I didn't see that one coming. Well done to her. It's a small, rare victory for liberty and civilised values.

Huh? She's a government employee who refuses to perfomr her duties because of a religious belief. What if that beleif was that interracial couples couldn't get married, or the only couples who could get be married are Christians? Or what if she were Muslim and decided she wouldn't marry Jews.

typical uberleftist little Hitler council

That's an interesting juxtaposition, which ought to be explored further on a Vlog

Well done her, great I am delighted that same sex marriages are being refused a religious ceremony. I don't give a damn if people of the same sex want to live together but it should never be given a religious value. Just describe to me again ( I am a little bit hard of hearing) what do they do together! Oh I see...very nice.

Mahons -

The news report I heard stated that the ruling went in her favour because she had been employed on a basis and understanding which had been changed by one party (the Council) against the wishes of the other (her).

In any case, I'm surprised and delighted simply because a body/council/tribunal/state decision in Britain has been decided in favour of civilised values and rejected modern right on-ism.

Mahons

There are some things we allow to conscience and some things we don't. Many many doctors refuse to perform abortions. You might as well ask what if they refused to perform operations on black people.

It simply distracts from the issue which is where we allow people the right to follow their own beliefs. Drawing attention to where we do not allow it doesn't really help to decide where we should.

That kind of, red herring, argument is often use against gay marriage too. What if three people wanted to get married? What if a man wanted to marry his hamster?

Henry94
You've argued many times here that Muslims in Ireland have to adide by the standards of the host country, in dress codes, and not-wearing of Turbans by police.

Now this employee signed up to a job that includes abiding by the requirements of that job.
You agree with her objection.

You seem to want it both ways. Is that a fair comment?

From the linked report:
Condemning the "catastrophic judgement" the National Secular Society said: "This decision appears to show that religious rights trump gay rights and that should leave gay people quaking in their boots."

I wouldn't participate in 'civil partnership' ceremony because it's an absurdity. However, there is one religion which would go a lot further than non-participation. Gays should really look at who would protect their most fundamental right, and those who would remove it.

Of course we're all the same really but I don't see any straight activists taking issue with a council for tidying up the landscape

Bristol City Council wants to prune bushes and remove cover from an area known as the Downs to improve the landscape and encourage rare wildlife.

But its own gay rights group has opposed the move, claiming that cutting back the bushes was "discriminating" to homosexual men who used the area for late night outdoor sex known as dogging.

Work on the beauty spot has been temporarily delayed while talks with gay rights groups take place to try and break the deadlock.

The area of the Downs sits at the top of the Avon Gorge, in the upmarket Clifton suburb of Bristol and is home to various species of rare plants and wildlife.

But councillors said it had become overgrown over the past 20 years.

Thick bushes cover the secluded area next to a street known Circular Road which has become a mecca* for gay men and couples cruising for sex.

* no offence intended I'm sure.

allan
then she shouldn't have taken the job, knowing it might interfere with her bigotry, oops sorry religious viewpoint!

So a "victory for religious liberty" means a loss of liberty for certain same-sex couples to marry? I can't say a zero-sum outcome is a desirable one.

Percy

It is a fair comment but I don't agree with it. I am not in favour of forcing Muslims to eat the full Irish breakfast for example.

Lillian Ladele is not asking anyone to change anything. She is standing up for he right not to participate in what is a sham and a grotesque parody.

If we must look for consistency I opposed the removal of pre-existing unionist symbols from councils in the north despite being a republican. To remove what is established is not the same as rejecting a novelty. That is my view.

So a "victory for religious liberty" means a loss of liberty for certain same-sex couples to marry? I can't say a zero-sum outcome is a desirable one.

Henry,

"Many many doctors refuse to perform abortions. You might as well ask what if they refused to perform operations on black people."

Not a good analogy. The analogue of a doctor refusing to perform an abortion at all would be if the registrar refused to perform any marriage at all. If a doctor refused to perform abortions on gay or black women only they should have no grounds to object if they are turfed out.

In any case I thought conservatives were all about personal responsibility. If this woman chooses to believe that homosexual marriages are sinful, that's her choice. If that means her job doesn't get done then she should take the consequences and get a job she can do. That said if her beliefs can be accomodated and the people who want to get married can still get married, then I think they should be.

"Lillian Ladele is not asking anyone to change anything. She is standing up for he right not to participate in what is a sham and a grotesque parody."

Absolutely correct, Henry.

It appears that an awful lot of black people aren't going along with the program. It's truly, to borrow Henry94's words, a "sham and a grotesque parody". Its kind of a white people's disease.

