Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Oct 24, 2012.
No, seriously wtf?
Scientologists acknowledge the supreme being El Rum Blubbard in their services...
is she that news reporter from the Sun? LOL!
i side with the couple on this matter, and wonder why their government thinks it can tell people where they can and cannot get married.
"Louisa Hodkin, 23, was at the High Court flanked by her fiance as her QC, Lord Lester, attacked the refusal of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths and Marriages to allow the church's chapel in Queen Victoria Street, London, to be used for marriage ceremonies.
The registrar had declined to recognise the chapel as a "place of worship" - the necessary step before marriages can be solemnised - compelling Ms Hodkin to look elsewhere for her wedding venue.
Ms Hodkin is engaged to a fellow scientologist. Lord Lester said her own brother had been allowed to marry at a Church of Scientology chapel in Edinburgh five years ago, a right which was permitted under Scottish law but denied south of the border.
"She and her fiancee both volunteer at the Church of Scientology and seek to celebrate their marriage through a legally recognised scientology wedding, surrounded by their friends, families and fellow volunteers," he added. "
Hey Louisa wake up!
I think this is a backdoor/loophole the cult is trying to work.
cocks and all
I read this way too fast.
I thought COS was denying her
ok, never mind carry on
I'd prefer the approach of having a beefed-up common-law status be the only thing that the state recognizes and any ceremonies people want to perform / participate in are orthogonal to any legal standing.
It supports religious freedom while diminishing special powers given to certain groups just because they are "religious".
Marriage is a legal contract plain and simple. What ever pomp and circumstance people decide to use to enter into that contract is and should be irrelevant to making of the contract.
Back in the 1960's and 70's at Saint Hill, couples would get a civil ceremony by a Registrar who is a civil servant. Then, they might have a ceremony in the chapel or grounds of Saint Hill. It was never a problem until scientology ran afoul of the law in the U.K.
I don't blame the Crown for not recognising scientology marriages, outside of that organisation being a bogus "religion": Many of the marriages I was aware of were done so that the foreign national partner could secure permanent residency in the U.K., in other words, the marriages were fraudulent. I think the scientology organisation is resentful of the oversight the Crown may give civil marriages, particularly from scientology, which engages in fraud as standard operating procedure. (I will refrain from mentioning Hubbard's assassination plots against British MPs during the 1970's.)
Peter hodkin volunteers for osa and is a complete wanker.
If any powers that be recognise scilon marriage because, as the couple argue, it is a "religion", does that not directly conflict with the government's position that CofS is NOT a religion?
Are they doing this to get that whole issue reopened?
I think so.
Yup. I also have no doubt that it's not Ms. Hodkin that drives that suit. I bet little Davey and his people have worked this all out in order to reopen a discussion if Scientology is a religion in England.
Though now is a really peculiar timing, as Scientology is in the news every day, and not for their "humanitarian" work.
Lying again. In Canada, it varies by province. In Ontario, they don't have religious status due to lack of charity status, but they managed to slip a few "reverends" on to the rolls during the grey period when they were telling everyone that they were just about to get charity status.
I don't see the big deal anyway. Do what the Wiccans do: have a religious ceremony and do the civil marriage thing.
As a few others have pointed out, this is not about marriage, it's about circumventing the government not recognizing the Scientology corporation as a religion.
Of course it is.
I'm just pissed off because I've spent a lot of time trying to hunt down definitive sources for their status in Canada. (And then some cultie fucker polluted the Wikipedia article by using dumbass apologist shit-for-brains sloppy "scholars" who were incorrect and a freaking student newspaper as a source, and the student author of that article was using Wikipedia as a source without saying. AAAARGH!)
Is it just me or are there no comments open for the Telegraph article?
Fucking Hodkins again.
Peter's not just an OSA volunteer, he's their designated Lawscum, who sends out all the C&D letters, sorts out all the lies and claptrap for Greenfields School, and generally brings his profession into disrepute. He's also the officially named representative for COSRECI (which is the shell company they use for tax dodging purposes)
The entire family has been sucking cult cock forever. Fuckers need to choke on it
"Mammon" does not qualify, I'm afraid; besides, the Mammons, Morons, er, Mormons have already taken that one.
No, not really.
There are vague references to the eighth dynamic as being the divine thing, but really vague and certainly not a supreme being. Usually they take the other route and say "But the Buddhists don't believe in a supreme being either". I suspect this one is definitely crafted at the 1999 rejection of their charity status.
I just love the way the OSAbots framed this confrontation, "Marriage Rights".
They have a right to marry, but do not have the privilege of officially doing it in their bogus "church". If it isn't fraud, it isn't scientology.
...Shouldn't that be supreme being(S), since they believe they themselves are gods (or will be, as soon as they finish that damn Super-Power Building).
Exactly, they actually have the right to get married. They should STFU and DIAF. Some people cannot get married at all. THAT is not fair. They should be able to be as miserable as the rest of married folks!
