Argh! Stupid court ruling!

[ponderingturtle]

Take it out a few more degrees: 911 call sends police to a resident that practices wicca. Responding Officer A is a fundamentalist christian who believes in the bible. Does he have the right to refuse to enter the premises, take a report, or deal with the caller when he realizes his/her beliefs contradict his?

Based on the point being discussed not at all, police have a duty to act

An MD refuses to prescribe birth control because of his beliefs.

Perfectly legal, as long as the MD does not lie about birth control they do not have a legal requirement to sign a perscription, at least in non emergency situations.

An attorney refuses to represent a client based on differing beliefs.

Again perfectly legal as laywers are not required to represent any specific client. The only possible issue would be a public defender.

 

[Beady]

I agree that it sounds absurd that anyone would object to interracial marriages, but in the USA there is a long history of bible-based laws prohibiting interracial marriage or miscegenation.

The article you cite points out that miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. That particular question, in the United States, has therefore been long-decided. While a knowledge of the issue would certainly help to understand the present same-sex union controversy, I really doubt that anyone believes an anti-gay bias implies a threat to interracial relations.

This is a good example of the educational value in exploring “what-if”.

"What-if" in the classroom is one thing, it's something else entirely in the courtroom or the council chamber. And, even in the classroom: I had an instructor in basic training who said something on the order of, "There are the what-ifs that you want to talk about, and there are the what-ifs that I want to talk about. One set of those what-ifs is on the test. We've only got a certain amount of time for discussion, and if we talk about your what-ifs we can't talk about mine."

Still, the motivation to explore “what-if” is to examine what could happen if we open the door a crack and allow public officials to bring their conflicting religious beliefs to work.

What Einstein called a Thought Experiment. The trick, however, is to keep the conditions of the experiment at least somewhat plausible. Positing that the ability to decline performing ceremonies because of an anti-gay bias could lead to a refusal because the registrar thinks the couple is ugly or mismatched, or that a police officer could legally refuse to assist a citizen in distress because of conflicting religious belief is, as I say at work, beyond credibility and so need not be considered.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The article you cite points out that miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional in 1967. That particular question, in the United States, has therefore been long-decided. While a knowledge of the issue would certainly help to understand the present same-sex union controversy, I really doubt that anyone believes an anti-gay bias implies a threat to interracial relations.

Interracial marriages are legal in the UK.
Civil partnerships are legal in the UK.

This registrar is refusing to perform civil partnerships in the UK.

It does not seem an unreasonable question at all to ask what the reaction would be if she (or someone else) refused to carry out other, equally legal, ceremonies, such as interracial marriages.

I believe in those circumstances an attempt to claim religious justification would be laughed out of court. That is what should have happened here.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

[SIZE=3Positing that the ability to decline performing ceremonies because of an anti-gay bias could lead to a refusal because the registrar thinks the couple is ugly or mismatched, or that a police officer could legally refuse to assist a citizen in distress because of conflicting religious belief is, as I say at work, beyond credibility and so need not be considered.[/QUOTE]

You think it beyond credibility that these things would happen. I thought it beyond credibility that a registrar would seek to impose their personal bigotry ahead of their employment duties. I was wrong. Guess you shouldn't underestimate how far people are willing to act on their bigotry.

 

[Beady]

It does not seem an unreasonable question at all to ask what the reaction would be if she (or someone else) refused to carry out other, equally legal, ceremonies, such as interracial marriages.

I believe in those circumstances an attempt to claim religious justification would be laughed out of court. That is what should have happened here.

To answer the 2nd point first: You say, "In those circumstances." But those aren't the circumstances that apply here. There was a time in most places when religious scruples would have been a socially-acceptable reason for refusing to marry an interracial couple. That was then and this is now. Anti-gay bias has replaced racial bias, and the former is only valid when cited as a historical example, not as a modern concern (at least, in this context).

The point here is that normal custom and usage had formerly permitted the registrar to opt-out of performing the ceremonies through a very simple and informal arrangement with colleagues, and that the Islington council had, apparently, unilaterally, arbitrarily and without notice, removed that custom and usage. "Ordinary custom and usage" is an accepted principle in most courts and less-formal jurisdictions.

