I hope this will draw a line under cases of this kind. Thank goodness Islington appealed againt the original ET decision, which really ought to be reviewed by the Tribunal Service.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

**** This thread began in response to a news story which can be read here **** (Ed)

I think this is the correct decision, not simply on the basis of maintaining equal opportunities policies (which seems a little like a choice between degrees of discrimination!) but because the Registrar is a functionary: They are not getting married, or engaging in the civil partnership, they are merely an official carrying out a procedure enabling the marriage/partnership to take place (in accordance purely with law; not religion or belief).

They are therefore not being asked to participate in the partnership, but merely to carry out a legislative function which has no personal significance to them or their lives whatsoever.

If the religious argument were taken to its extreme then Catholic, Muslim or Jewish (and no doubt many other-faith) Registrars might equally decline to conduct such ceremonies, or civil marriages between Christians since their belief-structures (religions) in their strict form do not recognise the validity of the civil/marital partnerships being referred to either!

 

 

 If this lady had been a Muslim would the same ruling have applied ??

The key issue here is one of Human moral rights in a society increasingly making it impossible to work if you do not accept Humanistic Philosophy.

 Gynaecologists were given an opt-out clause about conducting abortions on the basis of personal beliefs

Shopworkers who refuse to work on particular days for religious reasons

 But such rights are denied to those employed as a registrar, nurse or social worker

 Since Humanism started as a religion, is this not a simple case of tyrrany?

 

No one is denying anyone their rights; working on a Sunday and procuring and assisting in abortions are quite different things and your nurse involved in that would not be able to discriminate on the grounds that the woman having the abortion was married or not or whether it was her first or twenty-first or whether or not it was following rape. The Ladele case is about not providing the same service to everyone because of who they are, which is not acceptable for a civic organisation. The law is clear that civil partnerships have the same status as civil marriage. I find it difficult to understand how someone with Ms Ladele's standards and beliefs could conduct civil weddings for many of the people one sees at the town hall in Islington.

It is hypocritical to miss the point that a nurse who offers to pray for a lady who did not complain should be dismissed after a complaint by an equalities busybody. I

t is unfair to force a gynaecologist who swears a hippocratic oath to preserve life, to carry out abortions on perfeclty healthy women.

It is equally unfair to stop a Sikh wearing a turban

 

so let's stop being hypocritical and pretending that anyone but humanists has rights in the UK to "civic" office if you think this ruling is correct.

Sorry guys - this takes equality of one particular kind in deference to equality of another kind.  I disagree with the ruling and do so on the basis that two wrongs don't make a right.  There should have been an attempt to resolve this issue without Ms Lafele losing her job, and without her request not to conduct civil partnership ceremonies being treated in itself as discrimination.  I can't say I would have wanted to make the decision in this case, but I believe it will lead to a heirarchy of the discriminations - and I'm saddened that devout Christianity is at the bottom of the pile.  Provided there was no behaviour intended to cause insult, and provided that Ms Ladele did not show any form of harassment or attitude of hostility towards gay colleagues and gay applicants for service, she should have been free to ask the question without the harassment claim.

This was absolutely the correct decision in law and does not begin a hierarchy; agreeing to Ms Ladele's request would have been to give her religious belief priority over the secular responsibilties of the local authority and over the right of individuals to take advantage of a provision of the law.  Ms Ladele would not be able to object to marrying transexuals or adulterers; what amazes me is that is wants to take part in civil weddings when she feels so strongly about Christianity.  Public sector workers need to leave prejudice of this kind behind when they are performing a public duty.

I agree Angel. If Ladelle conducted Christian weddings in a church and was being made to carry out civil partnerships then may be she'd have had a case. But as a registrar for a local authority the ceremonies are secular, to the point that any readings during a ceremony cannot include any vaguely religious content. For her beliefs to trump the obligations of Islington council would have been unworkable.

phil56 - yes, the same ruling would have applied had this lady been a Muslim.

Can I have a guess which paper you read?

