of Fairbanks, Alaska, where I lived for four winters, is no longer under the direction of its bishop, but of a federal bankruptcy judge and various attorneys who represent 258 Alaskans who were sexually abused in the 1960s and 1970s.

The terms of the bankruptcy plan require the Church to deposit $9.8 million in a fund for the victims, and to pay another $2.5 million to lawyers who have filed over 100 sexual abuse lawsuits, and to accountants and other professionals involved in the litigation.

According to this Anchorage Daily News story, the Bishop has been put on a $1,400 monthly allowance in high-priced Fairbanks. He has laid off 25 percent of the Diocesan staff, cut pay to the remaining employees, some of whom have taken unpaid furloughs. The parishes have to contribute $650,000 to the settlement, and the Diocese has eliminated fuel subsidies to its outlying rural parishes. The next time somebody tells you that "tolerance" is a virtue, ask them to be more specific.

DIOCESE WILL PAY $9.8 MILLION TO ALASKA ABUSE VICTIMS
Bankruptcy: Freed money will go to victims, outing of guilty.
By LISA DEMER, Anchorage Daily News

The Catholic Diocese of Fairbanks is emerging from bankruptcy under a plan that will provide nearly $10 million - and maybe much more - to sexual abuse victims, send the bishop traveling to parishes where abuse occurred, and put names of suspected abusers on the Diocese website.

Under the plan for reorganization, $9.8 million will go into a fund for close to 300 victims. Another $2.5 million is going to lawyers, accountants and other professionals. Payments to individuals will be decided case-by-case by a mediator, depending on a variety of factors including the nature and severity of abuse, the age of the victim at the time it started, and whether the perpetrator was in a position of trust.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Donald MacDonald approved the plan at a hearing Monday morning in Anchorage.

"I've never had a case like this in my nearly 20 years on the bench," the judge told the lawyers and Catholic church leaders gathered in court. The sexual abuse claims made this bankruptcy especially challenging, he said.

The diocese filed for reorganization in March 2008 in the wake of more than 100 state-court lawsuits accusing priests and volunteers of sexual abuse. After the bankruptcy case was filed, the claims grew. Many arise from abuse decades ago.

Most creditors supported the plan, including 256 out of 258 clergy sexual abuse victims who voted on it.

Exhibits filed in Bankruptcy Court name the suspected perpetrators, most from the Jesuit order. Under the settlement, for the next 10 years the diocese must post on its home page a link to the names of the suspected abusers "and any other known perpetrators (admitted, proven or credibly accused), including deceased perpetrators."

One list filed in court names those whom multiple people accused of sexual abuse: 15 priests, a deacon, two brothers, two nuns, and two volunteers. They include the late church volunteer Joseph Lundowski, accused of molesting dozens of children in Western Alaska villages in the 1960s and 1970s. A second list names those accused by one person: 11 priests, five nuns, a deacon, a brother and three volunteers.

Bishop Donald Kettler, who sat in at the hearing, said afterward that what happened to people victimized by priests and lay volunteers was tragic. He said the diocese has tried to start the process of healing but that he couldn't do much when the case was in court. Now, he can reach out, and in fact must do so, under the reorganization plan.

He said he would try to connect with every victim and will travel to every place where the abuse occurred.

"I will be visiting their villages. I will invite them to come see me one-on-one. I will invite them to come to some church and community healing services. And I will have listening sessions with them and then the whole community," Kettler said.

Under the plan, he also must read a statement of apology from the pulpit in every affected parish.

The diocese pieced together money for the settlement mainly from the sale of properties to its own endowment. The diocese will still be able to use those properties, which include Catholic schools, the diocese offices, and the Kobuk Center, where the bishop lives. In addition, parishes are paying $650,000 and Alaska National Insurance Co. $1.4 million.

Kettler said operations of the vast diocese have been affected by the lawsuits and the bankruptcy. The diocese has cut subsidies to parishes for training, fuel oil and other basics, he said. The diocese staff has been reduced by 25 percent, and those left have taken pay cuts and unpaid furloughs. The bishops' pay is now just $1,400 a month, plus room and board, said Susan Boswell, the Tucson, Ariz.-based lead bankruptcy attorney for the diocese.

