Christian Registrar Wins Tribunal For Right Not To Marry Gay Couples

[Kats inc]

Totally agree with Joe.I very much doubt anyone in my profession would get away with refusing to visit the child of a same sex couple because of their own religious beliefs.We have to sign up to a policy of non-discrimination and that covers all aspects of discrimination not just the ones we pick and chose according to our own wants/religion/belief systems etc.

[kats n greys]

Thank you Joe for expressing my feelings to a T

[merledogs]

Thank you Joe for expressing my feelings to a T

And mine

[BillyMalc]

Wot they all said, nice one Joe!

[Kathyw]

And guess who will be paying for her 'hugh payout'?

 

You wouldn't lose your money if you bet on a similar situation happening in the very near future.

 

A Catholic Registrar, a muslim registrar refusing to marry same sex couples - money for nothing.

 

As Incapuppy says - where does it stop?

[Trallwm farm]

But a civil partnership is not a religious one and it shouldnt matter what religion the registrar was.

ITS DESCRIMINATION

You have to wonder who else she quietly bats against

[kimthecat]

The Council should never had bullied her. I'm glad she got the payout .

Ali

[ClazUK]

As a Registrar (can a mod *please* edit the title?! ) she should be obliged to work within the law of this country. The law says Civil Partnerships between gay couples are legally recognised. As a PUBLIC servant (yep, we pay her wages) she should do the job she is paid for or get out.

 

I've been fuming about her 'win' in this tribunal all weekend. Joe has summed up perfectly how I feel so I won't wind myself up about it any more, but I do wonder what the heck someone so devoutly 'Christian' is doing conducting marriages outside of church anyway? Surely they are for non-believers or believers of other faiths?

 

From yesterdays Sunday Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...icle4322606.ece

Lillian, the marriage registrar who’s wedded to bigotry

Civil ceremonies for gays and straights are meant to be the secular alternative to a church do, so let's keep God out of it

 

Rod Liddle

 

A victory against those damnable forces of political correctness – an employment tribunal decided last week that Lillian Ladele, a marriage registrar, should not be forced to officiate at gay civil partnerships, despite the fact that it was precisely her job to do so.

 

Ladele, a bigot, aged 47, does not much like the idea of homosexuals doing anything with each other, let alone getting married. Officiating at such a ceremony was in direct contravention of her beliefs, the tribunal decided.

 

Crucial to its judgment was Ladele’s “Christian faith†which, she insisted, precluded her from giving a professional blessing to sodomites. I don’t know what would have happened if she had told the tribunal that she wasn’t a Christian or a Muslim or of any other faith but just hated poofs. Probably she’d have lost.

 

But the fact that she can append her bigotry to a minority view within a church attended by a vanishingly small section of the British population apparently swung the day.

 

There is a double irony here: civil ceremonies, for both gays and straights, are supposedly the secular alternative to a church service, so it is a bit iniquitous to find God – or at least Ladele’s own, personal, vengeful vision of God – poking his big nose in by proxy.

 

Further, there is a large swathe of the Christian church which finds quite invidious all marriage services conducted beyond the reach of Jesus Christ, which is why the Church of England fought long and hard to ensure that, by law, the Bible must not be quoted at these ceremonies.

 

Perhaps Ladele can reconvene the tribunal and tell them that, as a Christian, she objects to all secular marriage ceremonies and therefore cannot, on account of her religion, officiate at any of them. To make her do so would be discriminatory, as would sacking her.

 

She has the human right to be a marriage registrar and refuse to sanction all secular marriages; to just sit at her desk playing online Sudoku all year while feverishly rubbing her crucifix.

 

A compromise might have been to force her to officiate at gay civil partnerships, as required in her job description, but to allow her to shower gay couples with virulent abuse as soon as the formalities were over.

 

Perhaps she could scream at them, as they kissed, “if there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act, they shall surely be put to deathâ€. (Leviticus 20:13) This, I think, would get the reception going nicely and would be a good talking point for the guests.

