Comments on: Religion versus marriage: a “landmark” case

By: Ted Bloke

Ted Bloke — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:10:15 +0000

You could have called yourselves just Atheists (I am one) but choosing to call yourselves Freethinkers (I am one) suggests that although you struggled for the right to disbelieve and even disrespect belief, you accept the freedom of others to believe and practice religion. Then I suggest: have the capacity to recognize a witch-hunt when you see it and not join in - that includes the honesty to not hide behind patently disingenuous pretexts such as ‘discrimination against gays’ ‘she is a public servant’.

No gay has suffered the slightest detriment from her and if anyone reads the history of the affair it will be clear that no-one was ever going to and the Council was always perfectly aware of this. But it wanted a victim and so do many people – scary.

It is fairly clear that there is some compulsion – anthropologically interesting – to persecute this thought-criminal, who has suffered severe intimidation and ostracism a work, at all costs: no expense - Islington Council is ready to devote considerable amounts of its taxpayer’s money to that end – and no dirty trick – like Stonewall trying to exploit her private life – is spared.

To take one of the non-hate posts here, Plonkee’s ‘There’s no doubt whatsoever in my mind that she’s wrong to think this way.’ But what is in your mind is irrelevant to the rights of someone else who has different things in her mind.
‘The question for the law is, does her right to act on her beliefs trump other people’s right not to be discriminated against? On balance, I think not.’

Since you wrote this the Law has pronounced. Saying that neither right trumps the other. It did say that the Council had not used proportionate means of securing a right (of gays). I.e. as a non-legal person might put it, it had unnecessarily been out-and-out officious. Ms. Ladele won the right to not be forced to do the Civil Partnerships, and she also won some of her claims concerning intimidation and discrimination. (Of course the judgment could be overturned on appeal which is going to happen, or by a new law which will be proposed if the appeal fails.)

Talking of law, to call her ‘homophobic’, which she denies, is potentially libelous.

By: The Freethinker › Catastrophe! Homophobic Christian registrar wins discrimination case

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:01:45 +0000

[...] over a bizarre employment tribunal decision this week that a Christian registrar from Islington – Lillian Ladele – had been discriminated against by the council after she refused to conduct same-sex civil [...]

By: Bill Vincent

Bill Vincent — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 05:35:42 +0000

Gotta agree. We need to keep our religious views to ourselves, if you’re going to take a job, you do the job, that’s the deal. You don’t get to opt out of any bit you don’t like, though I wish it worked that way for me.

By: Christopher Wing

Christopher Wing — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:37:14 +0000

It’s always nice when those who were once ridiculed can join society to ridicule others…

After all, every time you see a rainbow, god is having gay sex…

By: Drew

Drew — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:07:27 +0000

So what? Let her do str8 marriages. There is always someone willing to marry gays.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:10:18 +0000

I hate Stephen Green’s comment.”…Now she is being asked to solemnise pretend unions of homosexuals. No wonder she feels aggrieved”
This poor woman, she just wanted to officiate what she thought was right, but then some wierd people breaking the law of god came along and caused all this trouble. [/sarc]
People like Stephen Green give other Christians a bad name.

By: Phoenix

Phoenix — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:44:22 +0000

Well, the terms of the job changed. She took it under the understanding that she could opt out at will. If I took a secretarial job and the new boss thinks my job description should include stripping for him, I might have an issue as well.

By: Ex Partiot

Ex Partiot — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:43:31 +0000

if she can’t do her job SACK HER

By: Ed H

Ed H — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:32:09 +0000

i’ve done a little research, and apparently the only grounds for appeal she can have is Article 9 of some employment law, which is however trumped by the fact that she works for the state and so is required to uphold the law of the land, and thus grant a civil union to whomever wants one. Or at least, so says my friend who is doing a masters in law…

Ed H

By: plonkee

plonkee — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:14:42 +0000

It’s an interesting question. There’s no doubt whatsoever in my mind that she’s wrong to think this way.

The question for the law is, does her right to act on her beliefs trump other people’s right not to be discriminated against? On balance, I think not.