Registrar wins right to refuse gay weddings

[Honey]

A Christian registrar who refused to perform same-sex civil partnership unions because she believes that gay marriage is "sinful" has won her claim for discrimination, testing the boundaries of the fledgling religious discrimination law.

In a unanimous judgment, an employment tribunal found Islington council in north London unlawfully discriminated against Lillian Ladele, who was threatened with dismissal when she asked to be excused from conducting gay marriage ceremonies.
Ms Ladele, who worked in the registration service for nearly 16 years, said she held "orthodox Christian beliefs'' about marriage and same-sex unions and was not happy to perform civil partnerships. She asked to be excused from them because other registrars could conduct the services.

She was subjected to various acts of direct discrimination by the council on the grounds of her religious beliefs, the Central London Employment Tribunal ruled. This included disciplining her and threatening her with dismissal, concluding that she had committed gross misconduct and labelling and treating her as homophobic.
"I am delighted at this decision," Ms Ladele said. "It is a victory for religious liberty, not just for myself but for others in a similar position. Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs."
John Gilbert, Islington's executive member for human resources, said: "We're clearly disappointed, because we consider our approach was the right one. On first reading, the tribunal seems to have based its findings primarily on the fact that we could have continued to provide civil partnerships without Ms Ladele. 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. We'd like to assure staff and service users that our commitment to services and equalities won't be affected."

The case was financed by the Christian Institute, a charity that has also filed a lawsuit against the internet seach engine Google for blocking an anti-abortion online advertisement.
Mike Judge, the institute's head of communications, said: "This important ruling confirms that gay rights should not be treated as trumping religious rights. The law clearly recognises this. If we really believe in equality before the law, that means respecting people who have sincerely held religious beliefs on sexual ethics. The witch-hunt against those who disagree with homosexual practice has to stop."
Last year, the employee tribunal heard around 600 religious belief discrimination complaints. Employment law experts say that such cases threaten to recast the boundaries of law in favour of employees whose religious beliefs clash with working practices.
In 2006, British Airways caused uproar after barring a check-in worker from wearing a crucifix at work, a policy the airline has now amended. Similar battles have been fought over Muslim employees' right to wear a hijab, or headscarf, and other overtly religious garb.
Mark Jones, solicitor for Miss Ladele, said: "Hopefully this decision will encourage other employers to balance competing rights where they conflict."

Registrar wins right to refuse gay weddings - Home News, UK - The Independent

[Grimmlok]

If you can't do your fucking job, then fuck you GET THE HELL OUT. What if she had refused a jewish couple? How about some nice asian people cuz her stupid "beliefs" said she couldn't do it? You think anybody would have stood for that? Fuck no. But hey, it's only gays. Kick them around a little more. You can still do it. There's still time.

Oh, and a personal fuck you to you, you skank ass whore. Shove your religion up your ass. By the way, if you're so fucking orthodox, why are you wearing blended fibers? Why do you have a job? Why aren't you at home popping out kids? Do you eat shellfish? Let me guess, none of those matter because you pick and choose which shit to 'believe in' just so you can be a fucking whore bigot. Fuck you.

THIS IS WHY I HATE RELIGION.

I'd fucking lock all these people on an island if i could. Not this one though. This one gets drowned in a bathtub.

[McJag]

She does not represent all religion.

[msdeb]

its happening here in San Diego. people refusing to do the gay weddings. pisses me off. if you dont like it, quit your job.

[McJag]

Same with health care pro's refusing abortions and pharmacy people refusing birt control.

[*DIVA!]

If you can't do your fucking job, then fuck you GET THE HELL OUT. What if she had refused a jewish couple? How about some nice asian people cuz her stupid "beliefs" said she couldn't do it? You think anybody would have stood for that? Fuck no. But hey, it's only gays. Kick them around a little more. You can still do it. There's still time.

Oh, and a personal fuck you to you, you skank ass whore. Shove your religion up your ass. By the way, if you're so fucking orthodox, why are you wearing blended fibers? Why do you have a job? Why aren't you at home popping out kids? Do you eat shellfish? Let me guess, none of those matter because you pick and choose which shit to 'believe in' just so you can be a fucking whore bigot. Fuck you.

THIS IS WHY I HATE RELIGION.

I'd fucking lock all these people on an island if i could. Not this one though. This one gets drowned in a bathtub.

AGREE!

[RevellingInSane]

Just as gays want the right to be married, those who performed marriages before civil unions between gays were legal should have the right to be excused from performing them now. Those partnerships were not an issue when the positions were filled.