 

 

In my experience most devout Christians, as I understand Ms Ladele is, accept that any type of wedding counts as marriage as it is between a man and a woman. However, many understand civil partnerships between the same sex to be fundamentally different. I'm very sorry that angel regards sincere orthodox Christian belief purely as prejudice. Would she I wonder see sincere environmental campaigning, much of which is being done by devout Christians, also as prejudice? I strongly believe this decision was wrong and that Islington Council's response to Ms Ladele's request was not "proportionate."  If they were allow her to continue to act for marriage ceremonies only it would not prejudice their statutory duty to conduct civil partnerships at all. Surely they have seriously discriminated on the grounds of Ms Ladel's sincere orthodox religious beliefs by dismissing her.

 

 

 

 

While I respect all people who hold sincere beliefs (however much I may disagree with them) I think there is an important difference between what one believes and what one evangelises.

If this case has been a white supremacist refusing to participate in the marriage of mixed-race couples there would be almost no dissent regarding their action, however when it comes to religious beliefs, particularly fundamental and evangelical religious beliefs, we seem to go into a state of trembling indecision.

I accept and support the right of certain members of our society to hold devout religious beliefs, however contra-intuitive, illogical or scientifically unsupportable they may be; however I do not concede their right to seek to inflict those beliefs on me, or others, or interfere with my (or anyone else's) legal and (in our society) moral actions on the grounds of their opinions.

If a believer feels they are unable to accept others' rights on the basis of their personal ethics that is their decision, but if there are consequences for taking this position then they must face those. This is one such example. Ms Ladele has refused to carry out a condition of her contract, not on the basis of her being asked to participate personally in something inconsistent with her beliefs  (since she is not the one engaging in the partnership) but for not being permitted to passively express her negative opinion of the "righteousness" of civil partnerships by refusing to carry out the purely administrative role required of her.

It is not belief which creates conflict, in this or any other forum, it is the attempt to inflict that belief on those who may, with equal justification, believe otherwise.

Are you not trying to inflict your beliefs on others, Peter?

RajT:

phil56 - yes, the same ruling would have applied had this lady been a Muslim.

Can I have a guess which paper you read?

None at the moment !

RajT:

phil56 - yes, the same ruling would have applied had this lady been a Muslim.

Can I have a guess which paper you read?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clever Johny, but no: I am advocating a rationally established standpoint which is, by definition, subject to change in the face of new evidence; I am not evangelising it. The one allows for other opinions, the other says only the held opinion is correct.

If Ms Lidal can demonstrate to me any rational basis why a contract between two consenting adults should not be formed because a supreme being (who, by her own definition of that being, must have created in them the desire to form that contract), whose authority she can establish to be greater than the current law says it should not, then I will be pleased to reconsider my opinion. 

In the absence of such divine intervention, the question at issue is not whether the reason they are forming that contract is morally right or wrong, it is whether the creation of the contract is legally right or wrong. Her opinion on the former does not, as a matter of fact, give her the right to ignore the latter.

Rationality never considers any matter absolute: Thus 2 + 2 has, so far in recorded history, been shown to always = 4, but there is no proof that it always has, or always will. (unless it's 2 halves + 2 quarters etc. etc.)

It is only belief that claims to be absolutely right beyond argument.  

 

Peter:

I do feel obliged to pick you up on a number of inaccuracies in your argument.

1. You suggest that evangelising "says only the held opinion is correct" Not so. The term "evangelising" is derived from the Greek work evangelion - the good news or the gospel. To evangelise is simply to spread the good news. There is no suggestion in the term to imply a forcing upon others of that good news. A close examination of the early Christian leaders will reveal that their approach in spreading the good news was to adopt exactly the position that you claim to do; that of using rational arguments to convince their audience of the validity of their position.

2. You try to force Ms Ladele into a corner (oh, and by the way, please give the lady some respect and spell her name correctly!) by suggesting that her belief in a supreme being must automatically imply that the desires that people are born with reflect the will of that supreme being. I'm sure that she won't be of that opinion. I'm also sure that you won't be of the opinion that just because a person displays criminal tendencies from a young age, that "that's the way they are" and therefore we should leave them to it.

3. Like the majority of contributors to this thread, your argument is almost entirely focused on the issue of rights, be they moral or legal. This is not helpful. It's far more helpful to understand Ms Ladele's motives as being driven by a sense of duty and responsibility. My suspicion is that her beliefs will have led her to a position similar to that of Martin Luther where, like him, she felt obliged to state, "Here I stand, I can do no other." In doing so, clearly her actions have an effect on others (as all our actions do) but her motivation is one of adherence to what she sees as her responsibilities, not just to impose her beliefs on others.

4. You're clearly attempting to assert the superiority of rationality over belief, but your comment that "it is only belief that claims to be absolutely right beyond argument" doesn't hold water. In fact the philosophers of the school of Rationalism (i.e. those who hold that in addition to the knowledge we have from sense-experience, we also have some knowledge which is prior to and independent of sense-experience) would, if pushed, claim that their viewpoint was irrefutable!

Graham

I regret I am not a student of Greek, however the good news which is being spread relates to a belief and a belief, by definition, allows no dissent: either one believes or does not.  

I do not "try" to do anything in relation to Ms Ladele: I merely reflect on what she has done to herself. Nor is your assumption that my misspelling of her name was either intentional or in any way derogatory correct, indeed perhaps I should feel offended that you make that judgement of me?

But then I'm not that petty; (and for information: My surname gets misspelled or misinterpreted all the time; so far I've not noticed it cause me any injury).

Heterosexuality or homosexuality is a matter of genetics: If a God (in whatever meaning one choses to ascribe to that word) created the individual as part of their great plan then they placed in them, through their genes, the desire to create the association being formalised. "Free will", is no more "free" of our genes than it is of our up-bringing. Both "nature" and "nurture" being of significance, but the latter able only to operate within the boundaries of the former, and indeed arguably further dependent on the "nature" of those doing the "nurturing".

I suspect (forgive me if I am wrong) that your illustration of criminality as a parallel to homosexuality make you of the belief that this "behaviour" can be "changed", however your example holds within it the seeds of its own downfall: All children indeed push the limits of behaviour (it's called "learning") and if certain traits of this process (what any given society deems to be "misconduct") are not controlled or diverted then an anti-social individual will indeed result: Thus "nurture" is vital in the process. Unfortunately some children are also born who are genetically anti-social, growing to become psychopathic or sociopathic whatever parental or educational input is applied.

In both parallels, the genetic framework within which "nurture" can operate is set. "Curing" homosexuality is as much a myth as is "curing" psychopathy. The latter can be controlled (by drug therapy etc) and the former has historically been controlled by fear of ostracism or, more frequently, death! But being forced to suppress one's nature is not changing it; merely hiding it. Is this what a benevolent and loving God would expect from a being he had created to be the way they are? And even if one accepts this injustice, who are we to act on that cruel decision? Would you feel empowered to punish a neighbour's child because you had heard their Father say they were naughty for having blond hair instead of brown? Indeed would you feel it fair for him to punish them himself?

You suggest my argument is not "helpful". By this do you mean that I do not agree with the view that anyone can set aside their society's laws because they conflict with their beliefs? Oh, would that I did! Next time I wished to drive at 60 in a 30 zone I could then argue that my belief that it was safe to do so over-rode my local authority's decision (based on mere facts like accident statistics) that it was not. Oh, joy!

No. Graham: The fact is that Ms Ladele's employment is a legal contract in which the employer is bound to offer work and the employee agrees to do it. She has refused; that's breach of contract. The issue of motivation is something else entirely.

You again do me scant courtesy by suggesting that I disregard Ms Ladele's motives: I do not. I have certainly said they are not relevant to the purely legal issue of whether she breached her contract or not, but that is not to disregard them. Again you confuse the issues of action with intent. Martin Luther or Ms Ladele; the intent of both parties was no doubt pure, but that does not make the actions they took to further those intentions any more acceptable in the context of the applicable law. Any respect I may have for the stance taken (by either) does not so blind me as to suggest that they were right in the legal context of the place and time; indeed in the case of Luther it is the very fact that, in that context, he knew he was standing for a moral principle against the religious laws of the time which made his action significant. Morally right can still be legally wrong: Is that a surprise?

