Victory for Christian registrar who refused to carry out gay ‘weddings’

[Rrose Selavy]

A Christian registrar who was harassed and discriminated against after she refused to carry out same-sex civil partnership ceremonies has won a key legal battle.
Lillian Ladele, 47, said that she was treated like a pariah by colleagues at Islington council in North London after she said that she could not carry out the ceremonies as a matter of religious conscience



An employment tribunal found that the council showed no respect for Ms Ladele’s rights “by virtue of her orthodox Christian beliefs”.
Employment lawyers said that while the case set no binding legal precedent, it would make councils much more likely to give weight to the religious views of employees.



Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights group Stonewall, said: “Public servants are paid by taxpayers to deliver public services. They shouldn’t be able to pick and choose who they deliver those services to. Doubtless 40 years ago there were moral objections to mixed-race marriages. Quite rightly such objections would no longer be entertained.”

full report here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4312447.ece

[wahrheit]

I don't give a [ruleX] about her "orthodox Christian beliefs".

Marriage is a state thingy, not a religious one. If she wants to work for the church, she is free to do so. As it seems, she is currently getting paid by taxpayers. Taxpayers != (not equals) church.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I hope this gets rectified beyond the level of "employment tribunal".

[RobRoy]

Wow, what a lame stance to make as a public servant.

[six7s]

Public servants are paid by taxpayers to deliver public services

I think that a 'celebrant' is obliged to provide a level of service that includes sufficient 'acting' skills to create/reinforce a sense of occasion

For the second time in as many days:
Acting is all about honesty.
If you can fake that, you've got it made.
George Burns (1896 - 1996)

Otherwise, civil unions would (presumably) be conducted by clerks at ground-floor reception in the Town Hall, alongside building permit applications

I suspect that the job-description might be in need of some editing

[Soapy Sam]

I dunno.
I don't rate her religious values at all, but if I had been making doughnuts for years and someone told me I had to start making them out of hard candy, I think I'd balk. Hard candy doth not a doughnut make , legislation notwithstanding.

The sort of public servant who simply obeys orders is not necessarily the best kind to have. Sadly, it's often the sincere thoughtful people who question change. Sometimes I think they're right, sometimes I think they are wrong, but it's possible to sympathise, even when I do not share their conclusion.

[DeusPhasmatis]

It's against my religion to pay taxes. Does the state have to respect that too?

[plumjam]

It makes no difference at all whether she's a public servant or not. An employer has no right to force an employee into doing something which goes against the employee's personal beliefs/conscience.
A doctor who works for the NHS is a public servant too. That doctor can't be forced to perform abortions if it goes against his/her personal beliefs. Nor should such an employee be subsequently harassed for taking a stand.

[DeusPhasmatis]

It makes no difference at all whether she's a public servant or not. An employer has no right to force an employee into doing something which goes against the employee's personal beliefs/conscience.
A doctor who works for the NHS is a public servant too. That doctor can't be forced to perform abortions if it goes against his/her personal beliefs. Nor should such an employee be subsequently harassed for taking a stand.

They can quit their job or get fired. This is like those asses who refused to sell anti-contraceptives because it was against their religion. If one refuses to do a part of one's job, one is damn well going to catch flak from co-workers and employers. One should different job.

[six7s]

A doctor who works for the NHS is a public servant too. That doctor can't be forced to perform abortions if it goes against his/her personal beliefs.

Next time you meet such a person, please ask them if, when called upon to perform neurosurgery, they have similar objections to shaving the patients head

Dear Dr. Laura,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that (Leviticus 18:22) clearly states it to be an abomination.

End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.
<snip/>
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by (Lev.19:27). How should they die?
<snip>

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan, Jim

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I got hired for weekend work at a local store, but I can't go because it is the Sabbath. They shouldn't be able to fire me though.

Seriously, it is part of the job detail now. If it goes against her beliefs, then she should quit.

[six7s]

Maybe the Lord will provide her with a P45 and a link to http://www.ukchristianjobs.com/

[Macoy]

It's a victory for bigotry! Hooray!

Why not just become a priest?

[Achán hiNidráne]

I remember an argument I had with a fundie co-worker a couple of years back when our state had an anti-gay marriage amendment referendum on the ballot (it passed handily in this allegedly "progressive" blue state). His argument is that if gay marriage were legal that he--he was studying to become a minister at the time--would have to be forced to marry homosexuals against his religious principles.

First of all, I told him that allowing same sex marriage would in no way obligate his church to marry gays and lesbians. His church could maintain its bigoted prohibitions all it wants under the first amendment. But, I also pointed out to him that the law he was endorsing would violate the rights of more liberal churches to make their own decisions about who they can or can't marry. Why should their religious freedom be curtailed to satisfy the homophobic demands of less enlightened denominations?

He didn't have an answer (he probably didn't care, churches that marry homosexuals probably weren't "really Christian" in his view), he danced around the issue by going straight to the "gay-marriage-will-devalue-traditional-marriage" canard.

[Macoy]

Some priests (or rabbis or imams or hubbards) are more bigoted than others.