The victims also will pursue claims against two insurance companies that didn't pay into the settlement, Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. and Catholic Mutual Relief Society of America. Ken Roosa, an Anchorage lawyer who has represented dozens of abuse victims in state lawsuits, said the size of the fund for victims could grow substantially.

"We're not done," he said.

D.C. Residents Unfit to Vote on Gay Marriage?

How ironic that the District of Columbia license plates carry a slogan about the sovereignty that is denied the District - "no taxation without representation" - but its own officials, including Judge Judith Malacuso, seem bound and determined to strip the people of their sovereignty.

Radical activist Judge says, D.C. homosexual 'marriage' vote would violate Human Rights Act

By Michael B. Farrell, The Christian Science Monitor

Thirty-one states have held referendums on whether or not to ban gay marriage, but a Washington, D.C., judge ruled Thursday that such a vote would violate the District's Human Rights Act.

The ruling upholds a decision by the city's board of elections, which has twice rejected plans by an anti-gay marriage group to hold a referendum on the subject. City council passed an ordinance in December that allowed gay marriage in the District.

Opponents of gay marriage say they will appeal the decision to the D.C. Court of Appeals. The decision fits a pattern of judicial activism, which has interfered with the people's will to ban gay marriage, they say.

For gay-marriage advocates, however, the decision is a significant victory. n all 31 states where gay marriage has been put before voters in a referendum, it has lost. If the judge's decision stands, it removes this hurdle for the District. What's in a Human rights Act?

The question of whether voters can overturn gay-marriage laws is central to the federal trial underway in San Francisco. Two same-sex couples are challenging Proposition 8, a voter initiative that trumped the state Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex marriages were legal in the state. The trial, regardless of the final ruling, is expected to be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Had gay-marriage opponents been able to hold a Prop. 8-style referendum in D.C., Washington would likely have followed the national trend and banned same-sex marriage, says Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay marriage group.

Washington is a majority African-American city, and only 26 percent of blacks nationwide support legalized gay marriage, according to an August Pew Research Center survey.

Thursday's ruling centers on Washington's Human Rights Act. The law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But many states, including California, Maine, and Wisconsin, have had referendums banning same-sex marriage - despite the fact that they also have laws similar to Washington's.

Indeed, in the 1995 case, Dean v. the District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals decided that the city's Human Rights Act did not protect same-sex marriages. "We cannot conclude that the council ever intended to change the ordinary meaning of the word 'marriage' simply by enacting the Human Rights Act," the court ruled.

The judge's decision

But in Thursday's ruling, Judge Judith Macaluso said the ground has shifted.

"Since 1995, the [Washington City Council] has changed the landscape Dean surveyed. Indeed, all of the statutory provisions upon which Dean relied have been repealed or amended...," she wrote in her decision.

What's more, wrote Judge Macaluso, the city can prevent a referendum from going forward.

"The fact that the proposed initiative, if passed, would violate the Human Rights Act provides an independent basis for upholding the Board's decision: the initiative runs afoul of an implied exclusion barring provisions that violates the state's law," she ruled.

Mr. Brown of the National Organization for Marriage says there is growing support in Congress to invalidate the council's vote to allow same-sex marriage. But others doubt that enough Democrats will join the effort to overturn the District's gay marriage law.

Without action, the District could begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in March.

C The Christian Science Monitor.

California Governor Signs Harvey Milk Day for Public Schools

How shameful that innocent little California schoolchildren are considered fair game for the Sodomite propaganda machine. Shame on Arnold Schwarzeneggar, RINO governor of California.

Flip-flopper governor signs 'Harvey Milk' bill (OneNewsNow.com)

Shared via AddThis

Monolithic Sodomy Retracts NYU Welcome Due to Unforgivable Decency, Morality

Monolithic Sodomy scored another victory recently when it drove off an Asian scholar of civil rights and constitutionalism who had been invited to lecture at New York University. Anybody who believes that Big Sodomy is committed to tolerance and academic freedom has to account for incidents like this one, in which homosexuals and their allies in academia chased a meek foreign law professor out of the marketplace of ideas, for comments she offered while she was a member of her country's parliament.

Singapore Legal Scholar Cancels NYU Visit, Driven Off by Homosexuals & Their Allies

A Singaporean law professor has pulled out of a teaching stint at New York University after her traditional views triggered a backlash on campus.