...And whose morality is right? By which interpretation: Hebrew? Latin? Greek? Aramaic? Islamic? Jewish; Shinto......?

Law is not created in a vacuum: It is the agreement of a form of conduct, or a restraint on forms of conduct, which the society of that place and time have by consensus determined should apply. It is neither "right" or "wrong" in any absolute terms; indeed if you glance at the statute books for even the last century alone you will find hundreds of laws that seemed "right" to our society in 1910 but which appal us now.

Ms Ladele made her choice: she must live with it. I do not judge whether that choice was morally right or wrong, (indeed I don't believe I've commented on the morality or otherwise of same-sex partnerships) but what I stand by completely is my opinion that, in our society's laws, of our time, the decision by Islington Council was right and the arguments presented that an individual's choices whatever their motive should not over-rule the structures that we live by are sound.

We do, however, have an option: If so many people think she's right, then lobby to have the law changed. Simple. Your example Luther did it in far more dangerous and less democratic times.

I'm not sure of the meaning of your comments regarding "knowledge...independant of sense-experience". Is this your means of referring to genetics? Is belief so "un absolute" that it must fail to recognise realities that are demonstrated before its eyes? ...And again; you're wrong: I'm not trying to asset the "superiority" of any philosophy over any other: If I was expressing any view outside the ones relevant to the case in question it was that I chose to live my life within the experience of the senses I have, given to me by God, or evolution, or Harry Potter's magic for all it matters! Those senses have, throughout my life, fed me information none of which suggests to me that there is any "being", either benevolent or malevolent, who has expressed any set of "laws" which give me the right to judge my fellow man by anything but their interrelationships with me and my society. In short: by their respect for me as an individual and our society (however you wish to define that; locally, nationally or globally).

Is my viewpoint irrefutable?

Personally, I'm not arrogant enough to ever say that I'm omnipotent, so how could I possibly say I'm infallible and my viewpoint cannot be challenged? Only Gods can do that.

I have given you the courtesy of an answer, but since I am sure that readers must be tired of hearing my views; that is my last word. 

I would like to offer my thanks to peterc101 for his contributions to this thread.  Peter, I have found your observations on the subject to be concise, insightful, relevant and non-judgmental.  You have made a significant contribution to the debate in a manner that is designed to engage rather than offend and I for one have appreciated your responses.

Shouldn't the discussion be about whether a devout Christian should unecessarily lose their livelihood because of their sincere orthodox beliefs or whether Ms Ladele has been indirectly discriminated agianst under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief Regulations) Reulations which I firmly believe is the case.

Angel

You started the post trying to end the discussion and instead started one of the longest threads in recent months.  Life can be perverse can't it

johny

I have resisted joining in until now because I admit to having no understanding of why religion is taken seriously but I accept that people are entitled to hold beliefs.  And please I don't want some clever person to tell me that my lack of belief is a belief in its own right.When someone is aggrieved and feels that their grievance has not been satisfactorily resolved in the workplace, it is right and proper that they have a higher authority they can appeal to [no pun intended].  This she has done.  In this respect it is over and done with.

The question that remains is - are the Employment Equality Regulations [sic] adequately framed and properly understood.  Now that is a real debate.

Pausanias

Pausanias

Thanks for talking about the Regulations which is what my point is basically about. I am not a lawyer and can't comment on whether they are adequately drafted or not. I don't believe they are properly understood. I don't think this matter is over and done with because I believe Ms Ladele intends or has appealed to the Supreme Court which if she does I hope will overturn what to me seems the unfair decision given by the Court of Appeal.

One of the things that has been lost in the debate thus far is the simple fact that, as a matter of law, it is permissible in certain circumstances to discriminate against an individual on the grounds of their religion or belief.

