Harry’s Place

I bet she wears clothes of mixed fabric too.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut%2022:11&version=49;

And trousers.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut.%2022:5&version=49;

Yet somehow it’s just the gays that matter.

Like all the “devoutly” religious that want to impose their morality, they pick and chose which bits they want to follow in a sort of finger buffet from the Bible.

Anything that doesn’t suit gets cast aside (seafood, slavery, stonings, anyone?), while anything that furthers the bigotry and hate (Leviticus or “St” Paul anyone?) is included.

Bring on the dis-establishment, forthwith.

Having the civil court system determine the level or genuineness of a persons religious belief (which is what it sounds you’re asking for) sounds like a whole can of worms better left closed to me Brett.

Rod Liddle had a surprisingly good article in the Times on Sunday:

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

She is 47. She had a child out of wedlock when she was 20.

No one changes? We are all hypocrits if at 47 we do not believe in absolutely everything we did when we were 20? God knows I have a few regrets but no doubt I am alone here among sin-free people who feel capable of throwing the first stone because they have never done anything they later regretted.

She admits it. She says she is not perfect. Perhaps she found religion.

I think this is a rather nasty and unpleasant article. It is a shame because usually HP is fair even when I don’t agree with it. There are issues here but the woman at the centre of them seems the least important to me.

“it seems her biblical standards apply only to others, not to her own life”

Ah, but there is Christian forgiveness. You can commit any sin in the week - murder, rape, lying, cheating, gossiping, coverting the neighbour’s wife and goats, taking the Lord’s name in vain, rude to your parents, etc - and have it all forgiven on a Sunday. That’s why the Vatican felt obliged to protect paedophile priests who had confessed and been forgiven. What the gay people in civil partnerships should do, in the mind of a Christian, is divorce, repent for their sins, seek forgiveness, welcome Jay-sus into their hearts (amen to that), and they will be “cured”. Until they do so, Christian civil servants can discriminate against them - it’s the law of God and, apparently, the law of the land.

What was she doing carrying out civil marriages, anyway? No doubt of divorcees in some cases.

‘Casting the first stone’ springs to mind.

“Having the civil court system determine the level or genuineness of a persons religious belief (which is what it sounds you’re asking for) sounds like a whole can of worms better left closed to me Brett.”

Oh, I agree. I’ll repost a comment I made on the previous thread on this issue:

“[S]ecular 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.”

The problem here is that - if we allow these absurd consessions at all - without some sort of testing of a person’s religious claims, we’ll have a situation where an employee says “I won’t do that” and when asked why, simply relpy “religion says no”. And since there is no way secular courts could (or should) test matters of theology, we’ll just have to accept religious claims at face value.

Or, we could just say no.

I suggest you actually read the judgement. You’ll find that, on the facts, the Tribunal had no option but to find that she had been discriminated against, and harassed, on the ground of her religion. You may not like her opinions, but the rule of law exists to protect people you don’t like, as well as people you like.

She admits it. She says she is not perfect. Perhaps she found religion.

Nope. She was a Christian when she was 20.

I think this is a rather nasty and unpleasant article.

As nasty and unpleasant as a woman who uses a secular office to pass religious judgement on others?

Interesting. Now tell me about the New Mexico photographer who is being persecuted by the State becase she refused to shoot a Lesbian wedding.

“I suggest you actually read the judgement. You’ll find that, on the facts, the Tribunal had no option but to find that she had been discriminated against, and harassed, on the ground of her religion.”

Is it not the case that anyone holding the job of registrar, regardless of their religion or lack of religion, would be required to carry out public policy? How is that discrimination?

Is it not also the fact that any antipathy she suffered from her colleagues was on the grounds of her attitude to gay people, not on the grounds of her religion? Or are you saying that her coworkers would have responded differently to an atheist or a person of another religion with similarly homophobic views?

“Surely one should apply one’s deeply-felt religious beliefs to oneself before inflicting them on the pubic.”

-surely a Freudian slip here?

“Surely one should apply one’s deeply-felt religious beliefs to oneself before inflicting them on the pubic.”

Haha!

Ladele:

‘I understand that gay people should have rights, just as we all should. But why should those rights be taken seriously over my religious rights?’

Oh brother. Where have we heard this shit before?

Actually Ms Ladele was just obeying the Biblical injuction to ‘Go forth and multiply’. Having children out of wedlock is no big shakes, it’s only the Puritan tradition that sees it as a terrible thing. Lots of other countries are far more relaxed. I haven’t read the judgment but I think Sean Fear is right, it was mainly about the harassement and bullying, which you, Brett, are continuing. I accept your point that the secular state should not allow religious scruples to interfere with its functioning, but cut the dwoman some slack. Her managers’ obviously handled it badly.

“What was she doing carrying out civil marriages, anyway? No doubt of divorcees in some cases.”

Precisely!

In the eyes of the Church, she is facilitating adultary.

I doubt the tribunal confronted her with this piece of logic.

Civil weddings, in any event, were introduced for those who did not want church weddings, or whose weddings were not wanted by the church. It is obscene to now allow religious intrusion into a framework that was created specifically to separate the church and state view of marriage qualifications, and to allow the church to continue its narrow eligibility standards while providing a service for those who fell short or were not Christian.

As nasty and unpleasant as a woman who uses a secular office to pass religious judgement on others?

Answer the charge, Brett. And then look at your own behaviour now and again.

Was she refusing to conduct civil partnerships when she was 20? Has she continued participating in extra marital sex? Do you have evidence that she advocates violence against gay individuals?

Or is this just another boorish athiestic rant in which you ain’t satisfied with only proving someone wrong, but have to drive them into the ground?

http://www.christian.org.uk/ladelejudgment.pdf

Here’s the judgement. It’s a case study in how not to treat an employee, and handle grievances.

If an employer:-

(a) seeks unilaterally to alter an employee’s job description
(b) disregards its own disciplinary procedures in dealing with that employee
(c) ignores that employee’s complaints, while thoroughly investigating a series of malicious complaints made by that employee’s co-workers
(d) leaks confidential information about that employee to the co-workers, who apparently then post that information onto a web-site
(e) tells the employee not to bother applying for promotion because she won’t get it (in advance of the job being advertised)
(f) threatens an employee with dismissal when it has no legal powers to do so,

then that employer is going to get into very hot water, regardless of the employee’s religious beliefs.

The tribunal may have been right to uphold part of her complaint (the reports of her treatment at the hands of her colleagues seem to indicate that things were not handled well) - but there should be no room in the law for an individual to refuse to carry out a civil partnership on the basis of any religious views.

A Civil Partnership ceremony is simply a legal mechanism for offering some protections for a loving relationship which previously did not exist in law. It does not have the same legal status as a marriage. It cannot be dissolved via a divorce. It is a new entity - created by the state to protect citizens who wish to form same-sex relationships.

I would prefer that all had the right to be married - but that is not the case. There are those of us who have to accept a secondary status on the basis of our sexual preference.

This plaintiff may have had a case on the basis of her treatment - but the appeal must make it clear that she did not have the right to refuse to carry out a legal ceremony.

Boogski - “Nope. She was a Christian when she was 20.”

You mean like Prince Charles is a Christian? Do we really want to go over her entire past life and find out when she accepted Jesus as her Lord or whatever it is these people do?

I think a reasonable accomodation with people’s religious beliefs is civilised. I am not sure what she is doing working as a registrar, but the issue here is not the state of her immortal soul but how far the State ought to go to accomodate people’s beliefs. As I said, her behaviour is the least important issue here.

Brett - “As nasty and unpleasant as a woman who uses a secular office to pass religious judgement on others?”

I am not sure that is what she was doing. She said she did not have a problem with Gays or with someone else doing it. She just did not feel morally able to take part herself. I don’t see how that is passing judgement on anyone - and if it was, it would be passing judgement on a nebulous group, not a sustained character attack on a specific person.

I used to work for the British Government. I once got a request for help from an open Neo-Nazi. I not only did a good job but I did a better than usual job. Partly because I was keen at the time but also because my Line Manager told me to throw the request away as we did not help those sorts of people. I did not think it was right to pick and choose which members of the public I liked in order to help them. I accept others might disagree. That surely is the issue here - how far we, as a liberal tolerant society, go to accomodate others even if they are not liberal or tolerant. I am all for allowing people to choose in accordance with their conscience as long as a proper service is provided.

Religious discrimination ought not exist as a crime however.

Alex, this women has stood in judgement of my life and the lives of millions of others, with the backing of the ultra-homophobic Christian Institute, that has devoted all its considerable resurces to undermining equal rights and protections under the law for gay people.

Sudenly it is “nasty” when the spotlight turns and shines on her own behaviour. Fuck her and fuck the people behind her who want to bring the religious stick used to beat gay people back into public life.

“I am not sure that is what she was doing. She said she did not have a problem with Gays or with someone else doing it. She just did not feel morally able to take part herself. I don’t see how that is passing judgement on anyone.”

Right, well, I look forward to you defending a neo-Nazi dustman who refuses to empty weelie-bins belonging to Jews.

And why should only deeply held religious beliefs be respected? Should a bank have a line for “whites only” if one of the tellers is a racist who refuses to serve black cusomers after joining the National Front?

Brett, I’ll ask this out of hope rather than expectation, do you have any evidence, a la Fred Phelps, that she spends her spare time heckling gays or anyone tangentially connected to them? I have no seen evidence of this, but if this exists, I will be extremely unsympathetic.

But I don’t think you can provide it.

“This plaintiff may have had a case on the basis of her treatment - but the appeal must make it clear that she did not have the right to refuse to carry out a legal ceremony.”

It was not actually part of her job description, so, legally, she had every right to refuse.

This woman was treated appallingly by her employer. The fact that one thinks (and I think) that her objections to performing these ceremonies were entirely wrong-headed doesn’t mean that she deserves to be treated badly by her bosses. It’s important to bear in mind that she was not a Civil Partnership Registrar when she was employed and was designated as one by the employer without her consent.

“Brett, I’ll ask this out of hope rather than expectation, do you have any evidence, a la Fred Phelps, that she spends her spare time heckling gays or anyone tangentially connected to them? “

What a bizarre question.

Are you saying that every racist who would prefer not to serve black people or allow them to stay at their B&B would necessarily also attends National Front rallies?

We shouldn’t confuse the issue with the case.

The issue is “should registrars have the right to refuse to perform civil partnerships”

The case is about one woman and the particular conditions around her employment, treatment etc.

Brett, I think you’re wrong to muddle the two here.

“It’s important to bear in mind that she was not a Civil Partnership Registrar when she was employed and was designated as one by the employer without her consent.”

Well, we don’t need to go over ground already covered in teh previous thread, but employees in the public service are required to carry out public policy, which necessarily changes.

A police officer may be pro-smoking, but surely he cannot ask to be allowed to overlook people breaking the law by smoking in a non-smoking area simply on the grounds that he became a police officer before the smoking ban came into effect.

Well, we don’t need to go over ground already covered in teh previous thread, but employees in the public service are required to carry out public policy, which necessarily changes.”

But, as a matter of law, a Marriage Registrar and a Civil Partnership Registrar are separate functions. In fact a Marriage Registrar may not register a civil partnership until they have been designated a Civil Partnership Registrar. And you can’t, as Islington Council have discovered, designate someone a Civil Partnership Registrar without at the very least, consulting with her (and in this case, without even bothering to tell her).

Right, well, I look forward to you defending a neo-Nazi dustman who refuses to empty weelie-bins belonging to Jews.

This is a particularly apposite analogy.

After all, other dustmen could empty those dustbins.

Then, let us say the dustman in question was subject to what he perceived as harassment by fellow (Jewish) dustmen, who felt that his actions were a slight against them.

It is this harassment that leads to the tribunal.

Is anyone going to defend him?

However this woman was treated by her employer, let’s not lose sight of two things:

1. She attempted to discriminate against her fellow citizens, on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
Amazingly, people don’t react well to bigots. That BNP bus driver was treated horribly by his employers, and lost his case. Good.

2. Her job involves conducting civil weddings and partnerships. She is, apparently, now allowed to discriminate in providing this public service.

However, she’d be the first to boohoo if somebody sought to discriminate against her because of her ethnicity, or her inchastity. And she wouldn’t accept it, even if the discriminator pulled up some religious text to back them up.

Mark T, it’s likely that our neo-Nazi dustman’s job description would require him to empty everybody’s dustbin, so he wouldn’t have much of an argument.

However, suppose he did refuse to empty the dustbin of someone who was Jewish, he would still have to be disciplined in accordance with the council’s disciplinary policy, and in accordance with the terms of his employment contract.

You can make the case that employment law isn’t competent to judge religious belief without dredging up personal history and engaging in smear. After all it’s the principle of the thing that you’re concerned about isn’t it?

David T, there is one important thing we shouldn’t lose sight of. Islington Council acted unlawfully and she didn’t.

I used to support legislation that outlawed discrimination on the grounds of religious belief.

Now that I see that it can be used by religious nuts, to justify their attempts to discriminate against other cultural groups, I’d like it repealed.

My judgement on this issue was wrong.

if she is hypocrite that qualifies her as a good christian.

then in the 5 minutes before she dies she will repent, ask god for forgiveness, die and go to heaven.

hypocrisy is the essence of conservative christianism. for them the phrase those who have never sinned should trow the first stone means that they do trow the first stone.

Brett - “Sudenly it is “nasty” when the spotlight turns and shines on her own behaviour. Fuck her and fuck the people behind her who want to bring the religious stick used to beat gay people back into public life.”

Well yes, pretty much. There is an issue here but you ignore it. To what extent should the State tolerate the beliefs of others. Instead what we have is an attack on something she did 27 years ago - a personal attack on this woman. This is not an article called “Stand up for Gay Rights” but “Fake Christian Hypocrit”. It is nasty - and it is also I think unlikely to be true because after all, people do change.

I don’t want to bring back the religious stick to beat anyone. But I am willing to consider the limits that the State ought to go to to consider people’s feelings. Even bigots. I don’t see how the world becomes a worse place if someone is allowed to quietly not serve Gay people - or even Black people or even Jews. It is a problem given her job - perhaps like Taxi drivers, Registrars should not be allowed to turn anyone away. But that is a separate issue from her son and what she did 27 years ago.

Brett - “Right, well, I look forward to you defending a neo-Nazi dustman who refuses to empty weelie-bins belonging to Jews.”

I am perfectly willing to defend the right of neo-Nazis not to serve Jews. As I am with the Refuse company to sack them for not doing so. This all falls into the general category of people being arses if you ask me. Legislation seems a hammer to crack a nut. I don’t see how laws can make people nice. Tolerance is not just for the tolerant. Either we tolerate the nutters or we are not a tolerant society.

Brett - “And why should only deeply held religious beliefs be respected? Should a bank have a line for “whites only” if one of the tellers is a racist who refuses to serve black cusomers after joining the National Front?”

I specifically would not restrict it to religious beliefs. If a bank felt that a White-only queue was a good idea I don’t see why they shouldn’t have one. I would not bank there and I bet a lot of other people would not either. Tolerance and freedom generally results in more tolerance and less prejudice. No sane bank would do so and the neo-Nazi would be fired. Which is also fine with me. The market and freedom puts slow pressure on people to be nice to each other.

Now the real problem here is that this woman worked for the Government. Whether she should be allowed to pick and choose is another matter. I think a quiet bit of management from the management would have solved this much better than any Court.

Fair post, but the fact remains you cannot force people to accept homosexuality. You can certainly demand tolerance, but not acceptance.

‘Now that I see that it can be used by religious nuts, to justify their attempts to discriminate against other cultural groups, I’d like it repealed.’

All such laws are a race to the bottom. This one was Christian conservatives versus the gay lobby, and someone had to lose the identity battle. Common sense should dictate such matters, the couple could have simply gone somewhere else. Why would they want to be married by someone who regards them as sinners? This is entirely different to stories about doctors refusing to touch male patients etc.

“You can make the case that employment law isn’t competent to judge religious belief without dredging up personal history and engaging in smear.”

I agree. But in this instance, conscientious behaviour within a set of parameters introduced by Ms Ladele was the issue. She defined what her beliefs were and what her conscience allowed within a biblical view of relationships. That put her own behaviour on the table.

Incidentally, there is no legal equirement that a civil partnership be sexually consumated, nor is there an ‘adultery’ clause, so her claim that she’d be facilitating a non-biblical relationship is false. The bible says nothing about a same-sex couple living together in a celibate relationship of mutual care and committment.

Thus, in order to determine whether sex would take place, she’d have to ask intrusive questions, and, to be consistent, she’d have to ask heterosexual couples intrusive questions to determine if they too would do anything unbiblical after marriage.

Brett,

I think you have presented some evidence that she is hypocrite when it comes to sex out of wedlock and having children outside of marriage.

Fair enough, but whilst I disagree with Ladele and the decision of the tribunal, you have not presented overwhelming evidence that she is a “fake Christian hypocrite” - if you mean by that she is a fake Christian, i.e. she lied about her Christian beliefs.

According to what you posit, she may be a hypocrite and a Christian. There are no doubt numerous hypocritical Christians, if by that you mean Christians that do not follow everything in the Bible in the course of their entire lives.

However, it may be that her views on same sex civil unions are informed by her religious beliefs. That is something I disagree with, but her hypocrisy in other areas does not preclude the possibility that she is heartfelt in her Christian beliefs.

So, notwithstanding my disagreements with Ladele, I think your post could be rather unfair. Moreover, I think the tone of it is unpleasant, frankly.

So, in essence, this person has used the force of the law to demand respect for one tenet of her professed faith whilst blithely ignoring other aspects of it in her own life.

She is a hypocrite!

David T, suppose an atheist working at a local council was the subject of unfounded complaints by a couple of evangelical Christians which were thoroughly investigated by her line manager. Suppose her complaints were then dismissed out of hand, and the Head of Service then leaked confidential information about her to the two complainants, who then posted it on an evangelical Christian website, would it not be reasonable that she should have some form of legal redress?

Surely religious discrimination laws should provide an exemption where the inherent requirements of a person’s job are involved. It’s a bit silly for a Muslim or Jew working in a smallgoods cannery to argue that they shouldn’t be made to can pork products as this would represent religious discrimination.

I do think this is a nasty and petty post by Brett. As others have said, it should be perfectly possible for HP to discuss the possible conflicts between legislation protecting people from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation on the one hand and faith or religion on the other without this invasion of the privacy of someone who never set out to be a public figure.

If a gay employee of a company took proceedings claiming discrimination by his deeply religious supervisor, and a Christian website chose to publish lurid details of the claimant’s sexual promiscuity 20 years ago, I imagine Brett would object. It’s just as repellant a tactic the other way round.

“David T, suppose an atheist working at a local council was the subject of unfounded complaints by a couple of evangelical Christians which were thoroughly investigated by her line manager. Suppose her complaints were then dismissed out of hand, and the Head of Service then leaked confidential information about her to the two complainants, who then posted it on an evangelical Christian website, would it not be reasonable that she should have some form of legal redress?”

I’m not interested in the minutiae of who said what to whom and whose feelings were hurt. That part of the case I’m perfectly willing to allow the tribunal to determine.

I’m only interested in the part of the judgement that seems to legitimise bigotry and discrimination when the perpetrator can claim religious reasons for their behavior.

So Much For Subtlety- “I think a reasonable accomodation with people’s religious beliefs is civilised.”

Not when your job is to provide lawful, publicly-funded services to everyone. I see it as a case of religious doctrine overriding civil law.

Liddle’s article is pretty hectoring and unpleasant too. There was probably some sort of workable compromise available here if folk on either side could just get off their high horses.

“without this invasion of the privacy of someone who never set out to be a public figure.”

Don’t make me laugh! She had the backing of the Christian Institute!

“I’m only interested in the part of the judgement that seems to legitimise bigotry and discrimination when the perpetrator can claim religious reasons for their behavior.”

I don’t think the judgement does actually give people a general right to opt out of performing their contractual duties on religious grounds.

I certainly don’t think someone’s religious beliefs should give them the right to pick and choose what parts of their job they perform so on that particular point I disagree with the tribuneral, although as has been pointed out above her employers seem to have behaved poorly in general.
I think it is a bit much to smear her as a bigot though. As I understand it her objection was more to do with her religious view of marriage itself rather than a religious objection to homosexuality per se. I have never seen any quote from her which displays any objection or hostility towards homosexuals and indeed I believe she actually attended the civil partnership ceremony of two of her gay colleagues. I think her attitudes are mistaken but I don’t think she’s a bigot.
It has never been a secret that she had a child out of wedlock but then so what? How many of us can honestly say that we have always lived exactly by the moral standards we claim to believe in. People make mistakes and she has admitted she made one herself.

“There was probably some sort of workable compromise available here if folk on either side could just get off their high horses.”

So every public servant - or potential public servant - should have the right to refuse to serve sections on of the public for whatever reason they like? How is this workable?

WHat when people start claiming “indirect discrimination” because they didn’t get the job because they let on in the interview that there might be parts of that job they weren’t prepared to do?

Christian religious bigotry is gradually on the wane, thank the good Lord. However, folk with these archaic views don’t deserve to be sacked nor pointlessly sneered at by the likes of Brett on blogs. There was surely a sensible compromise possible here, that upholds decent principles, but without the need for this silly hoo haa?

“You can make the case that employment law isn’t competent to judge religious belief without dredging up personal history and engaging in smear.”

If you’re going to refuse to perform the basics of your job because of personal reasons, you can’t be surprised if people then mentioned other personal reasons suggesting you’re just a hypocrite.

As Brett says, there is no reason, based on this judgement, why it can’t be subsequently ruled that a Christian registrar can refuse to register illegitimate children. There is absolutely no difference, except that it seems people are still willing to turn a blind eye to discrimination against gays that they wouldn’t against other groups. So Brett is angry? He’s perfectly right to be.

P.

I’m only interested in the part of the judgement that seems to legitimise bigotry and discrimination when the perpetrator can claim religious reasons for their behavior.”

Which paragraph was that, Brett? I must have skipped over it.

Well, Brett, civil partnerships are new thing, and some conservative folks may take time to get used to them.

I think there can be transitional period whereby folks who object on religious grounds can be reassigned or excused for a period, while the whole thing is bedded down. I’m okay with that.

She is, apparently, now allowed to discriminate in providing this public service.

That is the crux of the matter.

She is not fit for the job. This is what happens with monotheism, folks, when it is allowed to creep even a jot into any sort of position of power. Remember those two stone-age bigots who whined and whined about not being allowed to infect their foster children with their stone-age irrationality? They, and this evil bitch should be repeatedly fucked up the arse with a brick, and then, along side the rest of the medieval irrational bigots in this country should be all run out of town. Perferably to the Outer Hebrides. Let their imaginary sky fairy friend look after them with mana from heaven, and leave the rational human race without this rancid monotheistic pollution.

Morgoth, curiously enough, Islington’s barrister chose not to run that particular argument. I wonder why?

She is 47 and had a child ‘out of wedlock’ when she was 20. Big deal. She might have come to christian convictions after that time, or she might, just might have made a mistake. She never claimed to be a paragon of virtue. I’ve never met a christian who claimed to have kept all of God’s laws or claimed to be perfect.

There is a simpler issue at stake here, and that is that you cannot change a person’s job description and force it on them. Perhaps you’d like to change that law as well?

Brett, ethnicity/race ain’t comparable to sexual conduct. Now, where is the evidence that she’d do to gays as neo-nazis would to jEWS?

I am prepared to stand corrected, but surely civil partnerships are as much “public policy” as abortions… which dissenting NHS staff can abjure from. This thread is not about the judgement, per se, but a character assassination of someone whom you disagree with. If this were CiF, the thread would have closed by now.

Brett, ethnicity/race ain’t comparable to sexual conduct.

Alex, are you one of those people who denies there is such a thing a sexual orientation? Or is being gay all about “sex acts”?

I don’t understand how anyone here could possibly defend that woman and/or criticise Brett for being insensitive to such platitudes as “no one’s perfect”, “we all change with time” bla bla bla.

Fact is, the cow refused to do her job, a job paid for by tax payers - many of whom are not Christian or heterosexual - on the basis of her “conscience” as a true-believing Christian. If she can still live wth herself having committed the very sorts of faults she refuses to allow in others, then she is an arrant hypocrite. Whether or not anyone here finds such hypocrisy relevant to her fitness for work, it’s clear that her form of religion certainly makes her unfit for her work. Civil marriages are not religious marriages - if they were, then how dare she, a woman, officiate in them? - if she cannot perform civil marriages to certain groups of people of the basis of irrational and prejudicial beliefs, then what the fuck is she doing working in that job in the first place?

Boogski - “Not when your job is to provide lawful, publicly-funded services to everyone. I see it as a case of religious doctrine overriding civil law.”

Actually they *are* the two real issues here. A lawful publicly-funded service ought to be available to everyone equally. But should every single member of the civil service be available to everyone equally? What we want is for the service to be provided on an equal basis. Does that mean that this specific woman has to do it? Again I think a civilised society tolerates as many people as possible - even the intolerant. A bit of clever management and everyone would have been happy. But the civil service issue is an important one and in theory the civil service ought to be impartial to everyone and perhaps she should have been sacked.

I too see this as religious doctrine over-riding civil law and it is going to be worse when Muslims try it on. But the question has to be asked what a reasonable accomodation is. Should Muslim prisoners be forced to eat pork - or Muslim civil servants work on a Friday?

Brett - “So every public servant - or potential public servant - should have the right to refuse to serve sections on of the public for whatever reason they like? How is this workable?”

It isn’t very workable but it is an issue worth discussing.

Brett - “WHat when people start claiming “indirect discrimination” because they didn’t get the job because they let on in the interview that there might be parts of that job they weren’t prepared to do?”

It seems to me the sensible first step is abolishing all discrimination laws. I don’t see what role they can have in a genuinely liberal society.

Paul Moloney - “As Brett says, there is no reason, based on this judgement, why it can’t be subsequently ruled that a Christian registrar can refuse to register illegitimate children. …. So Brett is angry? He’s perfectly right to be.”

I am not sure he does, but let’s agree he does. That does not justify a personal attack on the woman which ignores pretty much all the important issues. But so what if someone refused to register illegitimate children? Does a specific member of the public have a right to be served by a specific member of the Civil Service or do they have a right to the service? Do they have a right to know whether a specific civil servant does or does not like them? Suppose this woman did her share of work but others dealt with Gay couples. Who loses? Perhaps this is not sustainable in the long run if more and more people object, but I think in a tolerant society people don’t go to the law to solve their petty problems and they don’t take jobs where their conscience is put at risk.

What an amusingly Victim-centric subject and Victim-centric blogpost.

The woman doesn’t want to be a part of some bizarre ceremony which “marries” two people of the same gender. So far, so good. Then she uses her Victimhood to claim money from her employer, no doubt emboldened by her status as a negress in the New Britain. “What the Liberal Elite sow…….”

And now you join in the fray on behalf of the original Victims - the abnormal women who wished to use the institution of marriage to present their mental disability as normal.

The whole thing is a hilarious consequence of turning over half of society into Official Victims. As this present situation has been deliberately engineered slowly - almost imperceptably - many people have been so completely subsumed into the Victim Culture that they can’t see outside it.

Nearly 30 years ago cinemas echoed with laughter as The Judean People’s Front’s “Reg” (Eric Idle) told his comrades he wanted to be woman, as it’s every man’s right to have babies. I can imagine the same scene would probably be met with uncomprehending silence by our inculcated masses, today.

You know, Brett, what you say actually has validity, it is, strictly, correct. However, human beings are funny old things, and cultural change takes longer than writing a new law and regulations.

Perhaps avoiding deliberately sneering at folks, even if they are a bit off in their views on civil partnerships, may actually help things along in the long run?

A bit of flexibility in transition is all that’s called for here, when faced with ingrained conservative viewpoints (however erroneous they are) - this may help move things along. Call it magnanimity.

And I forgot to mention that I agree with the comments that this was badly handled by the local authority and could easily have been dealt with by good management. There was appallingly bad behaviour within the local authority quite seperate from the hot button issue. Anyone commenting here who has not read the judgement in full should do so before opening their mouths.

And there is a clear difference as to why a registrar could not argue that she should be exempt from registering ‘illegitimate’ births. She is not taking part in an illegitimate act. The registration of a birth is the registration of a birth, period. It does not ‘make’ a birth. The registration of a marriage is the creation of something new, a new legal entity in which the registrar is undeniably complicit. There is a clear difference!

“I think there can be transitional period whereby folks who object on religious grounds can be reassigned or excused for a period, while the whole thing is bedded down. I’m okay with that.”

True. I’m willing to accept that there should have been a period of transition equal to that put in place after the passing of the race relations act.

In fact, I seem to remember reading that after universal sufferage, it took about a decade before all returning officers were prepared to accept votes from women. This was quietly tolerated by the understanding women in those constituencies who understood that it was quite a big deal for the conservative misogynists to take in overnight.

Brett, Alec’s point is a good one and I’m disappointed that when it comes to any “homophobia” related issue you seem to lose your powers of rational debate. If a doctor can decline to perform an abortion without being accused of being a sexist, why does a refusal to officiate at a civic partnership automatically make someone a homophobe?

The tribunal specifically deal with this at para.58. Why not address what was actually said in the judgment rather than promote hysterical rubbish about the legitimisation of bigotry and discrimination?

I’ve not seen evidence that any civil unions were prevented by this woman or seen her claims that she originally enjoyed cordial relations with openly gay colleagues refuted.
Seems like she had a real shit for a boss tho.

Albert - “I don’t understand how anyone here could possibly defend that woman and/or criticise Brett for being insensitive to such platitudes as “no one’s perfect”, “we all change with time” bla bla bla.”

Very easily. I am not defending what she did. I do tend to think she ought to be sacked. I have no problems with Brett being angry over it. But to say that she is a hypocrit because her beliefs NOW differ from her behaviour 27 years ago is absurd. Did you do nothing as a 12 year old or a 15 year old you’re ashamed of now? Were you toilet trained 27 years ago? I expect some of our posters were not even conceived then.

Albert - “Fact is, the cow refused to do her job, a job paid for by tax payers - many of whom are not Christian or heterosexual - on the basis of her “conscience” as a true-believing Christian.”

Indeed. And so make that claim. Notice that it has nothing to do with what she did 27 years ago. You see the difference between a valid argument that deals with the issues and a personal attack that does not? Even if she was a hypocrit, what does it matter? Should we ignore this issue until we get a snow white Christian trying the same thing?

Albert - “If she can still live wth herself having committed the very sorts of faults she refuses to allow in others, then she is an arrant hypocrite.”

Or alternatively she has heard of this thing called repetance and forgiveness. Perhaps they ring a bell? Not that, I assume, she was a male homosexual who was getting married 27 years ago.

Albert - “Whether or not anyone here finds such hypocrisy relevant to her fitness for work, it’s clear that her form of religion certainly makes her unfit for her work.”

And what if her work said she could not work on a Saturday or had to work overtime on Friday night? Should all pious Jews be fired from Government jobs that required such things? How far should we go to accomodate others?

Albert - “Civil marriages are not religious marriages - if they were, then how dare she, a woman, officiate in them?”

Sorry? Surely most Christians tend to think you can marry yourself and you don’t need a priest much less a man to officiate?

Albert - “if she cannot perform civil marriages to certain groups of people of the basis of irrational and prejudicial beliefs, then what the fuck is she doing working in that job in the first place?”

A good question. But still one utterly unrelated to her illegitimate son. As far as I can see. Unless you can see a link I cannot?

Perhaps avoiding deliberately sneering at folks,

What’s that Biblical passage about motes and beams in the eye and all the rest of it?

If a doctor can decline to perform an abortion without being accused of being a sexist,

You see, I don’t think a doctor should be allowed to refuse to treat people on “conscientious” grounds if they are employed by the state.

I agree with the comments that this was badly handled by the local authority and could easily have been dealt with by good management.

I suspect that is the case. As I said, there should have been a sensible compromise here, and I am glad Brett has acknowledged the possibility of that.

That does not justify a personal attack on the woman which ignores pretty much all the important issues.

The tone is unpleasant and the headline OTT. There are also some obvious straw man arguments thrown in that are rapidly being dealt with by commenters here.

You see, I don’t think a doctor should be allowed to refuse to treat people on “conscientious” grounds if they are employed by the state.

But in arguing that point with such a doctor, do you think it would be a legitimate tactic to broadcast details of his/her sexual behaviour 20+ years ago? I doubt you would.

What’s that Biblical passage about motes and beams in the eye and all the rest of it?

Matthew 7: 3-5.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye?

Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

David T:However, she’d be the first to boohoo if somebody sought to discriminate against her because of her ethnicity, or her inchastity

Or, as she claims, because of her religion…

Andrew Adams: As I understand it her objection was more to do with her religious view of marriage itself rather than a religious objection to homosexuality per se.

Objecting to homosexuals doing something that one don’t object to heterosexuals doing is a very obvious example of discrimination.

Subtlety: But should every single member of the civil service be available to everyone equally?

Because we pay for them, they work for us, and we are all equal under the law.

I am prepared to stand corrected, but surely civil partnerships are as much “public policy” as abortions… which dissenting NHS staff can abjure from.

Is this dispensation codified? Aren’t dissenting NHS staff permitted to abjure at the discretion of their employers? In other words, if NHS managers demanded said nurses and doctors performed abortions, wouldn’t they have to?

This case wasn’t brought by gay men and women demanding that all registrars be compelled to oversee gay/lesbian civil partnerships; it was brought by a registrar seeking an extraordinary dispensation.

Assuming her treatment was indeed abusive and intimidatory, as the tribunal found, then her employers failed in their duty of care and that alone should be enough to win her damages. If, however, this ruling goes further and does indeed now set a precedent for other public servants seeking similar dispensations, then this is a very bad thing. Although, as per Sean Fear, I don’t think it’s at all clear that this precedent can now be assumed.

And yes, if I were a gay man, I’d be fucking angry, too.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

It’s an abomination: (Leviticus 11:9-12)

10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:

11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

Brownie, as a first instance decision, it sets no precedent. But if all the rulings were upheld on appeal, I think it would set the precedent that if an employee were to ask not to perform some duty on religious grounds, the employer should at least give consideration to that request. But it wouldn’t require an employer to comply with that request.

It is nothing like as far-reaching as many of this lady’s supporters and detractors are claiming.

You really have to wonder why Brett chose to broadcast the fact that Ladele had a child out of wedlock and a relationship out of marriage. He must know this is not particularly relevant, proves little, and privacy should really be respected as default position. The dispute is an interesting one, and should be settled without too much rancor; there is no need to personalise it unnecessarily.

“You really have to wonder why Brett chose to broadcast the fact that Ladele had a child out of wedlock and a relationship out of marriage. He must know this is not particularly relevant, proves little, and privacy should really be respected as default position. “

Benjamin, her whole case is based on her belief that “sexual relations belong exclusively between a man and a woman within marriage”. What’s more, she’s chosen to challenge public policy on this bases. Of course her inability to live up to the very standards she is now demanding respect for are relevant to the discussion.

I’m not sure that the NHS abortion argument is a terribly good parallel, on the whole. It’s complicated by, among other things the fact that it is possible to argue that abortions violate the Hypocratic Oath.

Now, given that the woman in question had a job conducting partnership ceremonies which are set up to exclude religion a better parallel might be doctors and nurses working in an NHS sexual health clinic refusing to offer any advice or information concerning abortion. I wouldn’t defend bullying or harassment of this medic. but it would be hard to argue they should be doing the job they are doing.

“But in arguing that point with such a doctor, do you think it would be a legitimate tactic to broadcast details of his/her sexual behaviour 20+ years ago? I doubt you would.”

I didn’t broadcast her past sexual behaviour. She did. In a national tabloid newspaper!

I fail to see how one’s own personal human failings affect the rights and wrongs of cases such as this. So she’s a hypocrite - so what? She may also be a bigot - in terms of today’s rapidly evolving mores, that is merely not to have moved as fast as the Liberal elite. Should we all accept cottaging as a perfectly valid expression of a relationship in the middle of Tescos?

Personally I don’t like homosexuality, I wish it had never evolved, but here it is, and as it has evolved there must be some subtle advantage for it. I know gay people and have as much respect for them as any others. But I don’t see why the Law (i.e. legislation) has to get involved. Marriage is a very old institution, based on instict, the survival of the species and the peace of society that promiscuity endangers by giving cause for strife and violence. It makes sense for the Law to make it easy for anyone to make such an agreement by underwriting it.

There is no such direct need for gay couples. Why not let them draw up a legal agreement as one would draw up a will? There could be a standard proforma, and such couples wishing to bind themselves into an agreement would be free to do so. Calling legal same-sex relationships “marriage” is to pollute the language. But no, this Government has to enforce its post-sexual metropolitan revolution ethos on us all, and specifically on those who find it is offensive. Let solicitors handle such things, and not force Registrars to do it. Government should never have got involved, in what is yet another Law of unintended consequences.

