• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Argh! Stupid court ruling!

Naughtyhippo

Muse
N
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
658
I am watching the news right now and am really angry about a court ruling about the registrar who refused to perform civil partnerships as it was against her religion and claimed she was discriminated against (her claim was upheld).

This is ridiculous. She was being asked to perform a legal ceremony, NOT a religious one. For any civil ceremony religious readings are expressly forbidden - I believe that this is by law, not just custom. So why is she allowed to push her religious beliefs onto a matter of law that has nothing to do with religion? When you have a civil ceremony, it is not a marriage under god; how is she able to say her religion forbids a legal contract between some types of parties and not others? In fact, as a committed christian, what the hell is she doing performing civil ceremonies anyway?

For the record, I am not an atheist. I am a (somewhat lapsed) catholic - whilst they are many things I disagree with within the church, I am not against organised religion as a whole. But the above situation really does make me angry.

[/RANT]
 
I have no idea which news story you're refering to, but...

In 2000, Vermont adopted Civil Unions for gay couples, and many town clerks and Justices of the Peace refused to perform the ceremonies. This was (and is) perfectly legal, providing they did not perform marriage ceremonies for straight couples. I suspect the clerk in your news item is subject to the same restriction: perform ceremonies for everyone, or for no one. I don't have a problem with that, and I'm a straight lapsed Christian who's pro-gay marriage.
 
Could you give me a clue as to where this is happening? Like, which hemisphere?



I am a straight atheist Jew who believes in mandatory gay marriage.
 
rwguinn said:
Is this it?

The registrar performed cerimonies as a courtesy, not a job requirement, IIRC.
If she stops for everybody, it is not a problem
Click to expand...

No it is this lady, here in the UK.

http://www.thelondonpaper.com/cs/Sa...gs=aid=1157153446824&suffix=ArticleController

I wanted a bbc link but google-fu is weak :(

AFAIK (and I would be happy if someone had more of the facts would illuminate me) she simply refused to conduct the same-sex marriages because they were sinful but continued with the other marriages. I'd like to ask again, why she was happy conducting the 'normal' marriages without evidence that these people were also getting married in church. If there weren't getting married in church, then a secular marriage means nothing and they are living in sin in god's eyes. I know that this is an extreme take on religious marriage but she is the one saying that she won't do the same sex unions for this reason!
 
Loss Leader said:
No, I don't. I look like the gate symbol for earth. I take after my father. He looks like the gate symbol for P39-865.
Click to expand...

Silence, nerd, and give me the gate address to the Sex Planet.

Shut up, there's always a Sex Planet, in every single franchise. It's required. Although depending on the air date, you might not want to visit some of them. Sex Planets from the seventies are awfully....hairy. Which was fine for the time, but hey, times change.
 
The woman sees gay marriage as sinful. So with that door open, if you are Catholic you can refuse to perform second marriages for divorced people having another go round. You could refuse to marry atheists because it wouldn't be a union under your god.

These judges never seem to think things through to their logical consequences. I suspect they are going by their own personal biases that same sex marriages are abnormal.


This was interesting:
The landmark ruling that employees cannot be required to act against their consciences has implications for the 18,000 plus same-sex ceremonies conducted nationwide each year.
Click to expand...
 
Eh, it's probably the one in California that stopped doing ceremonies on the day that the California Supreme Court ruling became effctive, about two weeks ago. There was a long thread about it here starting right after the CASC ruling.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Silence, nerd, and give me the gate address to the Sex Planet.
Click to expand...


That would be Argos, P3X-8596. You can find the gate address here. All gate addresses are given without the seventh chevron, which is the point of origin.


Ivor the Engineer said:
:confused:

You believe anyone who is gay must get married?
Click to expand...


What happened to you, Ivor? You used to have a sense of humor.
 
Well, even though I'm an atheist, I would support the notion that people should not be forced to do something that they believe to be morally wrong. Exceptions to this would be in situation where it could cause harm/death (such as JW parents believing that a blood transfusion for their child is wrong...but if they make that decision for themselves as an adult, it should be respected, IMO).

But by the same token, people whose moral standards would prevent them from being able to perform the duties for which they are hired should expect that they can be fired for that.

So, I have no problems with a person who refuses to marry gays, due to personal moral standards; but that person should be put in a job where they will not be expected to do so. To expect that she should be able to retain her current job/position, when her beliefs make her incapable of performing some of the required duties, is ludicrous. (For the record, I'm not clear on whether or not she is remaining in the position that caused this problem).

If she sues to retain a job that she is incapable of performing due to her personal beliefs, I would be opposed. If she leaves her position, and is sued by others simply for her refusal to violate her own moral standards, I would support her.
 
Wolfman said:
But by the same token, people whose moral standards would prevent them from being able to perform the duties for which they are hired should expect that they can be fired for that.
Click to expand...

but that's the rub, when she was hired she wasn't hired to perform civil partnerships, as they didn't exists then, the law changed and so the potential scope of her job changed.
 
shadron said:
Eh, it's probably the one in California that stopped doing ceremonies on the day that the California Supreme Court ruling became effctive, about two weeks ago. There was a long thread about it here starting right after the CASC ruling.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. It's a registrar here in the UK (in islington, london). As I said in response to an earlier question and provided a link.


Brodski: That's true, that's not something I had considered. However, as someone earlier pointed out (skeptigirl?) there were other unions that she was presumably happy conducting despite being against christian principles, so it's why was she happy doing those and not same sex unions? This is a personal homophobia that she has found an 'acceptable' outlet to express. As I said before, in the UK a civil ceremony is completely ireligious. It is a contract under the laws of the land and has nothing to do with god(s).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom