More nonsense - registrar refuses to conduct same sex marriages

[scifisam]

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

But all that means is that she can say, to someone who might need an abortion, that her religious views forbid her from recommending it but she she can refer them on. There's a lot of judgement in there. She's saying, explicitly, that an abortion is wrong in the eyes of God.

And those abortions that she thinks are so wrong? They'll still be done, only her colleagues will have to do them all, and I can't imagine they're as fun as bringing a healthy full-term baby into the world.

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.

They can change specialities, yes, but the woman I was talking about had already chosen obs and gynae and been accepted into it under the current rules. She has no obligation to change specialities and no apparent desire to do so. she just applied for a job that she couldn't completely do, and was accepted.

OK, I reckon I actually am more decided on my POV on this woman's appt than I thought I was.

 

[ymu]

I meant they should have to change specialties or go into private practice. Nowt optional - if they want to work for the NHS. That's not the case now, but this ruling might change that. A lot will depend on shift patterns and the tolerance of colleagues, but it's likely that more cases will be brought now that this ruling is out.

 

[scifisam]

I meant they should have to change specialties or go into private practice. Nowt optional - if they want to work for the NHS. That's not the case now, but this ruling might change that. A lot will depend on shift patterns and the tolerance of colleagues, but it's likely that more cases will be brought now that this ruling is out.

Oh, I see. I'm with you there. Well, you never know, maybe that change will come about - there have been a lot of societal changes that wouldn't have been thought possible when I was born.

 

[detective-boy]

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

That makes more sense - he is comparing a right specifically provided in Regulations with one that is not and which comes from general principles or law. That makes eminent sense. But it has nothing to do with which particular right (religion or sexual orientation) trumps the other one - it is their origin not what they are which is important. It would be wrong to say that in all situations a right based on sexual orientation will overturn a right based on religion. It may be right to say that in all situations a right originating in Regulations will overturn a right arising from more general principles.

 

[cesare]

That makes more sense - he is comparing a right specifically provided in Regulations with one that is not and which comes from general principles or law. That makes eminent sense. But it has nothing to do with which particular right (religion or sexual orientation) trumps the other one - it is their origin not what they are which is important. It would be wrong to say that in all situations a right based on sexual orientation will overturn a right based on religion. It may be right to say that in all situations a right originating in Regulations will overturn a right arising from more general principles.

Eh? There are two sets of regulations - one protecting against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and the other protecting against discrimination on the grounds of religion/belief. If the two rights come into conflict:

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.

(section 73 of the Judgment)

Is that clearer now?

 

[detective-boy]

Is that clearer now?

No. The Regulations make it plain that there can be no discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation. There are some limited exceptions in them (Regn 14) which relate to religious organisations (which was not the case here).

Everyone has a general right to freedom of religion (Human Rights Act). That is a general right. The Registrar was (as I understand it) basicaly relying on these as her rights which were being ignored by the demand that she carry out civil partnerships against her religious beliefs.

So the balance was between a right enshrined in Regulation and one arising from general law and principles.

It the actual rights were the other way round (e.g. there was Regulation prohibiting discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of religion and a homosexual Registrar refused to supply that service to christians because of their attitude to his or her sexual orientation the decision would be that the religious right "won".

It is the origin of the right, not the subject matter of it, which is important. There is no blanket "sexual orientation trumps religion" precedent here. It is dangerous to suggest there is.

 

[cesare]

No. The Regulations make it plain that there can be no discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation. There are some limited exceptions in them (Regn 14) which relate to religious organisations (which was not the case here).

Everyone has a general right to freedom of religion (Human Rights Act). That is a general right. The Registrar was (as I understand it) basicaly relying on these as her rights which were being ignored by the demand that she carry out civil partnerships against her religious beliefs.

So the balance was between a right enshrined in Regulation and one arising from general law and principles.

It the actual rights were the other way round (e.g. there was Regulation prohibiting discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of religion and a homosexual Registrar refused to supply that service to christians because of their attitude to his or her sexual orientation the decision would be that the religious right "won".

It is the origin of the right, not the subject matter of it, which is important. There is no blanket "sexual orientation trumps religion" precedent here. It is dangerous to suggest there is.

The Equality Act of 2006 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060003_en_5) extended the protection against discrimination on the grounds of (a) sexual orientation; and (b) religion or belief from just employment and training, to the provision of goods, facilities and services.

Part 2 of the Equality Act specifically provided for religion or belief. Part 3 of the Equality Act provided for regulations re sexual orientation. Those regulations were enacted in 2007: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20071263_en_1

There was conflict between the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief (employment) v the right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation (provision of services). The issue of what happens when these two rights come into conflict is not a new one. Case law precedent is established at EAT level but in this case the EAT did not consider the broader issue and confined themselves to the actual case.

The Court of Appeal did consider the broader issue as summarised in section 73 which I reproduced for you earlier.

Daniel Barnett commented on the case:

The Court of Appeal has this morning handed down its judgment in Ladele v London Borough of Islington (the Christian registrar case).

It is authority for the proposition that there is nothing in the Religion or Belief Regulations 2003 that entitled Ms Ladele, as a civil partnership registrar, to insist on her right not to have civil partnership duties assigned to her because of her belief that civil partnerships were contrary to the will of God.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the EAT that Ms Ladele was neither directly nor indirectly discriminated against, nor harassed contrary to the 2003 Regulations, by being designated a civil partnership registrar, by being required to officiate at civil partnerships, or by any other aspect of her treatment by Islington.

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).

and my initial 'bumping' post paraphrased Daniel Barnett's commentary.

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.

I really don't see why you are still disagreeing with this. It's not about general law and principles - it's about specific legislation and what happens when that's in conflict, not just in this case but as a wider principle.

 

[cesare]

Hmmm - maybe I'm not explaining myself very clearly. I'll try again.

There are 6 areas where people have statutory rights not to be unlawfully discriminated against:

sex (including transex)
race
disability
sexual orientation
religion or belief
age

Historically, how it has worked is that employment and training are protected first, and then the provision of goods, facilities and services follow later once the initial protective legislation has bedded in. Sex, race and disability have been established across all those areas for a while now. Orientation and religion/belief have just recently been extended. Age is yet to follow i.e. still only protected for the purposes of employment and training.

The further complication is that much of the above is mirror legislation. Same general principles, but piecemeal Acts and Regulations enacted at various intervals since the mid 70s. Things slip between the stones, mirror legislation but not exactly the same, odd differences that can make a difference to protection or not. So at the moment, there's a huge body of work being done to bring them all together under one piece of legislation and deal with some of the quirks and shortfalls. In the legislative pipeline right now ...

There's been a long running issue of what happens when some of the statutory rights above conflict - which one takes precedence? It's nicknamed trumping cos at the end of the day it's about whether (for the sake of example) the right to not be unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation outweighs the right not to be unlawfully discriminated against on the grounds of religion or belief. The Ladele precedent/authority is very useful, because at last it clarifies this - in general terms, sexual orientation trumps religion or belief when the two statutory rights are in conflict. Mind you, there could still be a further appeal in this case to the Supreme Court lol. But at the moment, useful for employers and employees alike.