Harry’s Place

Did this story really happen? If so it is clearly shocking that the registrar got any money. I vaguely suspect that you have changed some facts to make a point though. It was really a same-sex wedding, wasn’t it? It is still shocking that you get money when you are not capable of performing your job.

Aaah, I posted above before following the link.

Registrars are there to marry people according to the law. If the marriages are legal, then they should be obliged to marry them. The only question my wife and I were asked by the registrar was whether we were brother and sister by blood, which was odd as we are obviously from different races. I am uncertain about whether the Registrar is obliged to refuse to marry people in circumstances such as a forced marriage or a marriage between a couple for the sake of immigration visas. But it is completely unacceptable that a Registrar should refused to carry out a legal marriage of a mixed race couple. The Tribunal is insane and sets a dangerous precedent. Will Hindu Registrars be allowed to refuse to marry Hindus of different gotras on religious grounds? Will Muslim Registrars be permitted to refuse to allow a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim?

That was a disgusting decision. But symptomatic of the way the mentally ill (i.e. religious) are getting more and more special privileges for their disgusting bigotry in today’s Britain.

The registrar should have been flung on on his arse and told where to go, in emphatic anglo-saxon terms.

I appreciate that you and your wife are of different ethnicities: but surely you are both humans?

I mean, if you were of different races, how did you manage to breed?

Pretty straightforward: this is a government official, being asked to do his job. If he isn’t willing to do that for religious reasons — which he as every right to have, after all — it’s time to find another job.

If his (ridiculous in my view) beliefs can be accomodated reasonable (ie. finding another registrar doesn’t cost the council a lot of money, or any other important consideration) I think it’s probably a good thing that his beliefs can be respected. I imagine there probably is a cost consideration though.

It’d probably be a good thing if in the future (if they don’t already) councils asked potential registrars whether there are any sorts of legally permissable couples that they would not be willing to marry. If they say they won’t marry inter-ethic couples, that’d be a sensible reason not to hire them. That’d be discrimination against them on the sensible grounds that he cannot do the job properly, not discrimination qua religion.

“It is still shocking that you get money when you are not capable of performing your job.”

But that is not at all uncommon with anti-discrimination legislation. In many cases, the onus is on the employer to make reasonable adjustment to the needs, and wishes, of the employee. Having read, in the legal press, that a waiter who has a religious objection to serving alchohol could successfully sue an employer who did not try to accomodate him, then I’m not at all surprised by this outcome.

One gets the impression from the judgement that if the religious registrar had been the _only_ registrar, then her treatment by the employer would have been fair, but since there were alternative registrars it was not. This is a peculiar implication.

In addition, the judgement seems to imply that there should be no consequences for a religious belief, even if that belief renders you unsuitable for the job. In this, religious believers are being granted more rights than, say, disabled people, where the employer is able to turn you down for a job if accommodation to your disability is unreasonable.

It’s also disturbing that this gives religious believers more employment rights than athiests.

So, what are your thoughts? Should deeply held religious beliefs be grounds for refusing to deal with some members of the public?

What a conundrum.

In the end I’d have to answer “no”.

If you’ve chosen to become a registrar, then you have to accept the fact that some of you duties may run counter to deeply held religious beliefs. The job of Registrar is part of the secular, public domain and anyone who becomes one must surely be aware of that fact.

Every job, no matter the field, will always have aspects that people don’t like.

On the other hand, churches, such as The Catholic Church, should have the right to refuse to marry certain individuals if the lifestyles of those individuals are considered unsuitable from the standpoint of Catholic theology.

Whilst I think this woman should have been compelled to obey the law and perform her duties, I don’t think the analogy with race entirely stands up.

What makes a religious belief worthy of protection?

To take Brett’s example: common or garden athiest racists surely get no protection. But what if we were talking about (say) a Dutch Reformed Church member, who believed in their apartheid era theology?

Did the Tribunal effectively affirm bigotry against homosexuals as a core Christian belief, deserving of protection?

Sounds outrageous, I’d have thought if nothing else he’d have been in breech of his employment contract. Local authority websites are full of nondiscrimination mission statements. Bet they’re thinking about rewording their contract
now.

The decision is wrong in principle and wrong in law.

Employment tribunals are of the lowest tier of courts and tribunals and often make such idiotic rulings.

Of course this clash is inevitable given a climate of increasing misinformed accomodation of ‘personal conscience’ opt outs in performing government services by employees of the taxpayer.

The disastrous results of the British Governments attempts to circumvent the clear intention of the European directives on non discrimination 9especially on religion) are now shown clearly.

Arguably the British Goivernment has fallen foul of EU law by failing to implement a directive correctly.

If these Employment tribunal rulings are not corrected by th higher courts (if instead they are confirmed) or by specific government legislation then there lies a cause of action against the Government at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Isn’t Jedi a recognised UK religion now?

Now that could throw up some conundrums!

What kind of religious belief prevents mixed-race couples from marrying? Wouldn’t he have to proove that his religion is against black-white unions? I know that Christians can be racist, but Christianity itself has nothing to say on the matter. I disagree with you Brett, a discussion is necessary since this guy is using religion to support his prejudices. I just think the man is a racist nutjob and religious convictions are just a ruse to enable him, a public servant, to impose his prejudices. I guess that if the BNP wants to ensure the purity of the white race, it only needs to get its members to be recruited as marriage registrars.

“The decision is wrong in principle and wrong in law.”

It may be wrong in principle (my view is that when you’re employed in this sort of job, you have to accept that sometimes you’ll be obliged to implement laws you disagree with) but it’s almost certainly right in law.

Dan, what if the person in question was using religion to support their prejudice against gays?

“Isn’t Jedi a recognised UK religion now?
Now that could throw up some conundrums!”

I don’t recall any women in the service of Darth Vader, so no heterosexuals on the dark side of the force.

“what if the person in question was using religion to support their prejudice against gays?”

As I said, if you are going to argue that your prejudices are supported by your religion, then you have to say why. There is nothing in the Bible to support this bigot’s claims.

Sean Fear

Look at the EU directives it is not correct in law.

