Login |
New User
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Religious bigotry upheld in court
by BBC
Reposted from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7499248.stm
Registrar wins same-sex tribunal
A marriage registrar was harassed for refusing to conduct same-sex ceremonies, a tribunal has ruled.
Lillian Ladele, who said the civil partnership ceremonies went against her Christian faith, hailed the decision as a "victory for religious liberty".
The tribunal ruled that Miss Ladele was discriminated against on grounds of religious beliefs and was harassed.
Islington council said it was "disappointed" and was considering an appeal against the ruling.
'Wider implications'
Until December 2007 registrars in Islington effectively worked on a freelance basis and could swap with each other to avoid same-sex ceremonies.
But since then they have been under direct control of the local authority which, it is claimed, has led to far less flexibility about the registrars' responsibilities.
Miss Ladele said she was being effectively forced to choose between her religion and her 31,000-a-year job as a result.
She said she was picked on, shunned and accused of being homophobic for refusing to carry out civil partnerships.
Miss Ladele said: "I am delighted at this decision.
"It is 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," she said.
Councillor John Gilbert, Islington Council's Executive Member for Human Resources, said: "We're clearly disappointed with the result, as we consider our approach was the right one.
"We are now considering the judgment carefully in order to decide whether we should appeal.
"The wider issue of whether councils should be able to expect employees to carry out civil partnerships doesn't seem to have been fully addressed."
He added the ruling could have "wider implications" for local authorities.
'Catastrophic judgement'
Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the ruling was a "dangerous subversion" and a "violation of human rights".
"Lillian Ladele claims she has won a victory for religious liberty. No, she has not. She has won a victory for the right to discriminate," he said.
"Public servants like registrars have a duty to serve all members of the public without fear or favour. Once society lets some people opt out of upholding the law, where will it end?"
Condemning the "catastrophic judgement" the National Secular Society said: "This decision appears to show that religious rights trump gay rights and that should leave gay people quaking in their boots."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7499248.stm
Registrar wins same-sex tribunal
A marriage registrar was harassed for refusing to conduct same-sex ceremonies, a tribunal has ruled.
Lillian Ladele, who said the civil partnership ceremonies went against her Christian faith, hailed the decision as a "victory for religious liberty".
The tribunal ruled that Miss Ladele was discriminated against on grounds of religious beliefs and was harassed.
Islington council said it was "disappointed" and was considering an appeal against the ruling.
'Wider implications'
Until December 2007 registrars in Islington effectively worked on a freelance basis and could swap with each other to avoid same-sex ceremonies.
But since then they have been under direct control of the local authority which, it is claimed, has led to far less flexibility about the registrars' responsibilities.
Miss Ladele said she was being effectively forced to choose between her religion and her 31,000-a-year job as a result.
She said she was picked on, shunned and accused of being homophobic for refusing to carry out civil partnerships.
Miss Ladele said: "I am delighted at this decision.
"It is 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," she said.
Councillor John Gilbert, Islington Council's Executive Member for Human Resources, said: "We're clearly disappointed with the result, as we consider our approach was the right one.
"We are now considering the judgment carefully in order to decide whether we should appeal.
"The wider issue of whether councils should be able to expect employees to carry out civil partnerships doesn't seem to have been fully addressed."
He added the ruling could have "wider implications" for local authorities.
'Catastrophic judgement'
Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the ruling was a "dangerous subversion" and a "violation of human rights".
"Lillian Ladele claims she has won a victory for religious liberty. No, she has not. She has won a victory for the right to discriminate," he said.
"Public servants like registrars have a duty to serve all members of the public without fear or favour. Once society lets some people opt out of upholding the law, where will it end?"
Condemning the "catastrophic judgement" the National Secular Society said: "This decision appears to show that religious rights trump gay rights and that should leave gay people quaking in their boots."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, July 10, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 140 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #208019 by AdrianB on July 10, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Ten years ago I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Peter Tatchell, but now I find myself agreeing with him most of the time. Other Comments by AdrianB
3. Comment #208020 by Apathy personified on July 10, 2008 at 1:58 pm
"Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs,"Right....... so 'those gays' get it easy and religious people are persecuted - now i understand.
Again people, it's time to break out the worlds saddest song, just for christianity in britain.
Other Comments by Apathy personified
4. Comment #208021 by Big City on July 10, 2008 at 1:59 pm
"She has won a victory for the right to discriminate."
"I am delighted at this decision."
http://www.samharris.org/images/uploads/marriage_hetero.jpg
Other Comments by Big City
5. Comment #208022 by JLD Calgary on July 10, 2008 at 1:59 pm
As soon as you give people an ability to cop out of their duties of their role or job, you open the floodgates. If you don't like the requirements of the job, there's the door, find another one.A police officers risks getting shot, fireman risks being burned, and in this case, a registrar risks they may have to perform a civil partnership, even though it might be uncomfortable. Comes with the territory, get over it.
Edit: Just re-read a bit... she won because she was harassed, fine, but does that mean she doesn't have to do the job? It's not harassment if you're asked to do what's in the job description or has that word's meaning changed? Is she exempt now?
Other Comments by JLD Calgary
6. Comment #208023 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on July 10, 2008 at 2:01 pm
"Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs," she said.
So shall we let racists run their own schools and refuse their business to people of a different race (yes an admittedly fuzzy concept but the analogy stands).
What about refusing bald people service? How about people with moustaches, big front teeth. Where exactly does this stop?
"Lillian Ladele claims she has won a victory for religious liberty. No, she has not. She has won a victory for the right to discriminate," he said.Damn right. I think I'll refuse business to homophobes, merely for the irony.
Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad
7. Comment #208024 by wardsie on July 10, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Miss Ladele said she was being effectively forced to choose between her religion and her £31,000-a-year job as a result.
Yes she was. Just as some of us have to choose between playing golf or going to work.
The objection she has to same-sex marriage is, of course, imposed upon her by her religion. It's not her own independently arrived at conclusion. If it were she needn't have mentioned her religion at all.
If this isn't pandering to religious power blocks I don't know what is.
I do hope Islington Council will appeal.
Other Comments by wardsie
8. Comment #208028 by Naranja Mecanica on July 10, 2008 at 2:06 pm
What a thoroughly unprofessional woman. Why can't she keep her personal opinions out of the workplace and just do her bloody job properly? Other Comments by Naranja Mecanica
9. Comment #208031 by Stu on July 10, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I work in a library. What should my position be if I am asked to advise about homeopathy clinics? If someone suggests to me that they wish to exclusively attend a homeopathy clinic?Anyway, this situation is ridiculous. She was already performing non-religious ceremonies for straight people - she should have been signing up for the church (is she the right religion to be allowed in?) so she could do nothing but 'proper' weddings. And surely there must now be a question over her ability to officiate other non-religious events effectively.
Other Comments by Stu
10. Comment #208042 by Ian Bamlett on July 10, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Oh, the delicious irony of a black person hailing a victory for their right to be prejudiced.
Only religion can give us such gems!
Other Comments by Ian Bamlett
11. Comment #208043 by Dinah on July 10, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Lillian Ladele, who said the civil partnership ceremonies went against her Christian faith, hailed the decision as a "victory for religious liberty".
Religious liberty? What about the liberty of gay couples (some of whom will be religious themselves) who wish to affirm their union in this way? I can understand why, as a religious bigot, she might object to conducting a religious ceremony for gays, but these are civil partnerships, for Dog's sake, with no connection with religion, and she is not a priest. While she might not like civil partnerships, it is highly unprofessional to bring her own personal prejudices into her job. She is not being asked to do anything illegal or anything that hurts others, apart from her own feelings. As a registrar, she is employed to conduct marriages and civil partnership ceremonies, and if she is not prepared to carry out the requirements of her job, she should either resign, or face dismissal.
Other Comments by Dinah
12. Comment #208058 by justdust on July 10, 2008 at 2:34 pm
This is a worrying decision. This implies that someone can opt out of something encompassed by their job description because it offends their religious sensibilities.One can think of less tolerant religions that are seemingly offended by everything that could have a field day with this sort of ruling.
Other Comments by justdust
13. Comment #208064 by AdrianT on July 10, 2008 at 2:40 pm
In the Netherlands, regirtrars can opt out like this too. The only requirement with our Christian Democrat / Christian Union / Labour party coalition is that at least one registrar is able to marry gay couples per district.This is where we are heading, now the Bible has been given priority over English law. It is a black day for British justice, and I think we should get mobilised more, get behind pepple like peter tatchell, the NSS and others. I take my hat off to them...
.