If there were any real OTs, they would just say "Engage!" and thereby make it so by the powers vested in them by L.Ron Hubbard.
If it's that easy, why don't gays just say they worship a supreme being?
It maybe not such a bad point...
The Rainbow Church, worshipping a gay Deity, who made gay people in Its own image.
I like it
Interesting. I got married in a Scientology church in USA many years ago.
But I had to go to City Hall to get our legal marriage certificate.
Curious how this plays out.
As I recall, one of the (many) criteria by which the criminal organisation known as the "church" of $cientology was found NOT to be a religion in the UK was lack of public access to their properties.
Quick, someone, send in the URLs of the various videos of ex-clams being denied access to the grounds of Stain Hill. With a bit of luck, some of those incidents will make their ways into documentaries aired on actual TV (they were, I believe, filmed). That would be sweet.
Thanks to Peter Hodkin et al for the timing of this piece!
So... if the scilons actually get permission to carry out weddings in their scilon base, then all we need is some SPs to request to use their building for a wedding and bust their asses for religious intolerance or discrimination if they refuse. Would love to see a crowd of whooping xenu masks in a scilon chapel.
Xenu masks, anon masks, any masks.
And now I'd like to do a reading from the works of L Ron Hubbard... "75 million years ago..."
Church of Scientology launches High Court battle for right to marry in movement's chapel | Mail Online
Registrar general refuses to register the chapel for the solemnisation of marriages on grounds it is not 'a place of meeting for religious worship'
By Larisa Brown
A member of the Church of Scientology has launched a High Court battle for the right to marry in a Scientology chapel in central London.
Louisa Hodkin, 23, is challenging a refusal of the registrar general of births, deaths and marriages in England and Wales to register the chapel for the solemnisation of marriages on the grounds that it is not 'a place of meeting for religious worship'.
A judge heard Ms Hodkin wants to marry a fellow Scientologist at the church's chapel on the ground floor of its premises in Queen Victoria Street.
Her lawyers say she is the victim of unlawful religious discrimination.
Under section 2 of the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855, the chapel has to be certified as a meeting place for religious worship to enable legally recognised religious marriages to take place.
Miss Hodkin and her fiance, who are both church volunteers, are challenging the legality of the registrar general's refusal to certify the London chapel for weddings in July last year.
The case is of general importance as Scientologists have previously unsuccessfully applied for certification at other premises in England they have claimed are for 'religious worship'.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, appearing for Miss Hodkin and the Church of Scientology Religious Education College, said Miss Hodkin and her fiance wanted to celebrate their marriage through a legally recognised Scientology wedding in London, surrounded by their families and fellow church volunteers.
But a casework manager for the registrar general said such a wedding could not be recognised because of the 1970 case of 'Segerdal' in the Court of Appeal.
Judges in that case ruled that another Scientology chapel was not a meeting place for religious worship because its services involved 'instructions in the tenets of a philosophy concerned with man' and were not concerned with religious worship.
Lord Lester told Mr Justice Ouseley, sitting at London's High Court, there had been a failure to have proper regard to evidence that the form of worship observed by Scientologists had continued to evolve and now was materially different from what it had been at the time of the Segerdal case.
James Strachan, appearing on behalf of the registrar general, said there had been no unlawful discrimination and the court should not intervene.
He argued that the appeal court decision in Segerdal remained valid and binding - 'the overall position remains that the fundamentals of scientology have not changed since Segerdal'.
Reserving judgment at the end of a two-day hearing, the judge said he would give his decision at a later date.
More at www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2222926/Church-Scientology-launches-High-Court-battle-right-marry-movements-chapel.html
A photo of the happy couple:
Those windows make it look like a prison block.
That would only apply if they rented it out for public use, and possibly not even then. For instance, churches can refuse to perform a religious marriage ceremony for gay couples, although some places that do rentals to the public have ended up in hot water in states where there are anti-discrimination laws for public accommodations.
On the same general basis, a church could refuse to perform a marriage based on you not being a member.
Generally, the piece of paper provided by City Hall (or wherever) to formalize a marriage is the legal part of it. The state doesn't have any say about some religion's own ceremony. So the state can't force a church to perform a gay marriage, but the church can't stop the state from granting one, where it is legal to do so. In the US, a church can perform something and call it a marriage, but if it isn't legal, that creates no legal status of marriage.
This case being in the UK, the authorities simply don't recognize Scientology as a legitimate church (its tax exempt status is backdoored by its Australian branch). As such, it doesn't get to perform weddings. I'm not sure whether in the UK, being able to perform weddings also creates the legal status of marriage.
Here's the Beef in the UK
Hope that helps!
They could apply for the venue to hold civil ceremonies some really odd places have been registered, but they are hell bent on the "We're a Religion honest" route it would seem!
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!