There has been a lot of discussion in the media recently about what in schools is 'conservative religious practice' and what constitutes extremism. I'd suggest there are (at least) two problems here that I haven't heard mentioned. One is that, while a tolerant, open society should of course allow people to undertake 'conservative religious practice' themselves, this is not a licence to impose it on others of the same faith, different faith or no faith at all. While a school should not prevent an individual from undertaking 'conservative religious practice' as long as it doesn't interfere with the teaching activities of the school, it shouldn't be allowed to impose these practices as a standard, whether it is a faith school or not (I personally think we should get rid of faith schools, but that's a different issue). However, what I wanted to think about today, was a second potential problem, and that is the way that some religions use spec...

Because of taking another step in their ongoing legal battle, the former owners of the Chymorvah B&B in Cornwall, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, are once more in the news. These are the people who refused to provide a double room to a pair of civil partners because they believe that sex outside marriage is a sin. I think there is a real problem with their position. Leaving aside the fact that it seems ridiculous that anyone can impose their own religious rules on someone who is not a member of that religion (note the fuss in the news at the moment about a school allegedly imposing headscarves on non-muslim teachers), there seems to be a fundamental imbalance in the Bulls' position. Let's say, for argument, that they were right that sex outside marriage is a sin. I'd suggest that this is not a reason for refusing to let a room to someone. After all, Christianity tells us that we are all sinners - so why pick on a very specific (and let's face it, relatively harmless...