Cape Town University Law Professor Pierre De Vos says not assisting a 'gay marriage' like sacrificing children to death. He adds his view that Christian beliefs are 'private', 'harmful'.

'Private belief to sacrifice children, say, cannot justify killing of children' and Christian beliefs cause acts which are 'harmful' and 'must be curtailed' UCT University of Cape Town Constitutional Law Professor tells our Marc Evan Aupiais and the Cape Talk radio station, on Christians refusing to assist a gay 'wedding' ceremony.

I often disagree with Pierre De Vos, especially for his strange approach to the Constitution. He hates the Roman Dutch approach the Constitutional Court often adheres to, I however love our 4000 year old heritage of law.

On an issue where yet another Christian couple is set to be punished by massive damages in the wondrous Equality Court, I said:

.@capetalk567 @pierredevos To force people to assist gay weddings is to force them to deny their faith. To me that is violation of religion.

— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) April 30, 2013

Pierre quickly responded with a number of claims:

@sacnsnew @capetalk567 Nobody is forcing them to deny their faith. They can believe anything they want. They just cannot discriminate.

— Pierre de Vos (@pierredevos) April 30, 2013

"@pierredevos: @sacnsnew @capetalk567 They can believe anything they want. They just cannot discriminate." so no living a faith. Convenient.

— Marc Evan Aupiais (@SACNSNew) April 30, 2013

@sacnsnew @capetalk567 Sometimes when your private beliefs manifest in public acts harmful to others, those acts are and must be curtailed

— Pierre de Vos (@pierredevos) April 30, 2013

@sacnsnew @capetalk567 Private belief to sacrifice children, say, cannot justify killing of children

— Pierre de Vos (@pierredevos) April 30, 2013

@sacnsnew @capetalk567 Private belief to deny human dignity of women, black people or gay men and lesbians cannot justify discrimination

— Pierre de Vos (@pierredevos) April 30, 2013

@sacnsnew @adlena_evorg @capetalk567 Claiming persecution is laughable. No one prohibits you from believing or attedning church.

— Pierre de Vos (@pierredevos) April 30, 2013

@sacnsnew @adlena_evorg @capetalk567 What you demand is the right to persecute others and to deny them their human dignity.

— Pierre de Vos (@pierredevos) April 30, 2013

So not endorsing Homosexual civil unions by assisting such ceremonies, due to Christian beliefs, is the equivalent of unjustifiable discrimination, and of child sacrifice. Christianity is a private belief, not a religion, or must be a private religion, and Christians following their beliefs, via ABSTAINING from an action, is something that 'MUST BE CURTAILED'? The thing is here, and I know the Constitutional Court has been quite activist on the issue against Christians, and quite activist in supporting abortion and legislation forces Christians to tell people where to get an abortion, the thing is there is still such a thing as human rights. It does not greatly inconvenience a gay couple to conduct their ceremony elsewhere, it does inconvenience a Christian greatly to be forced to deny their faith, and to relegate Christianity as though something evil and shameful, to the four walls of a church, or as in China, to hidden churches in homes. It is not like the conscientious objectors in these cases are denying them the right to buy bread. They are simply holding a belief set, which does not acknowledge 'civil unions' as a form of 'marriage', which their faith permits them to endorse.

'Faith Without Deeds is Dead'- Saint James, perhaps the extreme Christianity hating secularist left hopes that this part of the Bible is deeply true. As for me, I do believe that the intention of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, was never to persecute Christians for ABSTAINING from taking actions which are a denial of their faith. This is indeed an issue where a small minority is able to persecute those who abstain for conscientious objection to a law that at its passing, ignored that 80 percent of South Africans held homosexual acts to be always immoral. But perhaps such thought crimes: perhaps such 'primitive' things as religion are behind us?

I would not deny a homosexual couple assistance in a divorce, or deny them bread if I were selling bread. 'Gay Marriage' is a whole other matter, because it relates to beliefs which are thousands of years old. It also relates to whether marriage is aimed at creating the next generation, or sexual pleasure, and a friendship of sorts, for however long the feelings of affection last. For a Roman Catholic a heterosexual marriage is a manifestation of the Trinitarian God upon this earthly plain, this is why sex is sacred, and why to endorse a homosexual union as this manifestation is believed to be an essential and deep blasphemy in the dogma of the church. A denial of faith in the dogma of the Church.