Refusing mixed race couples a hotel room because of ones religious views on mixed race couples sleeping together is not lawfull (no matter how large the hotel and how many other employees could theoretically check the couple in as an alternative)

I make absolutely no defence of this man’s beliefs (though I would defend to the death his right to have them, as with anyone’s beliefs).

The only point I would note is that at least his discriminatory tendencies do not appear to have a gender bias. One assumes that he would have declined regardless of the sex of each member of the mixed race couple. His beliefs are also not in accord with ANY mainstream Christian church denomination.

Contrast the institutionalised Muslim approach where there is no (theoretical) objection to the joining of two Muslims of different races, but only a Muslim man may marry a Christian or a Jew- Muslim women are not granted the same freedom.

Also, as odious as this registrar’s beliefs may be, if you do away with perfectly functional work-arounds you are basically enforcing a quasi-religious state-sponsored set of alternative beliefs, which is a very scary prospect in itself, no matter how pleasant some of those beliefs may be…

[Pastafar-I!!! Conquering lion of noodles!]

I’m a person with a strong religious view and I think this decision, both the original one where the registrar refused to marry a couple just because one is black and other is white and the subsequent tribunal decision, is absolutely appalling.

It goes against all ideas of natural justice and sadly opens up more cans of worms than you could care to mention.

If this person has such strong religious views that he feels that he is allowed to (imho) misread scripture in such a bigoted way then he really should have been told to bugger off and find another job.

I’m amazed that the tribunal found in his favour on this one. A frivolous and unjust judgement which is going to have many negative implications. What next? An Orthodox Jewish registrar refusing to officiate at a wedding between a Jewish and a non Jewish person, a religious bigot refusing to officate at a civil partnership or a wedding between a secular muslim and a christian etc etc. This judgement is going to cause many many problems.

This is remarkable, guess a register that simply refused to marry a gay couple on the reason that the person despised gays as unnatural, mentally sick and a violation of human nature wouldn’t have an earthly chance to win in the tribunal. But when you claim that an unproven supernatural being have given the directive that gay is against the rulings of the imagined God it have to be granted special respect. That is of course if the society of imagined God believers is big and powerful enough.

It’s completely wrong; what if every registrar in the country held the same beliefs? What if a doctor refused to operate on someone due to their religous beliefs? By the same principle they could pack them off to the next hospital.

“Look at the EU directives it is not correct in law.”

Well if you take Brett’s initial piece literally, you are correct.

But in terms of the actual story, then it is probably (given what I’ve read in the legal press) that the tribunal’s decision was correct.

Hi, I experienced something very similar. I’m a member of Hamas living in London and quite naturally I fell head over heels for a lovely young female donkey owned by my Imam. When I took the donkey to my local registry office, they refused, saying it was unnatural and against the law! I showed him photos of my first and second wives and, while the officials agreed with me that the donkey was more attractive, they still refused to marry us!

No fear, however, Dean and Dean are on my case and will be appealing to the European Court of Justice!

MixTogether: The only question a registrar has to ask themselves is: “Is there any lawful impediment to the marriage?” If not, they should be obliged to marry a couple or they should quit their job. No-one is saying someone should be forced to relinquish their prejudices. But public service delivery should not be impeded due to the prejudices of individual public servants. If this is allowed to stand, you’ll find housing department officials in local councils refusing to house non-white people because of their prejudices.

A surgeon belonging to the Jehovahs Witnesses could refuse to give a blood transfusion. An employee at an off-licence could convert to Islam and refuse to serve alcohol. What other stupid situations could be upheld by a tribunal?

Surely this is a spoof article? There’s no way anyone would be allowed to remain in office, let alone be compensated for constructive dismissal etc., who held such views, especially if religiously based.

What religion forbids marriage between black and white races? I’ve never heard of any such religion.

Sue R: Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam?

What religion forbids marriage between black and white races?

None that I know of, but the point Brett’s making is that if for argument’s sake there was one that did, would a tribunal find in favour of someone who refused to marry two people from different races on religious grounds? And if not then why would such a case be any different from the actual case in which a tribunal found in favour of a registrar who refused to preside over a civil ceremony for a same-sex couple.

They argued that all members of the public should expect to receive equal treatment and equal service from council employees.

That says it all. He’s on the Council’s payroll. Consequently he should leave his private moralising at home.

If he was running a private business, that would be one thing. But failing to provide the services you’re getting paid for on the basis of private morality is ample justification for being fired from public service, in my opinion.

Can’t believe he won his case, the prick.

I wonder if the registrar would have won his case if he had based his objections on political (or biological) rather than religious grounds.

Personally, I think if you are a public employee you have to be prepared to leave your views - religious, political, whatever - at home when you go to work.

I’m confused. Isn’t the picture in the post actually of the Islington registrar who refused to perform gay marriages? It’s certainly the picture in the linked to article (which isn’t about the mixed ethicity marriage)

Wardytron - Since the only religions that object to marriage between different religions are on the extreme fringe, it’s most unlikely to be an issue. A more likely case would be if some registrar objected to an inter-religious marriage, and given the outcome of this case, he/she could probably insist on having his beliefs accomodated.

Whoops, “between different races.”

What religion forbids marriage between black and white races? I’ve never heard of any such religion.

The law does not just protect mainline religions or denominations, so your claim for accommodation doesn’t have to be based on a mainline or prevalent interpretation of Christianity. If you hold the sincere belief that race mixing is required by your interpretation of Christianity, the state may not reject accommodation on the basis that your religion is not theologically consistent with Christianity, though a very idiosyncratic belief might depending on circumstances cast doubt on your sincerity.
And also as a matter of principle, it’s unsound to have a law saying that a sincerely held irrational belief in gender apartheid is more worthy of accommodation than an equally sincerely held irrational belief in race segregation.
Either people’s beliefs matter and should be accommodated or they don’t and shouldn’t. But the boundaries between accommodation and nonaccommodation should be drawn based on a balancing of the countervailing interests and not based on society’s own prejudices as to which sincerely held beliefs are religious or crackpot. All religious beliefs are irrational, so the distinction between race and gender with regard to religious accommodation can’t be that the former is more rational than the latter.

