This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25331754

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Supreme Court judges allow Scientology wedding Supreme Court judges allow Scientology wedding
(35 minutes later)
A woman who wants to marry in a Church of Scientology chapel has won her Supreme Court challenge.A woman who wants to marry in a Church of Scientology chapel has won her Supreme Court challenge.
Louisa Hodkin was disputing a High Court ruling which said Scientology services were not "acts of worship". Five Supreme Court judges ruled the church was a "place of meeting for religious worship".
But five Supreme Court judges disagreed, ruling the church was a "place of meeting for religious worship". Louisa Hodkin launched legal action after officials refused to register a Church of Scientology chapel in central London as a place for marriage.
Miss Hodkin wants to marry Alessandro Calcioli in a Church of Scientology chapel in central London. This was due to a 1970 High Court ruling which said Scientology services were not "acts of worship".
She took legal action after the registrar general of births, deaths and marriages refused to register the London Church Chapel for the solemnisation of marriages under the 1855 Places of Worship Registration Act because it was not a place for "religious worship".
Evolution of beliefsEvolution of beliefs
The Supreme Court justices said religion should not be confined to faiths which involve a "supreme deity". In their unanimous decision, the Supreme Court justices said that the 1970 ruling's definition of religious worship as involving "reverence or veneration of God or of a supreme being" was out of date.
They said that, as the Church of Scientology held religious services, its church was a "place of meeting for religious worship". "Religion should not be confined to religions which recognise a supreme deity," wrote Lord Toulson, giving the judgment.
The justices unanimously allowed Miss Hodkin's appeal against the High Court ruling. "To do so would be a form of religious discrimination unacceptable in today's society," he wrote, noting that the criteria would exclude Buddhism, among other faiths.
In his judgment, Lord Toulson described the earlier judgement as "illogical, discriminatory and unjust". The court said it was not the job of the Registrar General of Births, Marriages and Deaths to venture into "fine theological or liturgical niceties" and declared that the Scientology chapel should be recorded as a place for the solemnisation of marriages.
Miss Hodkin said she hoped to marry in the next few months but they are yet to set a date. Miss Hodkin says she and fiance Alessandro Calcioli hope to marry in the next few months but are yet to set a date.
"It's been a long and demanding journey, but the Supreme Court's decision has made it all worthwhile. We are really excited that we can now get married, and thank our family and friends for all of their patience and support," she said."It's been a long and demanding journey, but the Supreme Court's decision has made it all worthwhile. We are really excited that we can now get married, and thank our family and friends for all of their patience and support," she said.
Mr Calcioli added: "I think the court's definition of religion is excellent. I think it's what most people today would understand 'religion' to be. I'm ecstatic."Mr Calcioli added: "I think the court's definition of religion is excellent. I think it's what most people today would understand 'religion' to be. I'm ecstatic."
'Very concerned''Very concerned'
The Church of Scientology launched a similar case in 1970, in which the Court of Appeal ruled it did not involve religious worship because there was no "veneration of God or of a Supreme Being". Miss Hodkin's solicitor Paul Hewitt, a partner at law firm Withers, said the judgment was a "victory for the equal treatment of religions in the modern world".
In December 2012, High Court Judge Mr Justice Ouseley said he was bound by that decision and therefore had to dismiss Miss Hodkin's challenge. "We are delighted at the outcome - it always felt wrong that Louisa was denied the simple right, afforded to members of other religions, to enjoy a legal marriage ceremony in her own church," he said.
In December 2012, High Court Judge Mr Justice Ouseley said he was bound by the decision in the 1970 case and therefore had to dismiss Miss Hodkin's challenge.
But he said Supreme Court justices should consider the question of whether Scientologists worshipped and, as it was a more senior court, its justices might take a different view.But he said Supreme Court justices should consider the question of whether Scientologists worshipped and, as it was a more senior court, its justices might take a different view.
Miss Hodkin argued that the 1970 ruling should not be binding because Scientologist beliefs and services had evolved and likened it to Buddhism and Jainism.Miss Hodkin argued that the 1970 ruling should not be binding because Scientologist beliefs and services had evolved and likened it to Buddhism and Jainism.
Local government minister Brandon Lewis said he was "very concerned" about the ruling and its implications for business rates.Local government minister Brandon Lewis said he was "very concerned" about the ruling and its implications for business rates.
He said ministers had promised during the passing on the Equalities Bill that Scientology would continue to fall outside the religious exemption for business rates - but now could be eligible for rate relief.He said ministers had promised during the passing on the Equalities Bill that Scientology would continue to fall outside the religious exemption for business rates - but now could be eligible for rate relief.
"We will review the court's verdict and discuss this with our legal advisers before deciding the next steps. However, it will remain the case that premises which are not genuinely open to the public will not qualify for tax relief.""We will review the court's verdict and discuss this with our legal advisers before deciding the next steps. However, it will remain the case that premises which are not genuinely open to the public will not qualify for tax relief."