Henry 94,

"what is a sham and a grotesque parody".
If that's your view, and hers, then don't take the job.and you won't have to meet all those filthy homos, and have your purity tainted by the great unwashed.

agreed on pre-existing unionist symbols

This decision is wrong for 2 specific reasons. Firstly it is an interference in the correct balance between the rights of people to their individual beliefs and choices outside of the workplace and the duties to acceot the common rules within the workplace without which we have potential chaos.

Secondly it is nothing to do with religous liberty. Ms Ladele is not being denied by her emplyer the faith of her choice, nor is she being told to alter her moral views on sexuality , neither has she been sacked or demoted due to her faith. She is being asked by her employer to grant members of the public secular civil licences to which they are entitled and which is part of her role as a registrar, and to accept the same conditions of employment as all other registars. David, Pete and others here who rightfully attack the often selfish 'rights' culture should realise that this decision is a greater blow against freedom than for it.

Henry,

"Lillian Ladele is not asking anyone to change anything. She is standing up for he right not to participate in what is a sham and a grotesque parody."

You're mistaken - by her own statements and actions it is clear that she actively seeks to participate in a sham and a grotesque parody of love.

Colm

Even when what she is being asked to do shocks the conscience?

Her right not to perform her job duties? Maybe I am not understanding the concept of her position. Is she a civil service employee whose function it is to register marriages tha that have been sanctioned by the law of the land. What if she were in the Department of Motor Vehicles and didn't want to issue a driver's license to women because she didn't believe they should be able to drive for religious reasons.

It is perfectly fine for her to hold to her beliefs, but can she use them to interpose her view of her job duties?

Its religious liberty gone mad I tell ya

If the lady refusnik had been a scarf-wearing muslim objecting on religious grounds do you think Islington council would have:

(a) harrassed her, as they did this lady, or
(b) quietly let the matter drop

Their commitment to the gay rights agenda would have clashed head-on with their equal devotion to multi-culturalism. A tough call, eh?

Phantom

If we decide that individuals in the workplace shouldn't be required to conduct an activity which 'shocks their conscience' - what right does anyone then have to choose what is an acceptable right of conscience. The vegetarian shop assistant who won't sell a piece of ham. The Christian hotel receptionist who refuses to book a room to an unmarried couple ? The pacifist machinist in a clothes factory who refuses to work an order for Army uniforms. The Muslim admin clerk in a newpaper office who refuses to take an ad booking for alcohol. The choices people make in their private lives need to be respected but in the workplace you accept the rules and duties that come with the jon for which you are paid. It is not an assault on Ms Ladeles religous beliefs to require her to perform legal ceremonies which citizens in her area are entitled to. If we rightly expect the state and /or our employers to stay out of our private lives then we shouldn't force our private lives and choices into the arena of the workplace. That is the correct balance.

Huh? She's a government employee who refuses to perfomr her duties because of a religious belief. What if that beleif was that interracial couples couldn't get married, or the only couples who could get be married are Christians? Or what if she were Muslim and decided she wouldn't marry Jews.

exactly. its impressive to see those who criticise adherents of other religions for similar behaviour now claim it as liberty when they do the same. nevermind that this women thinks she is absolute ruler of britian. how about just doing your job, which as a servant of the public you have no right to peronally interpret????

Daytripper
Its islamophobia gone mad I tell ya

Yes daytipper there are a few people on this thread whose loudly proclaimed 'anti nanny state' principles soon dissapear when a statist decision matches their own opinions.

DT what no consciencious objectors? If you work for the state you do what you have to like a robot?

Off to war with you in Iraq or Afghanistan even if you object?

Gays should really look at who would protect their most fundamental right, and those who would remove it.

Excellent position allen. "be thankful we dont just kill you"

yet more proof that there ar eonly degrees of difference between religious conservatives, regardless of adherence.

Even a soldier in the field has an obligation to disobey an unlawful order. Miss Ladele was given an unlawful order.

GOSH!

Conscientous objectors in the military do not insist that they stay in the same post and it alters to suit them. They acknowledge that they have to leave the job and - in wartime - are required to carry out another function. It is not the same as this woman insisting on keeping her job but picking and choosing which lawful duties she will perform.

Phantom

What unlawful order was she being asked to perform ?

no phantom
The whole point is that she was given a lawful order.
Time to fold em dude! lol

Colm: None of course. She was asked to perform a routine task in accordance with the law, apparently merely registering the marriage. We can presume she registers civil marriages (where there was no religious ceremony) and marriages of people of non-Christian faiths so her objection allegedly based on Christianity is obviously selective.