“Either people’s beliefs matter and should be accommodated or they don’t and shouldn’t.”

But, as we live in a democracy, and both the religious and atheists vote, we’re never going to see anything other than quite messy (and illogical) compromises.

Brett I don’t think you needed to exaggerate the facts, the real case is problematic enough. Before joining the “obviously the decision is outrageous” brigade, (although that view is largely correct), I think in the interests of measured and balanced debate 2 small points could be made for the Registrar in this case.

First, I think it can be argued that a change in an employer’s practices which affects existing employees involves different issues to changes that merely make a job acceptable or otherwise to new applicants.

So for example if a devout Moslem was working in a supermarket in an area with a high Moslem population such that the supermarket had always, as a matter of policy, refused to stock pork products, then I would actually have some sympathy for the employee if the employer unilaterally changed this policy and said the employee would be sacked forthwith if they refused to handle pork. I have no sympathy for a new applicant who refused to do so. The same principle can be applied to the Registrar.

Second, in practice wouldn’t anyone sane want their civil partnership ceremony to be overseen by someone who was positive about it and joined in the spirit of the occasion? The one I went to in Tower Hamlets last year was enhanced by the cheerful Registrar. Some miserable git crossing themselves to apologise for the sin they were about to be engaged in would have thrown a pall over the proceedings. So if Registrars can sort this out behind the scenes so everyone gets a good service when they want it, is that so very wrong as a system? Is it any worse than train drivers swapping day and night shifts to suit themselves, for example?

Yes, it does seem Brett’s got the wrong end of the stick. I heard briefly this morning that a registrar had won a tribunal over refusing to marry a couple for religious reasons and assumed that this is what Brett was writing about. Perhaps Brett is trying to make some kind of parallel between racist and homophobic discrimination, in which case he didn’t make it obvious. The woman in the photograph is actually the registrar who refused to perform a same-sex marriage for religious reasons. But the argument stands: if the marriage is legal, it is not the registrar’s right to refuse to marry a couple, gay or straight, black or white. If you hold certain prejudices over who has a right to marry that go beyond the law and you wish to enforce your beliefs in your job, then you should become a vicar not a registrar - unless, of course, you are female and against the ordination of women, in which case you can go screw yourself.

I think that peoples religious beliefs should be accomodated as long as they do not breach broadly acceptable norms for the secular society as a whole. The problem with this judgement is it opens the way for an anti discrimnation case to be brought by a member of the KKK for instance.

I wonder if the registrar would have won his case if he had based his objections on political (or biological) rather than religious grounds.

There was a case where some firemen refused to hand out leaflets at a gay pride festival, and were given written warnings and one was demoted. They were judged to have been guilty of a “fundamental breach of their core responsibilities”, which is balls if you ask me because handing out leaflets is hardly the core responsibility of a fireman, compared to, say, presiding over civil ceremonies if you’re a registrar.

Anyway as far as I know they didn’t try to justify their refusal to attend the festival on religious grounds. For all I know it could have been because their job is to fight fires and not hand out leaflets at pride festivals.

Since the only religions that object to marriage between different religions are on the extreme fringe, it’s most unlikely to be an issue.
Not so, the law sets a proactive precedent, which can’t exclude the rare case. You would be surprised that many landmark free speech and fre exercise cases grew out of minority religions attempt to use the legal system to their advantage. There is also the likelihood that the more the law accommodates certain behavior, the more likely is the same pattern to occour in the future.
The problem with religious accommodation law apart from its implications for gender and sexual orientation equity is the implicit assumption that the sincere believer is entitled to freeriding at the expense of nonbelievers. The registrar might argue that accommodation is no big deal, since the couple could always find a replacement, but why should the cost of one’s beliefs be imposed on others?

Wardytron, handing out leaflets may not be a core responsibility of firefighters, but promoting fire safety is. One of the ways of doing that involves leaflets.

“Should deeply held religious beliefs be grounds for refusing to deal with some members of the public?”

No. And attempts to get around providing the service you are contracted to provide to the public should result in termination of your employment contract.

This reminds me of the cases of some rather untheologically sound muslims refusing to handle cigarettes or alcohol for customers in supermarkets. This has never happened to me, but if it did, I’d damn well ask to see the manager to express my displeasure, because it is profoundly offensive.

It also reminds me of some medical students refusing to learn about alcohol-related illness or STDs because of what they laughably call their “morals”.

You should either do your job, or get slung out. It’s that simple. Fuck your exceptionalism and the horse it rode in on.

Gosh, I seem to have become slightly Mail-esque there. Oh well.

If you put aside the issue of religion for a minute is there no room at all for conscience? For example if the immigration officers who deported Ama Sumani refused to do their jobs because their consciences hadn’t allowed them to do it and then had felt pressured to resign (or had been dismissed) should they win at any subsequent tribunal?

But, as we live in a democracy, and both the religious and atheists vote, we’re never going to see anything other than quite messy (and illogical) compromises.

Then better to have no accommodation at all, if a law imposing the costs of accommodating crazy beliefs on third parties can’t be drawn based on anything but gut feelings, which is the flip side of bigotry against beliefs considered beyond the pale, the law is only a protectionist racket for orthodox and already established religions. So what the law really should say is that you have a right to reasonable accommodation, as long as your belief is consistent with 51 % of the active voting population.

State recognised union - what a foul concept.

If this is a true story, then I am shocked by it, as my understanding of the law is that one strand of equalities legislation should not be allowed to trump another. The fact someone had a religious belief does not allow them to discriminate on any other grounds.

It is the job of a registrar to conduct weddings, and if they are unwilling to do so, they are in breach of contract. They would also be obliged to comply with their employer’s anti-discrimination policies.

I am aware, however, that registrars’ employment is unusual in that they were statutory officers and have only recently become employees under the Statistics and Registration Service Act, so could this be a factor in this bizarre decision?

The “Daily Mail” case seems somewhat different. The registrar in question was subjected to workplace bullying, which is not acceptable under any circumstances. She should have beed dealt with appropriately by management.