Writing as one of yer actual christians, I’d say that Ms Ladele should resign from her post because there’s simply no way she can reconcile her duties as a registrar with her very strict interpretation of religious belief. I cannot see how she could, for example, marry a heterosexual couple where one or both had been divorced.

If the Islington Council wanted to combine the roles of marriage registrar and civil partnership registrar, then they should, presumably, have made existing marriage registrar posts redundant and invited staff in those posts to apply for the new positions.

Christians (and possibly those of other faiths but I can only speak for christians) often find themselves holding counter-cultural views that prove expensive in terms of jobs or career success. This goes with the territory - they should not seek compensation because of lost opportunities.

This case wasn’t brought by gay men and women demanding that all registrars be compelled to oversee gay/lesbian civil partnerships; it was brought by a registrar seeking an extraordinary dispensation.

Not really. It was brought by a registrar claiming direct and indirect discrimination and harrassment, all on the grounds of her religion or belief. She didn’t ask for a declaration that she should be exempt from officiating at civil partnerships, so far as I can see.

And given that the employer responded within 24 hours to complaints by gay employees of victimisation by this registrar because of her religious views, but her own claim of victimisation was never responded to at all, it was inevitable that the tribunal would make some findings against the council.

Assuming her treatment was indeed abusive and intimidatory, as the tribunal found, then her employers failed in their duty of care and that alone should be enough to win her damages. If, however, this ruling goes further and does indeed now set a precedent for other public servants seeking similar dispensations, then this is a very bad thing. Although, as per Sean Fear, I don’t think it’s at all clear that this precedent can now be assumed.

Agreed. And if Islington had made any effort at all to treat her complaints as seriously as those made by others, and had not just assumed that she must be a homophobe and guilty of gross misconduct without really considering matters at all, the outcome might have been different.

Note that the evidence showed other local authorities had been perfectly capable of catering for the religious concerns of employees about civil partnerships. Islington council just cocked this up from beginning to end: they designated her as a civil partnership registrar without bothering even to tell her or give her the necessary training and then claimed she was guilty of gross misconduct in her new, but not her previous, role. That could be said to have been a bit like my employer designating me as a first aider without telling me and then sacking me because I know nothing about first aid!

Owing to the countless procedual cock-ups by Islington, I don’t think the case is a precedent for anything, at least so far as the underlying issues of principle are concerned. There’s no reason why this case would mean that a council which could show that it was not practicable to allow a registrar to exempt themselves from duties at civil partnerships, and tried to find alternative employment for the registrar etc. etc. (and all the other things good employers are supposed to do) couldn’t sack said registrar if no other solution could be found.

Dirigible

Objecting to homosexuals doing something that one don’t object to heterosexuals doing is a very obvious example of discrimination.

Sure, I’m not claiming that her actions were not discriminatory. I’m just not sure that she were motivated by bigotry towards homosexuals.

Of course her inability to live up to the very standards she is now demanding respect for are relevant to the discussion.

Possibly, in some setting or another, although I personally would not have discussed it so publicly on a blog. You went further, linking that to your notion that she is a “fake Christian”. I think, from the evidence you posit, the most you can say is she is a hypocrite, and that does not change matters greatly.

However, it does publicise her own private affairs to an unnecessary extent, and in my view that is too great an invasion of her privacy in this particular instance.

“There is a simpler issue at stake here, and that is that you cannot change a person’s job description and force it on them.”

Her job description did not change.

The fact that Christians pick and choose which laws are relevant and which are not indicates that the interpretation of Christianity is skewed by prejudice. There is barely a mention of homosexuality in the Bible and what there is is obscure and open to interpretation. There is nothing in the New Testament that suggests that Christians should ignore Jewish law (whether the Ten Commandments or on keeping kosher). In fact, if this woman just so much as fails to wear a hat or headscarf at church, she is a hypocrite:
“And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.” (1 Corinthians 11, v 5-6)

Hypocrisy pervades every Christian institution. If she wants a literalist interpretation of the Bible and refuse to marry homosexuals (as is their right in the law), then she’d better observe every word to the letter or shut up.

I didn’t broadcast her past sexual behaviour. She did. In a national tabloid newspaper!

True, but by way of saying she wasn’t perfect. You are now rebroadcasting them in an attempt to denigrate her and suggest she is a fake Christian. I am puzzled if you think you are elevating the debate by doing that.

There is a simpler issue at stake here, and that is that you cannot change a person’s job description and force it on them. Perhaps you’d like to change that law as well?

And how precisely has the job changed? It hasn’t, perhaps apart from the use of language used in the Ceremony - that job has not changed on iota - conduct the ceremony - bring the partnership into law - that’s it.

Indeed, I doubt if the change in the law even brought about a change in her terms and conditions; there would not be any need too, surely?

What’s more, she’s chosen to challenge public policy on this bases.

I thought this was an employment tribunal. I was not under the impression that she was challenging public policy more generally. It rather depends on your view of the ramifications of all this.

There appear to be two Dans.

Points taken about the aaortion analogy. Ah, Brett, I said sexual conduct. The act is volutary. Skin colour is not. If you believe there is more to being gay than being a walking penis, why brand someone whom you can only show to not want to be present at a civil partnership a raving homophobe?

Good grief, you’re making me agree with Benji! Desist!

“Judgment
The unanimous Judgment of the Tribunal is thet:
(I) The complaint of direct discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief succeeds.

(II) The complaint of indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in relation to a provision, criterion or practice that from the commencement of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 all Registrants should carry out civil partnership ceremonies and registration duties succeeds.

(III) The complaint of harassment under Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 succeeds.
(…)
Ms Ladele is a Christian. Her unchallenged evidence was that she holds the orthodox Christian view that marriages is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others and that marriage is the God ordained place for sexual relations. She could not reconcile her faith with taking an active part in enabling same sex unions to be formed. She told us that she believed this to be contrary to God’s instruction that sexual relations belong exclusively between a man and a woman within marriage. Paragraph 7 of her witness statement stated:

“A civil partnership is a marriage in all but name. Whether or not there are sexual relations it gives the couple who have entered into it the same rights and responsibilities as a married couple.

Regardless of my feelings for the participants (and as a Christian it should only be love.) I feel
unable to directly facilitate the formation of a union that I sincerely believe is contrary to Gods law. As a matter of conscience I feel unable to draw an artificial distinction between civil partnership that require a ceremony and those that do not.””

If I got it right she was offered to be excluded from doing ceremonies but required to be present as registrant when there was no ceremony or someone else conducted ceremony and continue to do deaths and births and so on. The same stance that had been offered others, a muslim had earlier quit her job because she thought even doing only the register service was to much.

As it seems belief in imaginary supernatural beings made-up “laws” is sanctified I public secular offices.

The Government/Civil Service must have realised there would be this problem and that is why they created a separate post of Civil Registrar. From a trade unionist perspective it is not healthy when job descriptions are unilaterally changed. The union at Islington is either weak or was not prepared to help this woman, probably because they had the same attitudes as Brett. I can see the problems though, a few months ago there was talk about Islamic medical students refusing to learn or treat patients with alchoholic or sexual conditions because they argued that such disorders were ’sinful’ or some such nonsense.

OH, the ole hypocrite accusation!

Betcha think ya caught a big fish,eh?

And so she had a child out of wedlock?

Wo says you can’t be a drunken atheist slut, become conscious of the fact, and then change your style of life?

Christ! I know tons of gay men who are drunken sluts and, at one and the same time, advocates for safe sex and sexual restraint.

They keep telling everyone to use a condom, but consistently refuse to do so themselves!

And gay men who accuse a women of being hypocrites simply because she’s had children out of wedlock is perhaps the most extreme form of hypocrisy I know.

If this ‘born-again’ won’t do her duties as a registrar, she should be turfed out!

The accustaion of ‘hypocrisy’ does not constitute grounds for dismissal, because everyone, Brett Locke included, is a hypocrite.

This women should be fired because she won’t do her job.

Period.

“Ah, Brett, I said sexual conduct. The act is volutary. Skin colour is not. If you believe there is more to being gay than being a walking penis, why brand someone whom you can only show to not want to be present at a civil partnership a raving homophobe?”

Alex. Firtsly, perhaps you missed my point about the fact that civil partnerships do not require or imply a sexual relationship. Secondly, do you commonly suggest that heterosexual men are walking penises, or do you accept that sex is a natural part of their humanity?

Writing as one of yer actual christians, I’d say that Ms Ladele should resign from her post because there’s simply no way she can reconcile her duties as a registrar with her very strict interpretation of religious belief.

Mmmm, it is a bit strict, isn’t it. I mean it’s not as though Islington Council had changed the terms of her employment contract and actually demanding that she herself commit homosexual acts, eat shellfish or wear clothes woven from more than one fabric - all of which she’d be perfectly entitled to refuse to do. All that was being asked of her was to officiate at the ceremony of people who might then do one or more of these things. I don’t agree that her right to follow her religion was compromised or denied by expecting her to do this.

“The accustaion of ‘hypocrisy’ does not constitute grounds for dismissal, because everyone, Brett Locke included, is a hypocrite.”

Calm yourself Papalbullski, I didn’t say she should be fired for being hypocrite.

By the way, do you agree that performing heterosexual civil marriages makes her a facilitator of adultery, since these marriages are not valid in the sight of (her) god. She herself says that “marriage is the God-ordained place for sexual relations”, but ‘God’ does not ordain civil marriages.

Reminds of a certain Cheif Rabbi who preaches of tolerance and inclusion anad against racism who refused a child entering a Jewish school because his mother was a convert and therefore not a “proper” Jew.

Did Harry’s Place cover this or is it just Christian and Muslim ‘hypocrites’ they focus on?

hypocrisy is the essence of conservative christianism. for them the phrase those who have never sinned should trow the first stone means that they do trow the first stone.

Puh-leez!

That is just sooo 70s in tone.

Yes, Christians can be hypocrites, but never to the extent we see with progressives and lefty-atheists.

They’re experts at hypocrisy, and they cover their tracks by always pointing out the ‘hypocrisy’ of others, especially Christians.

Reminds of a certain Cheif Rabbi who preaches of tolerance and inclusion anad against racism who refused a child entering a Jewish school because his mother was a convert and therefore not a “proper” Jew.
Did Harry’s Place cover this or is it just Christian and Muslim ‘hypocrites’ they focus on?

Yes, they did, you fucking imbecile.

Go away.

This women should be fired because she won’t do her job.
Period.

I agree. This is the same case as “The Muslim doctor who wouldn’t service women” with “Christian registrar” and “homosexuals” substituted into the appropriate places.

Not really. It was brought by a registrar claiming direct and indirect discrimination and harrassment, all on the grounds of her religion or belief. She didn’t ask for a declaration that she should be exempt from officiating at civil partnerships, so far as I can see.

One aspect of her case is that being forced to officiate at civil partnerships was tantamount to indirect religious discrimination. And that is precisely what the judgment agreed:

The complaint of indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in relation to a provision, criterion or practice that from the commencement of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 all Registrants should carry out civil partnership ceremonies and registration duties succeeds

This is a totally separate finding to that which found the employer guilty of failing in its duty of care to provide a working environment free of abuse and intimidation.

It’s this aspect of the judgment - that deals with her responsibilities as a registrar - that troubles me.

“You are now rebroadcasting them in an attempt to denigrate her and suggest she is a fake Christian.”

Am I suggesting that she applies different standards to herself than to others and that she basically uses religion to justify her homophobic bigotry? Yes, I most certianly am.

Have to checked the Christian Institute’s background and seen just how many legal challenges to gay equality they’ve mounted and how much antigay lobbying they do? If you think that the object of this excercise for them was simply to help out one isolated individual negotiate an small concession from a single employer, you’re dreaming.

I’m not sure that the NHS abortion argument is a terribly good parallel, on the whole. It’s complicated by, among other things the fact that it is possible to argue that abortions violate the Hypocratic Oath.

At 25 week,s quite arguably. At 5 weeks, that would be a stretch, well without making the anti abortion argument circular.

Yes, Me. Now fuck off, you Jew obsessed nutter.

Indirect discrimination can be justified, however. But it can’t be justified by saying “Do this, or be sacked”.

Of course they imply sexual intercourse, Brett. Stipulate it, no. Plus, I don’t think hets are walking penes, so why should I think a gay is?

Now back to your case for her being a virulent homophobe…

Can someone be sacked if their political beliefs prevent them from carrying out their duties at work?

Of course they imply sexual intercourse, Brett. Stipulate it, no.”

Why do you think they imply sexual intercourse?

Bet this is going to put a doubt in senior managers minds about having gay activists in managerial jobs, are they going to try win liberation on your (or the taxpayers) dime by picking unnecessary illegal workplace battles on those further down the ladder

The travails of the Burden sisters for a start, Brett.

“Did Harry’s Place cover this or is it just Christian and Muslim ‘hypocrites’ they focus on?”

Me’s changed his/her/its views and now accepts that Muslim fanatics aren’t the only religious nutters HP criticises. Trouble is, Me’s choice of comparision and wording makes it clear he/she/it doesn’t like Jews very much and probably fears them more than any other group.

You’re an ignorant fucking stupid cunt.

Me also failed to notice that the story was, indeed, covered by HP, in less than flattering terms.

So in short - total berk.

Seriously, Alex, why do you think they imply sexual intercourse?

Brett:

“Secular institutions should remain secular. If every public servant were allowed to bring their particular religious taboos to work, the system would break down, all sorts of discrimination would return and the expectation that any member of the public could turn to the State for service and support without fear or favour would disappear.”

Yet, Brett, I seem to recall that you supported the Muslim police officer who refused “on moral grounds” to guard the Israeli embassy in London during the Lebanon conflict in 2006.

Your accusing this woman of hypocrisy because of her actions more than twenty years ago is shrill and, I must say, beneath you. After all, you style yourself as a gay atheist, but are to believe that you have never experimented with a woman, said a prayer in school, or attended a church wedding?

By the way, do you agree that performing heterosexual civil marriages makes her a facilitator of adultery, since these marriages are not valid in the sight of (her) god. She herself says that “marriage is the God-ordained place for sexual relations”, but ‘God’ does not ordain civil marriages.

Brett, I’m a Roman Catholic and therefore believe that those employed by the state should perform ALL of the duties outlined in their list of tasks.

If one of this women’s tasks consists in marrying same-sex couples, then she has the obligation and theduty, no ifs, ands or buts allowed, to perform those ceremonies.

One other thing, Brett, could you please have the maturity and the decency to spell my name properly?

Your last name is Locke and not “Schlocke”, is it not?

After all, you style yourself as a gay atheist, but are to believe that you have never experimented with a woman, said a prayer in school, or attended a church wedding?

This could be true, but is utterly irrelevant. Why?

Because Brett is

a) not a civil servant, nor

b) using his atheism or his gayness as a reason to not fulfil whatever public duties this hypothetical job would require him to do, on the grounds of his atheistic or homosexual distaste for certain members of the public.

Do you understand this?

One aspect of her case is that being forced to officiate at civil partnerships was tantamount to indirect religious discrimination. And that is precisely what the judgment agreed…

It’s this aspect of the judgment - that deals with her responsibilities as a registrar - that troubles me.

But the finding (see para87) is based on the fact that Islington’s services to the public were not adversely affected by allowing her to avoid civil partnership ceremonies, and that they had accommodated others with a similar religious concern, including a Moslem.

It’s a bit like a supermarket sacking a Jewish or Moslem employee who did not wish to handle pork products. It might well be unlawful to sack a shelf stacker in those circumstances if it would be relatively easy to organise workloads to keep the employee away from aisles where pork was to be found. Sacking a checkout assistant (for whom there was no suitable employment) would probably be o.k. because there is no practicable way for the employer to stop customers buying pork from joining that employee’s queue.

Just basic employee rights really. I assumed HPers would be broadly supportive of such things.

Alex, this women has stood in judgement of my life and the lives of millions of others, with the backing of the ultra-homophobic Christian Institute, that has devoted all its considerable resurces to undermining equal rights and protections under the law for gay people.

For fuck sakes!

Do you live across the street from Samantha Stevens, Brett?

And does your partner, ‘Abner’, often tell you to take your pill?

I’m gay and I think gay marriage is a not only bunch of crap, but also a mortal danger for gays in the long run, so does that make me a homophobe?

ChrisC, so just so we’re clear. Would you support a council worker who didn’t want to deal with black people?

A situation in which it is possible/accepted. When last I checked, the Burden sisters were still seeking a similar status.

“One other thing, Brett, could you please have the maturity and the decency to spell my name properly?”

When you return the compliment.

“Secular institutions should remain secular.”

Sadly, there are few institutions that are purely secular in this country. Britain has a secular society, but not a secular government - and the situation has worsened under Labour with Blair’s entrenchment of religious interests in the education system.

The Judgment is ridiculous at every level but principally in law and on the facts.

Discrimination must be determined by legal tests not assumed. The tests are the headings of the judgement. The application of the tests (absent as far as I can see) and the legal reasoning is close to the worst I have seen even by the standards of the often quixotic employment tribunals (often a disgraceful shambles).

2.1 Direct Discrimination.

Ridiculous the comparator is other Christians. Where is the evidence that Islington Council treated other Christians less favourably because they were Christians?

2.2 Indirect Discrimination.

Rubbish, this is a test to ensure that as direct discrimination (egg ‘ no blacks’ men only) becomes rarer, less obvious but equally discriminatory measures, or criteria may be used that would discriminate selectively against a particular group.

Examples would be where unnecessary strength or height measures were used in the fire service even for desk jobs that required no such physical attributes thereby selectively discriminating against women.

The comparator here is to see if the requirement of the job (to register civil partnerships) is a criteria that would selectively discriminate against Christians, as opposed to simply people with anti-gay or homophobic sentiments whether Christian, atheist, Hindu or Scientologists..

2.2.2 Indirect discrimination, if it can be shown to exist must be shown to have affected the claimant directly (or no cause of action)

2.2.3 Indirect discrimination measures may be justifiable (colour vision is necessary for an electrician or pilot) if they are a legitimate way of applying a legitimate policy.

In fact this judgement is a text book case of the often inconsistent, poorly reasoned, subjective assessment’s of Employment tribunals that do not follow the rules of evidence that are laid down by statute in the civil and criminal law, but have wide powers to include or exclude any evidence as the tribunal chair sees fit.