Richard Revesz, dean of New York University's law school, says Thio Li-ann informed him she will not be teaching during the fall semester because of "controversy surrounding her views regarding homosexuality and gay rights.

"She explained that she was disappointed by what she called the 'atmosphere of hostility' by some members of our community towards her views and by the low enrollments in her classes," he said in a press release Friday.

Thio - a former member of Parliament and a current professor at the National University of Singapore, which has an exchange program with NYU - could not immediately be reached for comment.

The 41-year-old was due to teach courses on human rights law and constitutionalism in Asia at NYU during the fall semester starting in September. Singapore's Straits Times said NYU students were outraged after learning that Thio had said in a parliamentary debate in 2007 that repealing a colonial-era law making sex between men a criminal offense "would subvert social morality, the common good and undermine our liberties." More than 800 members of the NYU community signed a petition against Thio after gay activists circulated copies of her speech, it said.

Revesz said he was not aware of the speech when NYU made the offer to Thio, and both courses have now been cancelled as a result of her pullout.

In Singapore, sex between men is still a criminal offense punishable by up to two years in prison, although it is rarely enforced.

Authoritarian Sodomy Silences Decent British Schoolteachers

Authoritarian Sodomy suffered a partial reversal in the formerly free United Kingdom recently when North London schoolteacher Kwabena Peat was restored to his teaching position after gay allies suspended him for expressing his Christian views outside the classroom. The Christian Legal Centre represented Peat, and issued the release below.

Although the seasoned 54-year-old educator will return to his classroom in the Fall, the homosexuals and their collaborators nevertheless have succeeded in silencing him in the future, prohibiting any open discussion of the moral dimensions of sodomy or of the coercive sodomite regime that has descended on the United Kingdom, via the school order's gag order against Peat.

If U.S. Christians have wearied of the culture wars, if they're counseled to just go along with U.S. sodomites on gay marriage and hate crimes legislation, they should at least surrender without deluding themselves that the totalitarians will then leave them in peace. Kwabena Peat has seen the future, and he is now prohibited by the most depraved elements of his country, in the birthplace of the Magna Carta, from telling you about it.

Christian Teacher facing sack for expressing Christian beliefs on homosexual practice to Colleagues is re-instated after threat of Legal Action

Kwabena Peat's Story : A senior London teacher, suspended and threatened with the sack for expressing his Christian beliefs at work will be back at work next term.

Kwabena Peat, 54, was suspended after he complained that a staff training day was used to promote homosexual rights, and to marginalise and label those who disagreed with homosexual practice. His case follows a number of others which have left Christians feeling sidelined in the workplace.


Mr Peat, who is head of year at a North London secondary school, walked out of the compulsory training session along with several other colleagues. The session included a presentation by Sue Sanders, a co-founder of the Schools Out organisation which promotes a radical homosexual agenda in schools, in which she questioned whether heterosexuality was “natural”.

Mr Peat states there was no opportunity for those with a different point of view to respond. He wrote to three staff who organised the event and complained about the “aggressive” presentation of homosexual rights. His letter also referred to his Christian beliefs about the practice of homosexuality – that sex should be between a man and woman within marriage.


The recipients of the letter said they felt “harassed and intimidated” by it. Following an investigation, Mr Peat was suspended.


The committed Christian said he fully expected the training session to provide information to help teachers handle homophobic bullying, but the guest speaker had gone much further. He said: “She started promoting homosexual lifestyles and suggesting those who had objections should sort out their prejudices. She asked us ‘What makes you all think that to be heterosexual is natural?’ It was at that point I walked out.”


Mr Peat, supported by the Christian Legal Centre challenged the school’s employment procedures and informed the school that claiming the letter ‘harassed’ staff was ludicrous as the teachers to whom he complained about the event were all senior to him. He also told them he believed the charge ‘gross misconduct’ was disproportionate to any alleged ‘offence’ that they claimed to have taken place. The CLC instructed leading human rights barrister Paul Diamond to advise the teacher and as a result, Mr Peat told the school he was prepared to take them through Industrial Tribunal, and if necessary, to seek a Judicial Review of the Human Rights of Christian Teachers via the High Court if necessary.


The school’s appeal panel, meeting last Friday, week agreed the charge of ‘gross misconduct’ to be disproportionate, and Mr Peat will return to work when the new term commences in September.