Ironically, I thought it was precisely to mollify bigoted individuals such as her that we do not have gay marriages in this country, merely “civil partnerships”. The case suggests that this compromise is not working and full gay marriage should be introduced.

It cannot be entirely irrelevant to the discussion that there is no Christian belief prohibiting inter-race marriages. If racism is to be accepted as a “religious belief” then we are in deep trouble.

Or fight a civil war, and let the winner determine the rules by which we live.

I suspect Brett wrote the reverse of the truth to make us (and perhaps her) think about how shocking discrimination against gays is. She is indeed the registrar who refused to conduct civil partnerships and, yes, her religious freedoms were upheld by a tribunal today. It shows me yet again why employment law should be rolled back to the absolute minimum and let the market (ie: employers’ need for labour of whatever colour, sex or sexuality) do the rest. She should have been sacked the first time she did it.

mettaculture; There was the case recently where the magistrate tried to claim constructive dismissal because he felt obliged to resign rather than approve homosexual adoptions. He lost, but of course different Employment Tribunals can give conflicting decisions, as they don’t create precedent. I don’t know whether he persisted with his appeal and if so what the EAT said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/7055708.stm
The man in question justified his position in the comments on Mrs Trelllis blog:
http://mrstrellis.cream.org/?p=295

ChrisC hit the nail on the head with this one, when this woman first started working as a Registar, she was never asked to officiate in gay marriages, so it was a change in conditions, because of that Islington Council had a duty of care to their staff to make sure that the new conditions were aceptable.

She asked to be excused from same sex marriages, but because her religion is not respected by Islington council I guess they decided that they could not accomodate it. However as it is not a religious wedding but a civil one I happen to think that she should still officiate, especially as I feel that religion and state should be separate, I have to say that Islington council are in the right on this. Though I think that they would have been more sensitive if she came from another religion, whats the betting on that.

It seems that the judgement was based on the fact that Islington council could have accomodated this and chose not to, therefore they discriminated against her religious belief because they did not make a reasonable attempt to accomodate them. In which case I think that the judgement was right, because they could have accomodated her.

We had a lovely one in France, a butcher was taken before an employment tribunal because he refused to employ a Muslim who refused to handle Pork, so he was found guilty of discrimination, but as the bucther was a non-Muslim serving mainly non-Muslims, it was rather difficult…

Tommy: I don’t think anyone should face discrimination on the basis of their religion, sex, ethnicity or sexuality. That’s why it was right to sack this woman, since she was clearly discriminating against people in the community that she is employed to serve. But it would be wrong to prevent Christians from becoming registrars on the grounds that most Christian churches are against same-sex marriages, provided they carry out their duties as the law sets out in relation to marriage/civil partnerships.

Metta,

If the judgment was wrong in law, then why is the government to blame? You appear to be hinting that the registrar felt emboldened by the incitement to religious hatred legislation. I very much doubt this. He acted from religious conscience. These people have always existed and always will.

The tribunal clearly screwed up. A church should be able to have whatever rules it pleases, but this is a public institution and the registrar has responsibilities to the public. He can harbour any private prejudices he likes, but his bigotry ought not to be rewarded with a salary from the state.

If the law was changed to allow cats to marry dogs, a registrar should be obliged to marry them or quit. Simple as that.

As for pork and alcohol, I don’t think Muslims are told they cannot touch it, just that they cannot consume it. Hence, Muslim waiters serving alcohol in restaurants, Muslims using alcohol as a solvent, or Muslim doctors prescribing insulin.

Okay, Brett’s slyness has me all confused. The regsitrar is a she, it seems.

Brett has been a trifle naughty, if clever.

The lady in the photograph is a Christian registrar who did not want to register a gay marriage.

What religion bars inter-racial marriages? Easy - until very recently that was the position of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa, which provided the theological justification for apartheid. And in 1949, in one of its first legislative moves, the apartheid regime passed the Mixed Marriages Act, which outlawed all marriages between black and white. That was followed by the Immorality Act, which banned all sexual relations across the colour bar. These laws caused the misery that is predictable when priests and politicians stick their noses into people’s bedrooms, and they were not repealed until 1985.

But this case, despite Brett’s misleading post, concerns gay unions. Since these are entirely legal, there is no doubt that the registrar was violating her elementary duty as a public servant, and should have been sacked on the spot. Compensation should have been paid to the gay couple, who must have suffered some amount of emotional distress.

This sort of decision is the thin end of a nasty wedge. Will we soon be hearing of homophobic dustmen claiming religious grounds for not empying the bins outside gay people’s homes? Or policemen alleging that their religion does not allow them to investigate crimes against gays?

Dan, I wouldn’t stop her being a registrar. She would just have to fulfill the terms of her contract if she accepted the job. I worked in a dole office and had a problem in principle with handing over large amounts of money to certain people I believed to be frauds. But I was contracted to do so, and did. Employment tribunal claims have become a racket and we all know it.

“If the law was changed to allow cats to marry dogs, a registrar should be obliged to marry them or quit. Simple as that.”

So presumably, Dan, during the dark days of clause 28 you were out on the streets demanding the sacking of teachers who refused to teach that homosexuality was not as acceptable as heterosexuality?

By the way, how much was the tribunal’s decision influenced by what they clearly believe was the abusive and offensive treatment she was subjected to at her place of work? It’s one thing to ask the registrar of 16 years to continue to carry out her public duties for which she is paid, but quite another to subject her to “bullying” and “intimidation”.

She wasn’t sacked or even suspended, so the compensation isn’t for loss of earnings. If it is for the treatment she received, then maybe it is a fair decision afterall.

Of course, if she continues to refuse to overssee same-sex marriages, the council should be entitled to fire her ass.

Shocking - the racist should have been sacked, or at least disciplined. If your religion clashes with your job, change jobs. Or change religions. This applies to all religions - Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. The state should employ people who respect secular rules and values.

Equally, if you don’t want to serve alcohol, then don’t become a waiter in an establishment that serves it. Get a job somewhere else.

“So presumably, Dan, during the dark days of clause 28 you were out on the streets demanding the sacking of teachers who refused to teach that homosexuality was not as acceptable as heterosexuality?”