[maxfrost]

It makes no difference at all whether she's a public servant or not. An employer has no right to force an employee into doing something which goes against the employee's personal beliefs/conscience.

Plumjam's right. No one should be forced to do something which goes against his or her personal beliefs/conscience. On the other hand, no one was putting a gun to this woman's head.

Nor should such an employee be subsequently harassed for taking a stand.

Also true. She should be fired for not fulfilling her duties as described by her job description.

Civil disobedience does not come with a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. Thoreau was well aware of the possible penalty for not paying his taxes and decided the lesser evil was imprisonment. If the woman feels that strongly about not performing ceremonies for same sex marriages, then she should resign.

[Slimething]

Maybe the Lord will provide her with a P45 and a link to http://www.ukchristianjobs.com/

Agree fully! An employee who won't fulfill the job description should resign or be fired. This person accepting money for a job they won't do is actually defrauding the government.

Well put.

[DeusPhasmatis]

From the article in question, emphasis mine:
Ms Ladele, who is now expected to return to work, wept as she told the tribunal that her bosses ordered her to perform the ceremonies or face dismissal for gross misconduct. She said: “I felt harassed and victimised. I was being picked on on a daily basis.”

"Harassment" is perfectly legal when it's relevant to your job. Or, I suppose it's better to say, it's not harassment when you're being scolded for not doing your job. It's harassment when there's no valid reason. Refusing to perform your duty is a valid reason for verbal warnings.

[Macoy]

Yes, it's a question of if you're not prepared to obey the law whilst carrying out one of the easiest jobs for even easier money then why not stick your religious bigoted finger Vatican wise?

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's already a thread on this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118211#post3850319) though it has one of those titles that doesn't reveal the topic specifically.

My comment there was (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3850279#post3850279), "So with that door open, if you are Catholic you can refuse to perform second marriages for divorced people having another go round. You could refuse to marry atheists because it wouldn't be a union under your god."

[plumjam]

Seeing as it's quite a recent change in the law I'm assuming this woman was already in the job prior to this being expected of her. Therefore it represents a change of her job description.
So people who are responding that she should either go against her conscience or resign.. well, how would you like that if something similar happened to you?

Say you join an organization whose values are in sync with your own.. maybe some educational or research body. Then this body decides to go in a direction which goes counter to your beliefs/values. Maybe it starts to push research and education into creationism. And they demand that you go along with the program.
You refuse, and are harassed for it.
Fair?

I reckon people are criticising this woman mainly because her values are not your own. But when you change the example around to involve your own values, things look a bit different, don't they.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Seeing as it's quite a recent change in the law I'm assuming this woman was already in the job prior to this being expected of her. Therefore it represents a change of her job description.
So people who are responding that she should either go against her conscience or resign.. well, how would you like that if something similar happened to you?

Say you join an organization whose values are in sync with your own.. maybe some educational or research body. Then this body decides to go in a direction which goes counter to your beliefs/values. Maybe it starts to push research and education into creationism. And they demand that you go along with the program.
You refuse, and are harassed for it.
Fair?

I reckon people are criticising this woman mainly because her values are not your own. But when you change the example around to involve your own values, things look a bit different, don't they.

Uh, that analogy is not quite apt, and why is being fired for not doing your job harassment?

And no, switching it around doesn't change my view.

[six7s]

I reckon people are criticising this woman mainly because her values are not your own. But when you change the example around to involve your own values, things look a bit different, don't they.No

I once worked in a job I very much enjoyed, until there was a change in management/direction... my new boss soon proved to be a homophobic racist

Dilemma: jobs were scarce, money was tight

I quit

The sense of trepidation was dwarfed by the unforgettable buzz that came as I walked towards the door, to nods and then cheers from cow-orkers, three of whom left in the next fortnight :)

[plumjam]

No

I once worked in a job I very much enjoyed, until there was a change in management/direction... my new boss soon proved to be a homophobic racist

Dilemma: jobs were scarce, money was tight

I quit

The sense of trepidation was dwarfed by the unforgettable buzz that came as I walked towards the door, to nods and then cheers from cow-orkers, three of whom left in the next fortnight :)

That was your decision.
If you had stayed and they'd tried to force you into doing something against your conscience, which hadn't been part of your original job description, and you refused on principal and became a target of harassment because of it, the sensible thing to have done would have been to go to an industrial tribunal where, like this woman, you would most probably have won.

[plumjam]

Uh, that analogy is not quite apt,
How not?

and why is being fired for not doing your job harassment?
I never said it was. She wasn't fired, she was harassed.

And no, switching it around doesn't change my view.
I think it probably would if it happened to you in real life.

[six7s]

That was your decision.
If you had stayed ...industrial tribunal ... you would most probably have won.I did win... although the 'awards' were (are) intangible

[Lothian]

It would be nice to see a copy of the decision. It is not cleat wat she was appealing against. The quote the tribunal found that the behaviour of her colleagues had “the effect of violating Ms Ladele’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”. does not make it clear whether it was what she was asked to do or how she was asked that the tribunal found offensive.