CCFON RELAUNCHES - SEE ALARMING VIDEO:
The Christian fanatics are mobilising very efficiently. Another organisation, headed by Andrea Williams, with 30,000 supporters, relaunched itself on July 1 - Christian Concern for our nation. See the promotional video below - I find this extremely alarming. UK fundamentalists are copying the likes of Focus on the Family, AFA and the Alliance Defense League, with the aim of creating a Christian state.
http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=609
Other Comments by AdrianT
14. Comment #208065 by PaulJ on July 10, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Hey! I thought the whole idea of a registry office wedding was so that you could get married without all that religious mumbo jumbo. I can understand that a priest could refuse on religious grounds, but how can religious motives be allowed to sway how (or if) a secular ceremony is performed? Other Comments by PaulJ
15. Comment #208066 by rod-the-farmer on July 10, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Perhaps she could be the target for mass requests for weddings of same-sex couples, even if they are/are not already married. Just to make a point. I would like to see a line-up at her counter/desk/whatever. With the TV crew there filming it live, for the evening news. If it was MY home town, count me in. Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
16. Comment #208071 by flobear on July 10, 2008 at 2:48 pm
This implies that someone can opt out of something encompassed by their job description because it offends their religious sensibilities.
I think that's actually the precedent in the USA. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're a medical doctor I think you can decline performing an abortion or prescribing birth control.
Other Comments by flobear
17. Comment #208076 by Ian Bamlett on July 10, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Comment #208071 by flobear
I think that's actually the precedent in the USA. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're a medical doctor I think you can decline performing an abortion or prescribing birth control.
Well, yes and no flobear. You have to remember that in the USA differences between individual states can be huge. Also, large corporate employers will generally not stand for this kind of behaviour, (see article below; a little old but I believe nothing has changed)
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/02/12/pharmacy.firing.ap/
Other Comments by Ian Bamlett
18. Comment #208086 by Am I Evil? on July 10, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Once again, belief in an invisible sky-daddy trumps all. And they are the ones that feel persecuted all the time...
Other Comments by Am I Evil?
19. Comment #208088 by Border Collie on July 10, 2008 at 3:08 pm
What a bunch of whiners ... on both sides. Why didn't someone else do the ceremony or why didn't the couple just go somewhere else? Good grief ...Other Comments by Border Collie
20. Comment #208091 by Cartomancer on July 10, 2008 at 3:10 pm
First, a disclaimer. I do not have the details of the tribunal's ruling to hand so I cannot tell what the decision was based on and why this bigoted woman "won the case". There is mention of harassment. If indeed there was some kind of unacceptable harassment - actual harassment mind, such as her bosses shouting serious abuse at her all the time or pushing her over in the lunch queue, not just them expecting her to do her job properly and insisting that she does so - then the decision is the right one. I suspect this is not the case however, because the decision has been touted as a blow for "religious rights" and she is crowing about this aspect of the proceedings rather than being personally ill-treated.
So I shall assume henceforth that the reporting is accurate and the decision really is a kick in the teeth for equal rights.
I damn well hope that Islington Council appeals the decision and the proper judges at a real court shoot it down in flames like the nasty piece of bigotry it is.
But I would go much, much further. In fact I think the law of the UK, particularly the 2007 Goods and Services (Discrimination) Act, compels us to go further. Not only should all civil registrars be compelled to perform gay marriages, so should all religious institutions which offer marriages. All those vicars and priests and imams and rabbis and grand hierophants and what have you. All of them. No exceptions.
Inasmuch as ANY marriage is a public service and carries legal implications, it should be offered to all irrespective of the personal prejudices of the vendor. Anything less is de facto, and de iure, support for discrimination.
The only way that "religious rights" would be infringed were if the government started convicting people of thought crimes. You're still free to believe whatever the hell you like in Britain - you're just not afforded any special privileges in your behaviour because of it. At bottom, that's all religion is - personal opinion. It has no objective reality to it beyond the patterns of neural activity in the heads of its sufferers. It has no place in secular legislation at all.
As has been noted in previous posts, the litmus test in this situation must surely be "would the tribunal have come to the same decision if the action were based on non-religious factors?" If she had just stood up and said "I'm a homophobic bigot, I don't want to do it", there is no way the tribunician arbitrators would have taken her side. Why is homophobia ok if you contracted it from a two thousand year old book read at you by an elderly paedophile in a dress, but not if contracted down the pub from skinheads in their unreconstructed patriatrchal machismo?