You think it beyond credibility that these things would happen. I thought it beyond credibility that a registrar would seek to impose their personal bigotry ahead of their employment duties. I was wrong. Guess you shouldn't underestimate how far people are willing to act on their bigotry.

I believe you have misunderstood the situation, either willfully or inadvertently. The registrar was not seeking to "impose" anything at all, but rather was seeking an accommodation which, previously, had been freely given. And "religious/moral scruples" do not inherently equate to "personal bigotry," any more than something that is not "all good" is necessarily "all bad."

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

To answer the 2nd point first: You say, "In those circumstances." But those aren't the circumstances that apply here. There was a time in most places when religious scruples would have been a socially-acceptable reason for refusing to marry an interracial couple. That was then and this is now. Anti-gay bias has replaced racial bias, and the former is only valid when cited as a historical example, not as a modern concern (at least, in this context).

Anti-gay is equally unacceptable. And if you think there is no bias against mixed race couples today then you are, at best, niave.

I believe you have misunderstood the situation, either willfully or inadvertently. The registrar was not seeking to "impose" anything at all, but rather was seeking an accommodation which, previously, had been freely given. And "religious/moral scruples" do not inherently equate to "personal bigotry," any more than something that is not "all good" is necessarily "all bad."

She was indeed seeking to impose something. She refused to carry out part of the duties that she was contracted to do because of her bigotry against gays. That is seeking to use her position to impose her views.

The fact she dresses her bigotry up in religious clothes does not make it any more acceptable.

 

[Beady]

Anti-gay is equally unacceptable. And if you think there is no bias against mixed race couples today then you are, at best, niave.

I said, "at least in this context." And, just as an aside, if you have to resort to ad hominem statements then you have run out of logic and/or facts.

She was indeed seeking to impose something. She refused to carry out part of the duties that she was contracted to do because of her bigotry against gays. That is seeking to use her position to impose her views.

Sigh. To repeat: The point here is that normal custom and usage had formerly permitted the registrar to opt-out of performing the ceremonies through a very simple and informal arrangement with colleagues, and that the Islington council had, apparently, unilaterally, arbitrarily and without notice, removed that custom and usage. "Ordinary custom and usage" is an accepted principle in most courts and less-formal jurisdictions.

The fact she dresses her bigotry up in religious clothes does not make it any more acceptable.

We're all bigots in one way or another. If you're not willing to make allowances for other people, then there's no reason others should make allowances for you. This particular registrar was not trying to prevent gays from marrying, she just feels it is wrong enough that she, herself, cannot marry them. There are collegues willing and available to perform the functions of the office, so the function of the office is not impaired. If the function of the office were impaired it would be a different story.

Unless you've got something more than "She's a bigot," I see no reason to continue this conversation.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I said, "at least in this context." And, just as an aside, if you have to resort to ad hominem statements then you have run out of logic and/or facts.

There was no ad hominem statement.

Sigh. To repeat

Don't bother, I read it the first time. It is an incredibly weak argument which is why I ignored it.

My job when I started didn't involve doing anti-money laundering checks. Then the law changed and they are now required. I can't turn round and refuse to do them because it used to be "normal custom" that I didn't have to. Her job changed, if she doesn't like it, she knows where the door is. If her employer was being unreasonable, she would have a right to challenge the changes, but the fact is they are not.

This particular registrar was not trying to prevent gays from marrying, she just feels it is wrong enough that she, herself, cannot marry them. There are collegues willing and available to perform the functions of the office, so the function of the office is not impaired. If the function of the office were impaired it would be a different story.

Clearly, she was trying to prevent gays from marrying by refusing to officiate at ceremonies involving them.

You have assumed that other colleagues were always willing and able to do so - have you any evidence of this? Do you know for a fact that no civil partnerships were delayed or cancelled because she would not officiate? It seems vanishingly unlikely that there was never an occasion when her refusal to be involved had any impact at all.

It is perfectly reasonable for her employer to require her to be willing to carry out ALL of the duties of her role. She is not willing to do so. Her choice, but she should accept the consequences of that choice.

 

[Beady]

There was no ad hominem statement.

So, when you said "you," you meant something other than "you"?

