Pages

Tuesday, 15 December 2009

Lillian’s lost cause

Lillian Ladele, the Christian registrar who refused to do her job because she put her superstitions first, has finally lost her case against unfair dismissal after a number of hearings and appeals.

“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?

2 comments:

  1. I like to think I'm fair minded, but if I was a queen I wouldn't lend MY counsel to a picky homophobe like this one!

    ReplyDelete

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.