Other Comments by Cartomancer
21. Comment #208095 by icanus on July 10, 2008 at 3:14 pm
This implies that someone can opt out of something encompassed by their job description because it offends their religious sensibilities.
Sweet! Now how do we go about getting the church of the FSM to declare all the bits of our jobs that we don't like immoral? I vote for starting with "Thou shalt not turn up at the office before midday".
Seriously though, she's free to be a bigot on her own time (providing she doesn't do anything against the law), but why should the council have to pay her to do it on their (publicly funded) time?
You do your job or you quit. No one's forcing her to stay on - if her fairytales mean that much to her, she's free to sod of and find another job.
Other Comments by icanus
22. Comment #208102 by Ian Bamlett on July 10, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Comment #208091 by Cartomancer
Why is homophobia ok if you contracted it from a two thousand year old book read at you by an elderly paedophile in a dress, but not if contracted down the pub from skinheads in their unreconstructed patriatrchal machismo?
May I please have permission to steal that and use it forwith! Excellent!
Other Comments by Ian Bamlett
23. Comment #208103 by Bonzai on July 10, 2008 at 3:20 pm
So what if someone refuses to marry mix race couples on religious ground? Can he claim it is his right? White supremacist churches do exist.While I don't know the fine details of U.K law, there should be a lot of ground for appeal if the law makes any logical sense at all.
Other Comments by Bonzai
24. Comment #208106 by Cartomancer on July 10, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Ooh, I don't know Ian - using my words in other contexts might offend my religious sensibilities... Other Comments by Cartomancer
25. Comment #208116 by JammyB on July 10, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Well my beliefs force me to discriminate against intolerant bigots like this woman! Good to know I'll have the backing of the courts on this.Other Comments by JammyB
26. Comment #208122 by D'Arcy on July 10, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Religious liberty
Bollocks to "religious liberty". The very notion is a contradiction in terms. Since when did Christianity, (add in religion here) ever give "liberty" to anyone? Organised superstition requires social control.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
27. Comment #208140 by Mango on July 10, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Liberal society (here supporting gay civil unions) and its frequent manifestation, multiculturalism (here supporting religious tolerance), once again meet at an increasingly frequent impasse. Other Comments by Mango
28. Comment #208169 by Stella on July 10, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Okay, so, what if I think answering phones will lead to an eternal punishment by a vengeful god? Am I allowed to refuse to do that at work on the grounds of "religious liberty"? If not, why not? Who gets to decide what "religious beliefs" are legitimate and which ones aren't?
I personally think Wal-Mart is unethical. Therefore, I don't work there.
Other Comments by Stella
29. Comment #208176 by Actaeon on July 10, 2008 at 5:05 pm
This religious, bigoted, homophobic registrar must have presided over the wedding of many atheists,surely she could never refuse to participate with them. If so, it would be unimaginable that, being employed to perform civil weddings, she would have the backing of the law. So, here's the rub - homosexuals may still be christian and agree with her in many subjects theological, however atheists marrying, and raising children in non- religious environments, are surely a stronger challenge to her religion. One would think that such a fanatic would refuse to marry anyone outside of the church, but then again that would be following a rational thought process.
Other Comments by Actaeon
30. Comment #208194 by Andreas on July 10, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I kind of liked the woman who said something like "I want to use the one life that I have...". But then, the rest of what she said was pure bullshit. Other Comments by Andreas
31. Comment #208213 by Dhamma on July 10, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Did I just have a feeling of an upside down world?If anyone's hurting anyone's liberties - it's her. She's oppressive to gay people by her sheer existence.
Other Comments by Dhamma
32. Comment #208216 by ghuckin on July 10, 2008 at 6:05 pm
The good news, if the UK government's new equality bill goes through as intended ( http://richarddawkins.net/article,2802,It-can-be-right-to-discriminate-against-the-religious,Johann-Hari ), is that future applicants for registrar would have to agree to perform same-sex marriages, and if they refused such an undertaking, could be rejected without the employer risking legal action. Other Comments by ghuckin
33. Comment #208220 by JeremyH on July 10, 2008 at 6:07 pm
"She said she was picked on, shunned and accused of being homophobic for refusing to carry out civil partnerships."That's because you are homophobic! Hypocritical bitch. "Oh no, how unfair, my rights as a human being have been abused... by those dirty gays who don't deserve the rights of marriage like we do!"
""Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs," she said."
Replace 'gay rights' with 'religious beliefs' and replace 'religious beliefs' with sexual preferences.
Other Comments by JeremyH
34. Comment #208222 by Spinoza on July 10, 2008 at 6:13 pm
The Bible says "Do not lie with another man as you would with a woman.", it doesn't say "I command you not to let anyone else do so." Other Comments by Spinoza
35. Comment #208230 by Styrer- on July 10, 2008 at 6:27 pm
"Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs," she said.Comment #208220 by JeremyH on July 10, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Replace 'gay rights' with 'religious beliefs' and replace 'religious beliefs' with sexual preferences.
Well said. I will indeed, for all to see, replace as invited:
Religious beliefs should not be used as an excuse to bully and harrass people over their gay rights.
Now we are all clear.
What a most contemptible fucking shame of humanity both this woman and the court's decision truly are.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
36. Comment #208234 by BeyondBelief on July 10, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Miss Ladele said she was being effectively forced to choose between her religion and her £31,000-a-year job as a result.
Yes. Yes, you are. You are being asked to choose between holding a position where you are required to faithfully deliver the legal services offered by your office, or to decide to NOT hold a job that violates your sacred religious tenets.
The "bend" has to be in the individual. The Clerk serves all citizens.
I don't know if others are aware of it, but the same B*!!$hit is going on w/ regards to pharmacists wanting to not distribute birth control prescriptions.
Major, major threshold for establishing a universal principal about separation of religious choice, and state regulated services.
Other Comments by BeyondBelief
37. Comment #208249 by Goldy on July 10, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Does this mean gays can refuse to be married by a black person too? Other Comments by Goldy
38. Comment #208259 by mordacious1 on July 10, 2008 at 7:10 pm
If only I had her job. My beliefs prohibit me from marrying anyone who believes in anything supernatural. So unless two atheists want to get married, I can kick back and blog on the internet all day.Other Comments by mordacious1
39. Comment #208264 by Wosret on July 10, 2008 at 7:15 pm
34. Comment #208222 by Spinoza
Actually that is only Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13 says "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 death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."
23. Comment #208103 by Bonzai
Those were my exact thoughts as well when I first read this. Somehow, the inequity of the situation becomes quite apparent when you consider such an analogy.
Other Comments by Wosret
40. Comment #208273 by dragonfirematrix on July 10, 2008 at 7:33 pm
The part of the article that caught my eye immediately is:
"It is a victory for religious liberty, not just for myself but for others in a similar position to mine. "
Miss Ladele, Have you considered the possibility that persons who do not share your religious fanaticism still deserve at least as much consideration, respect, and liberty as you claim victorious for your kind. Your very actions, and the actions of the court in your favor, show exactly the true lack of respect the religious have for liberty.
This is America, Ms Ladele. You know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...AND THAT MEANS FOR ALL.
Other Comments by dragonfirematrix
41. Comment #208277 by Goldy on July 10, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Dragonfirematrix, unfortunately she's in the UK where we appear to have enough idiots who think someone's chosen views matter on religion matter more than the sexuality someone was unwittingly born into. Other Comments by Goldy
42. Comment #208292 by dragonfirematrix on July 10, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Goldy,
Thank you for that correction. We are having many of the same kind of problems (and idiots) in America, and I get so hot when I hear the religious go ballistic over nothing. I lost sight of the geography for the moment :)
Other Comments by dragonfirematrix
43. Comment #208335 by robotaholic on July 10, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Look at what happened in San Francisco which was simliar to this story:
From "Employees told they could be reassigned" by Craig Gustafson, San Diego Union-Tribune Staff Writer 6/19/08
At least 14 employees in the San Diego County Clerk's Office raised religious objections to performing gay wedding ceremonies but were told by their boss they couldn't pick and choose between marriage applicants.
“It would unfairly burden other employees and would directly compromise the services we provide to the public, particularly given that so many employees have requested the same arrangement,” Smith's office told 14 employees by e-mail.
In the e-mails, employees were told they would have to perform the ceremonies without discrimination or seek a reassignment within the department or the county.
San Diego was not the only county where religious objections from county clerk employees came up.
In Sutter County, north of Sacramento, three of the four employees who usually perform wedding ceremonies said that they could not do so for same-sex couples, said Cindy McMillan, assistant Sutter County Clerk-Recorder. They were not penalized for their beliefs, and other employees volunteered to perform the nuptials.
