Customize

Church of Scientology launches marriage rights bid

Discussion in 'News and Current Events' started by Anonymous, Oct 24, 2012.

  1. SOJOA Member

    If its legally recognized that a couple can marry at a drive thru window in Vegas, theres no reason this couple shouldnt get married in their "church". Different countries I know but just an example.
  2. anonysamvines Member

    maybe lying, maybe not.

    Depends on whether Canada recognises scilon marriage, performed in a country where it is legal church, as legal. They didn't actually say they can conduct legal marriages in Canada. Tricksy scilontologese is tricksy!

    You are right on them not being a legal church ( tho I didn't realise it was only in Ontario that applied).
  3. anonysamvines Member

    Squirrel busters where are you? Your church needs you! Stat!!
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Malory Member

    Yes but then they would have to allow members of the public to marry there as well. I can't remember the exact laws but it was why Charles and Camilla had to pop out to a registry office instead of using Windsor Castle.
  5. Anonymous Member

    "By the OT powers I paid $360,000 for, I now pronounce you thetan and thetan.

    Go over and kiss that bride! Thank you!"
    • Funny Funny x 2
  6. DeathHamster Member

    It's not just Ontario. It's a provincial patchwork. Manitoba no; British Columbia yes; Ontario no; Quebec .. well, Quebec! And no province has an accessible definitive list.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Skyfall Member

    Well, we have Angry Gay Pope. Does that count?
  8. RolandRB Member

  9. RolandRB Member

    Coz its a fucking cult
  10. RolandRB Member

    If the clams win this they will stop the Anonymous movement opposing Scientology in the UK.
    • Agree Agree x 1


  11. No question, Anonymous will be wished into the cornfield and vanish forever as illustrated in this early video of L. Ron Hubbard as a child exhibitng OT Powahz.

    (Original Anonymous member seen here paying the ultimate price for having had bad thoughts about ending LRH's Scientology........'Entheta'!!!!!)
  12. Anonymous Member

    How?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. RolandRB Member

    Claim their worship ceremonies are being disturbed any time they get picketed.
  14. timthephoto Member

    I emailed the UK's Charity Commissioner with one of the Co$ promo graphics that alluded to "finally being recognized as a religion in the UK" like it was about to happen..

    I got a lovely email back saying that Co$ had already been assessed and a decision made. they attached a PDF of their refusal. On the phone they said that Co$ would have to radically change their modus operandi - in order to tip the balance of public good/harm in their favour before they could even get a review of their case.

    TL ; DR Charity Commission says Scientology isn't going to be getting charity/religion status.
    • Winner Winner x 3
  15. RightOn Member

    they already tried this
    Was it in DC? Didn't they call the cops and say that their sunday services were being disturbed? And didn't they do this in Chicago too?
    I can't remember. And they are recognized as a religion in the US.
  16. RolandRB Member

    It doesn't matter. If they win their High Court case that their Orgs are places of worship then the premises will be removed from the list of properties that can be charged rates. That's as good as being recognised as a religion.

    Another thing, the CC have never said that Scientology is not a religion - just that they are not a religion for charitable purposes.
  17. afternon Member

    If they are places of worship- surely they will have to be like real "churches" and open to all without discrimination- and that could be lulzy as hell!
  18. RolandRB Member

    You people need to take this very seriously. This is at High Court level. Look out for the lies. Great big whopping lies. Who will say that the lies are lies?

    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.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ourt-battle-right-marry-movements-chapel.html
  19. muldrake Member

    Lucky for them, cultists don't pay any attention to what their lawyers claim in court, because apparently they argued they've squirreled the tech so much that what goes on in orgs now can't even properly be called "Scientology."

    It has "evolved." So how can that happen when the only infallible "Source" is long worm food?
  20. Anonymous Member

  21. RolandRB Member

    Since Segerdal I guess the children in the Sea Org suffer a lot more and Jesus Christ said "suffer little children to come unto me" so I guess the two religions are converging. Scientology might have even overtaken Christianity in that regard because Jesus only talked about suffering children but Hubbard went the whole hog and locked them up in chain lockers and even slapped a boy across the face so hard He took him off his feet.
  22. Anonymous Member

    I think VaD wants to marry cool. L. Ron would approve.
  23. RolandRB Member

  24. Anonymous Member

    hmmmmmmmmm
  25. Anonymous Member

    Dominic Casciani@BBCDomC
    High Court says a meeting place used by Scientologists can't be registered as a place of worship - which means it can't be used for marriage
    • Like Like x 1
  26. Anonymous Member

    http://news.uk.msn.com/scientology-marriage-bid-rebuffed-1
    • Like Like x 1
  27. RolandRB Member

  28. Anonymous Member

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...ntology-case-to-be-reconsidered-16252460.html

    Justice CYA Ouseleyneeds to make up his damn mind.
  29. Anonymous Member

    Let's hope Anonymous gets the proper message to him before Lady McNair does hers.
  30. :).