Did Clause 28 oblige teachers to teach that homosexuality was not as acceptable as heterosexuality?

If I recall, teachers were required to refrain from promoting homosexuality as an acceptable life style, which I think is pretty much the same thing. Certainly the teaching profession thought it constrained them somewhat.

Conscience must be allowed. However, some occupations involve interactions as part of their duties which might conflict with personal belief, not necessarily religious beliefs. The case cited by Brett at the beginning of this thread is somewhat strained in my view; but the issue is how far can one expect one’s views to over ride duties which are necessarily part of the job? If handling say, even packaged bacon is against one’s ‘faith’ or culture, was taking a job in a supermarket a wise choice?

It can be argued that in one case supermarkets have always sold bacon; only recently have same sex couples been able to enter into civil partnerships. Like women bishops in the Anglican Communion some find the rules have changed around them, not they themselves. Some accommodation based upon that circumstance would seem just however much other people, as I do myself, welcome women bishops and civil partnerships.

The case which sparked this thread is about such a situation, but it is simply the background to an over riding claim of “harassment” which formed the basis Ms Ladele’s case. The court has ruled on this claim rather than the religious question. It has upheld the claim of harassment. I support Ms Ladele’s case in this instance because when she became a Registrar Civil Partnerships were not lawful. However, I regret that she has chosen to invoke Christian teaching to support her claim.

The Anglican view is that marriage in church is between a man and woman. At present only a small number within the Communion wish to change this. The Civil Law is different and governs all, Christian or not. Why drag religion into this? It seems to revolve around the issue presenting the strongest case possible, the fundamental – that word again – ground for a personal belief. “I do not like so and so” is obviously much less effective in a court setting than “My religion forbids so and so”.

The real problem here is Islington council’s inability to accommodate employees with religious convictions. Until recently registrars were allowed to choose whether they wanted to conduct same-sex ceremonies but now the council forces them to do so. What happened to allowing choice? What hapenned to moderation? Same-sex ceremonies are now accepted by most parts of society but so should religious views be accepted.

Sorry, but I think this is a poor post - or perhaps I should say, too clever by half. The assumption that race is equivalent to sexual orientation needs to be argued rather than assumed. Meanwhile you can sit back and feel smug about all those commenters who were fooled into thinking that there really was a case where a registrar refused to marry people because of their race.

If she’s that religious, surely she believes all civil unions are illegitimate and only unions conducted in the sight of Goad are valid.

“Should deeply held religious beliefs be grounds for refusing to deal with some members of the public?”

Easy Peasy.

If you’re imaginary friend that always agrees with you wants you to pick and chose who you should serve on the government trough (which has to serve all), then maybe you and your imaginary friend that always agrees with you should go private.

“teachers were required to refrain from promoting homosexuality as an acceptable life style, which I think is pretty much the same thing.”

Not really. They were told not to promote homosexuality. They were not told to teach that homosexuality was less acceptable than heterosexuality.

“Same-sex ceremonies are now accepted by most parts of society but so should religious views be accepted.”

She can hold whatever convictions she wants to hold, but she should still act in accordance with her duty as a registrar. Her beliefs are irrelevant to her duties. Some Christians do not recognise divorce, so should Christian registrars be allowed to refuse to marry divorcees? How far does “moderation” and “accommodation” have to go before pandering to religious prejudices compromises public services?

Public servants cannot choose which new laws they wish to abide by on matters of conscience. When the poll tax was in force, were those workers in council revenue departments allowed to refuse to collect poll tax because of their personal convictions? This is a democracy and they have to accept in the course of their work laws that they don’t necessarily agree with and that go against their beliefs.

“So, what are your thoughts? Should deeply held religious beliefs be grounds for refusing to deal with some members of the public?”

NO.

It’s not a transaction in a shop. This is marriage! And some people believe that it should be restricted to heterosexual couples. Why should this registrar have the will of others imposed on her? Whether you believe in same-sex marriage or not, why can’t people respect this one individual’s right to follow her beliefs for once? The same-sex couple get married by someone else and the registrar’s beliefs aren’t impinged on.
PS I agree with MickH - this is a poor post, for the people who haven’t read closely enough, it has NOTHING to do with race.

Should deeply held religious beliefs be grounds for refusing to deal with some members of the public?

No, deeply held religious belief should be grounds for mockery, that twiddley finger thing at the side of the head.

For a registrar to refuse to marry people is like someone getting a job at British Aerospace and then refusing to do any work because they believe it’s unethical to make weapons.

This religious “respect” and accommodation to what imaginary supra natural beings have dictated is a quagmire that will only get worse. The strange thing is that only some imaginary supra natural beings are to be accommodated; generally I suppose you can’t claim any fantasy being then there is a risk you get compulsory care on the ground that you might be a danger to your self or the society. It usually has been better to claim a fantasy beings diktat then being a secular pacifist to be relived from mandatory military service, one do wonder why imaginary beings is a sure trump.

It going to be a bottomless swamp for future employers to be up to date in what ever religion potential employees might have or convert to. Its not going to be easy for self-employed hairdressers that want to hire some help.
a minor list of religions and spiritual traditions

As there are countless small religions how to verify belif to be “real” or” legitimate”, personal individual conviction could probably be counted in billions, maybe close to 7 billion.

Soon as I saw the picture I knew this post was dodgy…

What ARE you playing at?

Whether its deliberate or not, its the second post with decidedly suspicious intent (see the tripe about the jamaat e islaami involved in the 71 Bengali ‘holocaust’).

What is perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this nonsense is that you should choose the fictitious marriage of a ‘whitey’ and a melanin-rich West African lady…whose ceremony is officiated or not officiated over by a Christian…

The words ’skeleton’ and ‘closet’ march unreservedly in the name of equality on this one.

MarkT - you can’t be serious. Are you really suggesting that Council staff should be allowed to choose who they do or do not serve. That makes a mockery of anti-discrimination legalisation and equal opportunities policies.

Indeed what puzzles me about this case is that as a Islington Council employee she must have agree to conform to equal opportunities policies (that include sexual orientation), long before the introduction of Civil Partnerships legisation. So her refusal to undertake Civil Partnerships was clearly a breach of contract, making displinary action appropriate.