There are circumstances where people may agree it is wholly appropriate to do this (perterc101's example of a white supremacist and mixed race marriages comes to mind) and there are times, as in the case with Ms Ladele, where it becomes a matter of opinion on whether or not it is right to do this.  Unfortunately for those with deeply held convictions on the subject the only opinions which matter in these cases are those of the judges making the decision.

So for those of you who harrumph about this being the trumping of one belief system over another, you may have a perfectly valid point if that is how you choose to see the decision.  Others view it in a different way entirely - hence the very entertaining, and occasionally informative, debate that has unfolded.  However, the only way to change the legal position is to either change the legislation or change the way in which that legislation is interpreted by the courts.  Ms Ladele has tried the second option and failed thus far.

Sorry - a bit late on this one

 Phil, you say:

"If this lady had been a Muslim would the same ruling have applied?? "

And Trish:

"There should have been an attempt to resolve this issue without Ms Lafele losing her job, and without her request not to conduct civil partnership ceremonies being treated in itself as discrimination"

Two muslims who she worked with accepted the compromise (just doing the basic signing/admin rather than the ceremony) that was offered to ALL of them.  Ms Ladele wanted to take it further to prove a point - she's proved the point that being religious isn't a free pass for discrimination, but i doubt that's what she intended.

As a representative of a secular public council it was her responsibility to uphold their policy against excluding or targeting vunerable groups.  If she was a gay woman refusing to marry Christians or an immigration offical refusing to process black people's visas the ruling would have been the same.  There is no hierarchy - Should she have won, THAT would have demonstrated a hierarchy as the implication would be that Chrisitan beliefs would excuse you from other laws.

Tom28:

Sorry - a bit late on this one

 Phil, you say:

"If this lady had been a Muslim would the same ruling have applied?? "

And Trish:

"There should have been an attempt to resolve this issue without Ms Lafele losing her job, and without her request not to conduct civil partnership ceremonies being treated in itself as discrimination"

Two muslims who she worked with accepted the compromise (just doing the basic signing/admin rather than the ceremony) that was offered to ALL of them.  Ms Ladele wanted to take it further to prove a point - she's proved the point that being religious isn't a free pass for discrimination, but i doubt that's what she intended.

As a representative of a secular public council it was her responsibility to uphold their policy against excluding or targeting vunerable groups.  If she was a gay woman refusing to marry Christians or an immigration offical refusing to process black people's visas the ruling would have been the same.  There is no hierarchy - Should she have won, THAT would have demonstrated a hierarchy as the implication would be that Chrisitan beliefs would excuse you from other laws.

Arguably being religious isn't providing protection from the Courts whilst protection is being afforded to other minorities. Your examples don't apply. Why would a gay woman refuse to marry Christians? Being gay isn't a religion or belief  - it's a sexual orientation. It would be personal prejudice if she wanted to do this. Ms Ladele I hope is not anti-gay people but holds to the orthodox Christian belief of what constitutes marriage. Similarly, an immigration oficial who refused to process black people's visas would be doing so because of personal prejudice.

 

 

Ms LadelsCiv il partnerships ion/netation.

 

 

 

 

doesn't

"Being gay isn't a religion or belief  - it's a sexual orientation" 

Which in my mind means that as it's an immutable part of a person's being that they can't help, rather than one of their opinions (like race) it deserves more protection - but that's not what i'm arguing for.

"Ms Ladele I hope is not anti-gay people but holds to the orthodox Christian belief of what constitutes marriage"

 You might have a point were this a religious wedding, but as it is not even a civil marriage but a civil partnership - not a marriage at all - then this argument holds no weight.

 Out of interest, what is the difference between personal prejudice and institutional prejudice and why is one more valid?

 (While the bible does have one or two passages about homosexuality thrown in - among arguments that it's a sin to wear clothes made of 2 different types of fabric or eat shellfish and that if you get dry rot you have to, by gods law, tear down your whole house - it's worth noting that the current obsession with homophobia in the church is less than 50 years old, and in my view is more to do with them picking out doctrine that re-enforces their stereotypes rather than the other way around - how else can you explain them missing the hundreds and hundreds of pages on tolerance love and acceptance to focus on one sentence?!)

