More nonsense - registrar refuses to conduct same sex marriages

[detective-boy]

...a potentially stroppy Mozzy employee.

... to upset Mozzies.

Would you use Paki and Nigger in the same context? No? So why the fuck do you think it is OK to use Mozzy?

Post reported.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

That isn't acceptable, no, and we've had stuff about it before.

Kindly stop it.

 

[Roadkill]

Got to disagree on this one, in part. Faith is every bit as inherent as sexuality.

Sorry Sass, but that's nonsense.

You can think yourself out of faith any time you want. It's like giving up smoking.

 

[detective-boy]

That isn't acceptable, no, and we've had stuff about it before.

Kindly stop it.

Thanks

 

[cesare]

Bumping this because the Court of Appeal has just handed down their judgment on this: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1357.html

They agreed with the EAT that Ms Ladele was not discriminated against on the grounds of her religious beliefs - directly or indirectly.

And they've also basically said that protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation will 'trump' the rights of those people trying to use their religious belief as grounds for discriminating.

Excellent result.

 

[Wookey]

You can think yourself out of faith any time you want. It's like giving up smoking.

...and if becoming gay struck people as quickly as faith strikes the born-agains, the world would be a lot more interesting...

 

[Sasaferrato]

I thought it was a bit of a bullshit response by a lot of people.

The Tribunal did not find that she was allowed to discriminate, it found she had been bullied and harrased by people because of her beliefs.

I believe that Registrars should have to treat all people equally and should not have a 'get out of jail' card to not do civil services. If you do not want to serve ALL of the public that have a right to be served then find a different job.

That does not give Islington Council the right to harass and bully people, which is what this tribunal found to be the case.

Do you propose to remove a nurse's right not to participate in an abortion?

 

[Roadkill]

...and if becoming gay struck people as quickly as faith strikes the born-agains, the world would be a lot more interesting...

The US military tried that!

Sometimes I think a pocket version of the gay bomb could be useful.

 

[Sasaferrato]

IMO this is a lot of fuss about nothing. It isn't as if the woman is the only registrar, common sense should prevail, and she swaps with someone else if she is unable to perform a same sex ceremony.

There is far too much emphasis on ' rights ', and too little realisation that enforcing the ' rights ' of one person almost always infringes the ' rights ' of another.

 

[mrfusion]

I'm a religious guy who thinks that if you disagree with something (which, of course, I wouldn't in this case - both I and my church are pro gay marriage) you don't take part. I'm a pacifist, so I'm not a member of the armed forces, etc.

Anyway, all I thought was how suitable a headline this is for almost any thread, with no extra info.

 

[Wookey]

There is far too much emphasis on ' rights ', and too little realisation that enforcing the ' rights ' of one person almost always infringes the ' rights ' of another.

What has this whole court case been about, if not the system's attempt at a reconciliation of one person's rights and another's?

Ladele claimed that my right to be provided with a civil partnership negated her right to religious freedom. It turns out she's wrong, and she's lost the case - but the to and fro it took to get there is a negotiation in law of two opposing rights. That's how we do things, and we do that because we appreciate that in some cases rights clash.

I wouldn't say winning human rights 'almost always' infringes the rights of another human. Could you give (copious) examples to back up such a claim?

 

[Wookey]

I'm a religious guy who thinks that if you disagree with something (which, of course, I wouldn't in this case - both I and my church are pro gay marriage) you don't take part. I'm a pacifist, so I'm not a member of the armed forces, etc.

Anyway, all I thought was how suitable a headline this is for almost any thread, with no extra info.

It fits anywhere!!

Which church are you in?

 

[mrfusion]

It fits anywhere!!

Which church are you in?

Oh, I'm Church of Scotland, and a very liberal kirk session.

 

[Wookey]

Oh, I'm Church of Scotland, and a very liberal kirk session.

Fab - I thought you were gonna say Quaker.

 

[mrfusion]

Fab - I thought you were gonna say Quaker.

No, afraid not. The court made the right decision here, though - and yes, I would say that if you are an NHS nurse you should be prepared to assist women getting abortions.

 

[Gingerman]

Im sure she'll go running to the Daily Fail,they love this sort of thing,poor oppressed Christian etc

 

[krtek a houby]

Aren't Christians supposed to be loving and tolerant?

 

[detective-boy]

And they've also basically said that protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation will 'trump' the rights of those people trying to use their religious belief as grounds for discriminating.

I see no general statement of law to that effect in the judgment. And I'd be extremely surprised if there was one.

Please can you link to the relevant section that you believe says that.

 

[editor]

*Title changed to make some sort of sense.

 

[scifisam]

IMO this is a lot of fuss about nothing. It isn't as if the woman is the only registrar, common sense should prevail, and she swaps with someone else if she is unable to perform a same sex ceremony.

There is far too much emphasis on ' rights ', and too little realisation that enforcing the ' rights ' of one person almost always infringes the ' rights ' of another.

She was a registrar in Islington, Sas. Same-sex couples are only allowed to have CPs in registry offices, nowhere else. There would have been tons of civil partnerships going through her books. Each cermony lasts less than half an hour, so there's a high turnover of one ceremony, paperwork then the next. It would have been nigh on impossible to work out a roster that allowed her to only conduct straight wedding ceremonies.

 

[cesare]

I see no general statement of law to that effect in the judgment. And I'd be extremely surprised if there was one.

Please can you link to the relevant section that you believe says that.

To quote Daniel Barnett:

Interestingly, the Court of Appeal (unlike the EAT) did go on to consider the conflict of rights issue, namely whether the effect of the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2007 is to "trump" the right to freedom of religion. The Court of Appeal held that the prohibition of discrimination by the 2007 Regulations took precedence over any right which a person would otherwise have by virtue of their religious belief or faith, to practice discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation (save for in the limited circumstances provided for in Regulation 14 of those Regulations).