I am going to play devil's advocate here. If someone asked me to commit a crime as part of my job duties, would I do it? No. If she is a devout Christian, who was officiating unions before the laws changed, she is now torn between committing a "crime" due to her beliefs or turning her back on who she is and doing what others want. What a predicament. If she does not agree with gay marriage and it was not a part of her original job description, why should she be forced to do it? If I were forced to participate in a Satanic ceremony of some kind to retain my employment, there would be a lawsuit.

Those who had these positions before gay marriage was a part of the services offered should not be forced to perform the ceremonies. It wasn't an issue when they were hired. Those who become officials after the legalization should not be allowed to discriminate, as the laws are now in place.

As a peaceful solution, there should be an internal procedure allowing those who are comfortable to perform the ceremonies to do so and those who are not to opt out. Find an official who has no problems with performing the ceremony and go forward.

There are still areas which will not marry a couple based on race or religion and find ways to deny the request. So? There are alternatives. Find one and start your life together.

I am not against gay civil unions. I believe everyone should have the right to marry if they are of legal age and consent to the union.

[Grimmlok]

She's a city or county employee. She has to obey the law. If she cannot, then she should lose her job.

Job descriptions evolve and change over time. Do any of us still do the exact same fucking thing the second we were hired? Hell no. Does her job description detail EXACTLY that the licenses are to be made out to a man and a woman? Probably not.

Kick her ass out. Tell her to go work in a fucking church. HER RELIGION HAS NO PLACE THERE. Those who are not able to adapt, tough shit. Welcome to modern life. You are a government employee. You are NOT ALLOWED TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHO YOU RENDER SERVICES TO.

[RevellingInSane]

Job descriptions do evolve and change over time; however, in a case such as this, I have to be objective.

This is not a case of a job description evolving to include more responsibilities. The gay marriage debate was bound to bring about cases regarding infringing upon people's rights. She has the right to religion. Gays have the right to now have civil partnerships. Let the arguments begin.

I can see both sides of the argument. I can understand the decision handed down. She may be government employee, but does that mean she should have to deal with a change, stemming from a moral conflict of interest that was not an issue before?

Civil partnerships, as I refer to them, are new and this, just like all other major changes, will take time.

[tee-ha-ha]

She's a city or county employee. She has to obey the law. If she cannot, then she should lose her job.

Job descriptions evolve and change over time. Do any of us still do the exact same fucking thing the second we were hired? Hell no. Does her job description detail EXACTLY that the licenses are to be made out to a man and a woman? Probably not.

Kick her ass out. Tell her to go work in a fucking church. HER RELIGION HAS NO PLACE THERE. Those who are not able to adapt, tough shit. Welcome to modern life. You are a government employee. You are NOT ALLOWED TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHO YOU RENDER SERVICES TO.

I think as long as gays can still get the "service", i.e. the wedding ceremony, I don't see the problem. If some fundie pharmacist refused to give me B.C., as long as someone else there would do it I wouldn't care as long as I got them. I'd chuckle at their silliness, but that's it.

Gay marriage is a relatively new thing in the UK; it was only brought in a few years ago. She may have been employed there before it came in and it's a tough call; forcing people to perform a marriage ceremony under threat of losing their jobs when they feel deeply and sincerely that it's sinful vs the rights of the gay couple to get married not necessarily by that registrar, but by any registrar. As long as someone there is available to perform the service, who cares if one of them refuses?

I think registrars also record births and deaths; they don't exist just to officiate marriages. Brits please correct me if I'm wrong!

[sputnik]

If you can't do your fucking job, then fuck you GET THE HELL OUT. What if she had refused a jewish couple? How about some nice asian people cuz her stupid "beliefs" said she couldn't do it? You think anybody would have stood for that? Fuck no. But hey, it's only gays. Kick them around a little more. You can still do it. There's still time.

Oh, and a personal fuck you to you, you skank ass whore. Shove your religion up your ass. By the way, if you're so fucking orthodox, why are you wearing blended fibers? Why do you have a job? Why aren't you at home popping out kids? Do you eat shellfish? Let me guess, none of those matter because you pick and choose which shit to 'believe in' just so you can be a fucking whore bigot. Fuck you.

THIS IS WHY I HATE RELIGION.

I'd fucking lock all these people on an island if i could. Not this one though. This one gets drowned in a bathtub.

She's a city or county employee. She has to obey the law. If she cannot, then she should lose her job.

Job descriptions evolve and change over time. Do any of us still do the exact same fucking thing the second we were hired? Hell no. Does her job description detail EXACTLY that the licenses are to be made out to a man and a woman? Probably not.