Really such tribunals are often a bad and dangerous joke legally. They are not a court of record.

This means that you cannot find out what was actually said in court. The Tribunal chair is required to keep a contemporaneous not of the evidence and proceedings (really! You watch their pen as an advocate).

I had a sleeping tribunal chair case that I took to the court of Appeal (the evidence came from the other sides own solicitor!) but I was never allowed to look at the note book despite obvious perverse findings of fact (that again the respondents solicitor agreed had never been claimed by my client).

In this Judgement the Tribunal chair substitutes (their) opinion for fact. Accepting the view that the orthodox Christian position is opposed to civil partnerships is astounding!.

Presumably they don’t mean the Orthodox Christian Church (whether eastern or oriental egg Coptic and Syrian etc). So this is a meaningless term, perhaps the chair meant mainstream or common. Methodists in Britain are presumably mainstream as are Unitarians and have no opposition to civil same sex partnerships (on the other hand traditional Roman Catholics do not approve of civil weddings for heterosexuals).

No outrageously the tribunal accepts all this guff as unchallenged fact!.

Worse the tribunal accepts as fact the ignorant and incorrect assumption of the claimant that a civil partnership is in fact the legal equivalent of a civil wedding (which by the same illogic must be the same as a Christian wedding).

I started out thinking that the claimant may have been subjected to harassment but I see no real evidence of that. She took lengthy sick leave, refused to do her job and was indulged for a long time by simply refusing to do it.

I imagine that the Council hoped that a quiet tolerance would result in her eventual compliance without a fuss.

I see no evidence that her views were informed by her faith over and above her homophobia as other people of the same or different faiths did not hold the same views.

As for a change in her terms of employment. Yes that happened with ample notice and plenty of time for her to resign in accordance with her conscience thereby avoiding the increasing workplace disharmony of a homophobic nature.

I don’t like unilateral changes of contracts by employers at all. I have fought many such cases of a far more grievous nature in the private sector.

The law is simple you do not have to accept a unilateral change of contract, but the employer is not automatically penalised for doing so.

Evidence from other councils (all hearsay it appears but gratefully accepted by the tribunal as fact as provided by the Christian Institute) is merely background. It shows that some councils have given explicit written change of contract notification requiring written agreement 9rather than affirmation by continuing to work).

In any event when presented with such a notice the claimant refused with a set of misinformed and purely subjective assumptions about the legal nature of civil partnerships and her personal views which she claimed to be those of her faith.

This subjective statement was accepted entirely as fact by the tribunal and as a correct assessment both of the nature of the civil partnership, her understanding of her legal obligations and the doctrinal position of her faith which required she refuse her employment obligations.

The only way to oppose this is to resign immediately claiming constructive dismissal.

Continuing to work under the new (unilaterally determined) contract at all for even (in one case) a day means that you affirm the contract and so accept its new terms.

The law is supposed to protect the people (who happen to have a confessional faith) not the faith from discrimination, but it is impossible to protect a belief this way as it is simply a blasphemy or heresy law by another name.

“Yet, Brett, I seem to recall that you supported the Muslim police officer who refused “on moral grounds” to guard the Israeli embassy in London during the Lebanon conflict in 2006.”

Are you nuts!

It’s a bit like a supermarket sacking a Jewish or Moslem employee who did not wish to handle pork products. It might well be unlawful to sack a shelf stacker in those circumstances if it would be relatively easy to organise workloads to keep the employee away from aisles where pork was to be found.

I think it would be even easier to sort this kind of thing before someone is hired.

According to some interpretations of the Bible (specifically relating to Paul’s letters to the Corinthians), Christians should not marry non-Christians. Is this grounds for a registrar refusing to marry a Christian and a non-Christian? How far will this lunacy go?

“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?” (2 Corinthians 6: 14-15)

Chris C -

How about we reword your post?

But the finding (see para87) is based on the fact that Islington’s services to the public were not adversely affected by allowing the neo-Nazi dustman to avoid emptying the bins of Jewish residents.

Just basic employee rights really. I assumed HPers would be broadly supportive of such things.

This is a thoroughly nasty little post that adds nothing to the debate.

It is also ignorant. I’m not a particularly religous person but even I can understand that just because someone has failed to live up to their moral aspirations it doesn’t necessarily mean those aspirations are fake. The whole point is that they are hard to acheive.

It’s always profoundly depressing when the cause of tolerance gets hijacked by the deeply intolerant.

ChrisC, so just so we’re clear. Would you support a council worker who didn’t want to deal with black people?

Brett, I’ve never supported the Registrar in this case. In fact I think I posted the first HP comment expressing concern about the outcome of the case.

However the law protects employees from discrimination or harrassment on certain grounds, including: sex, race, age, disability, sexual preference and religion and faith. As DavidT has said, there is an argument that the religion and faith category is somewhat different from the others since it involves a status chosen by the employee, so maybe it shouldn’t be on the list. But as things stand, that is the law.

So to answer your question, if a council worker preferred not to deal with black people, and both:

1. the council could deliver services unimpeded to the whole community whist allowing the employee to indulge their preference, whether by finding alternative employment or by organising rotas or whatever; and

2. the council worker could show that a failure by the council to indulge their whim amounted to discrimination on one of the prohibited grounds,

then presumably the analysis would be the same as for the Islington registrar.

But the finding (see para87) is based on the fact that Islington’s services to the public were not adversely affected by allowing her to avoid civil partnership ceremonies, and that they had accommodated others with a similar religious concern, including a Moslem………Just basic employee rights really.

I have no great issue with the principle of accommodation. I’m quite sure that those entering a civil partnership would prefer that their ceremonies were not conducted by those who thought them unclean. But this not the same as the employee having a ‘right’ to absnt themselves from certain duties that fall within their working remit. It’s not at all the same as an employee arguing for the dispensation on religious grounds and then being able to prove religious dsicrimination in the event the dispensation is not given. Even more so when we are talking about employees working in the puiblic sector, where the employers have a duty to deliver their services to all without favour.

A Jewish supermarket worker objecting to handling pork products is not discriminating against anybody; a public sector worker picking and choosing which members of society s/he wishes to interact with, most definitely is. My view is this should be interpreted as a wilful breach of contract (and a refusal to abide by the council’s non-discrimination policy), amounting to gross misconduct and grounds for dismissal. I don’t give a monkey’s how many other registrar’s the council can find to fill in for her.

The tragedy is that Islington council’s mishandling of this case has meant it’s almost impossible to know what would have happened at tribunal if they had bene scrupulously fair in their dealings with Ladele once she made it known she didn’t want to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies.

When you return the compliment.

Since when have I ever deliberately misspelled your name?

And I agree with the numberous commenters who’re describing this posting as nasty and narrow-minded.

You really do hate Christians, don’t you?

How 60s of you!

Well said, Brownie.

Mark T, in response to your reply to me, the above feature does not concentrate on Ms Ladele’s actions, but is instead a deeply personal attack on the woman, smearing her as a hypocrite because, and I quote: “…not only has Ms Ladele had a sexual relationship outside of marriage, but she has produced a child out of wedlock.”

That sounds like the Daily Mail at its worst. Digging up someone’s personal life from two decades ago in order to smear them is the tactic of the gutter press - the article is beneath both Brett and HP.

“You really do hate Christians, don’t you?”

Hahaha. People who know me know how silly that claim is.

I hate Christians (and people of any religion) who use their faith to justify their bigotry - particularly when it involves the denial or rights to others - and who wish to impose their peculiar religious laws on wider society. For that I make no apology.

Run of the mill Christains? Well, I don’t believe what they believe. I find it mildly amusing, but if its a personal belief, it doesn’t really bother me too much. It’s on a par with friends I have who have eccentric views on music.

Digging up someone’s personal life from two decades ago in order to smear them is the tactic of the gutter press - the article is beneath both Brett and HP.

Brett is a gay man. Ladele is a public servant who has successfully argued a case to avoid having to discharge her public duties - for which she is paid - to people like Brett, for no other reason than that they are gay.

If Brett is feeling less than charitable towards Ladele, then I, for one, don’t criticise that.

Brett is a gay man. Ladele is a public servant who has successfully argued a case to avoid having to discharge her public duties - for which she is paid - to people like Brett, for no other reason than that they are gay.

Not true actually. She would equally have objected to officiating for two heterosexual men.

“If Brett is feeling less than charitable towards Ladele, then I, for one, don’t criticise that.”

Try that sentence again but substitute “tolerant” for “charitable” and see how it tastes.

I think it is perfectly fair to argue that there should be limits to the accomodation of religous views and try and establish what those are.

This post doesn’t add anything to that debate. It’s just a deeply ignorant smear job.

Digging up someone’s personal life from two decades ago in order to smear them is the tactic of the gutter press - the article is beneath both Brett and HP.”

Nonsense. Someone who publicly pontificates about the biblical standards or relationships while clearly having fallen far short of them themseleves deserves to be shown up.

It’s no differnt to the raft of Televangelists who get caught with their pants down in the company of prostitutes and rent-boys.

I abhor the concept of “illegitimacy” and have nothing against single mothers. It quite simply is neither a moral issue, nor a scandal for me (nor I suspect, most people).

The only scandal here is that a person who presumed to lecture the public on what a moral relationship was, when and where sex should be performed, and the nature of ‘marriage’ herself fell short on all counts.

What’s worse, this information was concealed until after the judgement. If she had taken the tack: “I’ve made some terrible mistakes in my life and now as a consequence I believe the only form of relationship acceptable to god is this sort”, I may have had more respect for her.

But of course, this doesn’t change the fact that by her own rules, she is facilitating adultary.

Joseph, as I understand it, Brett is not dragging up her personal life in an attempt to smear her, but to show how she herself does not live by the Christian standards she is invoking.

I personally think the child out of wedlock example is a little off the mark, because it was 20 years ago (even if she was a Christian at that time).

But there are other ways of demonstrating her hypocrisy.

For instance, in this photo, she’s clearly wearing trousers.

And yet the Bible says

A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God

I can think of countless other examples that would demonstrate that she is not living by biblical teachings.

And yet she is quite happy to invoke other biblical teachings to avoid dealing with homosexuals.

Can’t one of you lawyer types come up with a pre-screening document that potential public servants must sign before being considered for employment? It might help avoid this nonsense in the future.

Can anybody explain why it is only religious beliefs that are viewed as a legitimate reason for not doing things? Why can’t someone say ‘My deeply held beliefs as a socialist, conservative, anarchist, racist, football fan, etc. etc. mean that I cannot do X?’ Wouldn’t that be just as reasonable?

What Brownie said, in honesty, at 1604 hrs. Not what he said at 1640 hrs. LL is a marriage registrar and, as said above, this does not necessarily mean civil partnership registrar. If she were willing to conduct mixed-sex civil partnerships, which I don’t know, I’d agree she didn’t have that much of a problem with the arbitary change of her contract.

I hate Christians (and people of any religion) who use their faith to justify their bigotry

We’ve end up having this discussion whenever you discuss Christianity, sometimes even the Labour party, especially with reference to sexual propriety. What inevitably comes out is inevitably is your single-minded determination to brand anyone who disagrees with you just one iota as a foaming-at-the-mouth bigot.

So, I guess this woman should be told:
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, “Let me take the speck out of your eye,” when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:1-5)

“Not true actually. She would equally have objected to officiating for two heterosexual men.”

Really? On what grounds?

“I can think of countless other examples that would demonstrate that she is not living by biblical teachings.”

Brett is not acusing her of being doctrinally incorrect. He claims that she is a “fake Christian”. That is deeply stupid. In fact the whole post is just a badly thought out excercise in malice.

Indeed Bob-B.

I wonder what would happen if a Jedi Knight decided he was not going act as a registrar for people he perceived had gone over to the dark side.

Sadly, Jedis are not covered by the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill!

See here -

Alec, I still haven’t had a straight answer from you as to why you think a civil partnership naturally “implies” sex.

I think it goes along the lines of marriage being a union between a man and a woman.

“He claims that she is a “fake Christian”. That is deeply stupid. In fact the whole post is just a badly thought out excercise in malice.”

She is a fake Christian. Her views do not conform to any mainstream view, so they must be personal, but her personal beliefs are inconsistant, both logically and with her own past behaviour and her current practice. In other words, she is using convenient aspects of Christianity to justify her bigotry, rather than being able to demonstrate a coherent and consistent adherence to Christian values.

Brett, you must have some hard right views on crime and punishment.

Presumably someone who stole a mars bar from Woollies 27 years ago is still to be regarded as dishonest and a thief today, regardless of record in between.

Likewise a bloke who had a fight in a pub 27 years ago is still a violent criminal now.

Looking forward to your post on the evils of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act!

MarkT: Zoroastrians?! Are they kidding? There are just a few thousand of them, most of whom are in Mumbai, with a smattering of converts in LA’s Iranian community. Why not include Shintoism and Confucianism? It’s bizarre that Zoroastrians are deemed a religious belief to the exclusion of more popular Asian religions and shows that the Act is arbitrary and ill-conceived.

This post doesn’t add anything to that debate. It’s just a deeply ignorant smear job.

Let me try to decode it for you.

Brett is hinting that Ladele’s objection is borne of an anti-gay bigotry and has nothing do with her devotion to Christ and a sincere desire to adhere to the teachings of the Bible. If I am ChrisC’s mythical Jewish supermarket worker who is excused having to unload the butchery lorry every morning, do you think it is acceptable that I spend my lunch hours wolfing down bacon baps in the canteen? I’d say this is relevant.

I wouldn’t have focused on her behaviour as a 20 year old so much, but if it can be shown that Ladele’s piety is reserved for gays and lesbians whilst her observance of other religious strictures is, at best, patchy, then I would argue this is material. At least, if I were gay, I’m danmn sure I would regard it as material.

“Presumably someone who stole a mars bar from Woollies 27 years ago is still to be regarded as dishonest and a thief today, regardless of record in between.”

ChrisC, your analogy is deficient. If someone who stole from others years before suddenly became an vocal advocate for harsher sentences for shoplifers without ever disclosing their own past transgrssions, it would be justifiable to report on it if it came to light.

“Not true actually. She would equally have objected to officiating for two heterosexual men.”

As this is a theory unlikely to ever be tested, she can say that, can’t she.

if it can be shown that Ladele’s piety is reserved for gays and lesbians whilst her observance of other religious strictures is, at best, patchy, then I would argue this is material.

And I’d agree with you. But I haven’t spotted one single solitary shred of evidence to support such a conclusion so far as her behaviour today is concerned. Have I missed something?

But I haven’t spotted one single solitary shred of evidence to support such a conclusion so far as her behaviour today is concerned

See my post at 4:28.

“Can anybody explain why it is only religious beliefs that are viewed as a legitimate reason for not doing things? Why can’t someone say ‘My deeply held beliefs as a socialist, conservative, anarchist, racist, football fan, etc. etc. mean that I cannot do X?’ Wouldn’t that be just as reasonable?”

Precisely. It is because religion is thought to be cudly. We don’t want to stomach that people might do things on the grounds of racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia and all those nasty reasons, or simply to be obdurate.

Furthermore, we’re meant to pander to the myth that religious views are an important component of a person’s identity, whereas political views, secular philosophies and life-experience aren’t.

When asked if they would accomodate a racist registrar, everyone supporting Ladele here ifs, buts and splutters.

“She is a fake Christian. Her views do not conform to any mainstream view, so they must be personal, but her personal beliefs are inconsistant, both logically and with her own past behaviour and her current practice. In other words, she is using convenient aspects of Christianity to justify her bigotry, rather than being able to demonstrate a coherent and consistent adherence to Christian values.”

Dear God, it’s as if Luther got sidetracked on his way to the Cathedral.

Clearly her views are personal. Clearly they are religous in nature and based on a belief in God. That’s about all they really need to be. A lack of conformity to doctrine might exclude her from a particular branch of the Christian church but on the facts available neither the Archbishop of Canterbury or Westminster would claim she wasn’t a Christian. It sounds as though Imans are far more your style in the religous line.

Equally, inconsistency is a red herring. The Christian life is meant to be aspirational. You do not stop being a Christian just because you sin.

Look - I personally think religous views should be treated just the same as any other political, moral or sociological idea. The Govt and most people disagree with me on this. But this sly “gotcha” post is just plain gibberish.

‘My deeply held beliefs as a socialist, conservative, anarchist, racist, football fan, etc. etc. mean that I cannot do X?’ Wouldn’t that be just as reasonable?

Exactly. I once worked for a company which had plans to sell software in a particular undemocratic country which could be used to prevent freedom of communication.

However, in the end, enough of us protested about this that the company backed down. This was against my moral principles, but I really doubt that any employment tribunal would have found in my favour if I had simply refused to work on said software. Somehow it’s only people with formalized moral codes who are defended in this way, even if said moral code is daft.

I doubt we’d be seeing this level of outrage by some commenters here on behalf of Ms. Ladele if she was the proverbial Muslim butcher, was refusing to handle pork, yet someone mentioned that 20 years ago she was a ham-munching alcoholic.

P.

LL is a marriage registrar and, as said above, this does not necessarily mean civil partnership registrar. If she were willing to conduct mixed-sex civil partnerships, which I don’t know, I’d agree she didn’t have that much of a problem with the arbitary change of her contract.

I can’t agree that asking a regsitrar to officiate at all legal civil cremonies, even those that became legal after the start of her employment, amounts to an arbitrary change of contract.

Brett (in reply to my remark about you supporting the Muslim police officer who refused to guard the Israeli embassy):

“Are you nuts!”

No, I’m simply assuming that you’re the same “Brett” who wrote this at the time:

“I don’t hold PC Basha responsible at all. Based on what I’ve read, it seems he is the victim. He deemed the lives of his family (in Lebanon) to be under threat by Islamic extremists and he took steps to protect them from the consequences of some lunatic using his job as an excuse to murder his family. Perfectly sensible.”

The “threat to his family” line was the last of three different explanations given by an increasingly desperate Met in response to the outrage over the story. It was horseshit.

In fact, the Met did have a policy at the time of allowing officers special dispensation to refuse certain duties “on moral grounds”. The Omar-Basha case, as The Guardian pointed out, led to review of that policy.

It seems odd that you would regard Omar-Basha’s religious views (whatever bullshit explanation he and his employers used to camouflage them) to be a valid excuse for refusing to do his duty, yet Ms Ladele’s to be unfair.

