Christian Registrar wins Civil partnerships challenge

A registrar who objected to conducting civil partneships has won her Industrial Tribunal case against Islington Council for discrimination of the grounds of religious belief and harrassment. Lillian Ladele described it as:

“…a victory for religious liberty, not just for myself but for others in a similar position to mine. Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs,”

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell described the decision as a:

“violation of human rights”

  • joeCanuck

    This is a strange ruling. Religious belief? I will bet that the bible has nothing to say whatsoever about “civil partnerships”.

  • What happens when someone says their religious beliefs won’t let someone get married because one’s black and one’s white or something. The tribunal wouldn’t spend five minutes worrying before upholding the dismissal.

    This is one more reason why the separate but equal b*llocks that is civil union is an epic fail – the system still allows people to put religion ahead of their duty to their employer.

  • wild turkey

    uh, why didn’t one of the refused couples take a discrimination case against said magistrates refusal on the grounds of sexual orientation?

    although am not competent to comment on the particulars of this case, especially the alleged harassment, this decision opens up a pandoros box… and a lawyers goldmine.

    Can a couple now object to be married by a particular magistrate because of that magistrates religion, sex, race, etc. etc.?

  • Pancho’s Horse

    Don’t lose sight of the fact that it’s not normal for two people of the same sex to ‘marry’.It may be lawful, thanks to a liberal society in Britain, but it is still an aberration.As a matter of fact, it turns some peoples’ stomachs.

  • joeCanuck

    There is no such thing as normal, Mr.Ed.
    Each time this topic has come up on Slugger and other places, I have asked how 2 people of the same gender getting married adversely affects my heterosexual marriage. No one has yet to give me an answer or explanation.
    Feel free to do so.

  • Steve

    What if the registrar objects to a catholic marrying a protestant on religious grounds

  • cynic

    “the system still allows people to put religion ahead of their duty to their employer”

    Yep…pesky things them Human Rights. I dont agree with her position but if those are her views she has a right to them and to have her rights protected in law.

    The fundamental problem here was that the registrars had a system among themselves where they worked cooperatively and those who had objections did different weddings. Couples were happy, so were Registrars.

    Then control was transferred to uber-righteous Islington Council who decided to ram down their throats that they MUST do these partnership ceremonies. No consultation, no respect for staff rights. Blatant breach of Human Rights Act.

    Like the quote from Thatchell. I respect a lot of waht he has done over the years but on this one he is wrong. The problem is that Rights come in a package in the Convention and they are often competing. The right of the gay couple is to get married – sorry, to form a partnership (though why we dont just allow them to marry is beyond me). That right will be respected. So too will the right of someone who fervently believes that civil partnerships are wrong and its against her core beliefs to solemnise them.

    It’s a win-win situation but some just want confrontation to emphasise a point. Sometimes you know we just have to accept that life is diverse and messy and find a way to get on with it that suits everyone.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    Joe,firstly, two people of the same gender can’t get married. They can live together for financial reasons or whatever but they are still two aberrants living together. Secondly, how does a nest of paedophiles affect your heterosexual marriage? Is this the standard you judge right/wrong and normal/abnormal by? and steve what if a registrar objected to a red haired man marrying a blonde girl? There is nothing basically wrong with this. The difference is that men and women are made differently for a reason. Guess what it is.

  • BenDover

    joeCanuck

    There is no such thing as normal, Mr.Ed.
    Each time this topic has come up on Slugger and other places, I have asked how 2 people of the same gender getting married adversely affects my heterosexual marriage. No one has yet to give me an answer or explanation.
    Feel free to do so.

    You probably won’t get a better answer than this one.
    http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

    I think the best thing that is demonstrated is that this issue is way more complex than vast swathes of people think it is, and people are not just individual free agents unaffected by society around them even if they may not be directly a subject of a specific piece of legislation. It’s a great read.

