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."

first link doesn't work, try this

Oh ffs, maybe it will be third time lucky? maybe

No-one's attacking her faith, she can believe in whatever she likes. They are criticising her behaviour as a public official. If she wants to believe that people who work on the Sabbath are evil, she's free to do so. But she's not entitled to put them to death. Clear enough?

(Or to refuse to marry them - if she refused to conduct the ceremony for someone who is an assistant at Sainsbury's, she deserves the sack. Same thing applies to refusing conduct a civil partnership.)

I live in Islington and so pay her wages (I think - do registrars' wages come from council tax?). She will only do 80% (or whatever) of her job by refusing to conduct a civil service for me. Does that mean I can only pay 80% (or whatever) of her wages? No. I must pay wages of someone who thinks I am an abomination and would refuse to provide me a service. I don't object to her holding her religious views (although I don't like them). I object to her using them to decide which members of the population she will serve in her job as a civil servant and which she won't.

Sigh. It is so tiring to hear, once again, the "If Christians really believed the Bible, they would kill all gay people" line. It is simply not true that an accurate following of the Bible would nessesitate killing of homosexuals.

The Bible, as with any ancient text, needs to be read alongside other texts of the time, in the context of the culture of the time. You need to read the whole text. You need to know who it was writen by, who it was writen to, and for what purpose. What else was going on at the time it was writen? Who was the King? What wars were in progress? What were the laws and traditions of the time etc etc.

Historians, Christian and otherwise, always read texts in this way and interpret them acordingly. To quote a random verse is not even remotely helpful if you genuinely want to understand and interpret the Bible, although it is obvious that is not the intended outcome here anyway.

Old Testament Law (Including Leviticus) did legislate death as a punishment for some sins. Braodly speaking, these were laws which gave the Israelites a understanding of God's standards and His nature, and set Israel apart from the other nations in the region. Israel was to follow God's laws to the letter in order to demonstrate their alliegence to their God and show their faith in Him. This was how they would be saved.

The New Testament is to be read 'differently'. This is a right, historical reading of the text, not a clever way for Christians to find loopholes. Jesus said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matt 15: 17). So God's standards for holiness in Old T law were fulfiled by Jesus' perfection in the NewT.

God's standards haven't changed (Jesus goes on to say "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.), but the Old T system of sacrifices and punishments has changed in the light of Jesus' punishment on the cross being the Ultimate, Once For All Sacrifice.

So whilst the spirit of Old T law remains (and hence, the things clearly prohibited by the law - homosexuality being one of those things - remain contrary to God's law), New Testament Christians are not required by the Bible to exact punishment on homosexuals, or anyone else for that matter. Rather, Jesus clearly advocates by his teaching and actions that all people can turn to him and be reconciled with God, and that likewise His followers should show love and compassion to all people.

This does not mean Christians must approve of or condone all behaviour, but Christians are certainly wrong to be cruel, violent or hateful to any person of any creed, race, sexual orientation, colour, ability etc.

It is possible to disagree that the Bible is true, but still understand what causes Christians to state that homosexuality is wrong without having to also kill homosexuals as the logical conclusion of their faith. This is not hypocrisy and incnsistency within the Christian Faith, but rather a logical and legitimate reading of the Bible.

I'm not sure if its worth posting this really. So often its allowable to 'Christian Bash', and it all seems a bit pointless to try and help people understand the viewpoint of Christians when they so clearly do not wish to. Hopefully this might allow you to get on with your debate without the need to keep trotting out the "If Christians were anything but hyprcrits they would need to kill all gay people".

As you were.

I don't know why we are arguing, Apostrophe, we appear to believe the same thing. That the Bible has to be interpreted, sensibly and using your intellect.

My problem is with idiots who argue the Bible should be taken literally AND pick and choose which bits they want to be taken literally. People who claim the gays are evil because the Bible says so should explain why they think that while at the same time not calling for people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death. That's their problem, not mine.

(And they should have to explain which Sabbath they are talking about, anyway, given you could choose Friday or Sunday - can't recall whether that particular Book is OT or NT.)

And I don't know why you assume I'm not a Christian, just because I object to homophobic bigots.

Have skim read the thread. My thoughts;

In this woman's case, it would probably have been simplest and kindest to swap her off days when she would have had to conduct a civil partnership ceremony. The couple would undoubtedly prefer someone supportive of their relationship and commitment to each other, and having a registrar who was uncomfortable with it would cast a shadow on the day anyway. Dd's godfather recently had a civil partnership ceremony and it was lovely - really warm and welcoming from all at the town hall.

Generally though, I think there is an argument that principles shouldn't mean you have to resign from your job. Supposing you are a doctor, have trained for years and love your job. And then your job changes so that euthanasia becomes legal. And you are firmly against it. Why shouldn't you ask your patients who request it to see a colleague? It can be done nicely, it doesn't have to be traumatic for the patient, but a doctor could well take the line that they trained to save life not take it.

Or what about a judge who is passionately against capital punishment. Could they not ask to refer a case which may incur the death sentence to a colleague? In each case, it is a change in the law which would make that aspect of the job impossible, and I don't think it is fair to say that 'the person with beliefs should leave.'

How many people were against the Iraqi war? Yet that was voted for in parliament. Supposing you were against the war in Iraq, and were a teacher, and part of your job then became 'teaching the children why the war in Iraq is a Good Thing.'

edam, I don't think we do believe the same thing. An intelligent reading of the Bible leads me to believe that it is not God's plan that people enter into homosexual unions, but that it is not required of New Testaments Christians to put homosexuals to death, and it is required that Christians show love and compassion for all people.

As for the Sabath -read again what I wrote below. The 'spirit' of the law - God's stadards and God's charactor have not changed. He still wishes for Christians to devote time to Him, to rest, to relaxation and relationships. Keeping a Sabath rest also shows Christian's trust in God, that they don't have to work 24/7, because they trust God to provide for their needs. So in that sense, the law of the Sabath remains (and it doesn't matter what day you choose).

However, to attain God's high standards would require us to keep the Sabath(and all other laws) perfectly, which is impossible. Jesus, being God's son, kept the law percectly, and so fulfilled them. God's charactor, and the 'spirit' of the law of the Sabath, remain unchanged, although the OT sacrificial and punishment system does not remain because of Jesus.

Does believing that somebody is wrong make them a bigot?

'Does believing that somebody is wrong make them a bigot?'?

'bigot: an obstinate and intolerant believer in a religion, political theory, etc.' (OED)

By this definition, I think the answer to your question is 'yes', astrophe. This woman is a bigot.

We all know that there are as many ways of practising religion as there are people who believe. Within Christianity, there are those who embrace difference and those who reject it. Those who fall into the latter category might claim that they are doing so because of their faith, but (as an atheist) it seems to me that they do so because such intolerance better suits their own prejudices.

I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot. I do think this particular woman is a bigot.

I'm a vegetarian. I believe that killing living creatures (including humans) is wrong, unless it is done to ease pain and suffering. Certainly wrong for meat, as we don't actually need to eat it. If I got a job as a waitress, would I be entitled to refuse to serve customers who ordered Spaghetti Carbonara, or steak? No. I'm not a bigot when it comes to meat eaters. I don't try to prevent them eating meat if they wish.

And no industrial tribunal would uphold me if I tried to refuse to serve meat-eating customers. This woman is getting away with it because she claims her objections are rooted in religion. Why are HER beliefs so much more important, so privileged, over beliefs that are not founded in religion?

I'm against the death penalty. If it came back, I wouldn't apply for a job in a prison where people were put to death, or in a court that might sentence people to death. If I was already in a job that might involvement in the process of killing people, I'd resign. If she felt that strongly about civil partnerships, she should have done the same.

AFAIK, this woman did not try to prevent anyone from having a civil partenership, she just didn't wantt to conduct it. Maybe comparable with you, as a vegie, choosing not to serve meat at your dinner parties (if indeed you do choose not to)?

She would be bigoted if she harassed homosexuals, called them names, made rude comments, waved placards etc. TBH I don't know what she did or didn't do, but I don't think asking not to be involved in the civil ceremony is, by your definition, bigoted.

I don't think that a vegetarian not wanting to serve or cook meat would be bigoted either fwiw! Although I do take your point that the vegetarian would not win such an appeal...unless perhaps they didn't want t eat meat on religious grounds?

Well said Astrophe

I honestly cannot imagine a muslim or jewish person getting a job at Greggs and then winning a tribunal because they wanted the right to get paid for doing the job but not to have to serve the notorious sausage rolls on religious grounds.

I think that if you make a certain job description out of reach on religious grounds it is your choice, and you can use your religious conviction to get another job.

I totally agree that no person who is willing to undertake the entire job description should be discriminated against on the basis of things which are not relevant to the job....their sex, race, religion, etc. But unlike with sex, race, disability etc, religion is not a fixed 'given'. It is a belief, a chosen path of belief and way of life.

I don't think she should have been decried for being a Christian, or bullied or dealt with unpleasantly, but as a public sector worker, when the JD was adjusted slightly, she should have thought to herself 'I don't feel comfortable with this, I will ask to be transferred to accounts'. Why should her coleagues enjoy less flexibility to accomodate her choice?

Look at all the other jobs in which people are obliged to get on with things even though they may have moral qualms - start with the army.

And I don't think you could have judges who would only sit on non-capital offence trials (if they brought back the death penalty, say) - judges are either a part of the system or not...if they don't like it, they have to retire or retrain as a Greggs sausage roll seller! (I mean, it would be awful to have judges separated into hanging-refusers and pro-hangers - most unfair on the defendent..and pouts too much responsibility and obligation on the judges who would be prepared to work withing a democratic governmental decision-making.

Apostrophe - I disagree. She did try to prevent people from having a civil ceremony - because she refused to conduct them and that's her job! Don't see how you can see it any other way.

A Christian refusing to do her job because of her beliefs is not comparable to a vegetarian refusing to serve meat in her own house.

It would be comparable to a vegetarian working on the till in Sainsbury's refusing to serve customers buying meat. And I can't see that any industrial tribunal would come down on the side of the veggie. Even though their beliefs may well be just as whole-hearted as those who think their special friend in the Sky hates gays.

What I don't understand is that civil ceremonies - whether marriages or partnerships - are expressly not religious ceremonies. So I don't see how her faith comes into it in the first place - the ceremonies she is conducting are not 'in the eyes of God'.

I don't understand how she can condone the non-religious marriage ceremony, but not the civil partnership. If it really is the 'strength of her faith', she should find both equally unacceptable and she shouldn't be a registrar at all.

I heard a vicar on the radio making the exact same point yesterday, mrsF.

It's just odd isn't it - dh and I were saying yesterday that when we were planning our civil ceremony, we were allowed no readings or music with any religious references, none at all. So why suddenly God enters into it when it's a gay partnership (it's not even called a marriage, for crying out loud) is beyond me.

I know, they are bizarrely strict on the no religion in civil ceremonies thing, not just banning hymns or outright references to the Christian God, but any music or reading that might ever have been used in a church.

that's what I've been trying to say!! It's a complete red herring - she's using her religion to mask complete bigotry. The ceremony is entirely non-religious and as such, whatever she believes in shouldn't come into it.

PDF of the tribunal judgement

Well, as the resident MN mixed-up religious loon in the corner, I was a bit boggled by this.

I don't understand why this is being seen as some sort of victory for her, primarily because I don't get why this was an issue for her in the first place.

It's not like she's a vicar who is being forced to accomodate same-sex marriages in her church, she's employed as a secular civil registrar, so her personal beliefs have bog all to do with it.

I presume she also takes issue with marrying people who have committed adultery, won't register births from unmarried mothers and includes a nice tract with every death certificate she signs?

Actually, I don't presume that at all, I'm fairly sure this is just stemming from her not wanting to acknowledge the existence of 'teh gays' using the time-honoured side-step of 'I don't object to you existing and having rights like any other law-abiding citizen, I just don't want to have to be reminded of it.'

Even if she is allowed to be prejudiced from a religious point of view, in her personal opinions (and she is, prejudice isn't illegal and nor should it be), she isn't able to reserve the right to discriminate against people on that basis.

I still don't get why civil partnerships are a big bloody deal to Christians anyway. What the blobbing flob is sinful about giving someone you are committed to some protection in the eyes of the law?