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."

Madamez, I think that is unfair, it is not as if anyone was stopped getting married, she quitely changed her bookings with someone else and no harm done, till some arsehole made a fuss.

She was not rude or insulting to anyone, in fact if some do gooder had not kicked up a fuss, no one would have known she objected to such services.

If it is a gay persons right to have a partnership then it is her right to not want to conduct it

Also being gay is not a right to special treatment, but a lot of people seem to think if you say anything against the lifestyle you're a biggot.

Just because you are not for something don't mean you are against it, as I said I have some lovely gay friends male and female and they get on with their life and I get on with mine, because their lifestyle is not one I have does not mean I am againt them having it, I will be going to my friends civil partnership, My priest is gay and openly so, but he would not marry a gay couple in church.

Its a bit of paper, so they can fight over who gets the cat in the divorce same as the rest of us, fine, but if you have a religion and you have deep faith as this lady seems to then why should she be forced to do something she is against?

A white couple I know were told they could not adopt a black child, they would have made fab parents, they did not make a song and dance about it just got on with finding another child to love, they accepted the fact that someone said no to them, shame some people can't do that, then scream human rights.

Being gay doesn't entitle you to discriminate against someone by refusing them a perfectly legal service, and nor should being religious. Her opinions made her unable to do her job properly ie she was refusing to perform parts of her lawful duties because of her opinions. Islington Council should have sacked her.

You're a paragon of tolerance yourself, madamez. Not.

they can't sack her for her religeous beliefs.
the argmen is getinga little mixed up - there is the issue of whether we - as asociety at large should take int acount religeous belifs

thats an argment in itself

the other argument is whether - considering the climate , laws, equality and diversity policy f council which will include religeon as islington council abides by the equality standard for local authorities.

it is within THIS framwork, hat the council ignored the needs of the ladies religous needs - over those of another minority group
when both could have been catered for

thats the crux

whether she is a bigot, or intolerant. whether she uses her religeon to her advantage on this point yet willfully ignores it in other areas - is another issue

islington council breached their own policies and govt guidelines on equality stadards for councils.

But where in the bible does it say 'thou shalt not ave ye offical document of legal partnership in front of those who lieth with each other as if they were the other sex'? She isn't being asked to particpate in a homosexual act. She isn't being asked to have a view on sex at all.
She works in the public sector as part of the machinery which delivers democratically implemented law (sic). Homosexual people pay taxes towards her children's religious state schools and aren't allowed to abstain on ethical grounds - if she doesn't like the job she should move to one she feels more comfortable with.

i agree with you blu - accept tat the civil partnership thing came in after she was already working there.

thats where i think it falls down - in policy for islington.

the thing is - if we disregard this womans religeous rights ( flawed as they might be) how do we equater this with a multifaith society - in general.

it then ecomes ths whole lcuster fuck of things involving silver rings, crosses headscarves, abortions and many more things to boot.

but the timing is a false argument, Custy. Lots of laws came in during my last proper full time job - I didn't have the right to opt out of them just because they weren't there when I started. I couldn't refuse to deal with a Data Protection Act issue just because it hadn't been part of my job at the start. I'm self-employed now and have to comply with lots of things that just didn't exist when I set up on my own.

I would neither ask nor expcet a person of the Muslim faith to butcher me a pig, so why is it so wrong for a woman to stand her ground over what she believes in, oh forgot she is a christian and we are fair game

But where in the bible does it say 'thou shalt not ave ye offical document of legal partnership in front of those who lieth with each other as if they were the other sex'

It says man shall not lie with man nor beast

Kimi, She didn't have to do anything. She could have resigned and got a job in woolworths.

Being religious doesn't give you the right to break the law.

But I agree with the second part of what you say which means she was using the religion as a cover wasn't she

I do not see how she was useing the faith as a cover.
Civil partnerships are reasonably new and if she took the job before the law was changed, I doubt same sex couples were a worry to her.

Not everyone will agree with everyone and everything else in life, just some numptys deemed the fact that you do not agree with what someone else does as being some sort of "ist".
As far as I know this woman did not scream get out you filthy queers, she mearly swapped her work with someone who was happy to conduct the service, she was in no way rude to anyone, she did not hit anyone, she just quitely objected.
Someone else made the fuss (trying to get their I am the most PC person in the room badge I bet).