Kick her ass out. Tell her to go work in a fucking church. HER RELIGION HAS NO PLACE THERE. Those who are not able to adapt, tough shit. Welcome to modern life. You are a government employee. You are NOT ALLOWED TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHO YOU RENDER SERVICES TO.

word!

this is why i believe in the french interpretation of separation of church and states. if you can't perform the duties the job requires, go work for the church. but you work for the state, bitch, and if the state legalises gay marriage, you must uphold that law and do your fucking job, and if you can't, quit, and go work performing religious marriages, that way you can discriminate all you like.
i'd like to see how this dumb ho would react if some registrar refused to marry an interracial couple, citing 'religious beliefs'. you can be sure all hell would break loose and no court would grant them that right.

if people want to be discriminatory religious bigots, they can do so in private. not as state/government employees. and as pissed as i am at this homophobic cow, i'm even more pissed that a court vindicated her.

[tee-ha-ha]

word!

this is why i believe in the french interpretation of separation of church and states. if you can't perform the duties the job requires, go work for the church. but you work for the state, bitch, and if the state legalises gay marriage, you must uphold that law and do your fucking job, and if you can't, quit, and go work performing religious marriages, that way you can discriminate all you like.
i'd like to see how this dumb ho would react if some registrar refused to marry an interracial couple, citing 'religious beliefs'. you can be sure all hell would break loose and no court would grant them that right.

if people want to be discriminatory religious bigots, they can do so in private. not as state/government employees. and as pissed as i am at this homophobic cow, i'm even more pissed that a court vindicated her.

She is definitely a bit homophobic, but is that really a crime? If someone's deep religious beliefs cause them to feel so strongly about gay marriage that they will risk their career to win the "right" to refuse to perform gay marriages, I think we have to step back and look at both sides.

Personally, I'm not opposed to gay marriage. It doesn't bother me one bit and in her position I'd have no issues with performing gay marriages. However, I'm not religious and neither are many people here. Some people who are religious genuinely believe that homosexuality is sinful, that gays are hellbound, and they want no part in assisting others in their "sinful" ways. Much as we disagree with that, we have to respect the right of others to hold beliefs that we find repugnant.

Also, we have to consider where one person's religious rights end and where a homosexual couple's right to get married begins. If she doesn't perform gay marriages but as long as someone is available to no homosexual couple there will be denied their right to marry.

I can see other peoples' points when they say if she can't perform all the functions of a job, she shouldn't be doing that job. I agree to a point. Gay marriage is a new reality in Britain and hasn't been around for long. If she became a registrar prior to gay marriage being legalized, I think she has the right to refuse to perform them because it was not what she originally signed on for. If she became a registrar after gay marriage was legalized, however, I don't think she should be able to refuse because she took the job knowing it was possible that she'd be asked to perform one. It's like pharmacists and the pill. The pill has been around for a long time, as long as most pharmacists have been in their careers. If they refuse to dispense it, get the fuck out. However, if there's more than one pharmacist behind the counter and I never get to hear the "I-won't-fill-this-scrip-Bill-can-you-do-it" conversation, that's fine. Long as I still get my pills, I don't give a damn if Johnny Biblethumper won't give them to me. As long as nobody's rights are infringed, who cares?

[Ravenna]

I think as long as gays can still get the "service", i.e. the wedding ceremony, I don't see the problem. If some fundie pharmacist refused to give me B.C., as long as someone else there would do it I wouldn't care as long as I got them. I'd chuckle at their silliness, but that's it.

Gay marriage is a relatively new thing in the UK; it was only brought in a few years ago. She may have been employed there before it came in and it's a tough call; forcing people to perform a marriage ceremony under threat of losing their jobs when they feel deeply and sincerely that it's sinful vs the rights of the gay couple to get married not necessarily by that registrar, but by any registrar. As long as someone there is available to perform the service, who cares if one of them refuses?

I can see both sides of the argument, but I agree with this most of all. No one is being deprived of their right to a legal union. The interests of both sides are being satisfied. Legally, both sides have rights that are being protected here, even though they conflict with one another.

[Pippa]

If she's so orthodox I hope she asks the heterosexual divorcees that are coming in get remarried that they have biblically legitimate grounds for remarriage ie: the other partner committed adultery. If that's not the case she should refuse them too on the grounds it upsets her religious sensibilities.

[A*O]

If she's that "christian" then she shouldn't be performing any kind if civil marriage, straight or gay.