Or is it wrong of me to dig up something you wrote in the past to accuse you of hypocrisy? :)

Is this Harry’s Place or the News of the World? Lets discuss the issues by all means, but can’t we leave the ad hominem stuff to the tabloids?

See my post at 4:28.

Well that’s about as pathetic as it gets. Which bit of the Bible says trousers are men’s clothing by the way? Prat.

Nonsense. Someone who publicly pontificates about the biblical standards or relationships while clearly having fallen far short of them themseleves deserves to be shown up.

The satement that say:”I’m a righteous prig-protestant”.

To err is human, to forgive divine!

So anyone who has ever deviated, even in the the smallest ways, and no matter how far back in the past, from their faith is a bald-faced hypocrite who should be shown up?

Good thing you don’t work far a credit agency, Brett. That one small late payment back in March ‘61 means I’ll never get a loan again!

Any room, any room at all, in your cold, gay heart for just a smidgen of forgiveness, as luke-warm as it’d be?

Or are you even worse than a lending institution?

Equally, inconsistency is a red herring. The Christian life is meant to be aspirational. You do not stop being a Christian just because you sin.

I can’t agree with this. If the claim is religious discrimination, it goes without saying that the plaintiff should demonstrate suitable religiosity. Using your piety as a cloak of convenience as and when shouldn’t be tolerated.

If Ladele had claimed religious discrimination but could only point to one church visit back when she was a Brownie, I doubt she would have been successful.

Brett, I have offerred an answer/rationalization. Dispute it by all means.

Brownie, why are two heterosexual men radically different from two spinster sisters?

Not good enough for you, Chris?

I bet she wears mixed fabrics.

Strange that she doesn’t abide by that particular biblical teaching.

can’t we leave the ad hominem stuff to the tabloids?

No. :D

Joseph,

I’m sure Brett can speak for himself, but that’s not nearly the same thing.

PC Basha’s request for a dispensation was non-discriminatory. He presumably would ask to be excused guarding the embassy of Upper Volta if doing so endangered the lives of his family.

Secondly, if any public employer *chooses* to come to an accommodation with an employee and in so doing can still deliver the required level of service to the public, then I say carry on. The issue is whether the employer should be be *compelled* to accommodate the employee’s request. In the case of Ladele, her objection was both religious in nature and undeniably discriminatory, yet the tribunal apparently decided that an employer is so compelled. I think this is what is causing many of us concern.

Likewise, I’m sure she eats fat.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lev.%203:17&version=49;

Brownie:

“If the claim is religious discrimination, it goes without saying that the plaintiff should demonstrate suitable religiosity. Using your piety as a cloak of convenience as and when shouldn’t be tolerated.”

Your missing my point. I am not claiming that religosity is irrelevant. Just that Brett’s idea of religosity is trivial and silly - and motivated by spite.

To use the bacon sandwich analogy used earlier: clearly if your mythical Jewish worker was eating a bacon sarnie every day in the canteen, it would be relevant. However, imagine that in his wild youth he had a bacon sarnie which he now regrets and is trying to live a life in which he aspires never to touch the fendish flesh, does that invalidate his claim to be Jewish?

I am not religous but even I understand that belief is a little more complicated than this. Failing to always live up to a professed faith doesn’t necessarily make you a fake.

Brownie, why are two heterosexual men radically different from two spinster sisters?

The latter are normally better at crosswords.

Joseph K. - if you can’t see the difference between the circumstances of the Muslim PC and Ms Ladele, then there’s little point in me spelling it out for you.

But I’ll try.

I did not, as you attemped to imply, support his ‘right’ to decline on the grounds of religious or political objections, but on the grounds that he, with reason, feared for his family’s safety.

Now, it is possible that he may have over-estimated the threat, or exagerated it, or even imagined it, but the consequences of testing his fears (or calling his bluff) would be that innocent people could die. Given this possible outcome and under those circumstannces, it was - as I said at the time - “perfectly sensible” to excuse him from duty.

I could go on being this facetious.

The point is that the only places where the Bible mentions homosexuality (and it is these passages which Christians like Ladele rely upon) are located in precisely the sections of the Bible with these other absurd injunctions.

None of which Ladele abides by.

When asked if they would accomodate a racist registrar, everyone supporting Ladele here ifs, buts and splutters.

No we/they don’t. The problem is your needless personalising of the issue.

The law as it stands protects employees from discrimination on grounds of their faith or religion, but offers no equivalent protection for political views. It would have been perfectly possible to conduct an intelligent debate on whether this should be so, or whether the protection for religion should be removed, or protection extended to general political and social views, without having to resort to personal abuse and the frankly mouth-frothing vitriol that has been directed at the particular litigant in this case.

However you have chosen to use deeply personal attacks to make your case. I really can’t see that it is necessary, but given that this is the path you have taken I think many here feel it is perfectly reasonable to point out that your character assassination of this claimant does not appear to be fair, that Islington does not appear for one second to have disputed that she is perfectly sincere in her Christian views, and that the tribunal found she was not motivated by homophobia.

Comparisons with racists are silly and cheap. They are not protected by the law. Whether you like it or not religious views are so protected and I for one think it is abusrd to attack in such a personal way someone who has merely claimed the protection of that law.

I am not religous but even I understand that belief is a little more complicated than this. Failing to always live up to a professed faith doesn’t necessarily make you a fake.

i have no problem with this. But again, I think Brett, as a gay man, is perfectly entitled to scrutinise just how consistent Ladele’s religiosity is. Right now, Ladele’s views on civil partnerships make her more ‘religious’ than our current Archbishop of Canterbury. I’d therefore expect her to be more observant than not.

“Failing to always live up to a professed faith doesn’t necessarily make you a fake.”

Fine. But it is nonetheless a bit rich to hold up the very standards at which you failed as the criteria by which to judge others… and then expect no one to notice.. or mention it.

Besides, why is she facilitating adultery?

To have religious, or moral, or ethical convictions is a personal choice. Those convictions always bring restrictions on one’s freedom to act in certain ways. It is the free choice of an individual to accept, or reject, those limitations. It is the responsibility of the self-declared believer to accept the ensuing disadvantages as the cost of doing business with God.

If you are a Christian, you are responsible for going to confession and communion yourself. In your own time. Unpaid. And you have already accepted the fact that you may not allow yourself to make a mint of money out of drug dealing in the strip-club, exporting thermonuclear weapons, or armed robbery. As I understand it, the salvation of your immortal soul is generally predicated upon a certain amount of self sacrifice, hardship and the liberal expenditure of blood, sweat and tears. And why not? After all, you are only securing your own ringside seat in heaven, you can’t do it for anyone else.

For a heavenly reward that surpasses the imagination of mankind, for which every true believer would readily give his very life, it seems a little strange to expect the council to provide financial compensation for transgressions that do not even feature in the ten commandments, and were never even mentioned by Saint Charlton Heston.

I have every intention of getting to heaven myself. Not sure how I’m going to wangle it, but I’m nothing if not resourceful. I’ll think of something.

And I’m bloody well not taking Northumberland County Council with me.

Islington does not appear for one second to have disputed that she is perfectly sincere in her Christian views

Well, that’s kind of the point, isn’t it?

I mean she isn’t.

Leviticus 18:22 says “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable”

But Leviticus 19:19 says “Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.”

Is it not reasonable to ask why a woman who bases her morality on a book abides by some teachings, but not by others?

From my reading of the matter, she was not using her own flawed standards as a yardstick to support her position but the bible’s - big difference. And where bigotory is concerned, it’s quite clear that enforced secularism has become the beacon of this trait of late.

Brownie;

” Right now, Ladele’s views on civil partnerships make her more ‘religious’ than our current Archbishop of Canterbury. I’d therefore expect her to be more observant than not.”

It is fair to examine whether she truly holds the views she professes (although Bretts “evidence” that she does not is nothing of the kind) but I do not think you get to define someone’s faith for them - e.g to decide what she should believe by inference from something else. That is not to say that you cannot argue with them that one belief must be a logical conclusion of another but rather that you can not argue that their belief is therefore fake.

Brett:

“But it is nonetheless a bit rich to hold up the very standards at which you failed as the criteria by which to judge others… and then expect no one to notice.. or mention it.”

You didn’t “mention it”, you called her a fake. In any case, it is illogocal (and theologically unsound) to argue that once someone has “sinned” they have lost the right to avoid being an accomplice to someone elses sin.

Is it not reasonable to ask why a woman who bases her morality on a book abides by some teachings, but not by others?

No actually it’s rather simple minded and pathetic. It’s like saying someone can’t claim to be a Christian unless they believe the universe was made in 6 days.

“Leviticus 18:22 says “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable””

Funny how God accidentally missed that one out, when he sent Moses schlepping down the mountain with his arms full of commandments though.

I wouldn’t tie Christians down to the Old Testament (Leviticus), Mark T. I think that pertains mainly to the Heebs. For Christians, you should review the New Testament.

Not having sexual relations with livestock and new born babies would have been another good commandment, but apparently, there are no proof-readers or even sub-editors in paradise.

Having seen what gets past them here on earth, I’m not surprised.

“Funny how God accidentally missed that one out, when he sent Moses schlepping down the mountain with his arms full of commandments though.”

You can’t covert your neighbour’s wife, but it says nothing about coverting her husband.

No actually it’s rather simple minded and pathetic. It’s like saying someone can’t claim to be a Christian unless they believe the universe was made in 6 days.

No, I’m sorry, it’s not like that at all.

I can accept, quite happily, that people can call themselves Christians, and take a flexible approach to theology.

The problem is that Ladele isn’t. She is the one who is relying on an ancient piece of biblical teaching to justify her current attitudes towards homosexuality. What else do Christians rely upon when they argue that homosexuality is wrong?

I mean, she can come up with other reasons - but then the religious defence of her position vanishes into thin air.

Brett:

“Joseph K. - if you can’t see the difference between the circumstances of the Muslim PC and Ms Ladele, then there’s little point in me spelling it out for you.”

And as I pointed out, the “family in danger” line was the third reason put forward by the Met, after “objection on moral grounds” and “fear for personal safety”. If this was the truth, then why did they not say it originally? The real difference between the two cases is that Ms Ladele does not have the Met’s PR team spinning for her.

Reading back through some of the more obsessive comments, I can see that I got it wrong - this thread isn’t reminiscent of the Daily Mail. The virulent personalised attack on Ms Ladele’s beliefs and past behaviour is more like something you’d read on the MPACUK website.

As a matter of interest, Brett - have you ever attended a church wedding?

“Leviticus 18:22 says “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable”

How do we know this verse is not a proscription against TELLING lies?
It’s not as if we can find the bloke who wrote it and ask him. The bible has, in other contexts, used the term “fornication”. So why was wasn’t it used for clarity here?

The F word has been part of the order of service, at every Christian wedding for donkeys years.

Monty, I think the context of that chapter tells us what the author meant.

“Is it not reasonable to ask why a woman who bases her morality on a book abides by some teachings, but not by others?”

Not only reasonable, I’d say it’s important to do so. This is bigotry and she is a bigot, and exposing the deceit, inconsistency and stupidity required to justify her bigotry is useful.

Plenty of examples have been given of other sins listed in the section of the Bible she takes her teachings on homosexuality from, and she does not - it appears in either her personal or professional life - discriminate against those who practice them. Indeed, she almost certainly practices them herself (having two types of material in her clothes, or eating fat, for example).

Yet she discriminates against gay people, and uses her religious beliefs which she evidently only selectively practices to justify it.

So she’s a nasty bigot, and it would be fine and dandy just to say that and mock her hypocrisy, but actually detailing just how intellectually incoherent she is - and some of those supporting her are - is useful.

I think with wise management, she wouldn’t have had a case. I know from Union experience that clever management can easily give a period of ‘consultation’, right of appeal, and then demand a new task is carried out, even one that quite significantly changes the nature of the role as perceived by the member of staff, perfectly lawfully. The Union wouldn’t kick up to defend homophobia. Had they also taken action to prevent colleagues appearing to personally attack her, and done this properly, she would have been forced to resign or do her job - all within the law - and another bigot would have been forced to face up to modernity.

As it is, she’s probably quite a self-satisfied homophobic martyr right now, which is sad.

This is the way I see it. Normally sensible and fair-minded people will make apologies and excuses for bigots if they meet both these two conditions:

(1) The target of their bigotry must be gay.
(2) Their excuse for the actions or attitude must be religious.

In any other combination, the average person will recoil in horror.

You cannot discriminate against gay people for political reasons. You cannot discriminate against black people for religious reasons. And you certainly can’t discriminate against black people for political reasons. But discrimination agianst gay people for religious reasons? Well, that’s something people are willing to at least mull over.

“Funny how God accidentally missed that one out, when he sent Moses schlepping down the mountain with his arms full of commandments though.”

Yeah, though you know, it’s not like he had the chance to make his position on the gay thing really clear when he sent his son down to earth to die for all our sins. Like, it would have been impossible for Jesus in his 33 years or whatever to have said a sentence like “Oh yeah, and the bum sex between two men? Not cool. Really not cool” or “Who cares who you have sex with, as long as you’re thinking about me when you do it?” or something that would have given the reader of the New Testament some basis on which to understand the Lord’s clear views about the issue.

Nope, apparently that’s totally beyond God. There can be no clarity from any his son, the disciples, angels, holy ghosts, or any other forms he’s allegedly chosen to interact with humanity over the last two thousand years. Apparently, he doesn’t think it’s worth clearing up. Is he in the running for ‘laziest deity’ or something?

I mean, just arranging the clouds to say “Being gay is a-ok!” or “Let’s be clear, say no to queers” would be fine. It’d take him like two seconds.

“Funny how God accidentally missed that one out, when he sent Moses schlepping down the mountain with his arms full of commandments though.”

Unfortunately he’d wasted three of the ten commandments blathering on about himself.

I actually know the Christian Institute rather well. I can’t go into too many details here but they are as Brett says, extremely shady. They are also totally unprincipled. They are very much “end justifies the means” types.

This woman should have been sacked and not paid off. Or she should have resigned and found another way to put bread on the table. It is that simple. I do not see this as an issue to do with discrimination (I do though think the CI did and made this case that way). Gay civil partnerships are the law of the land and if a registrar doesn’t like it they can find another job.

And I really mean that. I got married nearly two years ago in a civil ceremony and it was really nice not least because the registrar* was charismatic and wasn’t just playing it by numbers. I think that’s the least people deserve. The last thing I would have wanted is some mealy-mouthed sort just doing it because they couldn’t be arsed to get another job.

I actually object to gay civil-partnerships. I think they should have gone the whole hog and called it marriage. Why not? Well a typical New Labour compromise, that’s why not. I assume the fact that civil partnerships are not quite the same as marriage makes UK family law even more bloody complicated?

Having said all that Brett, you shouldn’t have used the woman’s past to label her a hypocrite. I think that’s both low and unneeded because there is more than enough to lay into her over.

*Oddly enough a black woman who looked a lot like Ms Ladele. I can tell you that’s where the similarities ended.

Why don’t people read the judgement? Islington Council and staff behaved atrociously. It’s only because Ms Ladele is a Christian that HP has turned all frothy mouthed about her. Some of the comments about Leviticus betray almost total ignorance of the New Testament. The dietary prohibitions were done away with (Matthew 15:10 “Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean.” and, quite explicitly in Acts 10 vv9 -11 vv18). Jesus dealt with the issue of the proper treatment of adulteresses in John 8: vv3-11. Christian views of marriage do not depend on Leviticus, but agree with Ms Ladele’s orthodox views on the purpose of marriage. If Jesus didn’t call for the stoning of an adulteress caught in the act I don’t suppose he’d have called for the stoning of gays either.

Islington was busting for a fight with its registrars. It could not have this fight while Ms Ladele was an official under the Registrar General but fully intended to when the situation changed. So keen were they that they ignored duties of confidentiality, procedure and fair dealing. In their view the views of their gay employees trumped Ms Ladele’s rights in law. Note that members of the public who wanted civil partnerships did not apparently miss out in any way.

As it happens, I think that the general proposition that officials of the State are obliged to carry out the law without fear or favour is correct. Registering the partnership in accordance with the law is not the same as approving it. But if Ms Ladele has a right in law not to do so she should be entitled to rely on that law. Similarly with abortions in the NHS. Conscientious objection for medical staff is provided for by law. Medical staff are entitled to exercise their rights under the law. In the case of abortion, it is even more so as providing that exemption was a material factor in the passing of the Abortion Act.

Ms Ladele is not a hypocrite today just because she was a fornicator 27 years ago. All Christians sin, but Jesus didn’t reject the adulteress or condemn her for her past, it’s the atheists who seem to be the harshest and most unforgiving of the commentators on this thread.

Why don’t people read the judgement? Islington Council and staff behaved atrociously

Can you give us an example of this atrocious behaviour?

I still want to know why she has facilitated the union of heterosexual couples outside of the sight of god - thus rendering them adulterers and fornicators.

Mark you haven’t read the earlier posts, I know it is a long thread but you will find the reasons if you work backwards, and it seems like Islington Council broke every rule in the book in its treatment of this woman. That is what the tribunal was about. And Brett your posts come across as vituperative and hysterical and make me rather glad I don’t know you personally. It’s interesting that my gay friends don’t seem nearly as exercised by this as you do, taking the view that so long as somone will marry them (if they want to marry that is and most of them don’t) then they are not fussed which Registrar it is. They certainly aren’t getting hysterical about it.

I mean, just arranging the clouds to say “Being gay is a-ok!” or “Let’s be clear, say no to queers” would be fine. It’d take him like two seconds.

In Christianity people are encouraged to think for themselves.

God isn’t supposed to do everything. That would be rather self-defeating on god’s part, now wouldn’t it?

Unlike religions such as Islam which mirco-manage every last aspect of a person’s life, Christianity has no “nanny” side to it.

Christians have to think it through on their own.

The New Testament, as I’m sure Brett is unaware, takes no position whatsoever on homosexuality.

Established churches, such as the Catholic Church, have issued statements on the subject, referring to homosexuals as “intrinsically disordered” while at the same time ordering rank and file Catholics to respect and love homosexuals the way they would anyone else.

It should also be said that the objections SOME conservative Christians express about homosexuality revolve not around homosexuals themselves, but rather around the aggressive promotion of homosexuality and the near fascistic imposition of it on everyone by radical gay activists.

And they often refer to these radical gay activists, and not entirely without reason, as “gay brownshirts”.

They feel that they and their children are almost forced to place homosexuality on a pedestal and then worship it as the be-all and end-all of everything.

