The post you are reporting:
Philip, what I wrote I'm also sure of.
Let's consider: the words "venting their hatred..." You might find that there is actually a law, but probably one that the judge involved in this case has not come across, or which no lawyer made known to the court during the proceedings.
It is against the law to make hatred speeches in many circumstances, for example against people on account of their ethnic origin, or to cause hatred-inspired humiliation against them.
It probably is illegal to take hatred-based actions against people on account of their faith in God, especially when such actions result in intolerance that can damage the liberty of people to practice their faith in God.
One thing is freedom of speech, something else is injurious speech that is hatred-based.
Unfortunately, here we have someone whose intolerance went as far as the court, with the backing of a society whose aim is to destroy freedom of faith. The tables were turned, and the victims were depicted as the aggressors ("they prayed to God before the meetings, this offended me, I have been insulted...").
And the aggressor became the victim ("I forbid them to pray together in communion to God, so, oh honourable Court of Justice, please hear my case, they are aggressive towards me, ORDER them never to pray again before a meeting").
It is astonishing that a court can make such a ruling that is blatant persecution based on EVERYTHING that is unreasonable, and get away with it, and actually have this ruling applied as a precedent for all councils in the UK, and inevitably as a basis for further action against any manifestation in public of prayers to God or celebration of the Faith, in whatever form.
It was reasonable for the council member to simply present himself at the meeting hall after the prayers were finished, as the prayers were not part of the official procedure. He knew this to be the case, as it was the custom in the council.
The society that backed his case with financial and intellectual support is no doubt satisfied, satisfied to have defeated, humiliated and downcast other people who pray to God, satisfied to have inflicted a blow on believers, to have done some Faith-bashing.
Satisfied to have wrung a court order making prayers illegal where once they were common practice among those who believe.
And yet these intolerant individuals were in no way harassed or otherwise inconvenienced by the prayers of other people. Perhaps these were even praying for those who hate them.
Just imagine God said to one of those intolerant people: "lo and behold, those who once prayed for you have been silenced by the court order you helped bring about against their Faith! So begone!"