Thursday, July 10, 2008

Excuse for Homophobia

In a victory for homophobic religious bigotry, the registrar I mentioned in this post has won her case against her employer, Islington Council. Registrar Lillian Ladele refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies as she said that they "went against her Christian faith". The tribunal ruled that she was discriminated against on the grounds of religious belief, and was harassed. Right, I'm off to create a religious cult opposed to doing the bits of my job I don't like...

[Thanks to Current Awareness for the link to the BBC report.]
Posted by John Bolch at 12:24 PM
Labels: ,

13 comments:

  1. A dreadful judgment. This is someone who conducts secular civil weddings, in which any mention or music that has a religious connotation. Why didn't her faith interfere with that? This being the faith that says there is no marriage except one made in the Lord. Apparently £31K might have had something to do with it. So she is happy to be a hypocrite as long as no gayness is involved. I'd say she lost the right to object to any job requirements on religious grounds when she signed up to conduct secular weddings.

    As to harassment, how does someone suggesting you are a homophobe constitute harassment when you refuse to conduct utterly lawful civil partnerships on the basis that your religion tells you that being gay is, well, wrong and bad and evil? Perhaps harassment should have a truth defence, like defamation. Or maybe I'm wrong, and you can think that being gay is wrong and bad and evil without actually being a homophobe. Maybe Ms Ladele could actually touch gay people without shuddering and dashing off to wash her hands.

    I really, really hope Islington appeal sucessfully.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry, that should read ...'or music that has a religious connotation is banned'.
    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks, NL. As Usefully Employed points out, we don't have the full facts, but it is indeed a dreadful judgment, particularly if she did win on discrimination.
    ReplyDelete
  4. The full text of the judgement is here:

    http://www.christian.org.uk/ladelejudgment.pdf
    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for that. I see that her complaint on the grounds of religious discrimination did succeed. Appalling. I'll leave it to Usefully Employed to give a detailed analysis.
    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for the link! Is it wrong that I'm actually looking forward to spending my Friday night reading it? Oh yes, of course it is.
    ReplyDelete
  7. Yep, it's certainly wrong. ;-)
    ReplyDelete
  8. A shocker of a ruling, in effect I think giving employers a disability discrimination-style "duty to make reasonable adjustments" to religious staff regardless of their duties to treat members of the public equally.

    Presumably hotel staff will now be able to refuse to take bookings from gay couples, safe in the knowledge they can't be sacked.
    ReplyDelete
  9. ... or serve them in bars or shops etc etc. Brilliant.
    ReplyDelete
  10. I've read the judgment now. There's always a worry when you have a first reaction to news of a judgment that you're reacting emotionally, and that on proper reading it'll actually make sense.

    Don't worry - it doesn't make any sense at all! If this decision isn't overturned in a heartbeat then I'm off to Stonewall and the Secular Society with an offer of my free time.
    ReplyDelete
  11. :-) Yes I know that feeling - easy to make a fool of yourself with a hasty reaction. Glad (for my own sake) that it doesn't apply in this case - thanks for confirming that. Let's all hope this appalling decision is overturned.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks, UE - see this post.

    As you say, thank goodness.
    ReplyDelete

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)