One other thing, some professional gays are quite aggressive, and will go to great lengths to intentionally provoke Christians in order to entrap them in expensive lawsuits.

Two years ago in Toronto a lesbian couple approached a christian printer, whom they knew would not print material promoting homosexuality, asked him to print their newsletter ( I believe), and when he refused, and even after he’d been kind enough and thoughtful enough to provide them with a list of six other printing firms who’d do the job for a similar price, launched an expensive lawsuit against him.

The media portrayed the printer as a ‘bigot’ and the lesbian couple as ‘courageous’.

They put him out of business and enraged the public by doing so.

Thing is, had this *courageous* lesbian couple *courageously* tried the same stunt with a Muslim printing company, they’d probably be dead.

“It’s interesting that my gay friends don’t seem nearly as exercised by this as you do, taking the view that so long as somone will marry them (if they want to marry that is and most of them don’t) then they are not fussed which Registrar it is. They certainly aren’t getting hysterical about it.”

That’s very interesting. Let’s see how black people react if they go into shops or government departments and are told to hold on while someone who will deal with them is called.

You may see her as an eccentric individual with a trivial request. I see her for what she is: a poster-girl for the Christian Institute’s latest campaign to overturn or frustrate gay equality laws.

But then perhaps you and your friends don’t know who The Christian Institute are.

Brett,
I see her as the same as that muslim girl from Luton who was backed all the way to the High Court by sinister Islamic “charities”.

John P,
You’re right (if you are factually right) about the disgraceful treatment of that printer. But the rest… I’m straight and, you know, that whole “worshipping homosexuality” schtick leaves me cold. The “aggresive promotion of homosexuality”. Oh, please do behave! What on Earth are you saying? Are you saying that if someone says, “Nick, a man’s arse, just look what you are missing out on?” means I’ll jump to it? For fuck’s sake, man! Presumably, by the same token, you think that queers just haven’t met enough fit birds. Tragic.

John, it may surprise you to learn that I support a Christian printer’s right not to print my gay leaflets. This is because I believe I have a matching right to tell an fundamentalist Christian to go elsewhere if they brought work I objected to to me.

That is, if the Christian owns the business. If they were merely an employee and the owner wanted to fire them for upsetting his gay customers, I’d support that too.

If however it were a case where the government or local council had set up a community print shop to encourage local community groups to promote their activities and the manager refused to print leaflets for a gay group, this would be a differnt issue. Public services are, by definition, for everyone.

“God isn’t supposed to do everything. That would be rather self-defeating on god’s part, now wouldn’t it?”

No. It wouldn’t.

We are led to believe that he created the entire universe in seven days, but he can’t be expected to do everything? Are you serious or just teasing us? Why are we continually nagged about the perfection of God, only to find the he left his beloved creation half finished.

What the hell is he waiting for?

Stage payments?

Mark you haven’t read the earlier posts, I know it is a long thread but you will find the reasons if you work backwards, and it seems like Islington Council broke every rule in the book in its treatment of this woman. That is what the tribunal was about.

I’m certainly on recrod - and I think others are too - in conceding that Islington council screwed this up from day one. They failed in their duty of care to Ladele to ensure she could work in an environment free from abuse and intimidation. As I said on the first thread about this subject, this alone would be enough to win her some form of damages at tribunal. However…That is what the tribunal was about is simply not accurate. From the judgment itself:

(II) The complaint of indirect discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in relation to a provision, criterion or practice that from the commencement of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 all Registrants should carry out civil partnership ceremonies and registration duties succeeds.

This specific finding has absolutely nothing to do with Ladele’s harrassment at hands of colleagues and bosses at Islington council, but deals directly with the council’s demand that she should conduct civil partnership ceremonies and her religious objection be ignored. The tribunal has supproted a public sector employee’s desire to pick and choose those members of society to whom she renders her public service.

Take issue with the tone of Brett’s post if you must, but I’d be cheered to see a little more solidarity with the innocent gay men and lesbian women than with a reiligious bigot who has just witnessed her bigotry being endorsed by the establishment.

In the hierarchy of victims at the end of this sorry episode, Ladele ranks below every gay man and woman in Britain.

That’s very interesting. Let’s see how black people react if they go into shops or government departments and are told to hold on while someone who will deal with them is called.

Oh dear, another off-point example. No-one in Islington who wanted a civil partnership was inconvenienced one iota by the claimant’s behaviour.

Would you sack a Moslem Registrar who didn’t want to work Fridays?

This is the way I see it. Normally sensible and fair-minded people will make apologies and excuses for bigots if they meet both these two conditions:

(1) The target of their bigotry must be gay.
(2) Their excuse for the actions or attitude must be religious.

And yet more hystrical drivel. Brett you are becoming something of a caricature today, you really should calm down.

1. The tribunal found as a fact that the Registrar was not motivated by homophobia (this point has been made several times but you just choose to ignore it).
2. There isn’t a single comment made on this thread that justifies such a ridiculous conclusion.

“Oh dear, another off-point example. No-one in Islington who wanted a civil partnership was inconvenienced one iota by the claimant’s behaviour.”

It is NOT off point. If we separated the queues at the post office into “Whites Only” and “Blacks Only” everyone would still get served, while accomodating the feelings of the BNP-supporting teller.

Would you argue that it is even beneficial to black people because, being a minority, statistically their queues would be shorter, so they’d get served faster? Is the discussion really about about ‘convenience’?

The New Testament, as I’m sure Brett is unaware, takes no position whatsoever on homosexuality.

Which means what? That Ladele’s specifically religious objection is based on adherence to Old Testament scripture, that’s what.

I think this is partly Brett’s point. A Christian who cites the Old Testament as the basis for at least some of their beliefs, can be reasonably expected to be a little more puritan than your average happy-clappy Anglican. So when Brett asks:

“I still want to know why she has facilitated the union of heterosexual couples outside of the sight of god - thus rendering them adulterers and fornicators.”

he’s not just whistling Dixie. If your views on homosexuality are infromed by Leviticus, I’m inclinded to assume other things, such as a belief that civil marriages are, literally, un-Godly. I completely accept that I don’t get to define anyone’s faith for them, but equally, I don’t think I’m denied the right to make some pretty firm conclusions about those who play fast-and-loose with their religious observance, especially when the result of the observance is behaviour that discriminates against a specfiic segment of society only.

“1. The tribunal found as a fact that the Registrar was not motivated by homophobia (this point has been made several times but you just choose to ignore it).”

Here’s a thought: The Tribunal was WRONG.

“There isn’t a single comment made on this thread that justifies such a ridiculous conclusion.”

Okay then. Confirm for me that you would agree to allow a racist the right not to work with black people or Jews if an accomodation culd be made with other staff. Come on. In one clear and unequivocal sentence, tell me you think racial discrimination can be accomodated provided no one is ‘inconvenienced’.

Would you sack a Moslem Registrar who didn’t want to work Fridays?

Against whom, exactly, is a Moslem registrar who didn’t want to work Fridays discriminating?

I think most reasonable people can see the benefit of accommodating a harmless request for a dispensation of any sorts, religious or otherwsie. The point in Ladele’s case is that her request for a dispensation was necessarily discriminatory. The state should not be in the business of endorsing such bigotry, not even when it is underpinned by sincerely held religious beliefs.

It is NOT off point. If we separated the queues at the post office into “Whites Only” and “Blacks Only” everyone would still get served, while accomodating the feelings of the BNP-supporting teller.

Oh please stop being facile. No-one created “no gays” queues at Islington Town Hall. If Barry and Brian wanted to tie the knot at 4.00 on Thursday they got their appointment just the same as if they were Barry and Barbara. Rotas were organised behind the scenes, that was all. It is, apparently, still happening this way at the very least in Kent, Cornwall and Newham, per the judgment - why haven’t you commented on the appalling breaches of civil rights for gay people there? Yours is a ludicrous comparison and you are intelligent enough to know it.

Good point Brett. We could postulate one registrar who deals with all of the black, and mixed race, and jewish, and gay couples. And all the others don’t have to. They only deal with the white hetero people, I think that’s what you mean.

Last I heard, that was called apartheid. Also “seperate development”.

“Oh please stop being facile. No-one created “no gays” queues at Islington Town Hall. If Barry and Brian wanted to tie the knot at 4.00 on Thursday they got their appointment just the same as if they were Barry and Barbara. Rotas were organised behind the scenes, that was all. “

So *hidden* racism is okay then? Would it be okay if the queueing system worked ‘behind the scenes’ so that a black person was never assigned to Bill of the BNP’s counter?

Well, I’d've sacked the Muslim PC and Ladele. Hang ‘em and flog ‘em all the way.

On the specific aspects of the case to do with bullying etc, it seems Ladele had a good case for damages. This is an important principle in itself, of course. On the principle of exclusion of duties because of religious views, not ok.

I’m surprised at the level of feeling this seems to have caused. Seems pretty open and shut to me. I’m presuming that my heart-felt beliefs in Blairism-with-a-hardline-foreign-policy-but-enough-with-those-faith-schools-already-and-lets-be-reasonably-nice-to-the-unions don’t allow me to opt out of aspects of whatever job I’m doing? No? Well, screw her then. Why should she get allowances that my lack of belief in an omnipotent fairy deny me? It’s a positive inducement to be a thick, irrational, bigot. Not a great public policy promotion.

Brett is sometimes a tad histrionic on these matters when it comes to making foolish and sweeping statements about the Labour Party, but on this one, frankly, I find it impossible to summon an ounce of sympathy for Ms Ladele.

Okay then. Confirm for me that you would agree to allow a racist the right not to work with black people or Jews if an accomodation culd be made with other staff. Come on. In one clear and unequivocal sentence, tell me you think racial discrimination can be accomodated provided no one is ‘inconvenienced’.

I dealt with this ludicrous question perfectly clearly at 4.04, and I’m not going to retype stuff you clearly couldn’t be bothered to read the first time. The short answer is no. The law (not my law - I wouldn’t have introduced it) protects employees from discrimination by reason of their religion or faith. No such protection exists in respect of a person’s political views. So no reason to accommodate the racist.

You don’t like the position? Campaign for the law to be changed, but don’t villify someone whose only offence is to seek the protection of the law, even possibly a misguided law, while it is on the statute book.

Reasonably standard disclaimer: Not all or even most religious people are in fact thick, irrational, bigots. Obviously. But if they are, the fact that their thick irrational bigotry is based on their religion ain’t gonna wash with me.

“The short answer is no. The law (not my law - I wouldn’t have introduced it) protects employees from discrimination by reason of their religion or faith. No such protection exists in respect of a person’s political views. So no reason to accommodate the racist.”

Isn’t it a little dishonest to hide behind existing laws? I’m not asking you what the current law says. I’m asking you based on your own moral/ethical framework. Which I trust is consistent.

Otherwise what your position amounts to is that gay people don’t have the same protection as race/religion, thus it is okay to discriminate against them. But it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of race and religion, so that’s not okay.

That’s a dishonest and disingenuous response which neatly avoids saying that you’d allow discrimation aginst gay people, but not black people.

You then have the nerve to call my pointing this out as “hysterical”.

It’s times such as this that I wish Ven were here to give the acceptable face of religious reaction, and keep me from being on the same side of the barricades and John Paluthingie. Brett, I have asked you repeated and direct questions as well as answering those you made to me; you haven’t just disregarded my responses, you’ve claimed I didn’t give them!

You and others are on a very sticky wicket when you ask what if LL has declined to officiate at a mixed religion wedding. What if she had? Would you have said, well, she’s honest. Of course not, you’d be ranting about she was a “real Christian hypocrite”. Thus, it is not fakes you have a problem with, but anyone who holds a moral code you disagree with. And if they do, you do not even allow them the right to define themselves, but reduce them to non-people. Nasty, spiteful and vituperative, as others have said.

This is what I’m objecting to. My feelings about the rights and wrongs of her position are secondary. Certainly, even if I do ultimately agree with the tribunal, I do not want to see her awarded compensation for “hurt feelings”.

And, as it is clear that other councils have made moves to accommodate dissenting registrars whilst Islington (hardly a stranger to controversy) just issued a fiat, my analogy about NHS staff and abortions is reinstated.

I still want to know why she has facilitated the union of heterosexual couples outside of the sight of god - thus rendering them adulterers and fornicators.

Until you start responding to the direct questions I and others have put to you, I’d desist from demanding answer after answer.

MARK T

The point is that the only places where the Bible mentions homosexuality (and it is these passages which Christians like Ladele rely upon) are located in precisely the sections of the Bible with these other absurd injunctions.

There’s facetiousness and there’s being wrong, and you’re wrong, Mark. In fact, Romans 1:18/32, Timothy I 1:10, Corinthians I 6:9/10 and Jude 1:7 also exist. It’s one thing to argue that these, in fact, refer to sexual/moral looseness and infidelity, but another to infer (note the usage, Brett) that this is all down to Leviticus.

BROWNIE

PC Basha’s request for a dispensation was non-discriminatory. He presumably would ask to be excused guarding the embassy of Upper Volta if doing so endangered the lives of his family.

Given your dismissal of the two heterosexual analogy and ChrisC’s postulated Jewish supermarket worker, this is pretty astounding (and that’s before we get onto the matter of her now being known as Bukino Faso!), this is pretty astounding. I initially supported the principle of his receiving dispensation, but have changed my position due to the implausibility of the situation - either a threat to his family or his request/motives to refuse - arising with with any other country.

And, now, can we get back to the matter of the Burden sister’s application for civil partnership despite the obvious restrictions on a notion of sexual relations between them?

Brett, I have asked you repeated and direct questions as well as answering those you made to me; you haven’t just disregarded my responses, you’ve claimed I didn’t give them! “

Alec, I still don’t see your answer. I see some cryptic referneces, but that’s all. Perhaps you should spell it out. Why is sex implied by a civil partnership?

Until you start responding to the direct questions I and others have put to you, I’d desist from demanding answer after answer.

I have answered all questions as far as I’m aware, except one of yours, because my answer is predicated on better understanding why you think CPs imply a sexual relationship.

Why are Joyce and Sybil Burden having such difficulties?

“It’s times such as this that I wish Ven were here to give the acceptable face of religious reaction, and keep me from being on the same side of the barricades and John Paluthingie.”

Ha ha!

Given your dismissal of the two heterosexual analogy and ChrisC’s postulated Jewish supermarket worker, this is pretty astounding

1) On the two heterosexual analogy, I’m not certain I understood it. My best guess is that Ladele claimed she would object to a civil parternship between two heterosexual males, therefore her objection is not discriminatory (at least not on grounds of sexual orientation). This is tortured. As I said, it’s a theory unlikely to be tested, and she knows it. If the public library put up a sign saying “no turbans”, could it get away with arguing this was not anti-Sikh, just a proscription on a specfiic item of headgear? I’d hope not.

2) I dealt with the Jewish supermarket analogy head on. To repeat for the hard of understanding, I have no objection to an employer coming to an accommodation with any of its employees, so long as the service to the public is not compromised and other colleagues cannot reasonably claim unfair treatment as a result of the accommodation. The state endorsing religiously motivated bigotry, moreoever doing so in the public sector, is in a completely different ballpark.

“Why are Joyce and Sybil Burden having such difficulties?”

Because they’re not gay. And the government’s fucked up civil parthership laws - which I am on record as publicly criticising - expect them to be.

But keep this in mind. The law does not require the couple to have sex. The registrar does not even ask if you’re gay. The only reason I suspect that this couple are having trouble is because they’re afriad people might think they’re lesbian, so they’ve spilt the beans.

Just as there is nothing to stop a gay man marrying a lesbian, there is nothingt to stop a same-sex couple who are heterosexual getting a civil partnership… as long as they don’t admit they’re not gay - though on what this idiotic law is based, I don’t know.

The proposals that I put forward on behalf of OutRage! at the time of the CP consultation was that marriage be opened to all and simultaniously CPs be open to all people who shared a relationship of mutual care and committment.

That is because I believe the law should apply to everyone equally.

but don’t villify someone whose only offence is to seek the protection of the law

What if you don’t think that is her only offence? What if you think her religious objection betrays a bigoted attitude towards gay men and women? Then is it okay to villify her?

Yes, they’re not gay. So they don’t get a civil partnership. Because civil partnerships were introduced to mollify those opposed to gay marriage. Objections to the tax bill they face should be displayed re inheritance tax. Civil partnership is associated with the concept of marriage. Argue with this implementation, sure, but if you’d support a civil partnership between two sisters, why not their marriage? Why not polygamous marriage?

And once again, I have not said that sexual relations should be required in civil partnerships. But as these are not issued to individuals who’d otherwise not be permitted to have sex, in the eyes of the law and society, it is certainly implied.

(Brownie, this is what I meant. If the Burden sisters are granted a civil partnership, the prospect of two heterosexual men becomes entirely plausible.)

“The law (not my law - I wouldn’t have introduced it) protects employees from discrimination by reason of their religion or faith.” (ChrisC)

See Metta’s informed comments above regarding the legal priority of legislation against discrimination on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation over and above “religious discrimination”.

Much as I have no time for this bigoted woman, being a (presumably) repentant sinner doesn’t make her a “fake Christian”.

Brownie

You are completely right about the judgement.

The claim is based upon a cause of action (ie claimed breach of law) in Employment law on the three grounds of Religious Discrimination;

-Direct discriminaton
- Indirect discrimination
-harassment

These three grounds are common to the law of race and sex discrimination so the comparisons to race and gender are perfectly appropriate and apt (Disability Discrimination is a bit different as you can’t have blind Bus drivers so indirect discrimination does not apply)

The finding ofthe tribunal is that Islignton council discriminated on religious grounds by the simple fact of implementing the Civil partnership Act 2004, even thought they were compelled by Act of parliament to do so.

This is a sweeping and reactionary (and wrong0 judgement which is effectively saying that the Civil partnership Act is itself discriminatory on religious grounds.

It opens the door for any registrar (even where they are the only one in an area) to claim religious discrimination by claiming that they oppose the duties of their job on religious grounds.

It also opens the door for the religious (and here is the Agenda of the Christian institute) to clam that any other criteria or requirement of any other job (the dispensing of contraceptive pills by a Christian pharmacist for example) constitutes religious discrimination.

Neither the claim nor the judgement are grounded in the mistreatment, bullying or violation of confidentiality, or failures of Employment law procedures that Islington Council either, were alleged to have been responsible for or failed to prevent.

No matter how sorry anyone, including the tribunal chair, feels for Ms Ladelle’s treatment that does not allow a manipulation of the law to rule when there are no grounds, when the claimant has claimed under the wrong cause of action or alleged breach.