 

Members of the right-wing press have seen Ladele’s case as a “victory for common sense†against the political correctness of Islington council, which employed this woman.

 

It seems to me quite the reverse and the very apogee of political correctness (incidentally, can you imagine the Daily Mail and others taking the same sort of view if Ladele had happened to be a Muslim?).

 

The victory for common sense would have been achieved if Ladele had resigned from her post because she felt that it was no longer compatible with her private beliefs since the legal approval of civil partnerships for gay people in 2004.

 

Instead, out of a desire to pay obeisance to any and all forms of religious bigotry, rather than insist to individuals that their views are stupid and medieval, the tribunal has opened the doors to a whole array of nutters with terrible sensibilities to plead their cases.

 

Ladele was not expected to endow gay couples with a Christian blessing – indeed she would be forbidden from doing so. She should have either resigned or got on with her job without discrimination, reserving her dislike of homosexuals for her private moments.

[ClazUK]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00cdbyv

 

Listen from minute 07 - please tell me this woman (Joanna Bogle?) is not a typical Christian

[cycas]

From that article you quoted:

 

It seems to me quite the reverse and the very apogee of political correctness (incidentally, can you imagine the Daily Mail and others taking the same sort of view if Ladele had happened to be a Muslim?).

 

Actually I think they probably would have, the Daily Mail is often quite pro-Muslim, I think they feel they have a lot in common!

 

However, I suspect that the council would have taken her protests more seriously if she had been a Muslim, which does make me feel a bit uncomfortable. For that reason, although my main instinct is to think she should pipe down and do the job she's paid to do, I am kind of also feeling a bit 'the council could easily have worked round this, but instead decided to make a big deal out of it'. So null points for the council also for their handling of it. Basically: fail all round.

[owl]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00cdbyv

 

Listen from minute 07 - please tell me this woman (Joanna Bogle?) is not a typical Christian

 

I don't think there is any such thing as a typical Christian, but certainly I know a number of Christians who would not agree with some of the things she said.

 

Her parallel with wife-beating was ridiculous and irrelevant.

[krusewalker]

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.

BTW - THIS IS KRUSEWALKER[/b]

 

Above was a main concern; consistency and fairness.

 

 

The bullying by the council is out of order and the woman deserves to win her case on that merit.

 

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?

 

But i hadn't thought of boosboss point. Absolutely right.

Of course, all civil marriages are against her religion, so she is being a hypocrite.

According to her views, she shouldnt have that job.

So i have changed my mind. This also answers my analogies with other jobs. As a surgeon could refuse to perform an abortion on religious/conscience grounds, as the other operations performed during the rest of his job arent against his religion. So he wouldnt be a hypocrite.

Ditto teacher. As well as opting out the 'wrong' religious ceremony, you could opt out of all of them.

 

From that article you quoted:

Actually I think they probably would have, the Daily Mail is often quite pro-Muslim, I think they feel they have a lot in common!

 

However, I suspect that the council would have taken her protests more seriously if she had been a Muslim, which does make me feel a bit uncomfortable. For that reason, although my main instinct is to think she should pipe down and do the job she's paid to do, I am kind of also feeling a bit 'the council could easily have worked round this, but instead decided to make a big deal out of it'. So null points for the council also for their handling of it. Basically: fail all round.

 

But this is my thoughts as well, and as boosboss says, she deserves the ruling and payout just on the merit of bullying.

[Rudi]

Why is conducting a civil ceremony against her religion?

[kimthecat]

I was wondering that.

Ali

[krusewalker]

it does seem she is a christian of the 'born again' variety. they dont believe anyone should get married except thru the eyes of god, ie, a christian wedding ceremony.

a registry office wedding isnt christian. as boosboss pointed out, it is inconsistent of her, at the veyr least, to object to one form of civil non-christian ceremony (homosexual), whilst not objecting to the other (heterosexual).