“In July 2008, an employment tribunal found north London’s Islington Council had discriminated against her,” the BBC reports. “This was overturned by an appeal tribunal. The Court of Appeal in London upheld the appeal tribunal’s ruling.”
Ladele had refused to perform the job she was paid out of public funds to do: join people in civil partnerships. But because she’s a religious bigot, she thought that somehow she ought to be exempt from this part of her job.
The Beeb story continues:
At a recent hearing in London, James Dingemans QC, representing her, told a panel of three appeal judges that Ms Ladele had never wanted to undermine the human rights of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender communities.
But human rights laws must also be there to protect people with committed views about marriage, he said.
By extension, then, human-rights laws should favour any views, no matter how sane or how batty, that anyone, anywhere, might hold on any subject if they claim that they are “committed” views. Is that right, Mr Dingemans? It seems the only logical corollary to this fatuous “defence”.
Let’s form the Holy Church of Tax Evasion, shall we, and really, really, really and sincerely believe, with truly committed views, in its tenets, and see how far that gets us?