The article states that the case sets no binding precedent. No tribunal sets a binding precedent, only a higher court can do that, so why mention precedents, they are irrelevant?

I personally don't think religious beliefs should trump political or any other beliefs.
If the case was about whether people should be made to carry out the functions of their job if a change in the law goes against their beliefs a precedent would be very dangerous. Would there be a case for a Policemen who joined the force when cannabis was a class C drug who disagreed with the upgrading to Class B?

I imagine that the police case would be dismissed but I don't see much difference in legal principle to marriage one. That Ms Ladele won suggests to me that this case was perhaps not solely about the principle.

[Safe-Keeper]

So people who are responding that she should either go against her conscience or resign.. well, how would you like that if something similar happened to you?That's a no-brainer. I'd discuss it with my superiors, and if their views wouldn't budge, I'd first ask if it was OK if I didn't do the new chores... or announce that regrettably, I find myself forced to resign.

On paper, of course:). In reality, in a "jobs few, money tight" scenario as described above... who knows. Having ideals is one thing, daring to live them out is entirely another:).

[Fiona]

There is not really enough information to say if the tribunal ruled on the basis of poor treatment or on the basis of lack of respect for her stance. I find myself with Soapy and Plumjam here. I do not see why, if she has been doing the job for some time, she cannot be given dispensation in this case so long as she does not do less work leaving colleagues to pick up the slack. So long as any new employees must sign up to doing the whole job this problem will just fade away over time and this seems reasonable to me. It is about individuals - it is not as if the organisation is refusing to implement the law as is the case with catholic adoption agencies. I think we should try to accommodate principle where there is no adverse practical effect and the problem will resolve itself naturally give a change in the contract to reflect a change in the law for new recruits

[Paulhoff]

So plumjam, it would be alright for a police person not to help someone in need because of their sexual orientation and/or religion.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Uzzy]

One's belief in mythical sky fairies should not, under any circumstances, be allowed as a legal protection to spout one's bigotry. Or, in this case, be allowed as a defence against failing to do her job as a public servant.

She worked for the Government, and decided that the law of the land didn't apply to her. She should have been fired, and it's a shame that this employment tribunal has decided that bigotry is allowed, as long as one believes in it.

[phantomb]

Seeing as it's quite a recent change in the law I'm assuming this woman was already in the job prior to this being expected of her. Therefore it represents a change of her job description.
So people who are responding that she should either go against her conscience or resign.. well, how would you like that if something similar happened to you?

Having your job changed on you can be unfortunate, but it is a possibility that she should have been aware of when she took the position in the first place. If you have strong beliefs about the performance of your job, you can hold out for work with a contract or unionized representation that gives you more control over how and when your job description changes, putting you in a position to bargain for a package if you need to resign due to personal beliefs.

When the law (and the job requirements) changed, the woman in question should have immediately spoken with her boss or supervisor to discuss the problem she had with her new duties. She absolutely should not have waited for an incident to raise the issue, and I imagine it is because she did this that she received flak from her coworkers.

[Seismosaurus]

Two different issues here.

The woman was harassed for refusing to do her job. It was absolutely wrong that she should be harassed for that, and she justifiably won on that basis.

She should, however, have been fired for refusing to do her job.

If my school told me tomorrow that I had to start teaching creation-based "science" in my lessons, I would refuse and resign. If, however, I chose to stay in my job and simply teach what I wanted to instead of what I was told to, then the school could, and legally and morally should, fire my ass.

[A Christian Sceptic]

It's not entirely clear what the "legal battle" was about from the OP - but it sounds more like it was about how she was treated, rather than what her duties are.

[gdnp]

I don't think I would want this woman presiding over my civil union if I were gay. If the people in the office discussed this like adults, they probably could have come to some accommodation. Something like this: "my religion teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. That would make me very uncomfortable performing civil union ceremonies for gay people. I don't think that it is fair to gays to have someone perform their ceremony that can't do so without a positive attitude. I would thus like to opt out of gay ceremonies, and will be happy to take on other duties in compensation"

If she were unable to state her objection in a non-offensive way, then it is she who is creating the hostile environment.

There would be a bigger issue if she were the only worker in the office, thus effectively blocking the rights of gays. Much like if the only pharmacist in town refuses to dispense birth control to unwed women.

All future applicants should be required to attest that they will perform all current and duties and any future duties of the office or be subject to dismissal.

[Blue Mountain]

I'm torn on this. Most people, even those flipping burgers at the local fast-food chain, have their jobs change on them. I work with computers (programming, infrastructure, networking) and my job changes completely about every five years. Being flexible is a necessity.

On the other hand, as skeptics shouldn't we at least pay lip service to the idea that people can hold different beliefs? So what if a lot of us don't believe in her god? She does, and also believes said god does not sanction marriages between two people of the same sex. In refusing to perform such marriages, is she that much different from those who worked to have the law changed in the first place because they felt it was wrong?

Here's a not so off-the-wall scenario: a law passes that requires creationism be taught in schools alongside evolution. All the Christians say, "You're in a free country and you have freedom of choice: you can teach it, you can quit, or you can be fired." Do all the science teachers just say, "Well, it's the law of the land now, so I'll just add ID to my lesson plans"?