Andrea Minichiello Williams, barrister and director of the Christian Legal Centre said: “Although we consider this a great victory for common sense, the School is still seeking to control Mr Peat’s views and behaviour by not allowing him to talk about what has happened, both within the school or via the media, which has been very supportive. Mr Peat was discriminated against for expressing his Christian faith and his invitation to consider Christianity was deemed ‘harassment’. What kind of society are we living in when a legitimate orthodox Christian view as expressed by Mr Peat is construed in this way?


“I am delighted that CLC has secured another success, and that Mr Peat can return to work. It must surely be deemed unacceptable that highly trained teachers should be discriminated against and face dismissal for seeking to protect children. Mr Peat simply expressed a Christian viewpoint and objected to the school undermining parental rights regarding the education of their children on sexual ethics. He should be applauded for challenging the new political orthodoxy in an attempt to protect children rather than face such harsh intimidation”.


Mr Peat is not available for media interviews in order to comply with the school’s request.

Democrats Will Enact Hate Crimes With Minimum of Debate and Transparency

If Democrats were actually proud of their "hate crimes" proposal, they ought to be willing to hold hearings on it, debate and discuss it, and be accountable for their public comments on it. But they're not. According to this LifeSiteNews article, they intend to slip it into the law books by riders (legislative amendment to unrelated legislation, such as a budget measure).

Hate Crimes Bill to be Smuggled through Senate as a Legislative Amendment
By Peter J. Smith, LifeSiteNews.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews.com) – The US Senate intends to smuggle controversial hate crimes legislation into federal law by passing it as an amendment to another major piece of legislation instead of a stand-alone piece of legislation, according to remarks by a representative of a major homosexualist organization.

"We understand that Senate leadership does not believe a hearing or mark up on the bill is necessary and plans to bring it directly to the floor as an amendment to another moving vehicle," said Trevor Thomas, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), in a statement provided to the Washington Blade, a homosexual news journal.

Although the US House of Representatives had passed H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, as a stand-alone bill by a 249-175 margin in April, the Senate leadership had until lately been debating how to pass its version S. 909 - either as a stand-alone piece legislation which could attract opposition and a possible filibuster, or as an amendment.

Thomas told the Blade that the Senate had opted for the latter as “the most efficient way” to guarantee the measure arrived as quickly as possible at President Barack Obama’s desk for signature.

Opponents of the hate crimes legislation have charged that the bill violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution by making an individual’s thought regarding certain groups as much a factor as the nature of his act in prosecuting a crime.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins has pointed out that, “What converts the acts targeted by this bill into a federal offense are the thoughts or opinions of the perpetrator alone.”

H.R. 1913 added "sexual orientation" and “gender identity” as well as race, religion, class, gender, and disability to categories that are protected as "hate crimes.” Under this legislation, crimes against individuals who belong to the protected classes receive stiffer penalties than crimes against other groups not mentioned by the bill, a fact that critics charge makes “second class citizens” out of those not covered by the law.

The bill has also been labeled the "pedophile protection act," in large part due to the refusal of House members to approve an amendment specifying that the bill would not penalize the free speech of those objecting to pedophilia.

The term “sexual orientation” is not defined in the bill, an oversight that some legislators charge could lead to a too broad interpretation – since the term is used by psychologists to encompass a variety of sexual deviancies (including pedophilia), and not just homosexuality.

The HRC told the Blade that they are pushing to have the legislation approved before the end of the August session. It stated that senators in favor of the “hate crimes” bill are looking for “any and all options” as vehicles for the passage of the amendment.

See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:

Focus on the Family's Dobson on Hate Crimes Bill: "Utter Evil" Coming out of Congress http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09052002.html

Free Speech Concerns Ignored as "Hate Crimes" Bill Passes Fed. Judiciary Committee http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042407.html

Obama Urges House of Representatives to Pass Sexual Orientation "Hate Crimes" Bill http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042911.html

Fed. Judiciary Committee to Examine Homosexualist "Hate Crimes" Bill Monday
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09041714.html

Pro-Family Group Urges Congress to Oppose Federal "Hate Crimes" Bill Set for Committee Hearing Tomorrow http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/apr/09042114.html

Is Respect for "Rule of Law" Morphing into Tragic Judicial Activism?

