Tribunal rules in favour of marriage registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships

[melpomene]

here

The registrar claims that she was 'harassed' by being called homophobic. IMO she clearly was homophobic in refusing to carry out the duties of her job by supporting same-sex couples making commitments to each other. I agree with Peter Tatchell's comment: "Lillian Ladele claims she has won a victory for religious liberty. No, she has not. She has won a victory for the right to discriminate."

I'm sure doctors would never be forced to perform abortions if they don't want to, any more than they are forced to perform heart transplants; it is a specialism, so they can choose (or not) to work in that field.

GPs will be asked to refer patients for abortions, and I think (not 100% sure) they are currently allowed to refuse to refer women for abortions but would normally tell the woman she can see another GP to get a referral.

raven - I agree that the fact that when she signed up for her job it wasn't part of the law.

If she had been employed by them since 2005 (I think it was wasn't it? - memory hazy) then it would be different as she would (one would presume) have chosen then not to become a registrar. And then there would be no debate about it.

Policy - but her refusal would be on the basis of her religion.

It is ambiguous though isn't it, in law. In that it still requires there to be a danger to the physical or mental health of the mother. Technically, although not in practice really, abortion is not a right.

I do hope Islington will appeal. Employment tribunals can be very odd affairs indeed - the quality of the tribunal panel is a bit hit and miss.

FAQ - yes, but her refusal is a free choice. You can't make a free choice and then claim you've been discriminated against.

melpomene, hence it is important in this case to consider whether a gay couple living in Islington would still have been able to enter into a civil partnership, albeit not by this particular woman. She wasn't stopping couples from doing so, but she didn't want to perform the ceremony herself.

i hope they appeal, i really feel that homophobia is still very acceptable in our society, lots of people just see it as a bit of a joke and this is so wrong

FM - yes, of course, legally you're right. I think it's a flaw in the legislation though. I don't think women should have to jump through those hoops at all, certainly not for early abortions (and possibly not even for late ones, although I'm more open to argument there).

Just saying that a person's attitude is based on their religion should not give that person an excuse for discriminating. If she is allowed to refuse to provide a service for gay people, then how is that different to a hotel refusing to accept gay customers, or an antediluvian employer refusing to employ women because he believes (on biblical authority) that a woman's place is in the home?

It is different because from the perspective of a same-sex couple there is no discrimination provided that they could still enter into the civil partnership that they want. And in practice there had been no issue in swapping ceremonies with other registrars.

So you're saying it's all right, as long as the individual registrar's discrimination is kept secret and there are other registrars who don't discriminate? Would you feel the same way about registrars who refused to conduct mixed-race marriages?

A harder jump as I am not aware of a religion which would see a mixed race marriage as being somehow sinful or evil.

Although I do have a religious faith, I do wonder why my opinions which might be justified as stemming from that religion should be seen as either more or less worthy (depending on context!) than those that are not associated with the religion.

It's not really about where the ideas/principles come from - it's about whether they are written into law or not. Like it or not, the principle that gay people are equal before the law is established.

Let's put it another way: is discrimination always OK if it has religious backing?

LadyMuck, The case quoted in this article is an example of opposition to mixed race marriages being backed up by religious views. In 1950s Virginia, a judge said "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Admittedly it's an old case, but I'm pretty sure there will still be some people out there who hold similar views.

I'm off to bed now.

I think this decision is appalling and I am totally shocked that she won the case. I very much hope Islington will appeal. As others have said she is a public servant, she cannot pick and choose who she will and won't marry.

It depends if you see religion as being authoritative, I suppose, LM.

Being a stroppy atheist, I don't see why I couldn't do her job & say 'Right, well, I'm not going to marry ginger people to each other, because I happen to have a phobia about red hair & want to inhibit the transmission of the evil auburn gene', just as well as she can take umbrage at carrying out same sex ceremonies.

I think her only argument has to be 'This wasn't part of my duities when I started'.

& I bloody wish I could get out of stuff I disagree with just because it wasn't policy when I signed the contract!

Well quite, to the 'religious belief is no more important than any other belief' argument. I happen to believe in liberal democracy and Enlightenment principles so, for instance, free speech is an absolute right as far as I am concerned. It's a principle as important to me as marriage being a union of a man and a woman is to this registrar.

As for it not being part of her job when she started, neither was compliance with all sorts of laws that have been passed since - data protection, the Disability Discrimination Act etc. etc. etc. You can't go around giving people the right to opt out of the law. We weren't in the EU when I was born but I don't have the right to opt out of EU directives, or decimal currency, or the Equal Pay Act!

If I were getting married I would strongly object to a registrar who was a bigot.

Message withdrawn

Oh gaaaaawd, they have got Joanna fecking Bogle on Radio 2 to defend it. That woman makes me want to throw the radio out of the window.

thing is, if this bigoted cow person is such a fucking raving Christian, what is she doing conducting religion-free marriage ceremonies in the first place? If you're enough of a religious mentalist to be homophobic, then surely your particular set of superstitions insist that marriages are not valid without the say-so of your imaginary friend in the first place, so being a registrar is a pretty funny job to choose.

To an extent, Islington council should have simply arranged for other registrars to do the civil partnerships, which would have been feasible I am sure, and it's probably that the woman was nagged at for her witless beliefs, which isn't acceptable either - but then that would depend on how much homophobic crap she came out with on work time ie did she go on and on to her colleagues about why she wouldn't conduct ceremonies for same sex couples?

Yes, what is the nature of her objection? Gay people marrying? Because they aren't. They are engaging in a civil partnership, a legal agreement.
Or does she just object to being in the same room performing a service for people who happen to be gay? Is that OK just because she is religious? Would anyone in any other field be allowed to do this because they are religious? Would a teacher be excused talking to gay parents on parents' evening?

So with you on that UQD. She is so rude, talks over other people all the time and as for likening same sex civil partnerships with domestic violence
I already thought this decision was wrong but knowing that Joanna Bogle is behind it then I know it is.