krusewalker Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 what do you reckon? although i dont like her views, im thinking its fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaos Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 what do you reckon? although i dont like her views, im thinking its fair. What Christian Register? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrier Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 (edited) Got a link? It's difficult to hold an opinion if I don't know the full story. Add: Is this what you meant? http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...ages/article.do Edited July 10, 2008 by Terrier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krusewalker Posted July 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 yeh, that's it more specific link: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...ings/article.do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenda Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 She is a Christian Registrar. I can understand where she is coming from and good to her for sticking to her beliefs. However, surely she must have known what would be expected of her when she took the job? I am a Christian, but I'm not against gay partnerships, each to their own I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melp Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 I don't agree with the decision. She's a registrar who also happens to be a christian with strongly held beliefs. Her employers peform civil partnership ceremonies and should reasonably expect their employees to do their job regardless of religious or personal beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murtle Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 She is a Christian Registrar. I can understand where she is coming from and good to her for sticking to her beliefs. However, surely she must have known what would be expected of her when she took the job? I am a Christian, but I'm not against gay partnerships, each to their own I say. I think it said she'd been in the job for 16 years so it wasnt' an issue before. Maybe they should have made people re-apply for their jobs when the law changed? I don't think she should have been bullied as that is not acceptable, I think she should have done her job though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madison Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 Councils should have equality and diversity procedures in place which will clearly state that they will treat everyone equally no matter what their religion, sexual orientation, marital status etc etc is. I have had a few job interviews with the local council and this is one question they always ask to make sure you know about equality and diversity and are willing to put it into practice. If I had been sensible two years ago, I would have accepted the job in my local registrar's office instead of staying put for a big more money. Eventually I would have got to perform marriages and civil partnerships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanishPastry Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 (edited) I disagreed with her refusal to do this aspect of her job to begin with, as i cannot stand the state and religion being mixed together. However, changed my mind today. On the following bases: 1) She had her job long before this change in her job description re civil partneships 2) There are plenty of registrars in her dept. Why make an issue out of it? Just be practical...get one of the others to do civil partneships. Whats wrong with a fair compromise whereby everyone's feelings are respected? 3) Normally i dont care abut 'religious rights' when it comes to them wishing to have special treatment under the law. However, teachers are allowed to opt out of religious assemblies if they are a different religion, or indeed, atheists. And surgeons are allowed to opt out of abortions...and that can be just on personal morals, not just religion. So fairs fair for everyone. 4) Cannot stand any religions myself, but would the council have been so keen to make a 'principled stand' (my phrase) if she had been a Muslim?? Ummm. 5) Lastly, she deserves her win simply on the basis the council decided to bully her. Now, to my mind, forcing harsh ideology onto another person is appalling. And whether it's in the name of political or religious ideology makes no difference. So the council's intolerance equals hers. But she wasnt the bully, they were. Despise workplace bullying. BTW - THIS IS KRUSEWALKER Edited July 10, 2008 by DanishPastry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boosboss Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 The bullying by the council is out of order and the woman deserves to win her case on that merit. However her refusal to conduct civil ceremonies is also out of order. Her job is to record/register legal processes. Her religious beliefs are not compromised in any way as the recordings she makes have no recognisable foundation in church. Marriages conducted in the church need to be registered by the state but not the other way around, so her view should also then be that a civil marriage not endorsed by the church is in conflict with her beliefs. Does she refuse on religious grounds not to register the death of a homosexual or the birth of a child to a lesbian because she disagrees with their lifestyles? Neither the civil marriage or civil partnership ceremonies or registration have any connection with sexual acts or procreation (Unlike a church wedding). They are simply legal unions of civil status. Whether she was in her job before the introduction of Civil Partnerships or not is irrelevant. If her job description has changed due to legal process she needs to consider whether she can continue to fulfill her role in its entirety or leave and find a job which won't contradict her askewed interpretation of her belief system. She is entitled to her beliefs, but is not entitled to use them to discriminate against anyone when working for a non-religious led authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melp Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Spot on Joe To me this is like a soldier refusing to fight, a policeman refusing to arrest, a pilot refusing to fly etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruthi (borrowadog) Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Well said, Joe. A registrar is a public servant, and as such is required to carry out such duties as are required by law. If she wants to withdraw from her job on grounds of conscience or belief that is fine, but while she draws the salary she should do the job. Of course bullying her is out of order too - but that doesn't make her case right. I am fast turning into a grumpy old curmudgeon. I see no reason why so many people should see it is their right to opt out of normal conduct. Be it doing your job, adhering to the law of the land, or speaking the language of the country in which you live. Grumble over.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 What Joe says is true - but what same-sex couple celebrating what should be a positive and joyful occasion would want the ceremony done by someone either poker-faced or radiating silent disapproval? Surely most couples would prefer someone who could do the ceremony in good faith and with sincere good wishes for their partnership and their future together. And most people would be fairly sensitive as to whether the registrar was sincere or not. It's true that her religious beliefs should not have been compromised by a civil ceremony, but I don't think in practice it works like that. She would probably feel that anything which supports or acknowledges same-sex partnerships in any way would go contravene her beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incapuppy Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 It is interesting that she is quoted as saying: 'I hold the orthodox Christian view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and this is the God-ordained place for sexual relations.' Does this mean therefore that as she views marriage as a life-long union that she would have the same 'problem' with conducting a ceremony for previously divorced heterosexual couples? I agree that she should not have been bullied but fear that this case sets yet another precendent for people refusing to do parts of their job on account of their religious beliefs, where do you draw the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laura g Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 It is interesting that she is quoted as saying: 'I hold the orthodox Christian view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and this is the God-ordained place for sexual relations.' Does this mean therefore that as she views marriage as a life-long union that she would have the same 'problem' with conducting a ceremony for previously divorced heterosexual couples? excactly the bit i picked up on. was she checking couples didnt cohabit before the event too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts