Argh! Stupid court ruling!

[Naughtyhippo]

I am watching the news right now and am really angry about a court ruling about the registrar who refused to perform civil partnerships as it was against her religion and claimed she was discriminated against (her claim was upheld).

This is ridiculous. She was being asked to perform a legal ceremony, NOT a religious one. For any civil ceremony religious readings are expressly forbidden - I believe that this is by law, not just custom. So why is she allowed to push her religious beliefs onto a matter of law that has nothing to do with religion? When you have a civil ceremony, it is not a marriage under god; how is she able to say her religion forbids a legal contract between some types of parties and not others? In fact, as a committed christian, what the hell is she doing performing civil ceremonies anyway?

For the record, I am not an atheist. I am a (somewhat lapsed) catholic - whilst they are many things I disagree with within the church, I am not against organised religion as a whole. But the above situation really does make me angry.

[/rant]

[Beady]

I have no idea which news story you're refering to, but...

In 2000, Vermont adopted Civil Unions for gay couples, and many town clerks and Justices of the Peace refused to perform the ceremonies. This was (and is) perfectly legal, providing they did not perform marriage ceremonies for straight couples. I suspect the clerk in your news item is subject to the same restriction: perform ceremonies for everyone, or for no one. I don't have a problem with that, and I'm a straight lapsed Christian who's pro-gay marriage.

[Loss Leader]

Could you give me a clue as to where this is happening? Like, which hemisphere?



I am a straight atheist Jew who believes in mandatory gay marriage.

[Beady]

You don't look Jewish.

[rwguinn]

Is this it?

The registrar performed cerimonies as a courtesy, not a job requirement, IIRC.
If she stops for everybody, it is not a problem

[Naughtyhippo]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Is this it?

The registrar performed cerimonies as a courtesy, not a job requirement, IIRC.
If she stops for everybody, it is not a problem

No it is this lady, here in the UK.

http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Sat...icleController

I wanted a bbc link but google-fu is weak

AFAIK (and I would be happy if someone had more of the facts would illuminate me) she simply refused to conduct the same-sex marriages because they were sinful but continued with the other marriages. I'd like to ask again, why she was happy conducting the 'normal' marriages without evidence that these people were also getting married in church. If there weren't getting married in church, then a secular marriage means nothing and they are living in sin in god's eyes. I know that this is an extreme take on religious marriage but she is the one saying that she won't do the same sex unions for this reason!

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Beady

You don't look Jewish.

No, I don't. I look like the gate symbol for earth. I take after my father. He looks like the gate symbol for P39-865.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

No, I don't. I look like the gate symbol for earth. I take after my father. He looks like the gate symbol for P39-865.

Silence, nerd, and give me the gate address to the Sex Planet.

Shut up, there's always a Sex Planet, in every single franchise. It's required. Although depending on the air date, you might not want to visit some of them. Sex Planets from the seventies are awfully....hairy. Which was fine for the time, but hey, times change.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The woman sees gay marriage as sinful. 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.

These judges never seem to think things through to their logical consequences. I suspect they are going by their own personal biases that same sex marriages are abnormal.


This was interesting:

Quote:

The landmark ruling that employees cannot be required to act against their consciences has implications for the 18,000 plus same-sex ceremonies conducted nationwide each year.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

<snip>

I am a straight atheist Jew who believes in mandatory gay marriage.

You believe anyone who is gay must get married?

[shadron]

Eh, it's probably the one in California that stopped doing ceremonies on the day that the California Supreme Court ruling became effctive, about two weeks ago. There was a long thread about it here starting right after the CASC ruling.

[Dr H]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Could you give me a clue as to where this is happening? Like, which hemisphere?



I am a straight atheist Jew who believes in mandatory gay marriage.

Mandatory?

I believe all marriage should be forbidden.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Silence, nerd, and give me the gate address to the Sex Planet.

That would be Argos, P3X-8596. You can find the gate address here. All gate addresses are given without the seventh chevron, which is the point of origin.

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

You believe anyone who is gay must get married?

What happened to you, Ivor? You used to have a sense of humor.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

This was interesting:

Quote:

The landmark ruling that employees cannot be required to act against their consciences has implications for the 18,000 plus same-sex ceremonies conducted nationwide each year.

The implications are far wider. For example, Pharmacists (you call them Chemists?) now have an opening. Scary ruling.

[brodski]

deleated

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

What happened to you, Ivor? You used to have a sense of humor.

He hasn't been the same since that incident with his washing machine agitator.

[Wolfman]

Well, even though I'm an atheist, I would support the notion that people should not be forced to do something that they believe to be morally wrong. Exceptions to this would be in situation where it could cause harm/death (such as JW parents believing that a blood transfusion for their child is wrong...but if they make that decision for themselves as an adult, it should be respected, IMO).

But by the same token, people whose moral standards would prevent them from being able to perform the duties for which they are hired should expect that they can be fired for that.

So, I have no problems with a person who refuses to marry gays, due to personal moral standards; but that person should be put in a job where they will not be expected to do so. To expect that she should be able to retain her current job/position, when her beliefs make her incapable of performing some of the required duties, is ludicrous. (For the record, I'm not clear on whether or not she is remaining in the position that caused this problem).

If she sues to retain a job that she is incapable of performing due to her personal beliefs, I would be opposed. If she leaves her position, and is sued by others simply for her refusal to violate her own moral standards, I would support her.

[brodski]

Originally Posted by Wolfman

But by the same token, people whose moral standards would prevent them from being able to perform the duties for which they are hired should expect that they can be fired for that.

but that's the rub, when she was hired she wasn't hired to perform civil partnerships, as they didn't exists then, the law changed and so the potential scope of her job changed.

[Naughtyhippo]

Originally Posted by shadron

Eh, it's probably the one in California that stopped doing ceremonies on the day that the California Supreme Court ruling became effctive, about two weeks ago. There was a long thread about it here starting right after the CASC ruling.

No, it's not. It's a registrar here in the UK (in islington, london). As I said in response to an earlier question and provided a link.


Brodski: That's true, that's not something I had considered. However, as someone earlier pointed out (skeptigirl?) there were other unions that she was presumably happy conducting despite being against christian principles, so it's why was she happy doing those and not same sex unions? This is a personal homophobia that she has found an 'acceptable' outlet to express. As I said before, in the UK a civil ceremony is completely ireligious. It is a contract under the laws of the land and has nothing to do with god(s).

[Ivor the Engineer]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

<snip>

What happened to you, Ivor? You used to have a sense of humor.

I wasn't sure if you were being funny, or if there was a definition of the word 'mandatory' I was unfamiliar with. I will stop digging now.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by brodski

but that's the rub, when she was hired she wasn't hired to perform civil partnerships, as they didn't exists then, the law changed and so the potential scope of her job changed.

And she therefore needs to decide whether she wants to continue in her job now the scope has changed or to quit and find a job that does not conflict with her religious beliefs.

The scope of many peoples jobs change because of legislative changes. For example in the financial sector there have been huge changes under the anti-money laundering rules introduced (supposedly) to cut off terrorist funds. Can all those who started their jobs before these rules were introduced refuse to implement them as they weren't hired to carry out such checks? Of course they can't, and this woman should be treated in exactly the same way.

I see that part of her complaint was that she was "shunned" and "accused of being homophobic" for refusing to carry out the ceremonies. So much for her colleagues rights to free speech and freedom of association. If you happen to end up working with a bigot you are apparently not allowed to raise the issue with them or avoid contact with them as otherwise you would be discriminating against them.

Hopefully the council will appeal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7499248.stm

[Wolfman]

Originally Posted by brodski

but that's the rub, when she was hired she wasn't hired to perform civil partnerships, as they didn't exists then, the law changed and so the potential scope of her job changed.

I agree partly.

Let's make it more personal...let's assume that I took a job in which I was comfortable with all of my duties. Some time after taking the job, my responsibilities were changed in a manner that now required me to do things that conflicted with my personal morals or beliefs. For example...say I was manager of a factory that produced automotive parts; but some time after taking the job, the company contracted to produce parts for military applications to which I was morally opposed. I'd have the following options (perhaps not exhaustive, but cover the main choices):

1) Retain my position, do what they want, and ignore my personal morals. I like to believe that I'm a person who would not do this; that I'd have the strength of my convictions, and would not do something I personally felt was wrong, even if others (even a majority) disagreed with me.

2) Retain my position, but refuse to do what they want. I do not believe this is a viable option. Even if it is a requirement added after I took the job. Either I can perform my job, or I cannot. They are not asking me to do anything illegal; it is a personal issue, not a legal one. Fact of life...sometimes, there's a cost to standing up for what you believe is right.

3) Quit the job, and leave it at that. This is the option I'd take.

4) Pursue legal action: either to force them to keep you in the job, despite the fact you are unwilling to perform the duties of that job; or to leave the job, and demand excessive compensation because it is "their fault" that you had to leave. I would not support this option. They have not asked you to do anything illegal; and should not be held financially responsible for your personal beliefs.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

And she therefore needs to decide whether she wants to continue in her job now the scope has changed or to quit and find a job that does not conflict with her religious beliefs.

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Let's make it more personal...let's assume that I took a job in which I was comfortable with all of my duties. Some time after taking the job, my responsibilities were changed ...

Are we sure that her job responsibilities have changed? If all she is required to do is to issue licenses, and if she is merely authorized but not required to perform the civil ceremony, then her overall responsibility regarding the ceremony is merely to treat all clients equally. If, however, she refuses to issue licenses to applicants who are legally entitled to them, then there's a problem.

In short, just exactly what does her job description say?

[Naughtyhippo]

Originally Posted by Beady

Are we sure that her job responsibilities have changed? If all she is required to do is to issue licenses, and if she is merely authorized but not required to perform the civil ceremony, then her overall responsibility regarding the ceremony is merely to treat all clients equally. If, however, she refuses to issue licenses to applicants who are legally entitled to them, then there's a problem.

In short, just exactly what does her job description say?

I'm not sure what her actual job description is but I had a civil ceremony myself last year and from what happened (it was a London borough, but not the same one) it would appear that the registrars all issue licences and perform the actual ceremony on a rota basis. This is also why I know that it is illegal to incorporate any religious readings/actions into the ceremony as this is what we were expressly told by the registrars when we were deciding the format. There is other work that registrars do, such as citizenship applications and birth certificates etc, but my impression was that every registrar was required to do all these things, weddings or otherwise, as part of their jobs.

I have to say some of my anger was towards the utter hypocrisy of this lady. Why was she conducting secular marriages? Why single out gays? Why not refuse to perform ceremonies for Jewish people? Or atheists? Before this had she been allowed to perform only those marriages for christians who were not CofE? If she wasn't allowed to only perform marriages (in this instance, nothing but a LEGAL contract between two parties, NOTHING religious) for christians then why does she have the right to refuse to do civil patnerships for gay people and have no comeback for it from her employer?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Beady

Are we sure that her job responsibilities have changed? If all she is required to do is to issue licenses, and if she is merely authorized but not required to perform the civil ceremony, then her overall responsibility regarding the ceremony is merely to treat all clients equally. If, however, she refuses to issue licenses to applicants who are legally entitled to them, then there's a problem.

In short, just exactly what does her job description say?

Sure? No, not 100%. But it appears extremely likely. For example here are some job descriptions for similar positions which all make it clear that this is part of the duties:

http://online.dudley.gov.uk/dudco/op...asp?jobid=2991

http://www.warrington.gov.uk/publica...JSCOR02706.pdf

http://jobs.richmond.gov.uk/resource...3342%20-JD.pdf

http://jobs.bournemouth.gov.uk/Surve...ec=1&preview=2

All in one form or another refer to the duty to conduct marriage and civil partnership ceremonies.

She doesn't want to treat everyone equally, she wants to be allowed to choose which ceremonies she conducts. Choosing not to conduct ceremonies at all would mean she is (almost certainly) refusing to carry out part of her duties so is not an option either. She either needs to do what she is employed to do or to look for another job.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Naughtyhippo

...but my impression was that every registrar was required to do all these things, weddings or otherwise, as part of their jobs.

Ok, that's your impression. What is the actual fact of the matter?

As far as performing ceremonies on a rotational basis: It may be that the ceremonies are just something extra that whomever can do (as opposed to being required to do), in which case it is customary to slip the registrar/justice of the peace/clerk/whatever $10 or so. These officials may simply be taking it in turn to pick up extra beer money.

Quote:

I have to say some of my anger was towards the utter hypocrisy of this lady. Why was she conducting secular marriages? Why single out gays? Why not refuse to perform ceremonies for Jewish people? Or atheists?

Because that's the way personal prejudice works. Every person, you and me included, has some area of their life where their own personal rules override their normal sense of what is right and wrong. For all we know, these anti-gay registrars and clerks become incensed at displays of racial or religious bigotry, but they just draw the line at homosexuality. There are plenty of otherwise reasonable people on this forum, people who profess to follow the scientific method and to base their decisions and actions on evidence alone, who are convinced that every Christian is a "snake-handling, baby tossing fanatic" (I think I got that right).

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

All in one form or another refer to the duty to conduct marriage and civil partnership ceremonies.

Yes, but what does her job description say?

[Naughtyhippo]

Originally Posted by Beady

Ok, that's your impression. What is the actual fact of the matter?

As far as performing ceremonies on a rotational basis: It may be that the ceremonies are just something extra that whomever can do (as opposed to being required to do), in which case it is customary to slip the registrar/justice of the peace/clerk/whatever $10 or so. These officials may simply be taking it in turn to pick up extra beer money.

No. It is a function of the Register Office. The function of the place that she works at is to perform CIVIL (secular) ceremonies for marriage/partnerships and keep/generate records on items such as birth and death.Link. I have tried to find a link to the actual job decription but failed. But as this link for a typical register office shows they primarily advertise their services on the basis of performing civil ceremonies, rather than other other government duty they could be carrying out.

I'm curious about this 'extra' service capability that you are talking about. Know any links that would help me understand the difference between UK and USA culture in this regards?

Originally Posted by Beady

Because that's the way personal prejudice works. Every person, you and me included, has some area of their life where their own personal rules override their normal sense of what is right and wrong. For all we know, these anti-gay registrars and clerks become incensed at displays of racial or religious bigotry, but they just draw the line at homosexuality. There are plenty of otherwise reasonable people on this forum, people who profess to follow the scientific method and to base their decisions and actions on evidence alone, who are convinced that every Christian is a "snake-handling, baby tossing fanatic" (I think I got that right).

Displaying personal prejudice on an internet forum is one thing. Acting on personal prejudice in your position as a government employee to refuse a service that is inshrined in law is an abuse of position. I realise that there were other registrars who could perform the ceremony so no service was overall denied but as a matter principle (rather practicality) this is wrong. Also, do the people you describe attempt to silence cries of hypocrisy by claiming that they are being discrimnated against? And if they did, you agree that they were?

[Worm]

I think this is particularly telling:

(bolding mine)

Quote:

Miss Ladele said she was being effectively forced to choose between her religion and her £31,000-a-year job as a result.

She said she was picked on, shunned and accused of being homophobic for refusing to carry out civil partnerships.

_{Source: BBC Website}

I'm not sure if she was being accused of being homophobic or not, but it seems pretty clear to me that she was being homophobic. Being picked on and shunned is different of course, but people calling you homophobic when you are homophobic is hardly grounds for complaint.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Beady

Yes, but what does her job description say?

As I have already said, we don't know. However it is exceedingly likely to be broadly similar (if not very similar) to those I linked. Councils have an obligation to provide these services, therefore they need employees to carry them out - not including that as part of their job description would seem a very, very strange thing to do.

Do you have ANY reason at all to believe that her job did NOT involve carrying out these ceremonies?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Worm

Being picked on and shunned is different of course, but people calling you homophobic when you are homophobic is hardly grounds for complaint.

Picked on, yes. Shunned, no. Funnily enough I tend not to enjoy spending time in the company of people willing to impose their bigotted views on others while being paid to carry out public duties. It does not surprise me that those unfortunate enough to have to work with her would feel similarly.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Naughtyhippo

No. It is a function of the Register Office. ...I have tried to find a link to the actual job decription but failed. But as this link for a typical register office shows...

If it really is in her job description, then she should be at least reprimanded and, if she continues to fail in her duty, dismissed. I am leery, however, of an argument based upon "typical" attributes; odds are that they apply in a particular case (that's how they got to be typical), but there's always an exception that can trip you up.

Quote:

Displaying personal prejudice on an internet forum is one thing. Acting on personal prejudice in your position as a government employee to refuse a service that is inshrined in law is an abuse of position.

True enough, but online you usually only know people by their words and, especially on this forum, you have to assume they are presenting themselves honestly.

ETA: Forgot your question about the "extra" function. I'm thinking specifically of the office of Justice of the Peace here in Vermont. Here's the appropriate section, short as it is, from The Vermont Justice of the Peace Guide:

c. Marriages and Civil Unions. Justices of the peace may also solemnize marriages and may certify civil unions in Vermont. (emphasis added)

(Hmm, not sure the link is working: http://www.vermont.gov/portal/search...e+of+the+peace)

As I say, JPs are authorized but not required to perform weddings and civil unions (and gay marriages are coming soon), and may refuse. If they refuse to perform civil unions, however, then they must also decline to perform weddings.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Do you have ANY reason at all to believe that her job did NOT involve carrying out these ceremonies?

My question does not concern whether the ceremonies are involved, but whether they are required. The reason for my question, not my belief, is, as I show above, the legal authority to perform ceremonies is does not necessarily demonstrate an inherent obligation to perform them.

And, since American law at this level quite often arose from English common law, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the two are roughly similar.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Beady

My question does not concern whether the ceremonies are involved, but whether they are required.

Sorry but I don't understand what distinction you are drawing. If I am a trucker my job involves driving. Clearly it is also a requirement that I am able and willing to drive.

The same applies in this case - one of the tasks of a registrars job is (typically because we do not have her contract to confirm it applies specifically) to carry out marriage and civil partnership ceremonies.

Quote:

The reason for my question, not my belief, is, as I show above, the legal authority to perform ceremonies is does not necessarily demonstrate an inherent obligation to perform them.

OK, I think I understand your position slightly better. The positions are not comparable - the post she is employed in has, as one of its (arguably the most important) duty, performing marriage ceremonies. I can't prove this to you by showing you her contract as that is not in the public domain. However I have linked a number of job descriptions for other registrar posts that all include that obligation.

This is not like say, a minister of religion who is authorised to conduct marriages but may not do so as there are other activities they could be carrying out as a minister of religion. The whole point of a Registrar's job is to carry out ceremonies (be they marriages, civil partnerships, renewal of vows or baby naming). If you aren't doing that, you aren't doing your job.

[Beady]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

If I am a trucker my job involves driving. Clearly it is also a requirement that I am able and willing to drive.

Yes, but is it a requirement that you load/unload the truck? Not unless it is specifically mentioned in your job description (if you don't believe me, just ask a Teamsters union shop steward).

Quote:

I can't prove this to you by showing you her contract as that is not in the public domain. However I have linked a number of job descriptions for other registrar posts that all include that obligation.

Googling Registrar England Duties leads me to several "official" pages, most of which bear the following, almost verbatim: "We are responsible for performing and registering all civil (non-religious) marriages taking place in the City of Westminster. We are also responsible for registering marriages in churches other than the Church of England." So, it looks like there's a definite difference between this aspect of the US and England. Still, it would be nice to be able to find the actual law.

HOWEVER: It appears the OP didn't give us the full scoop. While googling, I ran across the original story, and I found a couple of quotes of interest:

Quote:

Until December 2007 registrars in Islington effectively worked on a freelance basis and could swap with each other to avoid same-sex ceremonies14 But since then they have been under direct control of the local authority which, it is claimed, has led to far less flexibility about the registrars' responsibilities.

And

Quote:

"The wider issue of whether councils should be able to expect employees to carry out civil partnerships doesn't seem to have been fully addressed."

So, it would seem that the Islington council has been mucking about with a system that has otherwise worked well to avoid religious/personal conflicts, and the registrar in question has, in fact, been required to perform a duty which she was not required to perform, formerly.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Sorry but I don't understand what distinction you are drawing. If I am a trucker my job involves driving. Clearly it is also a requirement that I am able and willing to drive.

It is the distinction between you need someone with X credentials do perform a function, vs being employied for the purpose of performing the same function as a public service.

It is the difference between being able to act and being required to act.

As an example as an EMT I was not required to stop at the sceen of an accident, but if I was in an ambulance I would be required to stop.

[Kittyclaws]

This sounds very much like the recent spate of lawsuits and legislation regarding pharmacists who are unwilling to fill prescriptions for emergency "morning after" contraception under the argument that it's abortion and against their religious/personal beliefs. If you live in a large community you can probably find a more reasonable pharmacy but in small, isolated towns, or for people who can't travel to a different area, it's a problem.

When does a professional (pharmacist, registrar, EMT, etc.) worker's personal or religious beliefs trump the duties they are required to perform in the course of their work? Should those beliefs even have a place in the workplace? If I arrive at a customer's residence or place of business and find them to be involved in activities that I believe to be wrong, but are not illegal, should I have the right to refuse to perform my job?

Case in point: telemarketers, in particular, a company known to be among the shadiest, but not quite illegal, in their business practices. They operate within the law but their ratio of $$ collected to $$ that actually reach a charitable organization is appallingly low. I believe this to be immoral, unethical, and wrong. Can I walk away without providing the service they've requested? Should I be fired for refusing to provide service?

Take it out a few more degrees: 911 call sends police to a resident that practices wicca. Responding Officer A is a fundamentalist christian who believes in the bible. Does he have the right to refuse to enter the premises, take a report, or deal with the caller when he realizes his/her beliefs contradict his?

An MD refuses to prescribe birth control because of his beliefs.

An attorney refuses to represent a client based on differing beliefs.

Slippery slope.

[196]

Does the fact that the registrar is a public servant change things a bit?

Slippery slope indeed. What if the registrar's religious beliefs include an opposition to interracial marriages? What if she sincerely believes that "equally yoked" means both partners must be matched in appearance, either good looking, plain, or ugly.

[Beady]

A very slippery slope. This thread is now in danger of becoming a series of arguments from absurdity. Let's stick to the case at hand. If you're going to argue from precedent, produce a precedent. If you're going to argue from "what-if," we might as well stop right now; "what-if" is speculation, and legal points are not decided upon speculation. A supreme court decision's applicability to future cases is not decided upon until after the case that might set the precedent has been fully argued.

Besides, as I found (above), material facts have been left out of our discussion until now.

[196]

Originally Posted by Beady

Besides, as I found (above), material facts have been left out of our discussion until now.

This is my understanding of the case at hand. If I am in error, please advise me. There was an arrangement where registrars who had religious objections to certain marriages could be accommodated. Then the policy was changed and registrars were no longer accommodated. One registrar appealed to an industrial tribunal, which found that “employees cannot be required to act against their consciences”.

Originally Posted by Beady

A very slippery slope. This thread is now in danger of becoming a series of arguments from absurdity. Let's stick to the case at hand. If you're going to argue from precedent, produce a precedent. If you're going to argue from "what-if," we might as well stop right now; "what-if" is speculation, and legal points are not decided upon speculation. A supreme court decision's applicability to future cases is not decided upon until after the case that might set the precedent has been fully argued.

I agree that it sounds absurd that anyone would object to interracial marriages, but in the USA there is a long history of bible-based laws prohibiting interracial marriage or miscegenation. This article from the History News Network gives a summary, including information on the Christian bible basis of the laws. It also points out that marriage license clerks had a hand in enforcing the dubious laws.

A Google search using “miscegenation laws” turns up a wealth of background information, including many pages that actually support such laws! Using “equally yoked” in a search shows that this principle from the Christian bible can and has been used to justify matching people on a wide variety of traits, including physical appearance.

This is a good example of the educational value in exploring “what-if”. In reality, there is no danger in the UK that gay marriages, interracial marriages, or any other legal marriages will somehow be completely stopped by religiously-motivated bureaucrats. I expect that this industrial tribunal decision will be appealed and some compromise will eventually be reached. It is clear that the registrars are expected to perform civil weddings, but the point was raised that it may not even be an official duty. Still, the motivation to explore “what-if” is to examine what could happen if we open the door a crack and allow public officials to bring their conflicting religious beliefs to work.