The Obama administration is reportedly pressuring client states to adopt pro-abortion and pro-homosexual policies as a condition of North American financial assistance. A coalition of Catholic and Muslim nations, organized by the Vatican representative to the United Nations, held the line against strong-arming by the Clinton administration about 15 years ago.

Now the North American Democrats are employing a more sophisticated strategy to piggyback leftist judicial activism onto advances in the rule of law. In other words, having persuaded Third World elites of the advantages of respecting and enforcing judicial review, we now undertake to corrupt it, and deploy it in the service of sodomy and baby-killing. How utterly heartbreaking on numerous levels!

The Republic of Colombia can take a hint. Highly dependent on U.S. aid to resist some of the worst narco-terrorists on the planet, facing in Obama and his Secretary of State two former Senators who helped vote down the Free Trade Agreement with them, Colombian judicial activists have elbowed the freely elected legislature in Bogota aside, and extended a broad range of rights to homosexuals, withholding only the right to adopt children. Can abortion-on-demand be far behind?

LifeSiteNews.com reports below on the consternation at the Colombian legislature.

LifeSiteNews.com
Colombian Supreme Court Grants Broad Special Rights to Homosexual Couples
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BOGOTA LifeSiteNews.com) - The Supreme Court of Colombia has ruled that homosexual couples are entitled a broad array of rights normally granted to heterosexual couples under the law.

Under the ruling, announced on Wednesday, homosexual couples will receive equal status with heterosexual couples under 42 different provisions of the law, ranging from military benefits to naturalization of a foreign partner. Homosexuals will also be excused from testifying against their sex partners.

However, the Court, in an apparent response to the strong pro-family values of Colombian society, did not grant the right to adopt children. It also refused to allow homosexual relationships to be called a "marriage."

The ruling arrives after years of refusal by the Colombian Congress to grant special rights to the partners of homosexuals, a sentiment that is echoed with almost perfect unanimity throughout the strongly Catholic and pro-family Latin America.

The decision of the Court, however, is being strongly denounced by pro-family legislators as a case of judicial activism. The President of Columbia should consider "closing the Congress because there are now nine people who are taking on the faculties and carrying out the functions of the 200 who were selected by the people," said ex-congressman Victor Velasquez in a press conference.

He also reportedly called on the leaders of the Catholic Church to protest against this "attack against the morals of the country." Velasquez also declared his intention to seek a declaration of nullity on the grounds that the Court is exceeding its constitutional authority.

Hernando Salazar, an editorialist for BBC World, said that the decision of the court is "paradoxical" because the "the Congress has rejected various bills in favor of same-sex couples" while "the judicial branch has nullified legal measures that it considers to be in violation of the right to equality for those unions."

He also stated that "other experts consulted by BBC World, who requested anonymity, believe that the decisions of the Constitutional Court are a response to the 'homophobia and the machismo that is observed in the Congress of the Republic.'"

"The Court has recognized a social reality with extreme prudence and moderation," said Excobar Gil, one of the Court's nine justices. "It has expanded rights in situations similar to those of heterosexual couples without affecting basic values of our culture and social morality, and protecting the institution of the family."

The verdict, which came in response to a lawsuit filed by homosexual rights advocates, follows a 2007 ruling that granted health benefits and pensions to the partners of homosexuals.

Christian Therapist Fired for Refusing to Offer Homosexual Sex Therapy

Authoritarian Sodomy tightened its choke hold on Christian conscience in the formerly free United Kingdom this past week, when a British employment tribunal ruled that a national counseling service rightly fired counselor Gary McFarlane for declining, on grounds of Christian conscience, to offer sex therapy to homosexuals.

Can we dispense with the euphemisms here? What the Relate counseling service was demanding of this Christian counselor was that he generate revenue for the company by offering sodomy lessons to tragically confused clients. And you can be certain that the victorious corporation is tightening its vise on any Christians who remain behind after McFarlane's dismissal.

Gordon Rayner filed this U.K. Telegraph report at www.Telegraph.co.uk

Christian sex therapist 'refused to counsel gay couples'
A Christian relationship counsellor who was sacked after he refused to give sex therapy to homosexual couples has lost his case for unlawful discrimination.
By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter

An employment tribunal ruled that the national counseling service Relate was entitled to dismiss Gary McFarlane after he said that encouraging gay sex went against his devout religious beliefs.

