Lilian Ladele is a registrar in Islington in London. She said she wouldn't perform marriage ceremonies (well, the authorities prefer to call them civil partnerships) for same-sex couples because some sky fairy is supposed not to like that sort of thing.
A story in Pink News tells us:
Islington council is considering an appeal after an employment tribunal ruled that a registrar was bullied because she refused to perform civil partnership ceremonies that she claimed were against God's will.
"It is an important case, which may have a wider impact than the dispute between the parties," the tribunal said. It added that it would be "wrong for one set of rights to trump another".
Islington Council rightly considered the importance of the right of the gay community not to be discriminated against, but did not consider the right of Miss Ladele as a member of a religious group.
Completely missing the point that Ms bloody Ladele can choose her religion or, if she didn't have a big God slot in her brain, could choose not to have a religion at all. To say someone has a "right" because they belong to a religious group suggests they have a "right" because they belong to any group, whether it's political, religious or Olympic yodelling.
I've been saving this piece from the Independent for when this story reared its head again. There are some good points made by Ben Summerskill of Stonewall, not least of which is his question as to what would happen if doctors refused to operate on gay people or gay registrars decided not to officiate at straight marriages because they thought they were patriarchal. To which I might add that the latter is only a belief system, just as Ladele's religion is.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.