I would not let this woman marry me!

[FairyMum]

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4312447.ece

What if she was not religious, but just objected to gay marriage for other personal prejudices?
Why is religious belief more valid?

[FairyMum]

Well, I find that totally shocking too and possibly even more shocking.

[MarsLady]

but surely she has a right to practise her beliefs? It's not as if there are lots and lots of registrars in that office that are refusing.

[FairyMum]

And if she wasn't religious, just didn't approve? What if you don't approve of divorced people re-marrying? Or of people who already had children pre-wedlock? Or of mixed race marriages?

Saying its ok to refuse to marry gay couples, suggests to me you are okeying someone's prejudices because its an "understandable" prejudice in some ways.

[gingerninja]

What I don't get is that at a civil ceremony religion is not a factor, you're not even alowed to mention god or faith etc.

She is under the illusion that she's conducting a religious matrimony and she's not, she's uniting people in a civil ceremony so religion and her beliefs should not come into it.

[DontCallMeBaby]

I'm not convinced an 'orthodox' Christian registrar should (by her own conscience) be conducting civil weddings at all. Surely if you're that orthodox you would believe in the very letter of the marriage service, and therefore civil marriages would not 'count'?

[MarsLady]

exactly mmj. Much like the fact that the BNP have a right to speak, campaign, stand for and win elections. They may be despicable but it is their right and as someone (whose name escapes me this morning) said... and I will defend their right to do so.

We can't pick and choose or there would be no rights for anyone.

[gingerninja]

I see your point MMJ but the nature of a civil ceremony is non religious so she should be expected to conduct herself in an unbiased way or frankly not do the job. In her eyes, she's mixing what she feels about marriage and what is a secular unity of too people.

[PeachyBAHons]

The religion factor is a fair point

And if choice is the key factor- well Iwould choose not to be amrried by someone who would disapprove of the lifestyle of several of my guests

Choice works both ways, after all

[gingerninja]

Mars, there are certain jobs though where you're expected to keep your beliefs to yourself. Take civil servants, they're expected to be politically neutral yet to some, their belief in politics is like a religion. It's very important to them, but for the ebenfit of their job they absolutely have to be neutral.

[Nagapie]

But wasn't the case more about her treatment by the Islington council than her moral objection to the marriages...

Surely, if the other councellors had a brain cell to share between them, they could have dealt with it in a way that didn't end up costing the tax payer a whole lot of money ...

[FAQ]

and AFAIK her decision not to conduct the ceremony between the same sex couple didn't discriminate against the couple as they (I presume as it wasn't mentioned in the articles I've read on it) still got married.

She however has been discriminated against because of her beliefs, being bullied and harassed as a result.

Even if you take out the religious factor - is it fair that she should be bullied and harassed at work??

[FAQ]

and AFAIK her decision not to conduct the ceremony between the same sex couple didn't discriminate against the couple as they (I presume as it wasn't mentioned in the articles I've read on it) still got married.

She however has been discriminated against because of her beliefs, being bullied and harassed as a result.

Even if you take out the religious factor - is it fair that she should be bullied and harassed at work??

[silverfrog]

"What if you don't approve of divorced people re-marrying?"

dh & I came up against this - had a few CofE vicars refuse to marry us as dh had been married before. It happens.

People are entitled to their beliefs, but it does get complicated.

[FAQ]

ginger - when she took up the job she didn't know she would be expected to carry out same sex marriages - as they weren't allowed at the time.

If she'd become a registrar since the law changed I would have little (actually no ) sympathy for her.

[gingerninja]

I suppose I'm also at odds with the fact that she singled out this issue to claim religious objections. Because for me, that just sounds like religion being used as a justification for a personal moral objection. ie the simple fact that in other cases a)the couples marrying were not christian, b)not united by god, c)divorced couples d)other religions, would also be reasons for her to object based on her religion and she hasn't.

[gingerninja]

Point taken FAQ but as with my other post, i'm just not entirely comfortable with the idea of someone with strict Christian beliefs conducting a civil ceremony. I am not religious and would have been very very unhappy about it had she married me because like it or not, she's bringing her god to the party and he wan't invited.

[FairyMum]

Yes, we have freedom of speech. However, in most workplaces you don't. Certainly in my company they have very stict guidelines in place to protect people against discrimination. If I was to voice a racist, sexist or homophobic attitude in my office, I would get sacked with immediate effect. A guy in my office was sacked for printing off a racist joke from the office printer. I think her boss was right to ask her how she would feel about refusing to marry black people. Same thing. Why is it more acceptable to have prejudices against gay people than black people? I find it funny that SHE claims to be discriminated against when SHE is the one discriminating in the first place. I am gobsmacked not more people agree with me on thread. I thought this was a pretty obvious shock-story

[FairyMum]

"un-pc-gone-mad"

[sfxmum]

I think a registrar can make the ceremony lovely, someone there objecting the whole time would just spoil what should be a special occasion, regardless of other considerations

still it is sad that some people have more rights than others

[mrscraig]

I agree FairyMum!! (calling out from the back!)
I saw this article on the news last night and was outraged. The issue isn't about respecting religous rights the issue is how you conduct yourself and perform at your job.
You can't go picking and choosing the parts of it you are going to do because of your religous beliefs.
Where would it lead.. Catholic doctors not authorising abortions? Teachers not teaching about other religions?
This is a very dangerous road that will breed intolerance. The argument is not about freedom of expression its about doing the job you are paid to do.