Amicus says that the test is a narrow one but a wider test was applied by a tribunal in Reaney v Hereford Diocesan Board (although the church still lost). The problem is that the old test gives far too much weight to avoiding offence to members of a religion, many of whom will object to youth workers, for example, being gay. Youth workers are a very important category of people about whom Amicus and, as far as I know, advocates of the amendment, have failed to state a clear position. This troubles me greatly.

I do not claim that I am unbiased. This is a blog, after all.

In addition when saying that the decision by the House of Lords will be overruled because of “reasoned opinion” by the European Commission both he, and the Commission, are ignoring the fact that the question of whether the exemptions in the Regulations complied with the Directive was carefully considered by the High Court in the case of Amicus MSF Section, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2004] EWHC 860 In that case the Judge clearly stated that the European Directive had been properly implemented by the British Employment Regulations and the exemptions for religious organisations set out in those regulations were legal.

Nobody has appealed that decision to the European Court of Justice or to the UK Supreme Court and therefore that decision by the High Court represents the current legal position.

In a society governed by the rule of law courts decide what the law is and a legal opinion, however “reasoned” it may be, cannot overrule or take precedence over a decision by a court.

The High Court is entitled to have its decisions respected and supported by the British Government and Parliament. Decisions by national courts on questions of European Law can only be overruled by the European Court of Justice and not by the bureaucrats of the European Commission no matter how “reasoned” their opinions may be.

It’s not hard to tell on which side of the argument the author of this article sits…