Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

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

217 replies

melpomene · 10/07/2008 23:04

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."

OP posts:
Tortington · 11/07/2008 14:08

she shouldnt have to resign becuase of her religeous preferences though.

MsDemeanor · 11/07/2008 14:09

MR CSWS, so should a teacher with a religious objection to same sex partnerships be allowed not to speak to same-sex parents at parent's evening?

TheFallenMadonna · 11/07/2008 14:09

From the BBC website

"Until December 2007 registrars in Islington effectively worked on a freelance basis and could swap with each other to avoid same-sex ceremonies. But since then they have been under direct control of the local authority which, it is claimed, has led to far less flexibility about the registrars' responsibilities.

Miss Ladele said she was being effectively forced to choose between her religion and her £31,000-a-year job as a result.

She said she was picked on, shunned and accused of being homophobic for refusing to carry out civil partnerships."

madamez · 11/07/2008 14:10

If she was 'ostracized' then one has to wonder how much homophobic ranting she was doing at work. If other staff were bullying her over her superstitions then that's bad and should have been addressed (everyone has the right to hold whatever witless beliefs they choose as long as they don't inflict those beliefs on other people, so if the other staff had simply rearranged the rotas and let the matter drop that might have been OK) but I can't help wondering if she's another of these nutters who has to make a big deal out of what a Christian she is and how Christians have No Rights Any MOre (ie they are not allowed to discriminate or annoy other people).

Oh, and Joanna Bogle. I'd forgotten her. Kicked her arse righteously at least once, I did .

nkf · 11/07/2008 14:10

So she was shunned. She should have picked up her cross and carried it. That's the deal with Christianity. She should know that.

HermanMunster · 11/07/2008 14:12

if they won't even allow her to swap with other registrars where possible i think it's a bit off .
also i would not label her a bigot or a homophobe for not agreeing with same sex marraige. i do however think she needs to differentiate in her own mind the big difference between same sex civil partnerships which have nothing to do with religion and the sacrement of marraige.

Original poster
melpomene · 11/07/2008 14:12

That's an interesting mental picture, madamez...

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 11/07/2008 14:13

But you weren't allowed to be a conscientious objector just because you didn't want to fight. You had to 'prove' some kind of moral objection to warfare. I think (am no historian).

Anyway. There is not conscription at the moment, so not really an issue.

The GP/pharmacist and abortion issue more relevant really. And legal.

MsDemeanor · 11/07/2008 14:14

It's blooming rich to complain about being called homophobic when you are homophobic. Of course people thought she was homophobic and didn't like her. She's horrible!

MrCSWS · 11/07/2008 14:14

Greyriverside

"No-one made her do it". In fact they did and why should she resign - to use another analogy - Pharmacists are not required to prescribe the "morning-after" pill, but can get someone else to do so. I also believe in access to the morning after pill (but some people do not, for religious reasons). Should the pharmacists also resign.

I do agree that you should not put yourself in a position that conflicts with your own personal beliefs, but in this case, the change happened after. If an accomodation can be made, all the better. But forcing someone, go against your believes or resign is harsh.

Tortington · 11/07/2008 14:15

if she was shunned - hard shit - but the place of work should have allowed her to swap;

MsDemeanor · 11/07/2008 14:15

Custardo, do you think teachers should be allowed not to talk to gay parents? Because I don't see a difference.

Greyriverside · 11/07/2008 14:18

MrCSWS of course Pharmacists should resign. They are not able to carry out the requirements of the job. I've been saying that for ages.

What about my smacking question? should teachers be allowed to smack kids if they took the job on when it was legal to do so?"

Original poster
melpomene · 11/07/2008 14:20

I'd say someone is homophobic if they don't agree with same sex marriage. Just because their prejudice is endorsed by the bible doesn't mean it's not prejudice.

By comparison, the belief that women are inferior is also endorsed by the bible: "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." (I Timothy 2:11-14). Anyone who holds that attitude is sexist, and playing a religion card wouldn't stop them being sexist.

OP posts:
MrCSWS · 11/07/2008 14:20

MsD

The difference is the Teacher is not concerned with their relationship (and should not be), but should be concerned with the child. The Registrar is dealing with the same-sex relationship.

madamez · 11/07/2008 14:20

Do you all think it's OK for people to hold down public sector jobs, serving the public, if they are BNP members? (THe BNP are fairly homophobic too ISTR) Should they be allowed to keep their jobs as long as they don't rant at or about ethnic minorities while at work, or give anyone discriminatory treatment while at work, or should their sincerely held beliefs be percieved as a reason to sack or discipline them?

MsDemeanor · 11/07/2008 14:22

So is it OK for solicitors to refuse to draw up wills for gay couples? Or to refuse to do their conveyancing? That's to do with their relationships. And solicitors aren't even paid out of the public purse.
As this woman's objection seems to be that she can't stand to be in the same room as queers, I can see why she was ostracised, and I think it a very reasonable reaction to her horrible views.

nkf · 11/07/2008 14:23

I don't think people should be sacked for having unpleasant views. But I don't think their views entitle them to pick and choose who they serve or how well they carry out public functions. If you air your views and your colleagues don't like them, they are entitled to avoid you. Not to bully you but certainly not to spend time with you.

MsDemeanor · 11/07/2008 14:23

Or should BMP members be given special exemption so they don't have to help black people, because it is against their principles more like.

MsDemeanor · 11/07/2008 14:24

Ack, BNP.

Tortington · 11/07/2008 14:25

thats ridiculous.

MsDemeanor · 11/07/2008 14:25

Why?

idlingabout · 11/07/2008 14:26

Madamez - I would love to hear/see Joanna Bogle getting what for - well done you!
I thought Clive Anderson would put her in her place on Radio 2 earlier but he backed off and left it to the other speaker and Paul 0'Grady to point out how objectionable her views are.

TheFallenMadonna · 11/07/2008 14:26

You can't sack someone for their beliefs and opinions. Or even their party membership surely? The expression of those beliefs and opinions and the extent to which they affect your willingness to carry out your job is another matter.

Tortington · 11/07/2008 14:27

becuase its like saying supposing aliens laded and offered to eat octupus balls and if your didn't you would offend them

has no relevence and is comepletly made up

the BNP isn't a religeon its a sprious political movement

compare it with " should we sack card carrying tories" and i might see the link