The Black Hand
Unclean
Very true.
More nonsense - registrar refuses to conduct same sex marriages
- Thread starter agricola
- Start date
Very true.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
And I don't suppose, as a miserable godless sinner, you have the slightest idea of faith? No of course you don't.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
I agree.
kained&able
Here for the football.
ooh good points well made.
My dad was saying this came up on question time or some panel thingy on radio 4 recently and a priest/bishop type thing actually disgareed with her stance syaing something along the lines of "while i applaud miss thingys christianity a civil partnership is not an actual marrige and therefore she is wrong. I am also a regitrar and would happily register two members of the same sex".
Didnt listen too it and am not going to so the above may be a bit out.
dave
The Black Hand
Unclean
I think the general human right of free choice in sexuality take precedence above belief in whatever god people express to follow.
kained&able
Here for the football.
Poor choice of words that isn't it? Paedophilla......
Obviously not what you meant though.
dave
the button
out on the kocker
^ The bit in bold is probably why she won her ET. The employer was allowing the registrars to avoid same-sex ceremonies. The terms and conditions change, and that facility is removed.
To me, this is the most interesting point about this case: -
Not so much whether what the NSS say is right or wrong (I agree with them, FWIW), but the notion of a heirarchy of oppressions, where some rights trump others. I reckon there'll be more and more cases like this, as the various bits of anti-discrimination legislation come into conflict with each other.
(As a footnote, this case doesn't set legal precedent unless the employer appeals it, as Employment Tribunals don't set case law).
the button
out on the kocker
An interesting question for the union reps (and former union reps like myself) on here, is, "Would you have represented this woman at her Employment Tribunal?" (Assuming that she was a union member, like).
The Black Hand
Unclean
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
I don't. Which of us is right? Both? Neither?
You will have to consider this carefully, it is essentially a civil liberties issue; also an issue of moral values.
I know that Sikh children wear a bracelet, that is contrary to the rules of many schools, however, and quite correctly, they are permitted to observe their religious practice.
Are you going to discriminate against a Christian, whilst upholding the rights of a Sikh?
You are a gross fucking hypocrite if you do.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Yes, I represent anyone who asks me.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
A further point occurred to me; when I was working in theater, if I had been the only nurse available, I would have assisted in an abortion that was not on medical grounds, because the safety of the patient is paramount. I would have classed it under ' works of necessity and mercy ', some of you will know where that comes from.
Had no other registrar been possible, then in my considered view, she should have performed the ceremony; that was no the case however, she had previously been able to swap. The ability to swap being removed would have weakened the Council's case at tribunal, as ' custom and habit ' come into play.
Interesting case.
Had no other registrar been possible, then in my considered view, she should have performed the ceremony; that was no the case however, she had previously been able to swap. The ability to swap being removed would have weakened the Council's case at tribunal, as ' custom and habit ' come into play.
Interesting case.
longdog
What is it you can't face?
Sexuality isn't a choice of course where as religion is and therefore the rights of sexual minorities trump those religious minorities in my opinion.
Obviously in the real world a general principle of fairness would mean you wouldn't suddenly insist a Jewish or Muslim shop worker handle pork if they feel strongly that their religion forbids it but this case is not like that.
As far as I know the three main Abrahamic religions all have a bit of a downer on homosexuality so it's not surprising that a good number of 'devout' religious types would object to a religious marriage of same sex couples, it's their club and their rules I suppose. What this woman was asked to do however was to officiate over a strictly secular ceremony, her religious views have no relevance whatsoever.
If this woman is allowed to opt out of conducting civil unions then to take things to their illogical conclusion local authority housing officers could refuse to let properties to same sex couples because it offends their religious sensibilities. All councils have a written equality policy which provides for equal provision of council service regardless of sex, race, religion, sexuality, disability etc. It's entirely fair that a local authority demand that ALL of their employees abide by that policy.
JHE
.
Our legislators want both (i) special respect for religious belief, amounting to privilege for religion, and (ii) equality for gay people. These are contradictory aims.
It's quite similar.
Leaving aside the question of whether Judaism or Mohammedanism forbid the handling of pork, or just forbid the consumption of pork, it's interesting to note that at least one supermarket has established special rules to placate a potentially stroppy Mozzy employee. She thought (or at least claimed to think) her religion should exempt her from handling bottles of booze. Her employer agreed. After all, one doesn't want to upset Mozzies.
The supermarket was wrong. Working on the checkout involves handling pork and booze - or rather the containers of pork and booze. Any prospective employee who is not willing to do the job should not be offered the job.
Similarly, a prospective registrar who is not willing to conduct civil partnership ceremonies for gay couples should not be offered the job.
It's quite similar.
Leaving aside the question of whether Judaism or Mohammedanism forbid the handling of pork, or just forbid the consumption of pork, it's interesting to note that at least one supermarket has established special rules to placate a potentially stroppy Mozzy employee. She thought (or at least claimed to think) her religion should exempt her from handling bottles of booze. Her employer agreed. After all, one doesn't want to upset Mozzies.