Am I the only one who is slightly concerned at the enthusiasm here for seeing people sacked from their employment?

This is entirely regrettable and was foreseen when legislation on religious discrimination was drafted. The law has been strengthened since 1998, when a Jewish food taster at M&S lost a discrimination case when she lost her job over refusing to taste prawn sandwiches. It seems that now it would protect a Mormon waiter who refused to serve coke or coffee.

Unfortunately, it appears that the tribunal came to the right decision in law, if not in common sense as the person involved discriminated equally against people of different ethnic origins who wished to marry each other. It seems to me that it’s up to the employer to reword the registrars’ contracts to take this problem into account.

Claiming constructive dismissal is very difficult as the plaintiff needs to show a substantial change of contract, so I’m not surprised that the person refusing to register homosexual adoptions lost. There may also be issues about the length of time for which this person worked for the council and the treatment he received about which we know nothing and may have influenced the tribunal’s decision.

ChrisC, yes - I hope so.

I fell obliged to point out that the “MarkT” above is not me, Mark T.

Particularly as I disagree with him.

Where is the link to the original article? Where was this reported?

Well its a win-win situation for everyone isnt it? The registrar has won a nice handsome payout, the lawyers at the tribunal have had another pay-day on the council’s budget, the descrimination law has been bolstered by this precident making likely more of the same, and the couple got married in the end anyway. Frankly, a better outcome all round is hard to imagine.

The only big-time losers are the council-taxpayers who must foot the bill for all this high-jinx, but who on here gives a flying toss about them anyway? Serves ‘em right for speculating on housing.

It’s the ’similar case’ story semore, Brett’s pulled a hilarious prank on us all. The woman pictured is, in fact, none other than the registrar in question.

“Why should this registrar have the will of others imposed on her?”

Because the democratically-elected parliament decided to legislate for same-sex civil partnerships and she is, as a public servant, obliged to fulfil her duty in enabling these partnerships. If a public servant feels a law is contrary to their fundamental beliefs and prevents them from fulfilling their roles, then they should leave. Parliament has sovereignty, not the church.

I am unimpressed by Brett’s article. The issue is not the type of prejudice (homophobia is as bad as racism), but the fact that religion gives public servants an opt-out of carrying out their jobs. But the comparison with racism doesn’t really work as there is no Biblical basis for opposing mixed-race marriages, even if Christians in the past have taken this line. Brett could have made a better argument, rather than misleading people to make a point.

Fortunately we know from Brett’s OP ‘more than a civil union’ on june 17th, civil unions are less than marriages, so while it’s not great that the registrar won this case, we can take consolation that it’s less serious than if it was hetro’s getting wed.

“First, I think it can be argued that a change in an employer’s practices which affects existing employees involves different issues to changes that merely make a job acceptable or otherwise to new applicants.”

“ChrisC hit the nail on the head with this one, when this woman first started working as a Registar, she was never asked to officiate in gay marriages, so it was a change in conditions, because of that Islington Council had a duty of care to their staff to make sure that the new conditions were aceptable. “

I don’t think this should apply to civil servants because the nature of the job requires them to carry out public policy. If you’re a judge or a public prosecutor, you can’t claim your terms of emplyment are changed every time a new law is passed or ammended.

A police officer is required to enforce the arrest people who break the law, not only those who break laws he approves of. Teachers are required to teach an approved curriculum, and so forth.

The public have a right to equal access to public services without fear or favour. If you don’t feal you can offer that, it is better not to enter public service.

The whole point of having civil marriages is so that the church can control how it wants to govern religious marriages. It is unfair if civil marriages now have to accomodate the intrusion of religion. Religious marriage and civil marriage were separated in law to prevent precisely this sort of conflict!

Brownie

Only in the case of race would the Government have been in violation of the EU Directive on race.

Once the Commission issues a directive member states are given a period of timeby complying with national legislation to implement such a directive (in the case of Race our own anti-discrimination laws predate the EU directive but there are some differences so that a ruling could comply with national law but not EU law, the EU directive does not specifically cover ‘colour’ as opposed to ethnicity as a feature of race, Lawyers love these things).

If a Government does not implement a directive or fails to implement it correctly then it becomes liable for breaches.

In the case of Religion and Sexual orientation though discrimination on these grounds is prohibited in Article 13 of the treaty of Rome as ammended by 2001 Nice treaty the commission has not yet delivered its expected directive to specify this.

So the UK is ahead of the EU in a more comprehensive set of anti-discrimination law.

It also seems that the commission is getting cold feet over sexual orientation and the promised directive may now only cover Disability (again an area that the UK is in advance over).

This will have serious implications for exactly these kinds of cases, even in Ireland where the majority of schools are Roman Catholic confessional schools homosexual teachers may be left unprotected from basic employment protection.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-7598.html

to see how the system works see

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/legis/lgdirect_en.htm

It is important to note in this case over sexual orientation that the equality Commission in (its previous guises) advising over legislation and its submission to the EU that there must be no hierachy of rights over anti-discrimination 9especially over Employment).

So religious non-discrimination should not trump race or gender or orientation.

The equality commission’s guidance while not itself law is citeable before Employment Tribunals and notice should be taken of it PARTICULARLY AS AN AID TO CONSTRUCTION IN UNDERSTANDING THE MEANING OF ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW.

I would argue that the tribunal therefore misdirected itself on the meaning of non-discrimination on grounds of religion legislation in relation to similar legislation on sexual orientation, and is thus wrong in law.

Effectively the tribunal is ruling that it was Parliament’s intent in drafting such legislation that discrimination based upon religious conviction should be allowable but on no other grounds.

As we know from the close media attention to this legislation that was not and cannot have been parliament’s intent.

If such a construction can be maintained (and as ami said Employment Tribunals do not make law in the sense of setting precedent) in a higher court, then the court is obliged to look beyond the black letter legislation for the actual intent of parliament.