[gdnp]

Here's a not so off-the-wall scenario: a law passes that requires creationism be taught in schools alongside evolution. All the Christians say, "You're in a free country and you have freedom of choice: you can teach it, you can quit, or you can be fired." Do all the science teachers just say, "Well, it's the law of the land now, so I'll just add ID to my lesson plans"?

Yep. The teacher does not set the curriculum. The battle must be fought at a higher level.

ETA: the same goes for the teaching of contraception in health class. Or for anti-drug curricula. Follow the curriculum of the school board, regardless of your personal beliefs, or get fired.

[DeusPhasmatis]

I must repeat, for all those who missed it: "Ms Ladele, who is now expected to return to work, wept as she told the tribunal that her bosses ordered her to perform the ceremonies or face dismissal for gross misconduct. She said: 'I felt harassed and victimised. I was being picked on on a daily basis.'" It seems blatantly obvious to me, that this "harassment" was no more than being chewed out for refusing to do her job. Do you really think civil service departments can ever afford to employ people who won't do their share of the work?

[gdnp]

I must repeat, for all those who missed it: "Ms Ladele, who is now expected to return to work, wept as she told the tribunal that her bosses ordered her to perform the ceremonies or face dismissal for gross misconduct. She said: 'I felt harassed and victimised. I was being picked on on a daily basis.'" It seems blatantly obvious to me, that this "harassment" was no more than being chewed out for refusing to do her job.

Maybe to you, but not to me. She may have been told to do her job, and harassed by others in the office. For all I know they were leaving gay porn on her desk. Without further evidence we have her assertion that she was harassed and no evidence one way or the other.

[Silentknight]

Yes, and what that also means is that there was no evidence provided that she was subjected to anything matching the legal definition of harassment. In her own words, she said she "felt harassed and victimized" which is an interesting choice of words, since they leave out any specific mention of what types of harassment she suffered through, other than the order to do her job or face dismissal. Some religious believers consider any kind of disagreement with their beliefs to be 'persecution,' and according to the article itself, both this woman and the ruling tribunal regarded discrimination against gays as a protected right under religious liberty.

On the other hand, it's not absolutely necessary for her to do that part of her job since it's not a life or death situation, and I don't think gay couples would want anything to do with her regardless. Just be glad her job is that of a registrar, and not a pharmacist, police officer, or brain surgeon.

[gdnp]

Yes, and what that also means is that there was no evidence provided that she was subjected to anything matching the legal definition of harassment. In her own words, she said she "felt harassed and victimized" which is an interesting choice of words, since they leave out any specific mention of what types of harassment she suffered through, other than the order to do her job or face dismissal. Some religious believers consider any kind of disagreement with their beliefs to be 'persecution,' and according to the article itself, both this woman and the ruling tribunal regarded discrimination against gays as a protected right under religious liberty.

You neglected this part of her quote "I was being picked on on a daily basis." Without knowing what this constituted, we cannot make a judgment on whether she was harassed or simply oversensitive.

On the other hand, it's not absolutely necessary for her to do that part of her job since it's not a life or death situation, and I don't think gay couples would want anything to do with her regardless. Which is the point I made. If she were a valuable employee and asked in a respectful manner to trade duties with her co-workers so that she could avoid a small part that conflicted with her religious beliefs, I would try to accommodate her, just as my division has accommodated a Jewish member who wishes to attend services on Saturday. He takes extra Sunday call, and covers Christmas every year.

I don't think it helps the cause of gay rights to raise the specter that people will have to not only tolerate other lifestyles but embrace them.

[six7s]

Without further evidence we have her assertion that she was harassed and no evidence one way or the other.
With current evidence, it seems reasonable (to me, at least) to conclude that she - in raising NO objections to marrying ANY straight couples - is a hypocrite:
“I hold the orthodox Christian view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others and that this is the God-ordained place for sexual relations. It creates a problem for any Christian if they are expected to do or condone something that they see as sinful. I feel unable to facilitate directly the formation of a union that I sincerely believe is contrary to God’s law.”

Source: timesonline.co.uk (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3972735.ece)
My conclusion is based on the premise that she ain't stoopid enough to 'sincerely believe' that 100% of the straight couples she married were living "sincerely" in accordance with "God’s law"

If there are significant holes in my reasoning, please do point them out

[six7s]

thisislondon.co.uk/news/article Last updated at 23:52pm on 13.01.08 (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23432144-details/Registrar+who+says+she+won't+do+gay+weddings...+an d+is+now+taking+council+to+a+tribunal/article.do)
Until last month, Britain's 1,700 registrars of births, marriages and deaths worked, in effect, on a freelance basis under the supervision of the Registrar General.

This gave them the freedom to opt out of civil partnership ceremonies if they chose to do so.

But their employment status was changed on December 1 by a new law, the Statistics and Registration Act, which brought them under the control of town halls.

As local government workers, they must now carry out council officers' instructions.

Ms Ladele, who earns £31,000 a year, launched her legal action on November 28 - two days before the new legislation came into force.


telegraph.co.uk/opinion/ Sam Leith Last Updated: 11:01pm BST 11/07/2008
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/12/do1205.xml)Rather than throw her toys from the pram when her job description changed, she attempted to come to an accommodation. For 15 months, she swapped shifts with colleagues to avoid presiding over civil partnerships for gay couples.

It sounds to me as if Islington council could have been more delicate in its dealings with her, and perhaps have found a compromise. I am well prepared to believe that Miss Ladele's life was not much fun as she was presented with a choice between her faith and her job.

But Islington received formal complaints about her refusals. And regardless of her personal convictions, the job of a registrar does now involve presiding over civil ceremonies for gay couples.

So you can well see why the council, which needs to make the best use of the tax money contributed by residents of all sexual and religious stripes, was exasperated by having a registrar on full pay who refused to do part of her job.

[gdnp]

My conclusion is based on the premise that she ain't stoopid enough to 'sincerely believe' that 100% of the straight couples she married were living "sincerely" in accordance with "God’s law"

If there are significant holes in my reasoning, please do point them out

The flaw in your logic is that she does not need to believe that "100% of the straight couples she married were living "sincerely" in accordance with "God’s law"" to perform marriages of straight couples as long as she has no evidence that they are not.

Take the example of an accountant and civil law. An accountant knows that some of his clients are probably under reporting their income and can continue to do his job as long as he has no personal knowledge of it. But it would be illegal to abet drug smugglers launder their tainted money if he knew the source.

[six7s]

Bollocks

[gdnp]

Bollocks

can't argue with that. If there are significant holes in my reasoning, please point them out.

[six7s]

can't argue with that. If there are significant holes in my reasoning, please point them out.

Either you have (conveniently?) overlooked what she said:
I feel unable to facilitate directly the formation of a union that I sincerely believe is contrary to God’s law
Or your interpretation of what 'sincerely believe' implies precludes you from anything other than holey reasoning

[gdnp]

She feels she cannot participate in unions between gay couples because she "sincerely believes" these are contrary to God's law.

If she "sincerely believes" that unions between men and women are in accordance with God's law, and I have no reason to doubt her, then how does this make her a hypocrite? The only thing that would make her a hypocrite would be performing a wedding between a man and a woman that she felt was contrary to God's law: for example, performing a polygamist ceremony. What man-woman ceremonies contrary to God's law do you claim she has performed?

[six7s]

www.gbs.eduGod's Revivalist and Bible Advocate What Is A Christian Wedding? (http://www.gbs.edu/revivalist/0306_editorial.shtml)

...Christian weddings are about God and His designs...

...a holy rite where God is exalted and His purpose is fulfilled. That is why it usually takes place in church, conducted by a pastor before a congregation; and that is also why all its details must be reverent and devout. A Christian wedding must honor God! This principle is timeless and universal, and it is uncompromising and non-negotiable. A Christian wedding must be Christian!

...He established holy matrimony ... sanctifies the atmosphere.... He unites bride and groom in lifelong, sacred covenant...

... the Rev. Massey Shepherd, Jr., a liturgical expert, has explained...may do this before a magistrate on the courthouse steps as well as before a clergyman on the altar steps. If their vows are lawfully made, they are as valid before the one as before the other.

Yet for most Christians, the bare legalities are not enough; and that is why they ask the church to receive and bless their vows. “When the Church presides over a marriage ceremony,” Shepherd adds, “it serves as the witness to the contract, and through its [minister] bestows a blessing of God upon the union, with prayer that the parties concerned may have grace to fulfill their vows of fidelity and to create a Christian family and home.”

<snip/>

Witness, blessing, and prayer—these are the central roles which the church supplies at weddings conducted by its pastors. It must also insist, however, that these take place in an atmosphere which honors God.

<snip/>

“All texts, actions, and intent must honor God.”

<snip/>

So how does a Christian wedding honor God? We suggest five brief answers to that question

1. A Christian wedding honors God in worship. “Marriage in the church is a worship service; therefore every element of the service should honor God in a spirit of worship,” ... Christian weddings do not focus first upon the bride and groom but upon the God whom they ask to bless their union. ... sacred celebrations ... sanctified by Him.

Deep reverence for the holy and the Holy One are essential to any atmosphere of worship; ... Exalted, Christian music is essential ...

2. A Christian wedding honors God in purpose. ...the church must speak powerfully of God’s designs in marriage... ... everything about a wedding should emphasize that marriage is pledged in holy, lifelong covenant between a man and woman who also pledge themselves to God... ...

3. A Christian wedding honors God in stewardship. ...one of the most significant milestones of our lives should be commemorated by memorable observance

4. A Christian wedding honors God in personal appearance... never to violate Christian standards of modesty and simplicity. God has spoken specifically on these issues, ...plunging necklines, and bare backs and shoulders are grievous to God ... ...The Bible does not make exceptions for marriage ceremonies

5. A Christian wedding honors God in music. What is sung at God’s altar must be for Him, and this means sacred music, not secular love songs.

