I was going to have a long screed about this...

[sparkindarkness]

But the Timesonline has done a much better job

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/rod_liddle/article4322606.ece

To summarise, Ms. Lillian Ladele is a marriage registrar. It is her job to register civil marriages. She is paid money to create legal NON-RELIGIOUS marriages (so non-religious are these that quoting holy text during them is actually forbidden, lest the all-hateful dieties turn their vengeful eyes on some human love and start frothing in virulent rage).

She is a Christian - and apparently her interpretation of Christianity is the depressing homophobic kind. She refuses to officiate ceremonies (those things she's paid to do, y'know, her entire job description) if they involve same-sex couples. Shockingly, and disgustingly, an employment tribunal has agreed with her stance and accepted a position that a government official can deny government services they are employed to provide to the tax paying public. Her bigotry trumps law and the entire (supposed) government stance on discrimination.

And the right wingers galore have come out in their usual orgy of hatred and virulence. I have to wonder along with the Times Columnist what the reaction would have been if a Muslim registrar had, say, refused to perform ceremonies for any women who weren't veiled? Why do i think they wouldn't be so quick to defend that registrar's right to force their religion on everyone else and refuse to do their job?


By all means, make what allowances you can for people's faith in the workplace - need a certain day off for holy reasons? Fine. Wish to wear a discrete item of clothing of jewelry? Great, I support it all the way. But if your religion prevents you doing your job then you need to seriously reconsider your career path - we'd all laugh at the idea of a Jewish pig farmer refusing to touch the unclean animals or a vegetarian butcher refusing to touch the slabs of meat. You cannot be a marriage registrar if you refuse to perform legal marriages. And these are private enterprises - let alone a government service provider! Should the disabled homosexual be unable to claim benefit because the assessor is a bigot? If my dustman is a homophobe, need I worry that he may have a moral objection to emptying my rubbish?

She is providing a government service. She cannot pick and choose who are acceptable to her before providing this service to all who are legally eligible. She is a marriage registrar noting CIVIL LEGAL marriages. She cannot refuse legal recognition to people because she disapproves. She cannot decide her religious beliefs are a test for who receives the services she is supposed to provide. Who the hell is she to make this decision? Who is she to refuse government services on the basis of her personal prejudice?

As to the right wingers who are screaming about this "victory for common sense" allow me to quote the article above:

Perhaps Ladele can reconvene the tribunal and tell them that, as a Christian, she objects to all secular marriage ceremonies and therefore cannot, onaccount 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 yearwhile feverishly rubbing her crucifix.

Does that sound like common sense to anyone here?

Comments

[logophilos.livejournal.com]

Only a victory for bigotry and utter stupidity, and I'm thoroughly depressed this has ended up this way. The woman is a vile hypocrite for staying in that job with her views so why doesn't she get out?

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I am depressed and horrified. Codifying this kind of behaviour is utterly unacceptable

How could she even huold her job in the first place? Even without homosexuals - if she feels she can't officiate CIVIL marriages that don't meet her RELIGIOUS criteria then she should never have gone near the job

[meridae.livejournal.com]

Actually, if she's basing her argument on the fact she's a Christian, why isn't she also denying marriage to muslims, divorcees and all the other types of marriages that Christianity might frown on.

[logophilos.livejournal.com]

because they might be pagans, but they're not dirty homos, of course. Because the sole worth of someone is judged by their sexual practices. [/sarcasm]

[meridae.livejournal.com]

Mmmmm . . . dirty homos . . . leads to hot mens in the shower, all soapy and slippery and wet . . . ::mind drifts off into happy place::

Obviously, not everyone thinks the same way I do! ::grins::

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

And though she isn't - the fact the triubunal has allowed that argument opens the doors for others to do so

[snuck.livejournal.com]

bollocks

she should be burnt at the stake

(You have summed it up beautifully)

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I think i can rustle up some hungry lions? :)

[snuck.livejournal.com]

Only if you can sneak into her tent at night and cut her hair off first

:P

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Have you heard whetherLB Islington will appeal? I'm hoping that they do and the Employment Appeal Tribunal actually does provide us with a 'victory for common sense'.

If the woman can't do her job because of her beliefs then she should resign. Or be forced to leave.

[logophilos.livejournal.com]

If the commenter, Ballymichael here (second one from the top):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/13/religion.gayrights

is correct, the council may very well lose any appeal. She's a loathsome hypocrite for sure, but she's entitled to the protection of employment rights same as anyone else and *if* the council behaved as described, then her grievance, on this very narrow point, could be justified.

Doesn't stop me wishing she'd lose, though. Stupid cow.

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, if what is written is correct LB Islington has behaved rather stupidly. And yes, she is entitled to the same protections as everyone else and her management should have acceded to her request, because that would have saved everyone a lot of grief.

However, like everyone else I think it stinks that she had no problem with other people who transpired against her religious code (divorcees, for example) and only got on her high horse about Teh Gays. *rolls eyes*

As you write, stupid cow.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

The thing is, her arrangement with her colleagues isn't workable either. She can't pick and choose what suits her prejudices - it sets precedence. They allow her to do it and in the future others can do it - and maybe say they won't marry muslims, or blacks or whatever other bigoted thing they can think of

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

I don't know, I dearly hope so because this cannot stand. The damage will be horrendous

[suryaofvulcan.livejournal.com]

Well said. I'm finding the resurgence of public piety in this country pretty scary these days.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

It worruies me. And it saddens me - why when people find god one of their principle concerns seem to be throwing rocks at people who haven't?

It'd be nice if people would use their holy text and inspiration and foundation rather than a weapon

[danikitty182.livejournal.com]

this sounds like the pharmacists who are refusing to fill birth-control pill and "morning-after" pill prescriptions because they object to them based on their religious beliefs.

now, i am all for a person's right to choose what they will or won't do for their OWN self...but what gives anyone else the right to monkey with what i choose for ME? (assuming that it's legal and all that jazz, of course.)

i understand that it's not the easiest thing in the world to just give up a job/career that you've spent at least four years in college for...but i would hope that somewhere in that university education your professors mentioned that you may have to dispense drugs that don't necessarily agree with your religious beliefs. kinda like the whole "vegetarian butcher" thing, why get into something that is obviously going to butt heads with your religion? just so you can self-righteously annoy people? isn't it cheaper and easier to just harangue us from a soapbox on the corner?

heh, all this to basically add a "me, too!"
what a bunch of idiocy.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

It drives me insane - I mean, in thios case, what is a woman with strict religious convictions about marriage DOING as a civil marriage registrar?

When you are providing a public service especially, you don't get to chose for people, it's disgusting.

[monarchyman.livejournal.com]

I have to wonder along with the Times Columnist what the reaction would have been if a Muslim registrar had, say, refused to perform ceremonies for any women who weren't veiled?

Don't worry, eventually the Law of Unintended Consequences will catch up with them and someone will use this decision as an argument to do just that, and the whole thing will come crashing down.