Then the law changed and they are now required.

The law didn't change, here, only the way in which it was carried out.

Clearly, she was trying to prevent gays from marrying by refusing to officiate at ceremonies involving them.

Was she attempting to prevent any ceremonies from being carried out?

You have assumed that other colleagues were always willing and able to do so - have you any evidence of this?

Yes. As I quoted from the news story: "Until December 2007 registrars in Islington effectively worked on a freelance basis and could swap with each other to avoid same-sex ceremonies14"

Do you know for a fact that no civil partnerships were delayed or cancelled because she would not officiate?

Do you have any evidence that they were? Do you have any evidence that there were complaints about the way the office was run before the rule change? If this is your claim, the onus of providing the evidence is on you, not me. For myself, the fact that she was allowed to keep her job indicates that her performance was no less than satisfactory.

It is perfectly reasonable for her employer to require her to be willing to carry out ALL of the duties of her role.

Yes, the employer sets the rules. However, heretofore, her employer was complicit in allowing her to find a substitute. Now her employer has arbitrarilly decided to change the rules. In most places, that is considered an unfair labor practice, and the fact that a religious issue appears to be involved should have indicated more caution on the part of the employer.

She is not willing to do so. Her choice, but she should accept the consequences of that choice.

Yet she chooses to endanger a $61,000-a-year job, knowing full-well she could lose. I sense something more than simple bigotry, here.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So, when you said "you," you meant something other than "you"?

No, I meant what I posted. There is no ad hom in what I posted.

The law didn't change, here, only the way in which it was carried out.

The law did change. Previously civil partnerships didn't exist, now they do. Therefore there is a need for registrars to carry out these ceremonies. The employer is perfectly entitled to ask its employees to do their job under the new rules, which means there will be changes to their jobs as a result.

There was nothing in the law that said I had to carry out the money laundering checks, but my employer had an obligation to make sure they were carried out. Therefore my job changed - whether they did this on day one of the new law or a year later is irrelevant. Provided the request is reasonable (and it is in both cases) then the employer is entitled to make the changes.

Was she attempting to prevent any ceremonies from being carried out?

Yes. The ones she was scheduled to perform but refused to perform.

Was anyone trying to prevent Rosa Parks riding the bus?

Yes. As I quoted from the news story: "Until December 2007 registrars in Islington effectively worked on a freelance basis and could swap with each other to avoid same-sex ceremonies14"

This contains no evidence at all that other registrars were ALWAYS available to allow a couple to have a ceremony on the day they desired. Why should they be treated as second class citizens?

Do you have any evidence that they were? Do you have any evidence that there were complaints about the way the office was run before the rule change?

No. However this is a likely outcome of her action. After all I think it is pretty unlikely that there is an oversupply of registrars allowing everyone to get married on the day they choose. By restricting that supply for a part of the community you are discriminating against them.

If this is your claim, the onus of providing the evidence is on you, not me. For myself, the fact that she was allowed to keep her job indicates that her performance was no less than satisfactory.

No, your claim was that she was not trying to prevent ceremonies from taking place. Therefore the onus is on YOU to prove this by demonstrating that her actions NEVER caused disruption to such a ceremony.

If she is allowed to choose not to marry gays, can every registrar in her office take the same stance? If not, why not?

Her employer told her that she either agreed to perform civil partnerships or she couldn't keep her job - that indicates her perfomrmance was clearly unsatisfactory. She might be the best registrar in the world at performing hetero weddings, but she should still be fired if she will not do what her job requires and her job requires her to do same sex ceremonies.

Yes, the employer sets the rules. However, heretofore, her employer was complicit in allowing her to find a substitute. Now her employer has arbitrarilly decided to change the rules.

Evidence that this was an arbitary decision? Was my employers decision that I had to do the money laundering checks arbitary? Could I have demanded that someone else did them?

In most places, that is considered an unfair labor practice, and the fact that a religious issue appears to be involved should have indicated more caution on the part of the employer.

Fundamentally disagree. Religion is not entitled to special treatment.

Yet she chooses to endanger a $61,000-a-year job, knowing full-well she could lose. I sense something more than simple bigotry, here.