  • Peter Brown

    I could be wrong but I think from a legal point of view this was not a case about discrimination in making her perform these ceremonies or not allowing her to opt out of doing so but about the fact that she was bullied and harassed because of her views about them. Rather like forcing the vegetarian commis chef cook the meat dishes in a kitchen (watch someone tear that analogy apart) and on that score you can’t fault the judgment if they effectively allocated every civil partnership ceremony to her when others could have officiated or acted in a similar way…

  • McGrath

    How does a nest of paedophiles affect your heterosexual marriage?

    Pancho:

    Please provide evidence of how paedophilia and homosexuality are interconnected? I’ll save you the time, you wont be able to. But your statement does show a remarkable lack of understanding and exposes a lot about the construct of your logic.

    If I may, I would like to rephrase Joe’s question.

    Aside from the argument over right and wrong, what harm does homosexual marriage cause?

  • Steve

    Pancho
    steve what if a registrar objected to a red haired man marrying a blonde girl? There is nothing basically wrong with this. The difference is that men and women are made differently for a reason. Guess what it is.

    I don’t have to guess and ooooh la la it is cest magnifique but thats my choice I dont expect to force it on everybody else. To me its a simple choice of human rights, if I have the right to be a hetero they have the right not to be! Simple as that!!!

  • joeCanuck

    It’s beyond me to understand how “a nest of paedophiles” made an entry into this conversation.

    McGrath, I’m happy with your rephrasing.

  • joeCanuck

    BenDover,

    I have read the article that you linked to (thanks) and I find nothing persuasive. I still cannot understand how gay marriage can adversely affect me. Nothing at all.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    I only use the paedophile example as it is another sexual aberration. According to Joe anything goes – as long as it doesn’t affect his normal marriage. Every millimetre that society raises perversion it lowers normality by twenty times as much.Every inch that queerdom advances, normality falls back.Queers are in your face everywhere, every TV programme, every magazine.This gives the impression to the young and vulnerable that this is OK, after all society accepts it, it must be respectable. Well, it’s not. It should be kept in the dark, in secret places with all other sleaze. I’m with Iris – love the sinner – hate the sin.

  • joeCanuck

    According to Joe anything goes

    Can you give me some indication of where you dragged that aberration from, Ed. (Hope you don’t mind me calling you Ed; he’s the only talking horse I know. If you do object, I will, of course desist).

  • Pancho’s Horse

    Call me what you like, Joe. Indicate which aberration you refer to and I will justify it.

  • McGrath

    Posted by Pancho’s Horse on Jul 10, 2008 @ 10:15 PM

    Would you agree that homosexual marriage in itself is less harmful than hatred of homosexual marriage?

  • Rory

    What if, to take an extreme case, capital punishment were to be reintroduced and after a time the public hangman found religious fellowship within the Society of Friends (Quakers); would he have a case for wrongful dismissal if the government attempted to sack him over his refusal to carry out any further executions on religious grounds?

    I suppose he could always argue that, as a Quaker, he was more than capable of fulfilling his remit by boring his clients to death.

  • Steve

    What goes on between two conscenting adults is entirely different then what goes on between a predator and a child. Paedophiles, based on a sufficient evidence shouldn’t be counceled or wharehoused or even burried. they should be shot and left to rot in the square so that other paedophiles know to curb themselves before they commit a crime

  • Pancho’s Horse

    mcgrath, queers don’t ‘marry’. Whatever abominations they engage in, it’s certaintly not marriage. If the paedophile reference so upsets all you bleeding heart, pinko, leftie liberals (joke), lets talk about bestiality, the truly victimless crime.Why is there no campaign to legalise this perversion? Is it because there are no vociferous young stallions in the media or the arts? I know a couple of clean young heifers, if anybody is interested.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    Jeez,steve, that’s a bit OTT.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    ……… and that’s only the spelling!!!!!!!!

