![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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?
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?