Are you implying that bigots don't take their views seriously? If not, I am not sure I understand your point.

 

[Beady]

No, I meant what I posted. There is no ad hom in what I posted.

You did not say my statement was naive, you said *I* was naive. That is ad hominem by definition.

As for the rest, the fact is that the registrar won her case. That would seem to indicate that someone who mattered found her arguments more compelling. Now, either do something about it or learn to live with it.

 

[PaKu]

so I assume she's trying to play the discrimination-card to keep her £31,000-a-year AND be a bigot at the same time?

 

[Beady]

Yup. She's a bigot and that's all there is to it, right?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

You did not say my statement was naive, you said *I* was naive. That is ad hominem by definition.

Not true, I said IF you believed something, then you were naive. As that belief would demonstrate naivety, this is NOT an ad hominem.

For example, "If you believe that e-mail from a Nigerian gentleman is going to lead to you receiving a multi million pound fee for the use of your bank account, then you are naive" is NOT an ad hominem.

As for the rest, the fact is that the registrar won her case. That would seem to indicate that someone who mattered found her arguments more compelling. Now, either do something about it or learn to live with it.

And with luck it will be appealed.

Does it make a difference to your stance to know that this came about DIRECTLY from a change in the law:

"Until last month, Britain's 1,700 registrars of births, marriages and deaths worked, in effect, on a freelance basis under the supervision of the Registrar General.

This gave them the freedom to opt out of civil partnership ceremonies if they chose to do so.

But their employment status was changed on December 1 by a new law, the Statistics and Registration Act, which brought them under the control of town halls.

As local government workers, they must now carry out council officers' instructions."

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...s+now+taking+council+to+a+tribunal/article.do

And that therefore her new employer cannot be considered to have been complicit in her previous arrangements to avoid gay ceremonies?

And that her employer had received formal complaints about her refusals:

"But Islington received formal complaints about her refusals."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/07/12/do1205.xml

(There is also a thread in the religion area which is discussing this and which is producing rather more light and less heat than we are here, as can be seen from the links above which I found in that thread.)

 

[sphenisc]

If, for example,

At the last Lambeth Conference, in 1998, the bishops overwhelmingly passed a resolution saying that homosexuality was “incompatible with Scripture,” and that homosexuals should not be consecrated.

Should a practising homosexual bishop resign?

 

[Rocko]

And she therefore needs to decide whether she wants to continue in her job now the scope has changed or to quit and find a job that does not conflict with her religious beliefs.

The scope of many peoples jobs change because of legislative changes.

Indeed. More broadly, the nature of many people's jobs will shift over time. If I start work as a COBOL programmer at a company who then shift over to Java, this leaves me the choice of i) learn Java and stay there, or ii) stick with COBOL and go elsewhere. To my mind there is no third option in the way this woman seems to demand.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If, for example,

At the last Lambeth Conference, in 1998, the bishops overwhelmingly passed a resolution saying that homosexuality was “incompatible with Scripture,” and that homosexuals should not be consecrated.

Should a practising homosexual bishop resign?

What is the Lambeth Conference and for which bodies does it have the power to make binding regulations?

 

[Lothian]

What is the Lambeth Conference and for which bodies does it have the power to make binding regulations?

The Lambeth conference is where the Church of England’s bishops try to understand how God could have given each of them a totally different message.

Fourteenth time lucky.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The Lambeth conference is where the Church of England’s bishops try to understand how God could have given each of them a totally different message.

Fourteenth time lucky.

The link also contains the answer to my second question:

"As the Anglican Communion is an international association of national churches and not a governing body, Lambeth Conferences serve a collaborative and consultative function, expressing 'the mind of the communion' on issues of the day. Resolutions which a Lambeth Conference may pass are without legal effect, but they are none the less influential."

So the fact that the Lambeth Conference passed such a resolution should have no bearing on the position of a gay bishop of one of the member churches as it is not a governing body and such decisions have no legal effect.

So to answer sphenisc's question, there is no reason why such a decision should cause a gay bishop to resign.

 

[Worm]

In all of this it seems odd to me that we have legislation covering exactly this kind of bigotry in employment law, and so it would appear that employees are held to a much lower standard than employers.