    Nice.
    Hodkin is butthurt and the cults plan has failed.
  31. DeathHamster Member

    Not really. He's saying that a higher court decided that it wasn't a place of worship in 1970, and nothing has changed since then, so that's that. Their only option is to take it to the highest court to try to get it overturned.

    The only question is, when he said "Supreme Court justices should consider the question", did he refer it to them for consideration or is Scientology going to have to do the legal legwork on that? (The ScienoSpokeshole made it sound like it was the former, but its lips were moving.)
    • Like Like x 1
  32. RolandRB Member

  33. firebug Member

    • Like Like x 1
  34. The Wrong Guy Member

    Communities Secretary Eric Pickles hails Scientology ruling - MSN UK News

    Updated: 19 December 2012 19:13 | By pa.press.net

    Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has said a High Court judge was right to rule that services run by Scientologists were not "acts of worship".

    Mr Pickles said the Church of Scientology might have been entitled to "tax breaks" - because of rules governing places of public worship - had a decision gone in its favour.

    He welcomed Mr Justice Ouseley's ruling and said taxpayers would not want "such a controversial organisation" to get "special" treatment.

    Scientologist Louisa Hodkin wanted to marry fiance Alessandro Calcioli in a Church of Scientology chapel in central London. But Mr Justice Ouseley said the couple could not marry at the London Church Chapel in Queen Victoria Street because it was not legally a "place of meeting for religious worship".

    Officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government said places of public worship could be exempted from paying business tax rates. And Mr Pickles, Conservative MP for Brentwood and Ongar, added: "I welcome this ruling. Tolerance and freedom of expression are important British values, but this does not mean that the likes of Church of Scientology deserve favoured tax treatment."

    He said the Church of Scientology was not a registered charity and went on: "The majority of the public would not want their own council to be giving special tax breaks to such a controversial organisation."

    Mr Justice Ouseley ruled on Wednesday after hearing legal argument at a High Court hearing in London in October. He said the issue had been considered by the Court of Appeal in 1970. He said appeal judges had decided that Scientology services "did not involve acts of worship" and he therefore had to dismiss Miss Hodkin's challenge.

    But he said the Supreme Court justices - the most senior judges in the UK - should consider the question of whether Scientologists worshipped and decide whether they wanted to rule on the issue. He said, because the Supreme Court was a more senior court than the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court justices might take a different view and not feel bound by the 1970 ruling.

    Miss Hodkin, 24, who, like her fiance, is a volunteer at the London Church Chapel, said she was pleased that the Supreme Court had been asked to consider the case.

    She said: "I knew I would have to be strong and patient given the current law. I am delighted that the court has granted me the opportunity to ask the Supreme Court to hear my case. I hope that the court allows me to marry in my own church, surrounded by my family and friends, which means everything to me."

    From http://news.uk.msn.com/pickles-hails-scientology-ruling
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  35. Tourniquet Member

    Made my day! Thank you, Honourable Sir.
    • Like Like x 2
  36. DeathHamster Member

    Pickles doesn't bother mentioning that some councils do give special tax breaks. Bah!
    • Agree Agree x 1
  37. Anonymous Member

    Gotta start somewhere... and this is WIN.
  38. :).

    So Hodkin will go to the supreme court.
    I think before that happens,edumacting as many top tier judges as possible about the cult.
  39. Anonymous Member

    Filthy lying lawyer scum.

    Fucker deserves to be pilloried for that one.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  40. He can try.

    But the court judgement does not grant him leave to appeal.

    There may have been other comments made... But I think that the newsies were referring to the conclusion

    My understanding is that there would have to be a separate hearing first, to establish whether an appeal can be granted.... All of which is time and money for the criminal cult. The latter, they have in abundance (at least at the executive level), but as for the former? I think that's in *very* short supply.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins