It's true. But Nick Clegg is presently being openly despised by pretty much everyone for being that lowest of creatures: a politician and I recall he also rather wretchedly bottled it before the election during a debate, essentially apologising for not having any fight but my wife is a catholic when asked a straight question about The Popes (then forthcoming) visit and politicians were crawling over themselves to say how much they were looking forward to it.
Nevertheless, is he a bible thumping Christian - no.
Then there is this....
Gay couple turned away from Bed and Brekafast hotel in UK win ruling that this was direct discrimination and therefore illegal and equality legislation.
The ruling establishes that Civil Partnerships for Gays in the UK deserve and have equal protec... as heterosexual marriages from discrimination. (The hotel in question was run by Christians who had had a double-bed policy that was only for "married" couples.)
Judge's ruling set to be a cause for concern to Conservatives (rightly so!!!)
"Whatever may have been the position in past centuries it is no longer the case that our laws must, or should automatically reflect the Judaeo-Christian position." He goes on to quote Lord Justic Laws in his ruling over the similar case of a Relate counsellor dismissed for refusing to offer sex advice to gay couples: "The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves."
Reflections on the effect The Equality Act 2006 has had on moving towards a less prejudical society in Britain behind the link....
it warms my secular heart to see a religion being told "NO!"
However, being a civil suit and therefore a case of competing rights, and becuase the judge found in favour of the the couple bringing the case which is consistent with the legislation, it necessarily means the hoteliers rights are being impinged, hence they have been given leave to appeal the ruling, but one wonders on what grounds an appeal could be made or attempted successfully.
So it will probably stand as a new piece of case law precendent clarifying the legislation (establishing civil partnerships and the application of the equality act to them) thus putting the rights of gays in civil partnerships on equal legal footing in terms of protection from direct discrimination of denial/restriction of goods and services, as heterosexual married couples.
And that is a very good thing.
America, take note.