So it has to be wrong as the Government assured us and parliament that there would be comprehensive anti-discrimination law covering Race, gender, disability, age, religion and sexual orientation providing the same protections in the same instances and that this would not entail a ‘hierachy’ of rights where such rights might intersect, so that one right would be priviliged over another.

No doubt the Tribunal thought they had dealt with sexual orientation by claiming that there were other officers who could carry out civil partnerships, but that is simply not good enough.

(its a bit more complicated as much of the legislation is implemented not by statute ie Sovereign parliament’s real intent but by secondary legislation or statutory instrument which is delegated to a minister and so is not real law in the sense that it is within the power of a court to rule it unlawful unlike in the case of an Act of Parliament)

“But the comparison with racism doesn’t really work as there is no Biblical basis for opposing mixed-race marriages, even if Christians in the past have taken this line.”

Equally it can be argued that there is no biblical prohibition on same-sex civil partnerships, which are, after all, a secular contract.

There are biblical arguments against the mixing of the races too.

But neither is the point. It is not for the state or the secular courts to rule whether your thoeological understanding is valid or correct. The issue is ONLY that it is your deeply held and sincere belief.

Secular courts cannot determine whether your religious belief is theologically justified. That is not their role. They can only rule that it is your belief, and thus certain respect and concessions must therefore follow.

Sorry, but I think this is a poor post - or perhaps I should say, too clever by half. The assumption that race is equivalent to sexual orientation needs to be argued rather than assumed. Meanwhile you can sit back and feel smug about all those commenters who were fooled into thinking that there really was a case where a registrar refused to marry people because of their race.

With respect, Mick H and MarkT (no space) are missing the point. The registrar invoked a religious objection. The issues is whether a religious objection should be enough to get a dispensation from having to perform your public duty for which you are paid. Whether the objection is racial in nature, related to sexual orientation or based on an aversion to having to deal with people called Nigel, is entirely irrelevant.

Far from being “too clever”, Brett has demonstrated, by example, why this tribunal decision is such an absurdity. He doesn’t need to show that race is equivalent to sexual orientation, rather, supporters of this decision need to show why some religious objections (e.g. the ‘reasonable’ ones) should be accommodated and others should not (assuming they believe it would indeed be wrong for religious objectors to refuse to marry people of mixed race, for example).

Indeed, they ought to go further and explain why religious and not, say, political objections should be accommodated.

“She wasn’t sacked or even suspended, so the compensation isn’t for loss of earnings. If it is for the treatment she received, then maybe it is a fair decision afterall.

Of course, if she continues to refuse to overssee same-sex marriages, the council should be entitled to fire her ass.”

No, as far as I’m aware, the ruling is that she can return to work and will be excempt from performing civil partnerships.

I further contest that she should be compensated for hostility towards her. If a person expressed racist views in teh workplace and other people became hostile to them, would they have a valid claim of compensation? Should Richard Barnbrook be able to sue for hurt feelings and suffering hostility because colleagues refuse to share a platform with him and publicly snubbed him on live television?

Let’s see…taking the post to its logical conclusion…

white people can marry black people…

pink people can marry blue people…

…but can Muslim girls (think sexy Pakistani, Bengali, Lebanese..) marry non-Muslim men?

http://seekingilm.com/archives/338

…guess not!

If religious convictions seemingly transcend all other considerations (as per the apparent judgement), why wasn’t similar latitude granted to Catholic adoption agencies recently? It strikes me they’d be strongly advised to pursue this further as the (legal) double standards are breath-taking… The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

I further contest that she should be compensated for hostility towards her. If a person expressed racist views in teh workplace and other people became hostile to them, would they have a valid claim of compensation? Should Richard Barnbrook be able to sue for hurt feelings and suffering hostility because colleagues refuse to share a platform with him and publicly snubbed him on live television?

I think all workers are entitled to a working environment where they feel neither bullied nor intimidated. “Snubbed” wouldn’t cut it. Colleagues aren’t compelled to be friendly, but the accusation is that this registrar was on the receiving end of much worse.

And whilst I’m in full agreement that she should be made to meet her obligations as a public servant or be fired, I still make a distinction between someone who has allowed their god-bothering to impair their critical faculties and, say, a neo-Nazi.

“I don’t think this should apply to civil servants because the nature of the job requires them to carry out public policy. If you’re a judge or a public prosecutor, you can’t claim your terms of emplyment are changed every time a new law is passed or ammended.”

I don’t particularly disagree Brett, but it’s more complex than just saying it was a legal change that caused the situation. As I understand it, there were informal work-arounds in place whereby the Registrars would sort out their rotas, swapping appointments amongst themselves, so that those who had a problem with civil partnerships could avoid them without any disruption to the public. It was a deliberate policy decision of Islington council that brought this to an end, and therefore I believe it can be argued (please note I only ever said it can be argued) that the employer’s action was unnecessary and unreasonable, and designed to punish her for her views.

I do, however, agree with you that since this is essentially a secular process the real answer ought to have been that there was no reasonable basis on which anyone should have been able to cite their religious convictions as a reason for refusing to perform these ceremonies.

“I still make a distinction between someone who has allowed their god-bothering to impair their critical faculties and, say, a neo-Nazi.”

So it’s a sliding scale of how obnoxiously bigoted your views are that dictates who much hostility you should endure?

Okay, let’s put this on an even keel. What if someone in your office continually expressed racist views and it upset people? Would they be guilty of causing him distress when they became short tempered and unfriendly, or would he be guilty of causing them distress by airing his obnoxious views?

This whole “hurt feelings” thing is very nebulous and slipery, I think.

Good post, Brett. Never agreed with you more (and often didn’t agree with you).

If an employee feels she can’t carry out her duties, the way to find a solution is a redeployment to a job, on the same grade, that she can do. It’s not threats of disciplinary action, even though her behaviour in being unwilling to carry out her duties to the public is unacceptable.

An excellent example would be a City Hall employee of my acquaintance, who has moved from a job close to the Mayor of London to one using the person’s Professional qualifications.

And some posters, people who work for Councils in the UK are not civil servants.