  • Rapunsel

    What about getting back to the point of the thread? I think Mr Tathell is right on this one. What if I work in a social security office and am a racist who is not content with dealing with immigrants or travellers? Or do work that requires me to work with loyalist ex prisoner groups against my political opinion? Mind you I don’t think my employer would fear a tribunal upholding their right to dismiss me if I refused to carry out my duty. I’m probably confused myself but felt that the key issue here was the bullying and harassment that took place. Employers I understand still have the same duty of care to an employee against whom they are taking disciplinary action as they do to all other employees

  • joeCanuck

    Ed,
    The aberration that I referred to was your contention that I believe that “anything goes”.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    The point of the thread, RapunZel,is that people are being forced to accept things that nauseate them because a vociferous minority in the media/art/government manage to get unrepresentative laws passed. Imagine you are the owner of a respectable B&B;and two queers present themselves looking a room. Even though this goes against all the rules of normalcy and decency, you must admit them or you will be the criminal. Where’s the fairness in that?

  • Pancho’s Horse

    joe, you gave your yardstick about the harmlessness of homosexual perversion as ‘well it doesn’t affect my marriage’. So I can presume that no matter what goes down, as you n,americans say,is OK as it doesn’t affect MY marriage. Was I wrong to take this meaning from your post?

  • joeCanuck

    Yes, Ed. You are treading on dangerous intellectual ground when you decide to arbitrarily ASSUME anything not explicitly stated.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    I have asked how 2 people of the same gender getting married adversely affects my heterosexual marriage. I rest my case.

  • cynic

    Sorry boys and girls but for all the waffle above, this is a legal issue. The question is, what rights are / are not protected by ECHR. Religous beliefs are. Perverse hatred / dislike of red heads, one-eyed tall men, travellers / etc etc are not.

    Pancho’s Horse, the problem with aberrations is that there’s an awful lot of them in the human race. Basically, without them we wouldnt evolve. Looking at how the DUP has developed I can see how they might have had less than their normal quota of aberrations over the last 30 years, although now they seem to be making up for it again.

    PS I am glad you are with Iris. She says she knows a good therapist. If you are nice she may give you the number and the Don may give you time off to see him.

    PPS was that troilism or trollism you were engaged in in earlier posts?

    PPPS I know Mick, I am sorry. Play the ball not the man, but I couldnt resist.

  • Steve

    Pancho

    Spelling not my strong point and neither is typing, big fingers and small keyboards mix not well.

    I stand behind what I wrote and yes I would use the gun myself. For the child it is always a life sentence often made worse by the knowledge that their attacker may still be free in the world. Death is what they have earned and death is what they should recieve

  • Pancho’s Horse

    Are you a cynic or a sceptic,O watcher from the sideline?

  • joeCanuck

    It’s just not possible to have a reasonable argument with someone who continually evades the point. Sorry, Ed, discussion over.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    steve, pass no remarks about my remarks about your spelling. One serious point,though,if a fifty year old queen seduces a boy 5 minutes before his 16th birthday, is he a paedophile or just a normal queer? Riddle me that, a chara?

  • outsidegawkingin

    STEVE

    ‘What goes on between two conscenting adults is entirely different then what goes on between a predator and a child. ‘

    Yes I agree, but if we use the ‘two consenting adults can do what they want’ arguement as your justification for Homosexuality the should a brother and sister – father and daughter be given a similar right.

    Your arguement does not hold up

  • Pancho’s Horse

    joe, i will elaborate as best i can. You said that you don’t see how a homosexual marriage affects your marriage. I say is this your yardstick? Is this how you judge things? Is it OK if it doesn’t affect your marriage? But it does. It diminishes the respectability of your marriage. Hide your head in the sand if you want.

  • joeCanuck

    No Ed, I asked you to justify your contention that I believe that anything goes. That is the point that you continually avoid. I rest my case.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    No, joe. You infer that if it doesn’t have a negative effect on YOUR marriage, then why worry about it. I know you were referring to homosexual liaisons but I was merely interested to know if you used this as a yardstick in all your deliberations. I quote again “I have asked how 2 people of the same gender getting married adversely affects my heterosexual marriage”. Does it have to affect YOUR marriage to be wrong?

  • Rory

    I don’t know how the hell paedophilia managed to creep into a discussion on employment rights, but then this is Slugger.

    If anything goes on this thread then, O.K., I’ll bring in the subject of allotment gardening –

    Runners beans – string ’em all up I say!

  • Pancho’s Horse

    I remember advice from a source stating that you should become an expert in a particular field and then it is a relatively simple thing to lead any discussion into your particular field of expertise.

  • Rory

    …but since the subject is employment rights particularly in relation to an employee’s reluctance or unwillingness to undertake a part of the job for which he/she is employed I should just like to say that on the occasions where I have found any part of a job abhorrent to my principles I also found an easy way of dealing with the dilemna – I tendered my resignation.

    Admittedly this played havoc with my career pattern and scuppered any plans for rapid upward social mobility (for which I am grateful – less godawful dinner parties to grimace through). However it always left me in the contented position that of an evening I could “enter my house justified”. Poorer, yes – but justifed.

  • McGrath

    Pancho:

    mcgrath, queers don’t ‘marry’. Whatever abominations they engage in, it’s certaintly not marriage. If the paedophile reference so upsets all you bleeding heart, pinko, leftie liberals (joke), lets talk about bestiality.

    Paedophilia, Bestiality cause harm and on that basis they are (rightly) illegal. You have yet to point out what actual harm homosexuality causes. As such you you resort to the right / wrong argument which has no legal basis.

    With the registrar in this case, there is also no legal basis for her objection to conduct homosexual marriages. BUT her claim was that she was harassed by her employer for not conducting homo sexual marriages. This sets a precarious precedent enabling employees to threaten harassment of their employer when asked to do something they don’t want to do, in this case citing religious reasons.

    Its pretty ridiculous, we are approaching the day when an employee will be able to threaten their employer for being asked to actually work! This opens a Pandora’s box of excuses and is a flagrant abuse of a harassment regulations.

  • picador

    This decision was the right one. The Torah, the New Testament and the Koran all expressly condemn homosexuality. It would be wrong to exclude Christians, Muslims and Jews from the post of registrar. The issue is one of freedom of conscience.

    Likewise the Catholic adoption service is well within its rights to resist the government in denying gay couples the right to adopt children.

    Pancho’s Horse

    Please don’t be so tedious.

  • Lucy

    I don’t know if anyone keeps up on the Scientific news, but a study came out recently, from some docs who trying to find out if there was anything different between gay people and straight people. There is a marked difference in the brain..and I believe they said in the cells. What they are saying that when a baby comes out of the womb..they are predisposed to being gay. They’ll still do more research..but they think they have it right. So if this is proven..then people who think gays have a choice are talking out of the side of their mouths. It is not an abomination.

    This register..should have done her job. Pharmacists over here are refusing to sell birth control pills to women..because of religious beliefs. I am one of those who don’t care what a person’s religion is..just don’t jam it down my throat. Religion is affecting too many things about a person’s rights and they need to shut up about it..

    Had the woman done her job..she wouldn’t have been harassed. The harassment was wrong but I can understand why people would be upset by her actions.

    Another thing..check all the stats. Being gay has nothing to do with being a pedophiles.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    Being gay has nothing to do with being a paedophile except that both are wrong.At the risk of making tedious remarks and offending the sensitive picador, is seduction 5 mins before 16th birthday paedophilia?

  • cynic

    “is seduction 5 mins before 16th birthday paedophilia”

    Impossible question to answer as there’s no definition of paedophilia in law. But 5 minutes before and it’s a crime and enough to get you on the sex register for life. Five minutes after it isn’t. It’s the same with sex with a 16 year old girl or driving a car or posessing a firearm. The law defines absolute boundaries. Wider society sets boundaries that tend to be more fuzzy ie 5 minutes after may be legally ok but morally, practically and in most other ways it may be wrong and stupid if there’s a large age difference between the parties.

    Anyway, although I rose to the bait, nice piece of trolling

  • Animus

    I found this case confusing initially because any registration wedding or partnership within Council explicity bans any mention of religion in the ceremony and is fiercely secular. If this woman was bullied because of her refusal, there is a case to answer. But if she merely refused and the employer pulled her up on it, I agree this is dangerous. What if I decide I no longer want to one of my duties, which was a condition of employment? Back to the vegetarian analogy, a vegetarian is unlikely to work in an abbatoir, and unlikely to get sympathy if they suddenly decide they can’t kill animals. Get a new job.

    Pancho – your posts would be hilarious if they weren’t so sad and deluded. Gays can marry (in California); there is nothing inherent in marriage that says it must be between a man and a woman. My marriage is no less respectable because gays marry either, but maybe that’s because I don’t hold the institution in such high regard that I am threatened by others (evidently other married heteros like me don’t either, as they have a worrying tendency to get divorced.)

  • Rory

    “..is seduction 5 mins before 16th birthday paedophilia?”

    The answer is “probably not”. Unless the fifteen year old is sexually immature (i.e. prepubescent). It is sexual attraction to prepubescent children that defines the condition of paedophilia.

    Sexual activity with a post-pubescent legal minor is classified as a criminal act in law (ages vary in differing jurisdictions) and sexual intercourse with a post-pubescent legal minor may be described in some jurisdictions as “statutory rape”, but neither of these offences may be said to be paedophilic.

    It serves no purpose to bandy the term about willy-nilly and may in fact serve to mitigate and dilute the very seriousness of paedophilia itself and I do wish that this kind of unthinking hysteria was less of a feature of our online discourse.

    For a recent article illustrating the full horror inflicted by sly paedophiles you can try this article from The Spectator, but be warned, it does make for disturbing reading. The unsuspecting wife of the convicted paedophile, Roger Took, was interviewed on Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour yesterday and I suspect you can still catch it on the Listen Again facility.

    But whatever you do, do please try to refrain from convoluting your disapproval of a legal social function such as a same-sex partnership ceremomy with the vile despoilation of children.

  • truth and justice

    A victory for common sence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Potato Man

    What if I do not want to work with ignorant knuckle draggers who cannot spell?
    #No wait.
    They go to UUJ!

  • Stíofán de Buit

    I’m fully supportive of the rights of gay people to have civil unions – or marriage even. However if a registrar really is opposed to it I see no problem in letting another registrar conduct the ceremony if one is available. It harms no-one, the gay couple get betrothed, the god-botherer doesn’t have to officiate, and everyone is happy.

    Of course, if the god-botherer happens to be the only registrar available then they should, if you’ll pardon the expression, bend over and take it. It’s their job.

  • dj75

    Surely the point at hand is the fact that due to a change in law re civil partnerships brought her new job responsibilities into conflict with her religious beliefs. That being the case she is clearly right to ‘conscientiously object’ and the Council should facilitate that.

  • Steve

    dj75

    If her job is in conflict with her personal beliefs then she should resign and find a job that allows her to be as narrow minded as she could care to be

    Maybe Iris is hiring?

  • Pancho’s Horse

    Rory, thanks for definition of paedophilia. I can ogle 15 year olds again (female) with a clear conscience.Seriously though interesting stuff. And I want to make it clear to steve that Pancho’s horse is a stallion. In retrospect perhaps bestiality is a better example of another sexual perversion than paedophilia. It doesn’t have the queers spitting venom.

  • McGrath

    In retrospect perhaps bestiality is a better example of another sexual perversion than paedophilia. It doesn’t have the queers spitting venom.

    Posted by Pancho’s Horse on Jul 11, 2008 @ 09:07 PM

    Now Now Pancho, your only going to make the farmers anger next.

  • joeCanuck

    It has always seemed to me that people who use language that they expect and hope to be offensive in regards to sexuality are very uncertain and worried about their own sexuality. Whistling in the dark comes to mind.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    Well,joe,I have to admit that I am worried about my sexuality and have often whistled in the dark but I have good friends who are and have been in a queer relationship for 30+ years. I can’t understand it and although I rail against it, I don’t know why. We are only on this earth 3score and ten so do what turns you on. I was lucky to prefer women, let it rest.

  • joeCanuck

    Finally, Ed, I can agree with you. Let it rest.

  • cynic

    Isnt it strange that elsewhere on Slugger we have people railing and demanding a police investigation into incitement to hatred for a shop selling ‘fenian flags to burn’ but here we have the most aggressive and appalling comnments on homosexuals and it all largely passes as accepted debate?

  • Pancho’s Horse

    cynic, right on baby. We have our priorities right.