Muslim councilor who refused to do lesbian ‘wedding’ gets 5 months suspended prison sentence

Oct. 5, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Sabrina Hout, a French city councilor from a Muslim background who refused to perform the marriage of a lesbian couple last year, has been given a five month suspended prison sentence together with hefty damages.

The sentence has been greeted with enthusiasm in much of the media, the more so because it goes over and beyond the public prosecutor’s demands: she had suggested just three months suspended prison and a fine of 1,500 euro. Sabrina Hout will have to pay a total of 2,400 euro (over 3,000 dollars) in damages to the two women she refused to “marry” and to several gay associations who supported their claim.

Get used to this. The pro-homosexual bullies are after domination and they’re using threats and intimidation to try and get what they want. The leaders of France and pro-homosexuals will have to answer for this on Judgment Day.

So far I’ve only heard of Christians and Muslims being charged for staying true to their religions.

This poor woman is paying a heavy price.

Well, this will give Christians and Muslims a good thing to unite against.

Indeed. May we all unite on this encroachment against our dignity. It is an offense against the 1st and 13th amendments.

So, obeying your religious beliefs is a crime, while heterophobia is a gold mine!:mad:

Could someone in authority wake up?

Not only is this heterophobic, it is racist and islamophobic by progressive standards.

Whatever happened to freedom of religion, or the separation of church and state?

In short, people in the West have sold it out for short-term government goodies.

It may be sooner than that for some. I doubt Muslims, especially with their growing influence and numbers in Western Europe, will tolerate much of that.

1-She told the court that the reason she didn’t marry them had nothing to do with her religion.

2-She sure doesn’t dress like most Muslim women I know.

3-She pretended she was sick! And got someone else in the office to marry them who was not authorized to do so!
So for six months, the couple was signing all sorts of legal documents without knowing their marriage was not legal.
That is serious. They could be in a lot of legal trouble because of what she did.





Re # 3: True. But she probably did that because the mayors who had outright refused to perform the weddings were threatened with criminal prosecution and subject to financial investigations which the article stated even made the innocent ones look guilty… Plus there is no conscientious objection on religious grounds. Sounds like bullying and intimidation to me.


I see the bit in the article about previous mayors being put under “financial investigation”…and I’ve checked about 50 other media outlets so far and did a general internet search for those facts, and come up with nothing.
No other publication I’ve found so far mentions this–linked to this story or any other.
Have you seen any? Or know of these cases? If so, please post the links–I’d much appreciate it.
I don’t trust the reporting at Lifesite “News” for one second.

The publication, for example, reports that the woman’s sentence “was greeted with enthusiasm by most of the media”.
Where? Where has it been “greeted with enthusiasm by most of the media”?
Of the fifty articles I’ve read, both in English and in French–including the left-leaning Huffington Post–I have not seen her sentence being “greeted with enthusiasm” by “most of the media”.
In fact, of the fifty articles I read…not one did so.

I also see they omit Hout’s quote that other publications include, when she told the court:
“I’m really sorry. I’m ashamed of what I did…” saying the events were due to a “bad set of circumstances.”

If someone is breaking the law…they of course should be made aware of the possible criminal prosecution.
If you (and Lifesite “News”) call that a “threat”, so be it.

This ------>** “if you perform those marriages, you’ll go to hell”** (says her brother, and some religious folks)…sounds waaaaaay more like bullying, threatening, and intimidation.

But if someone is told what the punishment would be if they break the law, most people would call that being given the facts and being duly and properly warned about them.
People should be made well aware of the consequences, of course, so they can make their decisions on what to do.
It sounds like she was told, so she made her choice.
In fact, she made her consquences worse…and is now in trouble for lying and forgery.

In general, it would be wise for people not to pursue or stay in jobs that go against their conscience. I’ve left jobs that go against mine several times instead of staying and not performing the job. If someone can’t do the job anymore, or doesn’t* like* the job anymore, and if it’s financially possible…they should leave it and find another.

It’s really annoying when this “publication”, LIfesite News, keeps putting the word “marriage” in parenthesis. The word is legally correct to use–this is what the contract and ceremony is officially called on the legal documents.
Someone should inform their fact-checkers of this. If they have any.


To be fair the first amendment is just the right to religion, and NOT to deny service to people that go against beliefs

Yes-- and that’s exactly what you want, you wicked liberal. You’re part of the problem.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit