I would not let this woman marry me!

[FairyMum]

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4312447.ece

What if she was not religious, but just objected to gay marriage for other personal prejudices?
Why is religious belief more valid?

catholic doctors don't have to authorise abortions. Catholic pharmacists don't have to give the MAP.

Sorry to have got that wrong. But the argument is still the same. I really feel that is fuelling intolerance.
You are entitled to religous views and to be able to express them - no one would dispute this. But if a job you are employed to do means carrying out a duty you don't want to do then it is obviously the wrong choice for you.

I also agree with FairyMum. Civil partnerships for gay people are legal. If she is a registrar then she should officiate. If she doesn't want to, then she shouldn't be a registrar. This ruling does give the impression that it's understandable not to agree with gay people being joined in civil union.

Exactly Baconsarnie. It is her job to carry out an official duty not sanctify it with her religous belief. It is not up to her who she chooses to marry.

Exactly again, baconsarnie and mrscraig. There is another thread about this which is much more on "this is terrible" lines ...

They are entitled to believe, but not to work in a job where it matters. If this is ok and if it's ok for pharmacists/doctors to refuse things on religious grounds what happens if a doctor in an emergency room says "I'm not treating Jews"

Greyriverside, I'm not aware of any religion (no, not even Islam) that would expect its adherents to hesitate or otherwise fail to do all that was necessary to save the life of another human being regardless of religion/ethnicity/sexual orientation, etc. The preservation of life is not the issue here and your analogy does not work.

This registrar has been in the job since before the legislation on civil partnerships was enacted, possibly since before it was even imagined. Having a religious faith is no bar to performing civil marriage ceremonies. All weddings are civil weddings - some are religious as well.

I can't agree that this woman should have resigned or been sacked for refusing to conduct civil partnership ceremonies. She didn't move the goalposts but she didn't prevent anyone from registering. To sack her would have been discrimination - but apparently to some people, it is OK to discriminate against someone with religious faith.

Well if you would not let her marry you whats the problem then?

MsHighwater, A teacher has been in her job since before they made smacking illegal. She always smacked when it was needed for their own good. Using your logic it's ok for her to do so now since she was there before the law changed.

Have you read the responses???

"As a registrar and member of the national front I expect my right not to marry non-whites to be maintained."

Barry, Leeds, UK

Surely not for real?

Maybe not for real, but perfectly acceptable to some on here then

Try harder, Greyriverside. Your teacher is being asked to refrain from a practice which she does not personally object to but which has been banned. The registrar is being asked to do something to which she has a moral objection and which, when she began the job, was not a requirement.