I have had tribunal chairs refuse to let me add a cause of action of indirect racism and racial harassment in an appalling case when the unfunded claimant had merely filled out Direct discrimination on the original claim form.

Tribunal chairs often do what they want as they actually have a partially inquisitorial jurisdiction (which they rarely apply correctly as they don’t understand it).

They can make findings of ‘fact’ based upon biased, partial, multiple hearsay for instance, while refusing to admit direct evidence from a witness who was not put on the original witness list (the tribunals are a circus really visit one).

In fact the tribunal actually has the power to alter the claim at any time in the interests of justice to reflect the law and evidence, even at the beginning of the hearing (if you try it as an advocate which you are entitled to do, if say the client was previously unrepresented, the chair will almost certainly accuse you of ‘rank opportunism’ and threaten you (idly) with a negative cost implication.

So if the case had really be one of workplace bullying, failure to consult follow greivance/disciplinary procedures, constructive dismissal etc then the claim and judgement are required to have reflected that.

No I not only think the judgement is appalling it is legally shoddy Miss M Lewzey the tribunal chair sounds either inexperienced (Miss not Ms or Mrs in a lawyer tends to indicate young or middle-aged spinsterish and pre-femminist), ill informed (failing to seek guidance from the Equality Commission for example), inept or biased, or any combination of the above.

I will be watching her closely from now on as I find it hard to believe that any tribunal chair (one has to have some relevant experience to get the job) could have been so naive not to have realised the tremendous and negative impact on the governments equality legislation that such a ruling could produce.

The judgement was initially reserved which means they know they have to think about it first.

Well I consider that any competent and unbiased tribunal should have thought a bit harder and sought some expert advice (which they are encouraged to do).

This is even more significant when one realises that unlike for a private employer, a local government is also under a positive obligation to enforce and support measures and policies that proactively attempt to combat discrimination based on sex, race, sexual orientation, disability and religion.

Nowhere in the judgement do I find a fair recognition of Islington Council’s policies, practices, procedures and measures in the light of their legal obligation to support equality.

It is not enough to read the judgement, its necessary to read the law too.

Now I might sound a bit lawyerly but Employment law is really not that hard as employers are supposed to be able to understand it in order to be able to comply with it.

There is excellent guidance on Discrimination Law for employers from the equality commission website.

ACAS also provides an excellent advisor service and I recommend highly Legal Action Group’s (LAG) books on Employment Law (an advisers handbook) and tribunal procedure.

For the nerdy there is the more lawyerly ‘Tolleys employment Law Handbook’ or the definitive (same sort of status as Archbolds or Blackstones) Butterworth’s employment law handbook.

OKAY THEN WHY ARE A HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE WHO CHOSE NOT TO MARRY BUT LIVE TOGETHER (POSSIBLY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RELIGIOUS) NOT ALLOWED TO BENEFIT FROM THE INHERITANCE LAWS WHICH APPLY TO MARRIAGES AND CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS ONLY? i AM MARRIED ONLY BECAUSE MR BEN WANTED TO BE MARRIED (COMING FROM A HIGH CHURCH FAMILY). i COULDN’T GIVE A FL–G F–K ABOUT BEING MARRIED AND DONT REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY GAYS SHOULD BE SO KEEN ON AN OUTDATED INSTITUTION (APART FROM THE TAX BENEFITS) . bUT I EQUALLY DON’T SEE THAT SOMEONE WITH SINCERELY HELD IF MISGUIDED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SHOULD BE PERSECUTED AND BULLIED ABOUT THEM AT WORK.

FOR ONCE I AGREE WITH CHRISC

MRS bEN

(sORRY ABOUT CAPS, CAPS LOCK HAS GOT STUCK ON - WILL FIX IT SOON I HOPE)

Brett you ask lots of questions based on frankly very silly hypothetical situations, so I would like to take the liberty of inviting you to consider a scenario too.

Now in your comments you have drawn a sharp distinction between public and private sector employees. The former, you have said, should carry out the policies of their employer without allowing their personal morality to intrude.

Do you really mean that or do you only mean it if the person’s morality conflicts with yours? After all, attitudes to homosexuality have changed very fast in the UK: even during the lifespan of an individual’s career.

Consider Mr. White and Mr. Black. They are both celebrating their retirement this week, having reached the age of 65. They joined Councils X and Y respectively upon leaving school in 1958, and each has remained in the authority’s employment ever since, in a variety of roles.

Some highlights from Mr. White’s career:

Between 1960 and 1965 worked for the Housing Department. Organised the eviction of around 20 tenants who were guilty of permitting or engaging in illegal homosexual activity in their homes. Reported several tenants to the police for this behaviour, resulting in some prosecutions and 3 cases of tenants being sent to jail.

In the 1970s worked in Social Services. Ensured the authority had rigorous policies to weed out gays and lesbians from lists of potential adoptive parents. Referred teenagers in care who professed themselves to be homosexual for psychiatric treatment.

In the 1980s at the Education Department. Issued policy advice to schools that they should steer clear of including gay children within the protection of anti-bullying policies in case they might be held to be in breach of clause 28.

Later qualified as a Registrar and officiated at weddings, recorded deaths etc. Has in the last few years been happily doing civil partnerships.

Highlights of Mr. Black’s career:

In the 1960s responsible for “de-prioritising” action against tenants who engaged in homosexual practices. Never volunteered information on the sexual activities of tenants to the police.

In the 1970s oversaw flexible approach to dealing with children in care including special help for gay children.

In the 1980s took responsibility for the council’s policies for complying with clause 28 and advised all departments that no change of practice was required.

In the 1990s pioneered equal opportunities in the authority, including adopting policies to make it a disciplinary offence for staff to discriminate against gay people, long before this was required by law.

Whose retirement do would you want to go to Brett? The guy who never allowed a single personal moral viewpoint to affect his behaviour and ensured the authority stuck strictly to the law? Or the one who tried to flex the system to do what he considered was right? And if the latter, why are you so hostile to anyone who has what they consider to be a moral outlook, albeit it isn’t the same as yours?

Is it not about time we enshrined civil partnership, as a legally binding affirmation of the exclusive devotion of any two persons to the safety, security and welfare of one-another? For as long as they both shall live?

Why can’t we do that?

Why do we have to get so obsessed with sexual intercourse and mating.?

I have never met an Archbishop who was not born naked, in bed, with a woman.

Some of us were all covered in poo,( but Mother insists that I wasn’t.) Hardly matters now.

(Miss not Ms or Mrs in a lawyer tends to indicate young or middle-aged spinsterish and pre-femminist). mETTACULTURE

aM i REALLY READING THIS? fOR YEARS i INSISTED ON BEING CALLED MISS - EVEN THOUGH I AM MIDDLE AGED AND MARRIED - JUST TO COUNTER THIS SORT OF STUPID PREJUDICE. WHERE ARE YOU OP?

mRS bEN

Why the surprise? She’s a coon. Coons can’t keep their pants on. We’re all fucked.

Alec

a note on the definitions etc.

legally a civil partnership is not a marriage (not even a civil marriage) it is a union between emotionally and financially interdependent partners of the same sex that confers th same benefits and entitlements in law as those provided for in law for opposite sex partners who are married in;

either;

1) a religious union, generally called a marriage, conducted under religious auspices, where the state has also conferred the functions of a registrar upon certain religious individuals empowered by their religion) to conduct a marriage

or

2) a civil union between two (and only two at any one time) also generally called a marriage that is a secular, non- religious state sanctioned union giving certain legal rights, carried out by a state official.

people ‘married’ ‘lawfully’ religiously are in effect given a dual certificate of marriage one religious and the other secular.

There are key legal differences;

A religious marriage may permit polygamy. Civil marriage does not. A religious marriage may prohibit divorce, civil marriage (coming into effect at the same time) does not.

The republic of Ireland until recently did not grant civil marriage seperately from Catholic, Christian marriage. It only granted a civil union on the same terms as a religious marriage.

Religious divorce in Ireland is prohibited but civil divorce is now legal.

A directly comparable case in ireland would be a registrar who agreed to marry people in a civil union except if one, or both, were divorced and they claimed that this refusal was soley on religous grounds of conscience.

Christian marriage is defined by the necessity of sex, specifically penetration and procreation.

Grounds for a religious anullment (not a divorce) are the failure of consumation.

Interestingly most civil marriages still follow this proscription so that a civil marriage may be anulled on such grounds, though a marriage is not refused civilly on such grounds.

Moost people would be appaled if a Christian registrar refused to marry disabled people on the grounds that they were physically incapable of procreating according to gods will and their belief.

This is not a ridiculous example there are many current examples mostly from latin countries of Catholic preists refusing a religious marriage to disabled people.

–Civil partnership on the other hand while it does not preclude sex, unlike Christian marriage (and technically its civil analogue) does not require its ‘consumation by either complete or partial penetration with a penis’

per Baroness Scotland replying to Lord Tebbit Hansard: House of Lords debate on Civil parnership Bill,

Some commenters on the site have asked about the definition of a fake christian.

You know how the yanks say to follow the money?

Here is my take on the subject.

A fake christian is someone who claims to follow the way of the cross, and professes to endure the all of the hardships and suffering of Christ.

And then she wants money money money for doing so.

And the only way to flush ‘em out, is to not give her any money. This is the point where the old familiar suggestion is liable to enter your life.

Whoever is left after this, might be a true christian.

I EQUALLY DON’T SEE THAT SOMEONE WITH SINCERELY HELD IF MISGUIDED RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SHOULD BE PERSECUTED AND BULLIED ABOUT THEM AT WORK.

I agree, and on that specific point, it was pretty much inevitable that the tribunal would find for Ladele.

Look, I wouldn’t have bothered my arse if Islington had granted Ladele her dispensation, even though I think it sends entirely the wrong message about the culture they want to foster at Islington, or at least the culture they should want to foster as an equal opportunities public employer. But the decision of the tribunal was that Islington should have been *compelled* to grant Ladele her dispensation, on the grounds that not doing so was indirect religious discrimination against her. This is what I and others find so objectionable.

Mixa, fuck off.

Mrs Ben

Good for you! though didn’t you get tired of it.

Anyway it was not a prejudice but a cliche (and your exception proved the rule) and I should have put it in quotes as its not my observation but that of a particularly silly Tribunal chair in a case of mine on sex discrimination.

A prejudice would be the view that a miss could or should not be a Dr or lawyer etc.

But as allways people are more concerned, not with actual discrimination but with the correctness of language and the appearance of non discrimination.

Given that over 50% of newly qualifying Sollicitors and Barristers are women gender discrimination is beginning if anything to invert.

Most cases of sex discrimination against women that I have dealt with recently do not relate to the improper use of gendered aspects of language but relate to maternity leave and pay in the casualised industries (rag trade call centres, temps etc) they generally don’t need to call women miss to discriminate thy just lay them off when they get pregnant.

ChrisC. Your long question, while interesting, misses the point. SInce I am not a moral relativist, I don’t elevate what people “thought” was ‘right’, or what the law may say is ‘right’ over what actually *is* right.

And it is wrong for a member of a public service to discriminate against members of the public on the grounds of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc, etc, etc.. Call that my highly individaual personal subjective morality if you like.

I’ll add to that: The Churches are allowed to set their own standards and the government does not interfere. I have no quarrel with that. Civil courts and registry offices are there for the public. The religious should respect that and not interfere in secular institutions or impose religious conditions on them.

Brett you seem to be one of those people who believes in democracy, but only if your Party wins.

ChrisC. Whatever. You seem to be a person too squeamish to admit you’d tolerate racism if it could be accomodated without ‘inconvenience’.

Alec Mcpherson
“Yes, Me. Now fuck off, you Jew obsessed nutter.”

Im staying you Muslim obsessed nutter

Yes, “me”, perhaps you didn’t make enough of an idiot of yourself last time you appeared.

Do carry on!

“Brett you seem to be one of those people who believes in democracy, but only if your Party wins.”

er, ChrisC, weren’t you Ken’s paid lackey and his stoutest champion on HP ?

might be better if you did throw such accusations around, given your past conduct, eh?

Brett you seem to be one of those people who believes in democracy, but only if your Party wins.

That’s a very nice argument, but where does it leave you when the majority decide to start enforcing laws like, say Jim Crow?

Funny how I watched the weather forecast this morning, and shitstorm never got mentioned…

Funny how I watched the weather forecast this morning, and shitstorm never got mentioned…

If however it were a case where the government or local council had set up a community print shop to encourage local community groups to promote their activities and the manager refused to print leaflets for a gay group, this would be a differnt issue. Public services are, by definition, for everyone. Brett

I completely agree.

And as I stated earlier, this women should be, at the very least, disciplined for failing to carry out her duties.

She’s a public servant with ( I’m sure) a very clearly defined list of tasks, among them the task of performing gay marriages.

If she won’t do what her job description tells her to do, then she should either be disciplined or fired.

Would you sack a Moslem Registrar who didn’t want to work Fridays? Chris C

You betcha!

See, if a Christian refused to work on Sundays, I’m quite sure they’d be sacked in a new york minute.

Probably already happened, actually.

If your views on homosexuality are infromed by Leviticus, I’m inclinded to assume other things, such as a belief that civil marriages are, literally, un-Godly Brownie

A safe assumption which, as Brett pointed out, begs the question of why she’d marry heteros outside of god’s ‘grace’?

Leviticus is a yawn. There are but two quotes, and somewhat mild quotes at that, in the entire Old and New Testaments condemning homosexuality.

Which is why I so often wonder why so many gays continually dwell on Christianity’s ‘rampant’ homophobia.

The worst that can happen is to be called “intrinsically disordered”…….like Frank’nfurter!

Mrs Ben

You say

—’i COULDN’T GIVE A FL–G F–K ABOUT BEING MARRIED AND DONT REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY GAYS SHOULD BE SO KEEN ON AN OUTDATED INSTITUTION (APART FROM THE TAX BENEFITS)’—

Really ?

Well maybe Mrs Ben because many of ‘the Gay’s’ are people much like you who want to please their partner who likes outdated institutions.

Perhaps like you some of ‘the gays’ might consider the not inconsiderable tax benefits.

Or perhaps their partner of 26 years is dying and they feel alone and afraid and don’t wan’t to be evicted from the one bedroom council flat in their partners name that they have paid rent on for 17 years and unlike a family member would have no legal entitlement succeed to the tennancy.

Or maybe they watched a lot of Doris Day movies and they want their Butch in a dress for once.

Or maybe they just want all their friends and family to recognise their union after years of attending their families weddings only to find their partner not put on the family table with them.

Or maybe,

actually i don’t give a flying fuck what the reasons are.

In response to many documented legal injustices (such as the denial of hospital or prison visitng rights, immigration, insurance, pension employment, housing, entitlements and benefits) that flowed directly from the inability of same sex partners to be treated as family members or a spuse the law was passed to offer a measure of justice for a relatively small minority of the population.

A minority harshly treated by most major religious faiths, nations and legal systems, who though, as couples they actually were or wished to be in caring and emotionally commited and loving unions they were denied the very rights and entitelements that people such as yourself take for granted, because no matter how much they may claim they resent the religious institution of marriage, should they so wish they have no intention of being denied its civil social and legal benefits.

Is legal equality such a difficult thing for you to understand?

Perhaps ‘the gays’ do not oppose civil partnership (i.e. a fully secular civil union not to be conflated with a religious ritual at all) for heterosexuals.

The are after all not responsible for the failure of Parliament to pass such legislation are they? (perhaps as it concerns you you could lobby for such a law, the’gays’ might well support you’).

Perhaps what excites the excitable ‘gays’ is that the same homophobic attitudes and prejudice that denied them a legally sanctioned union also accused them of promiscuity.

The same prejudice that mocks a desire for legal equality as a reactionary desire to ape an outmoded heterosexual institution of marriage even thouugh a non religious, non conventional minimalist registry office ‘marriage’ has long been a choice for heterosexuals..

The same prejudice insisted that they be denied the title marriage and then objected when they discovered that practically civil partnership gave the same legal rights as the hybrid and confused and legally and socially imprecise thing called marriage that they might have sneered at in a fashionable way but did not bother to examine.

This same prejudice has sympathy for and sees as a victim a reactionary homophobe who claims a religious justification for their hatred (while simultaneously poring scorn on the ‘outmoded’ heterosexual Christian ceremony that the ‘victim’ claims to be sacred and violated by the aping of its forms by those she chose to discriminate against.

I certainly don’t need to take your accusation of prejudice seriously when I repeat a (statisticaly correct) cliche that in general Miss or Ms indicate an unmarried status, Ms Ben, as scarecly veiled homophobia oozes from your every sentence.

Tell me, are your non excitable gay friends, grateful for your patronising patronage?

That’s a dishonest and disingenuous response which neatly avoids saying that you’d allow discrimation aginst gay people, but not black people.

Now I can see why people sue HP for libel. Would you mind pointing me to one single solitary contribution of mine which is either dishonest or which apologises for homophobia.

(I would say, or otherwise apologise, but I recognise you’re far too much of an hysterical berk to do that).

See Metta’s informed comments above regarding the legal priority of legislation against discrimination on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation over and above “religious discrimination”.

Metta may think his somewhat overlengthy posts should be accorded more respect than most (the pompous style certainly implies this), but until he reveals himself as a member of the judicial committee of the House of Lords I’ll stick with the published judgment which accords equal weight to each right, thank you.

Well I don’t know about the particulars of this case but there’s a hell of a lot of hypocrisy in the African churches which condemn homosexuality but preside over a situation where nearly every other priest has multiple heterosexual liaisons. That’s how Mugabe got rid of his troublesome priest, wasn’t it, by exposing his extracurricular activities.

My view is that Registrars are entitled to their views - and to express them in a reasonable fashion (i.e. not a fashion maliciously designed to cause distress*). However, they should follow the law or resign.

*Here I disagree fundamentally with Brett and co. who seem to want to make anti-homosexual thoughts illegal. The fact is that you will never get male heterosexuals in general to respect male homosexuality.
I don’t know about the female equivalents. I feel they are less problematic.

I wonder what Brett thinks he has achieved by this? Brownie excuses Brett’s unpleasant personal attacks on Ladele because Brett’s gay (ridiculous). Brett makes a direct accusation - so far using very flimsy evidence - that she is “fake Christian”. I cannot see how Brett has achieved anything apart from possibly causing distress to Ladele personally and unnecessarily, making unpleasant comments about her personal life. Yes, its true that she mentioned her past herself, perhaps she was unaware or naive about the number of vindictive folk on the internet willing to attack her personally for it. Well, that’s blogging I guess - much of it is pointless and unpleasant.

