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."

From my reading of the report in the paper this morning, her case was that she was ostracised for her decision not to perform the civil partnership ceremonies. It was about her treatment at the hands of her colleagues and not by any requirement to perform duties she found unacceptable.

I thought something a bit similar to that when someone mentioned Catholics and marrying divorcees further down the thread madamez. I thought that that probably wouldn't matter because the civil contract of marriage is different to the sacrament of marriage (for Roman Catholics) and so it just doesn't count religion-wise. IYSWIM.

I wondered that too Madamez. She must have been marrying couples whose circumstances contravened her religious beliefs (divorce for example) for many of her years in a civil service job
While I do not agree with her views I cannot help wondering if this case is mainly about how her employers handled her objections, and that she has won this tribunal on a technicality.
The end result is sadly the wrong one and I hope that Islington will win on appeal.

Duh, x-posted with you theFallenMadonna
The people who sent her to Coventry at work have played right into her hands

I agree with you there marina. Apparently it means she will be returning to work...

"I'm not serving you because you're a nigger, but it's ok because there are plenty more newsagents in this area and you can go to one of those"

Sound ok?

Or how about "yeah I don't serve niggers in here, but it's ok because ethel's usually here and I go out the back and let her serve them."

That nicer is it?

I think its ridiculous... Civil ceremonies are not in any way religious. You are not allowed to have any religious content in them. If she's so religious, she should train as a vicar/preacher and perform religious ceremonies. Blatant discrimination

I also knew of a GP who refused to prescribe the contraceptive pill (or obviously have anything to do with abortions) because of his religious beliefs.

As far as I'm concerned, its part of the job you have chosen and therefore, if your beliefs stop you from doing your job, you should leave

So heartened to see all these posts (well, most of them). I saw the registrar on news last night and wanted to smack her.

Yeah applies to GPs and Pharmacists too. There are plenty of roadsweeping jobs if they don't want to do the one they are paid for.

TillyScoutMum, I agree with you, but I'd hazard a guess that because she had been doing the job for 16 years, ie before the introduction of Civil Partnerships, she may have used this as part of her claim - that she could not reasonably have expected to be asked to marry wicked sodomites when she took up the post. Gggrrrr

I hope lots of heterosexuals start insisting that they don't want her to marry them. I would.

Joanna Bogle is a sort of moral litmus test. If I'm struggling with something, all I have to do is hear her strident, screeching, patronising tones talking over everyone and I know I just have to think the opposite!

If she is allowed to say "but it wasn't law when I took the job" then teachers are allowed to smack children on the same basis until they retire.

I can't understand why she wasn't fired for not doing her job.

she was ostracised for her decision not to perform the civil partnership>>

"They found out I was a bigot and now no one wants to be my friend"

She was surprised by this?

i saw the stonewall man give the speach after and cite some v. dodgy analogies, like - ohhh can doctors refuse to treat gay people ..............this will never end

yaada yadda bullshit

i have to respect other peoples religeons and the way they express their religeons daily

this woman was expressing the right to not do this.

I also know of a nurse who refuses to aid in abortions becuase of her faith

She wasn't forced to do anything Custardo, she could have resigned any time she wanted. Right after the law passed would have been the correct time.

I'm not disagreeing with you greyriverside. I'm just saying what the tribunal was actually about.

This is a difficult one to call. What gives the right of one minority to say they are more important than another. I absolutely agree that people who want to commit to each other should be able to do so (same-sex or not). But, in the same way, the fact that some people believe in God and have principles, you cannot just expect them to break them, when circumstances change. Where do you draw the line - should conscientious objectors be compelled to fight in wars? Should Muslims be compelled to eat Pork (as it is not illegal in this country)? There must be some common sense.

In this case, it seems that in the past, accommodations were made (this women did not officiate in same-sex partnerships). Why this did not continue, i don't know, but it would have saved this Tribunal case and the associated costs.

TheFallenMadonna, Oh I know you were just pointing that out, but I wanted to make the point that bigots generally are going to lose friends over their views. This is one way we will put a stop to it through social pressure.

The conscientious objector during conscription is an interesting analogy MrCSWS.

IMO, I'm glad that she isnt being forced into performing civil partnerships between same sex couples. That would mean that 2 people would turn up, on what is suposed to be the happiest day of their lives knowing that if she was performing the cermony that she was doing it under duress and she was against same sex partnerships.

MrCSWS, well that's what I was saying further back. No one made her do it. She had the right to resign. So that is a false analogy.

Anyway, isn't she objecting to being ostracised. She didn't actually have to perform any ceremonies. Or maybe I've read the case wrongly.

Conscientious objectors shouldn't be forced to fight. That is a completealy different situation.

Being forced into circumstances where you are expected to kill people (potentially including innocent civilians) is a completely different situation from choosing to remain in a job where the job description requires you to (horror!) recognise other people's happy and committed loving relationships - when you also have the option of leaving and finding another job.