For what it’s worth, I believe that he had no right to refuse to marry them. He is a public servant and his scuples do not enter into it. If it is not proscribed by the law, then he has no grounds on which to refuse. We cannot allow hurt feelings to enter into a debate that should be centred on the law.

mettaculture: What about the case I referred to earlier- apparently he lost in the EAT. How if at all does it affect this case?

Whenever anyone is allowed, by virtue of reference to their ethical or religious beliefs, to default on any part of their contract of employment, it sets a precedent for everyone else. No-one should have a case for compensation on this basis, unless a job description has materially changed during tenure, in which case both parties should be ready to compromise. But very few people are going to be in that position.

Far more common is the scenario in which an employee decides, after accepting a job, to demand the right to default on some or all of the duties, and employers cave in to the pressure to avoid the risks of legal action.

So it’s a sliding scale of how obnoxiously bigoted your views are that dictates who much hostility you should endure?

Well, yes. Not all bigoted views are as obnoxious as others, or as obnoxiously held, are they?

What if someone in your office continually expressed racist views and it upset people? Would they be guilty of causing him distress when they became short tempered and unfriendly, or would he be guilty of causing them distress by airing his obnoxious views?

S/he would get fired. But if they didn’t, then of course other colleagues are entitled to confront such a person with their own views. Bullying and intimidation should still be out of the question, however.

My guess is this registrar went to her boss and explained her objection in a private meeting rather than ranting in the canteen about screaming homos/lesbos. As before, she’s a public servant and I’d therefore argue she should have to look for another job rather than have her religious objection accommodated. But does this make her indistinguishable from C18? No, of course not.

Presumably his colleagues will now sue the council for requiring them to work with a racist and a bigot and to pander to his whims and prejudices.

“This whole “hurt feelings” thing is very nebulous and slipery, I think.”

Indeed it is, but left-wingers have pressed for this legislation for decades, so I’m afraid you must accept it will turn round and bite on you on the backside, sometimes.

ami

I am sure it is highly relevant. The Employment Appeals Tribunal is a court of record and as such tends to have a bit more law in its judgements.

has it been reported anywhere do you know? I haven’t found it yet but on the face of it it appears hard to distinguish the two cases (though hard to tell without knowing the ratio of the judgment)

The EAT is less prone to deliver a judgment that will be scrutinised by the court of appeal as the Chair is usually a fairly prominant barrister/recorder etc.

I hope the council is being advised to appeal this. They are notoriously litigation averse but it rather drives a coach and horses through anti-discrimination policies and would leave local authorities genuinely unable to know what to do especially as they increasingly have statutory obligations to promote non-discrmination.

Seems to me it is a case where the equality commission should become involved as an interested party as allowed for within their own staturory powers.

I like the idea of vetting potential civil servants before the fact as a commenter above suggested. To use an extreme example, when I tried to enlist in the military many years ago, they asked early on if I had any objections (religious or otherwise) to killing people.

Brett’s story reminds me of the pharmacist who refused to fill birth control prescriptions on religious grounds.

…Or perhaps it was the “morning after” pill. I’m not sure.

I profess to being a Christain, but I honestly don’t see why these Christian registrars should have a problem. If their Christian beliefs are so deeply held, they don’t regard a civil marriage as a ‘real’ marriage anyway, so how are they flouting their beliefs by conducting what in their eyes is nothing more than a civil contract?

so how are they flouting their beliefs by conducting what in their eyes is nothing more than a civil contract?

Because contracts aren’t the issue in their eyes. The issue is two guys fucking (married or not). It’s as wrong as a football bat to most religious people.

I thought it was a pretty good post, and it’d be nice to imagine the lady registrar herself reading it, and being compelled to consider how she’d feel if it were indeed true and a Christian racist refused to marry her and her partner. (Not that I hold out much hope of that though.)

I have no problems with gay partnerships; covering inheritance, pensions, child custody etcetera. I just wish the expression ‘marriage’ had been avoided. This ‘meaning creep’ means we now either have to come up with a new word to convey the meaning, or use qualifiers..

That said, if that’s the law, and this woman doesn’t want to carry out her job, tough, she should be fired. I can’t see any difference in this case to Muslims who work for Sainsburys who refuse to sell customers booze.

Why should this woman’s religious sensibilities trump, for instance…those who perform MOTs (road-worthy tests) who cannot abide, say BMWs, seeking exemption from performing their job on Beemers? Another example - why should a BNP supporter in an identical job to this woman, not be given exemption from conducting marriages across racial lines? Why should religious sensibilities trump any other type of sensibility?

So even though the use of the term ‘marriage’ for same sex partners irritates the fuck out of me, I’m rather with the council here.

The premiss of this debate is specious as no mainstream Christians oppose inter-racial marriage (and why would they).

There is no doubt that the beliefs of most Christians and the ambitions of most homosexual activists are in direct confrontation and it is not possible for me to see how both sides can be accommodated since it seems the clear intention of the homosexual lobby to either force Christians to bend the knee to practices they believe to be abhorrent or to have Christians excluded from public life. Should they succeed in this they may find their victory short-lived and Pyrrhic should it come to pass that Christianity is eclipsed in this country by an alternative religion which may prove significantly less tolerant of the homosexual lobby.

Interesting how many of the homosexual lobby are standing up for the rule of law above all else. Presumably they would have been equally strong upholders of the law when homosexual relations were punishable by hard labour. And presumably should the law change back again they will rigorously support its implementation.

“The premiss of this debate is specious as no mainstream Christians oppose inter-racial marriage (and why would they). “

No it isn’t, because the secular tribunals cannot rule on theology. It is not for them to determine whether your conscientious religious beliefs are “mainstream”, merely that you hold them. It is the fact that your religious beliefs are “deeply felt” that is the issue, not the theological orthodoxy of those beliefs.

Besides, there is no such thing as a “mainstream” Christian belief. As we see in the news at the moment, Anglicans can’t even agree among themselves what their fundamental beliefs are, let alone with Catholics, Baptists (and Souther Baptists), Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers and Jews for Jesuses. Is the belief of a Plymouth Brethren elder more valid than someone fresh off an Alpha course? Secular courts cannot - and sure as hell *should not* - have to make these determinations.