If it is wrong for a gay person to be got at for who they hump then it is just as wrong for someone to be got at and bullied for which God they kneel to, I would bet my house on the fact that is a Muslim had said look its against what I believe to conduct a same sex service no one would bat an eye lid.
Oh hang on Muslims don't tolarate homosexuallty at all do they!

Kimi, you had just said the bible doesn't forbid conducting civil services so I was agreeing with you that it wasn't really because of her religion

Using this logic it is now ok for registrars to refuse to marry black people and for shop owners to say "I don't like serving Jews. Wait here and I will get someone to come out who doesn't mind your kind"

Sorry I was qouting what someone had said feather down, should have made that clear (its too early in the day )
I was saying the bible says man shall not lie with man nor beast, and this is what the woman has a issue with, the bible tells her it is wrong and so she feels she can not conduct the service

Ah yes there should be a quote thing.

So are you're happy about this applying to black/jewish people being refused service in macdonalds etc?

No I am not, so don't start twisting what I have said and trying to make my look like a bigot, I think the woman is conducting a service not flipping burgers, (or are you implying that as she is black that is the only job she should do?) that she feels is on par with a marriage and she feels (as is her right) that is is against what the bible says (and it is) there for she is not happy to do the service, at no point was she stopping anyone having the service she was just asking for someone else to do it

We have established that the bible says gays are evil, but that it doesn't say you shouldn't let them have a civil partnership.
Therefore another religious person (or this one if she were sacked) might work in mcdonalds and say "I'm not serving them because they are evil as defined by the bible"

There are arguments from the bible that black people are inferior/evil you see so someone might well say they wouldn't serve them either.

I guess it won't hurt them to wait until someone else is free to come and serve them who has a stronger stomach and won't mind dealing with them

Furthermore if you're allowing christians to make this distinction then you surely intend to allow any religion/belief the same right?

I don't get this at all. Civil ceremonies are entirely non-religious. You're not allowed to have any readings or songs with any religious references in at all. It's a legal ceremony, 5 minutes length, which ends up with a contract being drawn up. And that's it. Nothing religious about it at all.

So how come she's allowed to bring her religious beliefs into it??? Her religious beliefs are her own, but should bear no relation on her carrying out an entirely non-religous activity.

Oh FFS, I don't give a flying fig who someone wants to fuck, what colour they are, what way they kneel to worship.

The fact of the matter is it was decided that it was WRONG to bully this woman out of a job because she feels her faith stops her from as good as saying its ok to go against god
If gay ouples were being stopped from having their party then that would also be wrong but no one was stopped, she just did not want to do it, and because of that she was hounded, and that is as wrong as saying gays should not be allowed to get their bit of paper in the first place (and she did not)

Well that's something, but if you allow her to opt out then suppose there are only 4 registrars and one of the others wants to opt out too? Of course you must allow that. When the third and forth opt out what then? Either you force them to do it, you sack them and get replacements or you put up a sign saying "no gays here"

btw the relevent part of the bible she must be basing her actions on is this:

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.

In some countries the neighbours would apply the law immediately. Any christian truly obedient to god will would have killed the gay applicants when they first revealed their awful sin.

Religion. it's what the dark ages were all about.

oh, there was a great quote someone linked to on here once about a good response to 'The Bible tells me this'. Listed all the other things various verses instruct us we should do. Like sacrifice our first born sons, have our daughters put to death if they question our authority and so on and so on. If you took the Bible literally you'd spend all day smiting the unGodly. Funny how people like this registrar pick and choose the bits they want to take literally.

Am going off to Google the West Wing.

Putting aside the fact that she didn't want to be involved in same sex ceremonies, I think it must be very difficult for someone if their job changes not putting this very well but years ago I was in a job where animal experiments very losely became a small part of the job eg not doing the experiments but supplier of cages I found this very difficult. In the end I left. Think she should have just done the same. Doctors know about abortions etc medical staff have to care for people they abhore all the time but you have to do your job or find another one.

So it is ok to have a go at religion, but very bad to have a go about anything else, this is what really pisses me off, I am tolerant of other people and how they live, but when is someone going to respect my faith, and not be allowed to slate it?

it is in text

and here it is in video

Love the bit "My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"