The supermarket was wrong. Working on the checkout involves handling pork and booze - or rather the containers of pork and booze. Any prospective employee who is not willing to do the job should not be offered the job.
Similarly, a prospective registrar who is not willing to conduct civil partnership ceremonies for gay couples should not be offered the job.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
So, Diane Abbott hasn't quite got her head around some of the issues of the Ladele case and what may have caused Islington to lose that particular case. Further, has the mistaken belief that the case may set a precedent (which it doesn't - unless it goes to the EAT) and in addition appears to not realise that Employment Tribunals stopped being Industrial Tribunals about a decade ago.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Got to disagree on this one, in part. Faith is every bit as inherent as sexuality. Faith is something that comes to you, or not, as the case may. For me, it came later in life, but being there, I can no more discard it than a gay man can suddenly decide that he isn't gay any more.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Diane Abbott is a scumbag. End of. Wonderful socialist that sends her child to a fee paying school and eschews her roots with an ' acquired ' accent. Female equivalent of a tosser.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Here's the Ladele Judgment - note 33 page PDF. It's not quite as cut and dried as some of the reporting would have people believe. I wonder if Islington will risk going to the EAT on this one, it will really backfire if they lose. And if they do decide to appeal - guess who foots the bill for a top flight barrister/QC?
JHE
.
Diane Abbott is a scumbag. End of. Wonderful socialist that sends her child to a fee paying school and eschews her roots with an ' acquired ' accent. Female equivalent of a tosser.
I don't know what Abbott's socialism amounts to nowadays, but I do know that her choice to send her son to a posh private school is irrelevant to this question and that, as it happens, you are talking bollocks about her accent. (There's nothing exceptional about her accent. She grew up somewhere in outer north London and went to Harrow Grammar School and Cambridge. Do you expect her to have acquired her parents' Caribbean accent?)
Her EDM is good - and part of it is even funny (the bit about Holy Scripture being silent on civil partnerships).
People are perfectly entitled to be conscientious objectors to civil partnerships. Nobody should be forced to take part, but such people should not expect to be given jobs as registrars, just as someone who has a conscientious objection to abortion should have that objection respected (and, personally, I have a lot more respect for someone who insists abortion is murder than I have for someone who says civil partnerships are an abomination), but should not expect to get a job in an abortion clinic.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
That decision looks even worse now (though admittedly they were following a remarkably stupid piece of legislation). Aside from leaking the details of confidential meetings to two other people, its difficult to see what else Islington Council did wrong in moral terms. Someone who is refusing to provide a public service to people solely on the grounds of their sexuality should not be employed as a public servant.
Sadly though, it seems as those who are in reciept of public money will be able to discriminate now, just as long as they have a religious excuse. This law needs to be repealed immediately.
isvicthere?
a.k.a. floppybollocks
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
It's an interesting case. I'm not religious myself but have no particular axe to grind with those that are, until/unless their religion cuts across the rights of others - but saying that, I feel the same about the other 5 unlawful areas of discrimination as well. So this whole potential trumping issue is very interesting to me, especially as there are now the rights of customers etc as part of the jigsaw.
One of the most important aspects is that trumping isn't supposed to happen at all, the rights (in theory) are equal. However, each case will turn on the individual facts and it can be knotty to untangle.
You identified the issue with confidentiality, but let's put that in context.
I'm not going to wade through the judgment again unless you dispute my memory of it (and bearing in mind we don't have the actual evidence that the judgment relies on, just references to it); but from what I remember (in summary) Ladele was a long serving person dating back to 1992 and transferring across as an employee to Islington in the early 2000s. She hadn't made her religious convictions a secret and until the Civil Partnerships Act these hadn't been an issue. There was no evidence presented that she had a track record of homophobic complaints against her, for example. She was on long term absence just before the Civil Partnerships Act came into force and she registered her problems with it quickly on the grounds of her religious belief. And yet, without her knowledge or any consultation, Islington made her into a Civil Partnership Registrar. They didn't have to do that. Other councils made arrangements to exempt Registrars from becoming a Civil Partnership Registrar - and there was evidence given to that effect (Kent being one of the examples that I remember). Further, not only was she made into a Civil Partnership Registrar without her knowledge or consent, she wasn't trained in it. Incidentally, a friend of mine is a north London Registrar and I remember her having specific training in this before she was able to conduct those ceremonies, so I know that there was a specific roll-out programme leading up to that December.
Ladele continued to object on the grounds of religious belief and in fact wrote a detailed letter setting this out. That letter didn't receive a response. However, Ladele was excused from performing the ceremonies but was still required to do the admin/signing side. But, there were two gay people working with her in the office that interpreted her religious objections as homophobia and applied pressure on Islington in this respect, demanding that she be made to carry out the services.