I'm very sorry indeed, Tom, that you call devout Christians who hold to the traditional orthodox Christian teaching about marriage as prejudiced and homphobic. As a church member I regard the last word as slanderous and hope you retract it. We need a civilised debate and don't need to sink to this sort of level.

Sorry if I offended you.  Homophobia is defined as "a term for a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual"

 It was my understanding that the Church fits into this description.

Can I say that this argument looks set to rumble on for ages. As brothers and sisters in Christ we are always likely to have disagreements but all we can do now is pray for Lillian and for her future and the fact that she stood up for what she believed. How many of us as Christians have the courage to do that ?  The fact is that we now live in a secular society where we are dared to declare our Christian faith at the risk of being arrested. That is the most worrying fact of all and be prepared because it is going to get worse !

 The Bible states that homosexuality is a sin but we should not as Christians judge - ie we still care about people whether gay or straight. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"

"we are dared to declare our Christian faith at the risk of being arrested"

 I find this highly offensive, the day after holocaust memorial day, towards people for whom this is really the case 

...and in the same week that the Church got its way against the government and the EU on the equality bill... I understand that sometimes it must be difficult being in a religious minority - but to not accept that you are still the most influential minority is a little deluded*

 

*by minority I am referring to church-attending christians

The Bible states that homosexuality is a sin but we should not as Christians judge - ie we still care about people whether gay or straight. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"

Thanks for clarifying - I just wish everyone followed this teaching and was as good a Christian as you or I

Thanks, Tom.   I don't know if you ever go to church but in my experience churches are welcoming to all people whatever their sexual orientation etc and are not negative towards them as individuals.  This debate is basically about the meaning and importance of marriage to a Christian. I believe a sincere belief in it should be protected in the workplace where it is "proportionate" for the employer to accomodate it as I believe it is in Ms Ladele's case.

 

 

I didn't make the statement you find offensive, Tom, but I believe it is true that Christians who feel strongly about these matters and perhaps spoken out unwisely in public have been arrested.

 

"in my experience churches are welcoming to all people whatever their sexual orientation etc and are not negative towards them as individuals"

 Apologies if I appeared to disagree with this - I should have been clearer as this is also my experience.  The reason I am so passionate about this debate is, in part, that I hate to see a worthy and caring philosophy and belief system hijacked by a few bigots.

 "This debate is basically about the meaning and importance of marriage to a Christian. I believe a sincere belief in it should be protected in the workplace where it is "proportionate" for the employer to accomodate it as I believe it is in Ms Ladele's case."

 I would generally agree, but:

A) As I previously stated, this was not only not a religious marriage, but not even a marriage.

B) Again - as I said before: other religious staff members accepted the compromise which was suggested to accomodate their beliefs but Ms Ladele was unwilling to compromise

Gentle reminder

Thanks for your contributions to this thread - it has made interesting reading. I believe however that in more recent posts it has become of less benefit to the community HR Space serves. I would like to to leave the thread open so that others can add their opinions as they wish, but may have to close the thread if matters don't improve.

many thanks

Rob

Just one additional point to make about why Islington could not just ignore this situation. Public Authorities, as well as abiding by the employment legislation covering the various facets of discrimination, have a 'duty to promote equality'. While in the private sector an employer could conceivable have come to a compromise short of Ms Ladele losing her job, in the public sector this would have left themopen to claims that they were not carrying out that 'duty to promote equality'.

Whether such a duty should exist is, of course, a whole other debate. However, Islington have followed what they perceive to be the correct course of action given the current legislation, and so far, Ms Ladele, using the processes open to her, has challenged this and lost.

Whilst I am sure we all have a long list of what we would consider 'potty' legislation or case law, until such time as acts are repealed, or a higher court over turns a lower decision we all have to abide by such judgements.