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