... a Christian wedding... is a holy rite where God is exalted and His purpose is fulfilled, and that is why all its details must be reverent and devout. A Christian wedding must honor God! This principle is timeless and universal, and it is uncompromising and non-negotiable.

A Christian wedding must be Christian!

[six7s]

What man-woman ceremonies contrary to God's law do you claim she has performed?I claim none. Rather, I assume more than zero, based on:
My rudimentary understanding of probability
My observations: that Krapy Rubsnif (http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=finsbury+park+krapy+rubsnif&btnG=Search+Images), Highbury and even The Angel are not the exclusive preserve of christians
no mention whatsoever (in this well publicised/documented case) of her expressing any reluctance to officiate at any straight marriages
My (admittedly illogical) reluctance to attribute the influence of any super-natural clerics in the scheduling of appointments for LBI Registrars
XFGrQMD6Uqc

[gdnp]

I claim none. Rather, I assume more than zero, based on:
My rudimentary understanding of probability
My observations: that Krapy Rubsnif (http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&q=finsbury+park+krapy+rubsnif&btnG=Search+Images), Highbury and even The Angel are not the exclusive preserve of christians
no mention whatsoever (in this well publicised/documented case) of her expressing any reluctance to officiate at any straight marriages
My (admittedly illogical) reluctance to attribute the influence of any super-natural clerics in the scheduling of appointments for LBI Registrars


I'm still missing something here: Are you asserting that Christians don't think non-Christians should get married?

[six7s]

I'm still missing something here
I, sincerely, wonder why

Are you asserting that Christians don't think non-Christians should get married?
No

Rather, I think that the views of Ms Ladele, as reported, are not to be trusted or respected

As Ms Ladele said "I feel unable to facilitate directly the formation of a union that I sincerely believe is contrary to God’s law", I think that it seems reasonable to assume that she would feel uncomfortable officiating at a wedding ceremony held to join two people in anything less than holy matrimony, replete with hymns etc., specifically aimed to honour her god

As Ms Ladele earns £31,000 a year, I think that it seems reasonable to assume that she has the intellectual capacity to recognise not only that Islington has never been, nor will be, populated solely by christians but also - in the "almost 16 years (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4312447.ece)" that she has been employed as a registrar of births, marriages and deaths - at least some of the ceremonies at which she has officiated must have been held expressly to join two people in unholy matrimony; ceremonies that did not "take place in an atmosphere which honors God", ceremonies that were "contrary to God’s law"

As you have not challenged my assertion that there has been "no mention whatsoever (in this well publicised/documented case) of her expressing any reluctance to officiate at any straight marriages", I think that it seems probable that her citing a belief in some mythical sky daddy as justification of her homophobia means that she is

a hypocrite
and/or
a liar
and/or
too stoopid to merit a salary of £31,000 a year

To mangle a line that was, coincidentally, originally written in Islington, I have a hunch that I would not be too wide of the mark saying a 'probability factor of one to one. This is reality. I repeat, this is reality. Anything she still can't cope with is therefore her own problem.'

[thaiboxerken]

It makes no difference at all whether she's a public servant or not. An employer has no right to force an employee into doing something which goes against the employee's personal beliefs/conscience.
A doctor who works for the NHS is a public servant too. That doctor can't be forced to perform abortions if it goes against his/her personal beliefs. Nor should such an employee be subsequently harassed for taking a stand.

I don't agree at all. They SHOULD have to do such things, regardless of their superstitious beliefs.

[gdnp]

As Ms Ladele said "I feel unable to facilitate directly the formation of a union that I sincerely believe is contrary to God’s law", I think that it seems reasonable to assume that she would feel uncomfortable officiating at a wedding ceremony held to join two people in anything less than holy matrimony, replete with hymns etc., specifically aimed to honour her god

As Ms Ladele earns £31,000 a year, I think that it seems reasonable to assume that she has the intellectual capacity to recognise not only that Islington has never been, nor will be, populated solely by christians but also - in the "almost 16 years (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4312447.ece)" that she has been employed as a registrar of births, marriages and deaths - at least some of the ceremonies at which she has officiated must have been held expressly to join two people in unholy matrimony; ceremonies that did not "take place in an atmosphere which honors God", ceremonies that were "contrary to God’s law"

A ceremony performed in a church according to God's law to her is, presumably, holy. A ceremony performed for a gay couple is, according to her, contrary to God's law and thus unholy. You wish to imply that she also believes that a civil ceremony performed between an an athiest man and woman would be unholy, thus making her a hypocrite. The problem here is a false dichotomy: there is a third option. She may believe that the athiest marriage is neither holy nor unholy, but neutral.* Since it does not contradict her religious beliefs, it fails the test for hypocrisy.

Or she may have weighed it this way: "it is against God's law to be athiest. It is also against god's law to be a fornicator. But it is less sinful to be a married athiest than an atheist fornicator, so at least we are making progress."

This would only be hypocrisy if she believes that the civil ceremonies she performs are not true marriages in God's eyes.


*I wished to coin the term a-holy, in parallel to the terms heterosexual, homosexual, and asexual, but have declined for obvious reasons.