The decision prompted Christian groups to demand a rethink of religious discrimination laws, following a string of other high-profile cases in which courts have found against Christians who claim they have suffered as a result of standing up for their beliefs.

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which supported Mr McFarlane in his claim, said the religious discrimination law was "in danger of becoming a dead letter", while the Christian Institute said there was a growing feeling among churchgoers that religious discrimination laws only applied to Muslims and other minority faiths.

Legal experts suggested the ruling had left discrimination laws in "a confused state" by giving the impression that "gay rights trump Christian rights" when they directly oppose each other.

Mr McFarlane, 47, brought his claim for unfair dismissal after he was sacked in March 2008.

The father of two had joined Relate in 2003 and had given relationship advice to homosexual couples in the past. But in 2006, after he qualified as a psychosexual therapist, he made it clear to his employers that his strong Christian beliefs meant he did not feel able to give sex therapy advice to homosexuals.

Fellow counsellors objected to his stance and claimed his views were homophobic, and in March 2008 he was sacked.

Mr McFarlane, of Bristol, claimed unfair dismissal against the Avon branch of Relate on the grounds of religious discrimination, but an employment tribunal panel unanimously rejected his claim, though the panel decided Mr McFarlane had been wrongfully dismissed as Relate had not followed the correct dismissal procedures.

The panel said Mr McFarlane's claim had failed because: "The claimant was not treated as he was because of his Christian faith, but because (Relate) believed that he would not comply with its policies and that it would have treated anyone else of whom that was believed, regardless of religion, in the same way."

Mr McFarlane's boss at Relate had said during an earlier hearing that he had been sacked because he made it clear that he would not abide by its equal opportunities policy, which states that all clients must be treated in the same way, regardless of sexuality.

After the ruling, Mr McFarlane said: "If I were a Muslim, this would not have happened. But Christians seem to have fewer and fewer rights."

Mrs Williams said: "The law preventing religious discrimination is in danger of becoming a dead letter. It is deeply disturbing that the mere expression of religious beliefs with an inability to give unqualified support to sexual orientation issues means that a Christian can be dismissed with no attempt to provide suitable accommodation for his beliefs."

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: "A lot of public bodies seem to confuse ethnicity with religion and they feel they are able to challenge the views of Christians, but not those of minority faiths. It means Christians feel they are playing second fiddle to other faiths and the laws are not being applied equally."

Mr McFarlane was represented in the case by Paul Diamond, the barrister who also represented Nadia Eweida, the British Airways check-in worker who lost a grievance procedure in 2006 after claiming religious discrimination because she was banned from wearing a cross necklace over her uniform.

A spokesman for Relate said it had not yet received a copy of the judgement and could not comment.

Mr McFarlane's is the latest in a string of cases which have tested the law on religious discrimination. Last year Lillian Ladele, a registrar in Islington, north London, won a claim for unfair dismissal after she was sacked for refusing to perform civil partnerships on religious grounds, but Islington council later successfully appealed against the decision.

In 2007 Andrew McClintock, a Christian magistrate, lost his religious discrimination claim after his employers refused to excuse him from ruling on cases in which vulnerable children might be placed with same-sex foster parents.

Homosexual Brownshirts Launch Wave of Intolerance, Menace in California

Homosexuals have launched a campaign of intimidation and retaliation against Christians who exercise their First Amendment right to support traditional marriage in California, according to a lawsuit filed by election lawyer James Bopp.

The New York Times reports:

“Some gay activists have organized Web sites to actively encourage people to go after supporters of Proposition 8,” said Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the proposition. “And giving these people a map to your home or office leaves supporters of Proposition 8 feeling especially vulnerable. Really, it is chilling.”

So chilling, apparently, that supporters have filed suit in Federal District Court in Sacramento seeking a preliminary injunction of a state election law that requires donors of $100 or more to disclose their names, addresses, occupations and other personal information.

In his suit, which is also being argued by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal group, Mr. Bopp alleges a wide range of acts against supporters, including “death threats, acts of domestic terrorism, physical violence, threats of physical violence, vandalism of personal property, harassing phone calls, harassing e-mails, blacklisting and boycotts.”