Modest proposal

Those who gave the order should be imprisoned and this fine lady should be given a pay rise and put in charge of the department.

Daytripper,

"its impressive to see those who criticise adherents of other religions for similar behaviour now claim it as liberty when they do the same."

Exactly so.

[ 1 ] | [ 2 ]

And wasn't there one about some Muslim refusing to sell cigarettes or similar. Most of the usual suspects defending her god given right to be sacked of course.

"Excellent position allen. "be thankful we dont just kill you""

Also spot on. Similar to the demographics BS - better breed like rabbits, ladies, or the nasty Muslims will make you, er, breed like rabbits.

Colm in Britain perhaps but not all countries allowed C.O. to opt out so easily. According to wiki

In many countries outside Europe, especially in armed conflict areas (Israel/Palestine, DR Congo), conscientious objection is punished severely.

The Abortion Act 1967 carries a conscientious objection clause perhaps the churches should consider such a clause.

Hold it, it is better than I thought. SHE PERFORMS CIVIL MARRIAGES OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH. Isn't that the UnChristian part- men and women who have secular weddings. How funny. She is happy enough to perform secular weddings and has done so for years.

The truth is this case is a nonsense and those like David and Pete Moore and Phantom who hail it are demonstrating that they actually like ludicrous nanny state politically correct and wrong headed dictats when it suits their cause .

To clarify again this has nothing whatsoever to do with religous liberty and conscience. Ms Ladeles role is as a civil registrar. The services she conducts are wholly non religous . She is not a church minister conducting religous marraiges , she is in a role - voluntarily - where she carries out the statutory alternatives to religous ceremonies - namely civil marraige contracts and now civil partnerships. She is the one trying to bring religion into a job that was by definition non religous. The tribunal decision was wrong in every respect and I hope the local authority get it overturned.

"Those who gave the order should be imprisoned and this fine lady should be given a pay rise and put in charge of the department."

.... Clearly losing the plot.... reaching for the turn -key
Tut Tut

instead of bashing the bishop, try bashing the inner bigot

Percy

I think that's Phantom's tongue in cheek way of acknowledging defeat.

Colm,

It's called freedom of conscience. If conducting same-sex ceremonies is against this lady's religious beliefs (which I fully understand) where is HER human rights? Celerating individual liberty is NOT endorsing the Nanny State. Remember I want to crush Nanny.

Colm she is objecting on religious grounds, due to same sex unions being against her beliefs!! That is onscience, religious objection. Where civil law and religious law collide. She has every right.

I don't agree with her, but she has every right to object.

Ah, when all else fails, play the "bigot" card. Hey, I thought I made a proposal that was somewhat fair to everyone!

I'll run with that colm.. very astute

What if she were Muslim and refused to conduct any services unless the women wore head scarfs? What if she insisted that the couples explain whether they had premarital sex or not. You can't allow civil servants to impose their personal religious beleifs upon the rest of the world just because you agree with them.

The spectacular part of this all is that she performs secular weddings which would not be recognized by almost any branch of Christianity that I can think of. Indeed, most branchs of Christianity would object to a woman performing the marriage rites. This is one of the most remarkable threads on ATW in the complete about face of the rightwingers on this site.

David

You are wromg but if that's your view the next time a Muslim individual forces a change in his/her employment contract to comply with Sharia principles I will expect you to welcome such a defence of freedom of conscience.

Gosh

Nobody is asking her to personally approve and give her blessing to same sex unions, only to conduct in an official capacity the role she has chosen as a local civil registar. If I work in a benefits office I am duly bound to grant the benefits that the applicant is entitled do, it doesn't mean I am approving of those benefits, any more than if I am a hotel receptionist taking a room booking or on a more trivial but stil relevent level, someone in a music store selling a CD to a customer. I am not approving of their musical choice just becasue I sell the item to them. There is a difference between the roles people agree to in their working life and the choices they make in their private. If Ms Ladele does not approve of same sex couples she can refrain from socialising with them or endorsing them in her private life, but while she acts as a civil registar under a remit that permits legal civil unions she has a duty to condcut them professionally.

Mahons

When I first heard this story emerging today I knew that if there was a post on it, the principles of many of the anti-socialist libertarian right wingers here would come crashing down.

I cannot understand what the confusion is- she has not PREVENTED this ceremony, but simply said, in effect, count me out.
They can get someone else to preside over it.

Colm,

Bernard makes the point. My view stands - Islington council is a total disgrace...always has been come to think of it.