[six7s]

You wish to imply that she also believes that a civil ceremony performed between an an athiest man and woman would be unholy, thus making her a hypocrite.

No

I wish that you would infer what I imply:
I think that it seems probable that her citing a belief in some mythical sky daddy as justification of her homophobia means that she is a hypocrite
and/or
a liar
and/or
too stoopid to merit a salary of £31,000 a year

[six7s]

*I wished to coin the term a-holy, in parallel to the terms heterosexual, homosexual, and asexual, but have declined for obvious reasons.
:D

[Lothian]

I think that it seems reasonable to assume that she has the intellectual capacity to recognise..... at least some of the ceremonies at which she has officiated must have been held expressly to join two people in unholy matrimony; ceremonies that did not "take place in an atmosphere which honors God", ceremonies that were "contrary to God’s law"I would upgrade some to all. Not one of the weddings she presided over was done in an atmosphere which honours God. It is prohibited to mention Sky fairies in civil weddings. You can not sing about Sky fairies nor can you give a reading alluding to them.
This is from one site (http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/marriages/your-wedding-ceremony/index.asp) but I am sure further details can be found elsewhere Although you cannot incorporate any religious content into a civil marriage ceremony, you may be able to arrange to have individual touches such as non-religious music and/or readings, and for the wedding to be videoed

People who get married in civil ceremonies in the UK would do so for two main reasons. They don't believe in any God or God doesn't believe in them. Most churches will not marry divorcees I dare say Ms ladele presided over many such ceremonies that her church would not allow.

[six7s]

I would upgrade some to all.

Done :)


islington.gov.uk » Marriages and Civil Partnerships » Music at the Town Hall (http://www.islington.gov.uk/Community/marriagescivilpartnerships/ceremonyattownhall/musicatth.asp)
You can bring in your music in CD format, or an MP3 player, such as an iPod.

This should be non-religious music. Non religious means music that does not contain any religious references or words.

[Egg]

I agree that her principles appear to be inconsistent, but I don't think it bears much relevance to her case other than that may well be in part what she's being harassed about.

As gdnp said, one would hope that some kind of compromise would be found in such a case, but failing that, employers shouldn't be forced to keep someone on when it becomes impractical to do so even if it is caused by their religious beliefs.

I think it's unfortunate for her that circumstances changed and therefore her job changed, but ultimately if she won't do her job, her employers should have the right to dismiss her - it's not like they changed her job description in order to discriminate against her.

As far as the harassment from her colleagues goes, that's another matter entirely and should be treated just like any other case of harassment at work.

[Skeptic Ginger]

In US law regarding accommodating handicapped persons there is a thing called "reasonable" accommodation. If courts and employers are going to have to put up with these increasing demands for religious belief accommodation, it seems to me that some guidelines are in order as to what is reasonable accommodation. If you only have one person working at the time and that person cannot marry gays who are legally entitled to be married, then it is not reasonable to accommodate the employee. If there is someone else around who can perform the task then you can as long as it doesn't place a burden on that person such as needing a supervisor or someone assigned to a different job to fill in for the fundie.

If there is no one else to marry the gay couple, then you cannot reasonably accommodate and employee who cannot perform the task. He/she needs to get a different job.

[Paulhoff]

A ceremony performed in a church according to God's law to her is, presumably, holy. A ceremony performed for a gay couple is, according to her, contrary to God's law and thus unholy.
The state and not the church marries people. The church may perform a ceremony but it is the state that issues the license.

Paul

:) :) :)

[brodski]

The state and not the church marries people. The church may perform a ceremony but it is the state that issues the license.

Paul

:) :) :)

Are you trying to draw some distinction between Church and state in regards to UK marriage laws? Why?

[brodski]

In US law regarding accommodating handicapped persons there is a thing called "reasonable" accommodation. If courts and employers are going to have to put up with these increasing demands for religious belief accommodation, it seems to me that some guidelines are in order as to what is reasonable accommodation. If you only have one person working at the time and that person cannot marry gays who are legally entitled to be married, then it is not reasonable to accommodate the employee. If there is someone else around who can perform the task then you can as long as it doesn't place a burden on that person such as needing a supervisor or someone assigned to a different job to fill in for the fundie.

If there is no one else to marry the gay couple, then you cannot reasonably accommodate and employee who cannot perform the task. He/she needs to get a different job.

It is similar in the UK ("adjustment" rather than "accommodation" is the term) Islington testified that they could still provide a "first class service" to all sectors of the community even if this woman was exempt from performing civil partnerships for gay couples, therefore the adjustment would have been reasonable by Islingtons own admission.

[Slimething]

It is similar in the UK ("adjustment" rather than "accommodation" is the term) Islington testified that they could still provide a "first class service" to all sectors of the community even if this woman was exempt from performing civil partnerships for gay couples, therefore the adjustment would have been reasonable by Islingtons own admission.

There may be a difference in the legal approaches in the US and the UK. For the requirement of an accommodation in the US, the employee must have a limiting circumstance that the courts agree requires such accommodation. It's not enough to say "I don't want to do this" and the employer would have to accommodate you.