If you think he's wrong - you're entirely at liberty to tell him so.

 

[kabbes]

IMO this is a lot of fuss about nothing. It isn't as if the woman is the only registrar, common sense should prevail, and she swaps with someone else if she is unable to perform a same sex ceremony.

I thought that you were of the general view that as a worker, you should buckle down and get on with your job?

 

[ymu]

Bumping this because the Court of Appeal has just handed down their judgment on this: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/1357.html

They agreed with the EAT that Ms Ladele was not discriminated against on the grounds of her religious beliefs - directly or indirectly.

And they've also basically said that protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation will 'trump' the rights of those people trying to use their religious belief as grounds for discriminating.

Excellent result.

Superb news.

 

[In Bloom]

IMO this is a lot of fuss about nothing. It isn't as if the woman is the only registrar, common sense should prevail, and she swaps with someone else if she is unable to perform a same sex ceremony.

There is far too much emphasis on ' rights ', and too little realisation that enforcing the ' rights ' of one person almost always infringes the ' rights ' of another.

I don't see how this woman's rights have been in any way violated. If she has a problem with civil partnerships, she's entirely at liberty to not enter into one.

 

[ymu]

I don't see how this woman's rights have been in any way violated. If she has a problem with civil partnerships, she's entirely at liberty to not enter into one.

Precisely. She's a public servant - she cannot be permitted to decide who gets access to a public service.

I have some sympathy with the point that some registrars chose the career before civil partnerships existed but, you know, redundancies happen. There used to be jobs for homophobic registrars who weren't professional enough to put their personal beliefs to one side, and now there aren't. Longdog doesn't get paid to work with microfiche any more either; times change.

Doctors and nurses who bring the same issues to work will have to choose sub-specialties where it is not relevant, or just not work for the NHS. There's plenty of private practice out there.

 

[cesare]

Precisely. She's a public servant - she cannot be permitted to decide who gets access to a public service.

I have some sympathy with the point that some registrars chose the career before civil partnerships existed but, you know, redundancies happen. There used to be jobs for homophobic registrars who weren't professional enough to put their personal beliefs to one side, and now there aren't. Longdog doesn't get paid to work with microfiche any more either; times change.

Doctors and nurses who bring the same issues to work will have to choose sub-specialties where it is not relevant, or just not work for the NHS. There's plenty of private practice out there.

Yep. And as the Judgment states:

... it appears to me that, however much sympathy one may have with someone such as Ms Ladele, who is faced with choosing between giving up a post she plainly appreciates or officiating at events which she considers to be contrary to her religious beliefs, the legislature has decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy, such as the United Kingdom, include outlawing discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on grounds of sexual orientation, subject only to very limited exceptions.

 

[scifisam]

Precisely. She's a public servant - she cannot be permitted to decide who gets access to a public service.

How about a doctor who, post-qualification, applies to work in obs and gynae but refuses to perform abortions, which is normally one of the functions of that role, and often comes up even if you don't actually perform the abortions yourself? She's an NHS employee.

The daughter of an ex-colleague of mine was in this position and was accepted for the job. It was slightly awkward when her Mum came in jubilantly telling us that she'd been afraid that her daughter wouldn't get the job, but she had. The Mum was a lovely woman but I couldn't help thinking that he daughter should have gone into a different area of medicine.

 

[In Bloom]

Precisely. She's a public servant - she cannot be permitted to decide who gets access to a public service.

I have some sympathy with the point that some registrars chose the career before civil partnerships existed but, you know, redundancies happen. There used to be jobs for homophobic registrars who weren't professional enough to put their personal beliefs to one side, and now there aren't. Longdog doesn't get paid to work with microfiche any more either; times change.

Doctors and nurses who bring the same issues to work will have to choose sub-specialties where it is not relevant, or just not work for the NHS. There's plenty of private practice out there.

TBH, I'm of the opinion that if they don't want to do the job, they shouldn't be applying for it in the first place. Doctors and nurses who refuse to carry out procedures they don't like against the wishes and best interests of their patients should be fucking sacked and struck off.

 

[cesare]

How about a doctor who, post-qualification, applies to work in obs and gynae but refuses to perform abortions, which is normally one of the functions of that role, and often comes up even if you don't actually perform the abortions yourself? She's an NHS employee.

The daughter of an ex-colleague of mine was in this position and was accepted for the job. It was slightly awkward when her Mum came in jubilantly telling us that she'd been afraid that her daughter wouldn't get the job, but she had. The Mum was a lovely woman but I couldn't help thinking that he daughter should have gone into a different area of medicine.

Here's the GMC guidance, which is pretty similar in principle to the Pharmaceutical Society as well: http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/children_guidance_72_conscientious_objections.asp

 

[ymu]

How about a doctor who, post-qualification, applies to work in obs and gynae but refuses to perform abortions, which is normally one of the functions of that role, and often comes up even if you don't actually perform the abortions yourself? She's an NHS employee.

The daughter of an ex-colleague of mine was in this position and was accepted for the job. It was slightly awkward when her Mum came in jubilantly telling us that she'd been afraid that her daughter wouldn't get the job, but she had. The Mum was a lovely woman but I couldn't help thinking that he daughter should have gone into a different area of medicine.

I addressed that in my last paragraph. They can change specialties or go into private practice.

I had a GP refuse me the morning after pill once. It was 6.30pm on a Friday night and no other doctors were around. I had no access to another doctor until Monday - which was too late. It was prescription only in those days. I was 18 and terrified over a split condom, but his beliefs trumped my control over my own life without any debate whatsoever - they just did and I had no comeback. Doctors who do that kind of thing should be struck off, IMO.