Health officials say Christian beliefs ‘incompatible with human dignity’ By Bob Unruh for WND
GNN Note – The war on Christianity just jumped the shark and is no longer something to be denied or ignored. If you don’t take this seriously then you are making a massive mistake. These people always tell you what they think, what they are doing and what they are going to do. It is our responsibility to respond accordingly. Prayer is awesome, but please don’t forget David and don’t forget the Book of James 2:14 / END
‘Not worthy of respect in democratic society’
Officials for the North Bristol National Health Service Trust in the United Kingdom are claiming the Christian beliefs of a former employee are “incompatible with human dignity,” especially when they touch on Islam and marriage.
Now is your chance to support Gospel News Network.
We love helping others and believe that’s one of the reasons we are chosen as Ambassadors of the Kingdom, to serve God’s children. We look to the Greatest Commandment as our Powering force.
The claims arise as part of their defense against a lawsuit brought on behalf of Brian Walker, 66, who has alleged discrimination, victimization and harassment on the part of NHS officials who say his Christian faith fails to qualify as religious or philosophical beliefs under the Equality Act.
Christian Concern is reporting on the case brought by the Christian Legal Center against the health officials for constructive dismissal when Walker resigned because of a “totalitarian” investigation of him.
Health officials treated Walker as a “terrorist,” the report explained, forcing him out of work even though he was pressured by the need to support his disabled children.
A full employment tribunal now is pending and NHS lawyers are arguing Walker’s Christian beliefs are “not worthy of respect in democratic society.”
Christian Concern, noted, however, that, “in a landmark judgment in June 2021, an Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned a ruling from the Employment Tribunal that Maya Forstater’s beliefs in biological sex were unworthy of protection, with the judge ruling that: ‘only beliefs akin to Nazism or espousing totalitarianism would fail to qualify for protection,’ and that, ‘It is only in extreme cases involving the gravest violation of other Convention rights that the belief would fail to qualify for protection.'”