I, for one, would love to see religious bigotry labeled a handicap but, in this case, it can't be used to claim relief.

[brodski]

There may be a difference in the legal approaches in the US and the UK. For the requirement of an accommodation in the US, the employee must have a limiting circumstance that the courts agree requires such accommodation. It's not enough to say "I don't want to do this" and the employer would have to accommodate you.

I, for one, would love to see religious bigotry labeled a handicap but, in this case, it can't be used to claim relief.

Under UK employment law, discrimination on the grounds of disability is not allowed, discrimination on the grounds of sex is not allowed, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is not allowed, discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnicity is not allowed and discrimination on the grounds of rreligion is not allowed. All are treated pretty much the same. In this case religious belief has successfully been claimed as a reason for accommodation in working practises, I'm not sure why you say " in this case, it can't be used to claim relief".

[six7s]

democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time
The UK has been trying universal democracy for little over 80 years (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_publications_and_archives/parliamentary_archives/archives___the_suffragettes.cfm)... no need to rush these things, eh wot?

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I would upgrade some to all. Not one of the weddings she presided over was done in an atmosphere which honours God. It is prohibited to mention Sky fairies in civil weddings. You can not sing about Sky fairies nor can you give a reading alluding to them.
This is from one site (http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/marriages/your-wedding-ceremony/index.asp) but I am sure further details can be found elsewhere

People who get married in civil ceremonies in the UK would do so for two main reasons. They don't believe in any God or God doesn't believe in them. Most churches will not marry divorcees I dare say Ms ladele presided over many such ceremonies that her church would not allow.

Exactly the point I was going to make. It seems bizarre for someone who so strongly feels that marriage is a holy, god type thing to spend her working life facilitating civil marriage and then only have a problem with it when it includes gay couples. Surely she was aiding and abetting sin (even committing it herself) everytime she married a straight couple?

[Ian Osborne]

She should've asked for a redundancy settlement as soon as her duties changed. As this is (for her) a substantial change in her job description, she'd be entitled to one. If, however, she chose to stay on (which she did), she should be expected to do the job she's paid to do.

Interestingly, the Daily Mail celebrated this particular judgement, contrasting her 'traditional values' with her employers' 'dogma', yet they didn't have a good word to say about the Muslim woman who cried 'discrimination' when a hairdresser wouldn't give her a job unless she uncovered her hair. Hypocrisy or what?

[six7s]

Today's Pulitzer-prize winning journalism is tomorrow's budgie-cage liner

[MarkCorrigan]

Today's Pulitzer-prize winning journalism is tomorrow's budgie-cage liner

Oh come on, we all know the Daily Mail is, has and always will be only one of those things.

Hell, I wouldn't subject budgies to that rag.

[Paulhoff]

Are you trying to draw some distinction between Church and state in regards to UK marriage laws? Why?
Government makes the laws that govern marriage not the church, and the term state is also used to mean government.

Paul

:) :) :)

[ponderingturtle]

I'm torn on this. Most people, even those flipping burgers at the local fast-food chain, have their jobs change on them. I work with computers (programming, infrastructure, networking) and my job changes completely about every five years. Being flexible is a necessity.

On the other hand, as skeptics shouldn't we at least pay lip service to the idea that people can hold different beliefs? So what if a lot of us don't believe in her god? She does, and also believes said god does not sanction marriages between two people of the same sex. In refusing to perform such marriages, is she that much different from those who worked to have the law changed in the first place because they felt it was wrong?

No one is really talking about that though, it is that she needs to get a job where she can hold her beliefs and still do her job.

I had to wonder about say Christian Science MD's.

Here's a not so off-the-wall scenario: a law passes that requires creationism be taught in schools alongside evolution. All the Christians say, "You're in a free country and you have freedom of choice: you can teach it, you can quit, or you can be fired." Do all the science teachers just say, "Well, it's the law of the land now, so I'll just add ID to my lesson plans"?

Those that want to keep their jobs are going to have too.

[brodski]

Government makes the laws that govern marriage not the church, and the term state is also used to mean government.

Paul

:) :) :)

I understand how the term "state" is used, you seem to be missing a little regarding the UK constitutional settlement with regard to the Church. :)

[Slimething]

Under UK employment law, discrimination on the grounds of disability is not allowed, discrimination on the grounds of sex is not allowed, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is not allowed, discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnicity is not allowed and discrimination on the grounds of rreligion is not allowed. All are treated pretty much the same. In this case religious belief has successfully been claimed as a reason for accommodation in working practises, I'm not sure why you say " in this case, it can't be used to claim relief".

In the US, an employer need only accommodate an employee if the claim for such is based on legally-recognized valid reasons for exemption. For example, an employer cannot compel a Jew to attend the company's Ham and Cheese Baccanal. A Muslim must be allowed to pray as customary during the workday. However, as denying to marry gays is not customary to a religion and is in the job description, it's extraordinary, is solely the action of the employee and is not protected.

The laws in the UK may be different. In the US, a special circumstance must be listed by law as a special condition before an employer must accommodate.