Islington looked into this - from the point of view of sexual orientation discrimination. They went as far as releasing Ladele's confidential information to the two people making the complaint - who passed that confidential information over to the LGBT Council perhaps in an attempt to garner further support/pressure from an outside body.
Islington did not appear to maintain a balance by equally looking at the complaints/pressure of the two co-workers from the point of view of religious belief discrimination against Ladele - plus of course the issues of seemingly ignoring/trivialising her ongoing complaint. If Islington had been able to say that they had thoroughly looked at the situation equally from both angles and had decided on the route they chose as a result of limited staffing (or some other balanced response to indicate that customers were suffering and there was no other way round it) the result of the ET hearing may have been very different.
agricola said:
No - they won't (or at least, not unless they go to appeal and win with no subsequent appeals, can take a long time). Did you miss what I said about this case not being a precedent? Case law is created at EAT level, not at ET level.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
No matter what people's beliefs are regarding religion/anti religion; heterosexuality/homosexuality - does anyone else find it amazing that this example of the public sector found it so hard to balance out those potentially conflicting beliefs given that this could have been anticipated and managed by reference to how the pharmaceutical and medical professions have been dealing with this for years?
JHE
.
There is a somewhat related case in Norfolk Police.
Full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ation-over-opposition-to-gay-pride-event.html
I don't like PC Cogman's view one little bit and I expect if I met the Bible-basher I wouldn't like him one little bit either.
However, one thing that strikes me very much about his complaint is his claim that he and other police officers were encouraged by their bosses to wear pink ribbons during Gay History Month.
It reminds me a little bit of the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire's decision, following the Islamist carnage in London in July 2005, to encourage his officers to wear green ribbons to indicate solidarity with Muslims.
Should police officers be instructed or encouraged to wear ribbons or badges? I'm not sure they should even be allowed to wear such things on their uniforms.
Christian policeman 'victimised' over opposition to gay pride event
A Christian policeman is taking his own force to an employment tribunal over claims that it "harassed" him because of his religious opposition to homosexuality.
Graham Cogman, a constable with 15 years experience, is taking action against Norfolk Police as he claims he was victimised for refusing to wear a pink ribbon on his uniform to mark a "gay pride" event, and for questioning the force's stance towards gay men and lesbians.
The 49-year churchgoer, who circulated emails to officers quoting the biblical stance on homosexuality being a sin, claims he is being singled out because of his beliefs. The force has responded by saying it will not tolerate any "homophobic behaviour".
[...]
His complaint stems from a circular email sent to officers in early 2005 encouraging staff to wear a pink ribbon on their uniforms during Gay History Month.
After receiving the email, PC Cogman sent a reply to his fellow officers featuring biblical quotations about homosexuality being a sin. He objected again the following year when a similar email was again sent to officers.
He was subjected to a disciplinary tribunal and fined 13 days' pay.
[...]
A Christian policeman is taking his own force to an employment tribunal over claims that it "harassed" him because of his religious opposition to homosexuality.
Graham Cogman, a constable with 15 years experience, is taking action against Norfolk Police as he claims he was victimised for refusing to wear a pink ribbon on his uniform to mark a "gay pride" event, and for questioning the force's stance towards gay men and lesbians.
The 49-year churchgoer, who circulated emails to officers quoting the biblical stance on homosexuality being a sin, claims he is being singled out because of his beliefs. The force has responded by saying it will not tolerate any "homophobic behaviour".
[...]
His complaint stems from a circular email sent to officers in early 2005 encouraging staff to wear a pink ribbon on their uniforms during Gay History Month.
After receiving the email, PC Cogman sent a reply to his fellow officers featuring biblical quotations about homosexuality being a sin. He objected again the following year when a similar email was again sent to officers.
He was subjected to a disciplinary tribunal and fined 13 days' pay.
[...]
Full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ation-over-opposition-to-gay-pride-event.html
I don't like PC Cogman's view one little bit and I expect if I met the Bible-basher I wouldn't like him one little bit either.
However, one thing that strikes me very much about his complaint is his claim that he and other police officers were encouraged by their bosses to wear pink ribbons during Gay History Month.
It reminds me a little bit of the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire's decision, following the Islamist carnage in London in July 2005, to encourage his officers to wear green ribbons to indicate solidarity with Muslims.
Should police officers be instructed or encouraged to wear ribbons or badges? I'm not sure they should even be allowed to wear such things on their uniforms.
untethered
For industry & decency
I suspect that the registrar may well be in the wrong job, albeit that the job has moved rather than her. Perhaps we should consider an appropriate compensation scheme for people who take and perform a job in good faith, only to find that subsequent legislation brings them into moral conflict with it. No-one can predict what duties may be expected of public servants in future, and to expect people to ignore their consciences or quit seems a bit too much like constructive dismissal.
Threshers_Flail
Well-Known Member
I'm glad you pointed this out to me. Just puts her in an even worse position.
Similar threads