Brett’s outburst says little about, contributes little to the debate. I personally have misgivings about the judgment in the case, but Brett’s unpleasant attacks actually make me feel more sympathetic to Ladele. There surely could have been a compromise that would have at least cut out the unpleasant folk on both sides - the likes of Brett and his abuse, and fundamentalist Christians.

Also, there seems to a conspiracy a minute at HP these days. There the usual rogue’s gallery of Muslims here, but now Brett raves about the “shady motivators” the Christian Institute. In this way Brett personally denigrates Ladele further - not only is she a fake Christian, a hypocrite and possibly a liar, according to Brett, but she wasn’t even in a wholly genuine fight against her employer. Her grievance is downplayed, its actually “motivated” by the “shady” Christian Institute.

The irony is, Ladele is probably the most decent person in all this; her views are old fashioned, but unlike Brett, she is probably not unpleasantly vindictive or hopelessly pompous. Her revelations about her private life were actually confessional. Perhaps she wasn’t aware that in the cesspit of the blogosphere everything is twisted against you if you are not careful.

Sin is sin period. No and’s if’s or but’s. Hooray for Lillian Ladele standing up to pressure from people wanting self instead of God! That’s right people want self then God!
shipwrecksoul.blogspot.com

Benji uses the word ‘unpleasant’ five times in his first two paragraphs (six overall), then describes Lillian Ladele’s bigotry as “decent”.

Some liberal he is.

No wonder this chump lost his employment tribunal with the Guardian. If thinks bigotry should be allowed in the work place then maybe we have gotten a little closer to finding out the precise reason why he was fired.

No, I do not agree with Ladele’s views on same sex civil partnerships. However, I have got to the stage of my life, which differs from my obnoxious youth, where I can conceive of the notion that I can differ (quite fundamentally) with another person’s views whilst, at the same time, not holding them in such disdain and spite that I feel it necessary to berate them personally (that’s not to say I do not occasionally indulge in such behaviour).

Indeed it may even be possible - shock, horror - to think someone a decent sort generally, whilst disagreeing sharply with some of their views.

Unfortunately, it appears Brett got so worked up about this issue that the red mist descended and he produced post that was over the top, unpleasant and rather vindictive sounding - very unnecessary in such a form.

I think if Brett gets a good sleep or has a nice holiday, he will return to understand how overly hectoring and unnecessarily personal his post on Ladele sounds.

Now I can see why people sue HP for libel. Would you mind pointing me to one single solitary contribution of mine which is either dishonest or which apologises for homophobia.

ChrisC - I have asked you repreatedly whether you’d agree to allow a BNP member to avoid serving black people. You have consistently avoided answering the question. You deflect it. Meanwhile you provide ample excuses for why a person should be allowed to refuse to serve gay people if no one is “inconvenienced”.

I stand by my assessment of your argument unless you are prepared to say in clear terms - and without equivocation - that you apply the same standards to gay people as you do to everyone else.

Or perhaps you can tell me which other group you think could be denied service by a public servant as long as a reasonable accomodation could be made.

“Indeed it may even be possible - shock, horror - to think someone a decent sort generally, whilst disagreeing sharply with some of their views.”

You see, people, this is why I said gays are the last group you’re allowed to dscrimate against while others make excuses for you. So far, not one person has said they’d regard a far-right racists as possibly “the decent sort” while making arrangements so they wouldn’t have to work with black people.

“Now transpires”? Come on, it was in the Mail on Sunday interview. You seem to think you’ve made some sort of major discovery.

This reference to the BNP and serving black people is not a valid comparison. I had a French penfriend at school, Nicole, a Parisienne whose family were from Martinique. Nicole became an obstetrician, and was notable for being one of the youngest black female obstetricians of her generation in France. Her family were also devout Catholics and did not believe in birth control or abortion.

If I had needed an abortion in France and turned up at her hospital I have no doubt she would have got someone else, qualified, to do it. In Brett’s eyes this would have been a black woman refusing to “serve” a white woman. To my mind I would have been asking her to act against her conscience and I would have been quite happy for an alternative doctor, who was also well qualified, to carry it out instead.

Brett’s shrill tirade that this registrar must be “made” to conduct civil partnership ceremonies - which run counter to her conscience and current religious convictions - because it is the law - are made in a pointless and spiteful way and given that other registrars can and will conduct such ceremonies, who is inconvenienced?

Noone stands the gays wanting civil partners in a separate queue in an office, marked “Gays” only. I imagine when they apply for a civil licence they can be assigned to a registrar who will carry out the ceremony.

I can’t bear this sort of “they must be made to ” attitude and I am still speechless over Mettaculture’s earlier chauvinistic remarks. (I shall ignore his/her stupid attack on me).

Mettaculture actually wrote (”Miss not Ms or Mrs in a lawyer tends to indicate young or middle-aged spinsterish and pre-femminist”). This was in a context to indicate the Chairman by virtue of her age or sex did not really appreciate the issues involved. There was no indication it was meant ironically. Nor did he explain what statistics he is using to prove that the use of Ms means a lawyer is young or middle aged spinsterish and pre-feminist (note correct spelling) as that would make her in her 70s at least. It seems clear to me he was using both terms in a perjorative sense.

“This reference to the BNP and serving black people is not a valid comparison.”

Why?

“In Brett’s eyes this would have been a black woman refusing to “serve” a white woman. “

Bullshit. Frankly, that’s quite a stupid thing to say.

“Brett’s shrill tirade that this registrar must be “made” to conduct civil partnership ceremonies “

No, my point is that people who do not want to commit to serving the whole community without fear or favour should not seek jobs in public service. Further, secular institutions should remain secular since the church is allowed to discrimate as it pleases. And finally - and you don’t appear to be able to grasp this - but if everyone in public service were allowed to act on their religious taboos, there would be chaos.

““Now transpires”? Come on, it was in the Mail on Sunday interview. You seem to think you’ve made some sort of major discovery.”

Fucking idiot. It’s not like the phrase “now transpires” wasn’t hot-linked to the press story!

Fucking idiot. It’s not like the phrase “now transpires” wasn’t hot-linked to the press story!

Your abuse is most charming, Brett. The phrase was hot-linked to a story in Pink News. The “revelation” was in the Mail on Sunday, which you linked to, but not in the context of that aspect. Thus you presented it, misleadingly, as a Pink News “exclusive” which you - clever fellow - had picked up on.

Your choosing to fix on this aspect of her past, which she admits to still feeling “guilty” about almost 30 years later, as evidence of “hypocrisy” is bizarre, frankly.

ChrisC - I have asked you repreatedly whether you’d agree to allow a BNP member to avoid serving black people. You have consistently avoided answering the question. You deflect it. Meanwhile you provide ample excuses for why a person should be allowed to refuse to serve gay people if no one is “inconvenienced”.

Now those statements are simply lies. The dreary BNP analogy was answered perfectly clearly by me at least twice and no-one (including the Registrar in the Islington case) has ever claimed the right to refuse to serve gay people or defended any claim to such a right.

No, my point is that people who do not want to commit to serving the whole community without fear or favour should not seek jobs in public service.

I don’t think that is your point. Indeed your 10.00p.m. response yesterday makes it clear you expect public servants to behave in accordance with your morality. So it appears you expect civil servants to have ignored clause 28 in the 80s but to suppress their own faith based concerns about civil partnerships now.

Unlike you, I don’t have any particular enthusiasm for sacking people from their employment just because they happen to have a different moral outlook to mine. Examples involving BNP members are irrelevant because no moral issue is engaged, and it is difficult to come up with examples that aren’t ludicrously unlikely because on the whole public servants do serve the whole community without fear or favour. However (and with apologies for the fact that I have no idea whether any of this would actually happen in practice) let’s test your commitment to your “point” as set out above:

An openly (shall we say flamboyantly and obviously) gay Registrar is reluctant to officiate at the civic component of Moslem marriages. He has two reasons: first he feels it would spoil the day for the happy couple who might have strong views about homosexuality and second he fears feeling intimidated being in the presence of large numbers of people whose attitude may well be that he deserves execution for his sexuality. He suggests it might be in everyone’s interests if he didn’t get allocated to these events. I take it you would refuse and just sack him instead?

“Thus you presented it, misleadingly, as a Pink News “exclusive” which you - clever fellow - had picked up on.”

Still playing the fucking idiot. The Pink News story quite plainly attributes the story to the MoS, but is more useful because it also provides reaction to the story. There was no claim of exclusivity here or at Pink News.

Go troll somewhere else, you stupid fuckwit.

Sin is sin period. No and’s if’s or but’s. Hooray for Lillian Ladele standing up to pressure from people wanting self instead of God! That’s right people want self then God!
shipwrecksoul.blogspot.com

Had a cheap lobotomy recently?

“Now those statements are simply lies. The dreary BNP analogy was answered perfectly clearly by me at least twice and no-one (including the Registrar in the Islington case) has ever claimed the right to refuse to serve gay people or defended any claim to such a right.”

ChrisC. I grow weary of your sophistry.

This woman has refused service to gay people. You have defended her right to do so on the grounds that someone else can provide the service she refuses to give.

The BNP analogy is not “dreary”. It is perfectly apt. If you say a person with religious objections to gay people can refuse to serve them (so long as someone else is willing to), then why is it “dreary” to ask if you would accept a person with political objections to black people refusing to serve them (so long as someone else is willing to)?

Benjamin: “However, folk with these archaic views don’t deserve to be sacked nor pointlessly sneered at by the likes of Brett on blogs.”

No - all bigots such as this should be endlessly sneered at by the likes of Brett, and as many others as possible.

And this idea that her job description had changed with the introduction of civil partnerships is b*ll*cks.

Does a waiter’s job description change each time there is a new dish on the menu?

“An openly (shall we say flamboyantly and obviously) gay Registrar is reluctant to officiate at the civic component of Moslem marriages. He has two reasons: first he feels it would spoil the day for the happy couple who might have strong views about homosexuality and second he fears feeling intimidated being in the presence of large numbers of people whose attitude may well be that he deserves execution for his sexuality. He suggests it might be in everyone’s interests if he didn’t get allocated to these events. I take it you would refuse and just sack him instead?”

This is so dishonest, it’s almost jaw-dropping. In the case you illustrate, the gay registrar is giving the client the option of choseing someone else if *they* object to HIM. He is not objecting to THEM, branding them sinners and refusing to do the ceremony.

If he said he disliked Muslims and consequently wouldn’t perform the ceremony then of course he should be sacked.

Public servants should perform their duties providing service to the public - all the public - without fear or favour.

This woman has refused service to gay people.

A lie. Read the judgment. She had, for example, been registering deaths amongst gay couples for years.

If you say a person with religious objections to gay people can refuse to serve them (so long as someone else is willing to), then why is it “dreary” to ask if you would accept a person with political objections to black people refusing to serve them (so long as someone else is willing to)?

More lies. I’ve never said people with religious objections to gay people should be able to refuse to serve them. In fact no-one, including the Registrar, ever claimed that. I haven’t actually said that a Registrar whose religious view is that marriage inevitably involves a man and a woman should be entitled to opt out of officiating at civil partnerships, merely that a good employer is legally obliged to consider accommodating this if requested, in accordance with legislation barring discrimination against employees on grounds of religion or faith. As I have said, racist views engage no religious or faith issue and can and should be disregarded.

Why is it you won’t answer any questions Brett? Point us to the hordes of angry gay men in Kent demanding justice because the County Council made the accommodation Islington refused. And do tell me what you would do to my hypothetical gay registrar.

ChrisC. I’m beginning to think your contortions can be put down to the fact that the Islington council is a LibDem council and I seem to recall you previously defending Miranda Grell’s campaign of whispers against a gay LibDem on the grounds, chiefly, that he was a LibDem.

“And do tell me what you would do to my hypothetical gay registrar.”

I have already told you.

And I have no interest in discussing this any further with you because you won’t confine the discussion to ethics and justice. Your opt out is that the law says don’t have to respect racist views but you must respect religious ones. The law says you can’t discriminate for political reasons but you can for religious ones. This tells us nothing about whether this is fair, logical or ethical.

So let’s call it quits, eh. Im not interested in the sophistry of “it wasn’t because they were gay, it was that they were gay and wanted recognition of their partnership in accordance with their legal rights” bullshit. That’s why a registrar is there. They are public servants whose job it is to serve all the public in accordance with all the rights they have been granted by the state. End of story.

I wonder what Brett thinks he has achieved by this? Brownie excuses Brett’s unpleasant personal attacks on Ladele because Brett’s gay (ridiculous).

Which suggest I said something along the lines of:

“Those gays are so hysterical. You’ll have to excuse Brett.”

When in fact my point is that given it is gay men and women whose status has been compromised by a judgment that confers a right on a public servant to avoid having to serve them, I’d expect gay men and women to be a little more vexed by this than your average Jo or Joanna. A point any sane, intellectually honest observer could easily absorb. Not you, in other words.

Brett’s shrill tirade that this registrar must be “made” to conduct civil partnership ceremonies - which run counter to her conscience and current religious convictions - because it is the law - are made in a pointless and spiteful way and given that other registrars can and will conduct such ceremonies, who is inconvenienced?

Mrs Ben, you’re still missing the point. I suspect that the majority of gay couples would rather not see their ceremonies presided over by registrars who think the way Ladele does. If Islington or any other council wants to find an accommodation with its staff, then so be it. I would still argue that allowing dispensations of the sort Ladele sought runs counter to the stated aims of Islington to operate services available to all, but this aside, an accommodation that doesn’t degrade the council’s ability to deliver services to the public is not going to get me too worked up. Unfortunately, the judgment in this case was not about establishing the right of an employer to accommodate an employee’s views; the judgment found that failure to accommodate the wish of Ladele amounted to indirect religious discrimination against her. In other words, Islington was compelled to grant her the dispensation she sought. Not within its rights to, but *compelled* to.

There is the broader question of why a compulsion to accommodate religious objections but not those of any other stripe (political, moral, etc..), however, I would hope we can illustrate just how misguided this judgment is by restricting the focus to purely religious objections. Do I need to run through a list of religious taboos that could possibly form the basis of a dispensation request by a public service employee that we could all agree were objectionable? What if the religious objection focused on race, or ethnicity rather than sexual orientation? Can you justify why there is a compulsion to accede to the request of someone who objects to same-sex couples marrying but not to grant the same dispensation to a Sunni who objects to serving Sufis?

This is the essence of Brett’s point and why his analogies make it so uncomfortable for those defending this judgment. Discrimination against gay men and women is simply not taken as seriously as discrimination based on gender, colour or race. It’s the unspoken truth. Many of those who would be horrified to be thought of racist simply do not see a problem with overtly anti-gay prejudice. That’s bad enough, but when these views are endorsed by the state, it’s so much worse.

A lie. Read the judgment. She had, for example, been registering deaths amongst gay couples for years.

Because she not doubt enjoyed playing her part in the process that condemned their arse bandit souls to eternal damnation.

A stretch?

Not as a big a one as claiming that an objection to performning same-sex civil ceremonies has nothing to do with her attitude towards homosexuality becuase, you know, she’d object to the union of two heterosexual males, also.

I’m obviously missing something about this case. As I understand it, the woman says that Marriage is an estate provided by God for procreation. All well and good.

So how is she able to conduct ANY civil partnerships at all as they are not ordained by God. In fact she is supplanting the Priest in the ceremony.

At that point, the gender or orientation of the participants is a little irrelevant isnt it?

She compromised her beliefs to carry out the job anyway so drawing the line at same sex partnerships only seems to be homophobic to me. Her inconsistency doesnt lead me to believe her stated reasons are logical or truthful.

So how is she able to conduct ANY civil partnerships at all as they are not ordained by God. In fact she is supplanting the Priest in the ceremony.

Marriage=!civil partnership

And, before I forget, Brett has descended into genuine bigotry himself by this silly attack on the registrar’s behaviour 20 years ago.

“And, before I forget, Brett has descended into genuine bigotry himself by this silly attack on the registrar’s behaviour 20 years ago.”

Um, it may be nasty, but how on earth is it “genuine bigotry”?

I have nothing against people who have sex before marriage (in fact I recoomed it) and I think the whole “child out of wedlock” thing is absurd. I don’t hold up her supposedly god-ordained sex and marriage framework as some sort of celestial gold standard, she does. I’m merely pointing out that she has fallen far short of the same standard she now holds up in judgment of gay & lesbian couples.

You worry about her feelings? What about the feelings of gay Christians - particularly those in relationships - who have been insulted by Lilian Ladele and branded sinners and fornicators? You don’t think they are hurt by cases like this?

“Marriage=!civil partnership”

If she doesnt equate the two then how are her religious sensibilities offended at all. The bible says nothing about the acceptable terms for civil partnerships. Her argument is completely bogus then.

Marriage=!civil partnership

But marriage=civil marriage. She conducts civil marriages. Are you contending there is no contradiction between her belief that marriage is God-ordained and her role in facilitating secular marriage?

You see, there are those of us who are uncomfortable with her invocation of the ‘God’ stuff to justify an objection to officiating at same-sex partnership ceremonies, but her apparent preparedness to let the ‘God’ stuff slip in the matter of heterosexual civil marriage.

Brownie

Absolutely you have got it precisely.

Mrs Ben

While jumping up and down with faux outrage over my ’sexism’ and a bit more willful non sequiteurs about race (showing us that these are the only two forms of discrimination that you grant equal status to) you fail to grasp for one second that you are a HOMOPHOBE,

No matter what you think of yourself you clearly place homosexual dignity and equality at a lower level of concern.

Worse you dare to call a Gay man who has every reason to be upset ‘excitable’ and ’shrill’ (in fact you positively shreik it).

And its not ‘the Gays’ or ‘Gays’ other than in the Daily Mail (do you constantly speak of ‘jews’ do this or ‘the Jews’ do that ‘the Jews are upset why’ etc?)

Try Gay men and lesbians, or ’some Gay people’ or ‘a law to provide for Gay Men and lesbians’ rather than ‘marriage for the gays’.

You are so perfectly predictable but instead of reserving your ire for what you think someone means when they say Miss, try applying a little of what you feel by the process of analogical reasoning (i you are capable of non- hierachical thought, though you seem to have to put everything into a rank order of worthiness) to how patronising and offensive your views of gay men and lesbians are.