.... And it was successive (gutless British) governments that signed up (once great Britain) to the European convention on Human "rights" and then saddled Britons with the ruinous "Human Rights" Act.
.... That judges are now playing politics may be undone only by British politicians. So, Mr Cameron: Stop equivocating!
.... Take this (willful and deliberate destruction of (Britain's) core moral values: This 'Human "rights"' Inquisition and (its attack upon the tattered remnants of the British Sovereignty you and your ilk so willingly, insidiously, surrendered to protect yourselves from the electoral consequences of your action!) to both the Euro-peons' Neo-Soviet and to the compromised British judiciary ....
Bit of a fat hope, I reckon.
More likely Mithtah Camerwon will be to once geat Britain's pretty-much abandoned Sovereignty what that other well known Pommy poofter, Mountbatten, was to British-created "India" and to British created West and East "Pakistan."
And that Snatcher Thatcher was to the Once-FRee British Subjects of Once-FRee British Hong Kong!
I hate to say it, but I can't believe the English were so stupid as to opt into the European Union without knowing what that might entail. Or maybe I can. I would suggest they secede.
Is this an article about Britain and the EU, or about the United States?
Thanks for posting. Interesting.
The other decision is more problematic because it can be argued certain views held on homosexuality may cause fostered wards-of-the-state direct harm. Let's be silly for a second: would you want to see the Phelps clan fostering children? Maybe followers of Sharia Law are more to your liking. No? Foster parents cannot be intractable.
It's unclear from the article if this couple have a "hate the sin love the sinner" view or if they're more militant. The reality is gov't has to cast a wider "tolerance" net in these cases. Some portion of the foster children are going to turn have homosexual orientations and it's not in society's interest to foment hatred either of the children within themselves or directed towards others.
It is myopic and misguided to obsess on "an abomination: they shall surely be put to death" while ignoring the larger context that all persons should be treated decently and accorded some modicum of respect. You do not want radicalized persons as foster parents.
To require that an individual's personal nest egg be annuitized on a gender neutral basis is a property taking. If men have the option, they should simply not elect a lifetime annuity. Take a lump sum distribution, or a fixed term annuity, or leave the money invested and withdraw an actuarily conservative amount each year.
The leftist myth in the US the last hundred years is that the SCOTUS is the last word on our constitution, but it isn’t. Turns out via the states nullification process it’s “We the people” who have the final say.
Boy I’m loving those dead white guys more each day!
Here’s something closer to home.
Tomorrow I will receive a letter of reprimand when I return to work because I made reference at work about the 14 year old girl who was beaten to death because she was raped by her 40 year old uncle in a mooselib country without the required 6 male witnesses to verify she was raped.
Someone who is muslim said that “I offended them by mentioning this story.”
Me, I’m offended by this stinking religion of hate and the fear the generate among the sheep.
Our country is in grave peril and all the sheep do is give up ground!