By contrast, the issue did not come up in Alameda County in the San Francisco Bay Area or in Orange County. No county employees who perform civil wedding ceremonies requested to opt out for religious or other reasons, officials said.
Other Comments by robotaholic
44. Comment #208336 by Onebag on July 10, 2008 at 8:59 pm
It beggars belief...This from The Christian Institute
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/20080710/christian-registrar-wins-discrimination-case/
"The case was financed by The Christian Institute. Its Head of Communications, Mike Judge, said: "This important ruling confirms that gay rights should not be treated as trumping religious rights..."
"Trumping"? As in Top Trumps? More like a Get out of jail free card!
Link to the Full Judgement:
http://www.christian.org.uk/ladelejudgment.pdf
Other Comments by Onebag
45. Comment #208359 by King of NH on July 10, 2008 at 9:37 pm
"Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs," she said.
Of course, religious rights are a perfect excuse to bully and harass gays.
Other Comments by King of NH
46. Comment #208389 by somersetsimon on July 10, 2008 at 11:06 pm
But I would go much, much further. In fact I think the law of the UK, particularly the 2007 Goods and Services (Discrimination) Act, compels us to go further. Not only should all civil registrars be compelled to perform gay marriages, so should all religious institutions which offer marriages. All those vicars and priests and imams and rabbis and grand hierophants and what have you. All of them. No exceptions.
That's what I thought too. I hope that Act gives good grounds for the council to appeal.
If this case is allowed to stand does this mean that discrimination only means discrimination on the grounds of personal opinion with a free pass for a religion?
If I was an atheist employer and put 'No Jews' on a job advert, I would be rightly prosecuted. If I was a Muslim employer, would I be allowed to claim some religious reason why I shouldn't have to associate with Jews?
Other Comments by somersetsimon
47. Comment #208400 by black wolf on July 10, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I just finished reading the judgment provided by Onebag.There was no mentioning of harassment. Ladele won the case on the grounds that she was 'threatened' with losing her job, that two other members of staff violated confidentiality by talking to an activist group for counseling, and that she suffered detriments from disciplinary action taken against her, in which her employer didn't accomodate her religious beliefs.
The case relies on making special accomodations for religious beliefs not by protecting personal freedom but by providing a special right to refuse duty. In my opinion, the court turned the concept of religious freedom on its head in this decision, by making the case that someone with religious beliefs has more rights than those without such beliefs. Ladele succeeded in gaining additional privileges through special pleading overriding her employment duties.
I don't know how weighty the precedent concept is in the UK justice system. Based on this case, in my opinion a muslim employee could for instance refuse to sell or develop photographs of humans or animals and be protected from disciplinary action or termination of employment. This could lead to all sorts of ridiculous cases.
Other Comments by black wolf
48. Comment #208401 by Dr Doctor on July 10, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I did write a lengthy post sending up the mental gymnastics of the religious appeasers on the "Goddamn cracker" thread.It went missing.
So instead you'll have to pretend it was there and variously blush, yawn, titter, snigger, smirk, flip the bird and finger point.
In the meantime, that ruling seems contrary to the law of the land.
Homophobic cow. <--- please do try and sue me.
Other Comments by Dr Doctor
49. Comment #208404 by petermun on July 10, 2008 at 11:32 pm
I wonder if she has similar religious scruples about officiating at ceremonies of divorcees - if so she must have very little to do for her £31KDoes she refuse to register the death of non-believers too I wonder (for that is presumably part of her role too).
Other Comments by petermun
50. Comment #208410 by black wolf on July 10, 2008 at 11:40 pm
The bottom line is, if you don't like what you're supposed to do on your job, find any religious tenet to claim adherence to, and you're off the hook. Who cares if your co-workers have to do your duties now and work overtime, your right to pick your nose for an hour a day is more important (cuz your prophet says so). Other Comments by black wolf
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #208015 by Perseus on July 10, 2008 at 1:47 pm
So, officials are now allowed to decide whether or not they wish to actually do their job? Imagine (in an admittedly extreme case) a police officer refusing to assist anyone on Sunday. Judges ruling against someone because that person's lifestyle doesn't agree with them. Or politicians allowing religious dogma to be taught as fact. Wait, ignore that last one.Other Comments by Perseus