Argh! Stupid court ruling!

From today's Islington Gazette (the story does not appear to be on their website yet, so I'm typing in the relevant passages):

A tribunal ruling in favour of Christian registrar Lillian Ladele who refused to "marry" gays was based on a "fundamental error", an eminent employment law judge said this week.

Justice Sir Patrick Elias, President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal ... told the appeal tribunal on Wednesday: "Let's say I am an anarchist and I feel strongly that I want to go around blowing things up, but my employers object. It may well be that anarchy is my genuinely held belief. But it does not mean that my employer's decision not to allow me to is discriminating against that belief".

"Nowhere does the tribunal say: Let's analyse whether the reason for her disciplinary hearing was her religious belief," said Justice Elias. "The council say the reason was that she refused to carry out civil partnerships. This is a fundamental error to confuse unreasonable behaviour and discriminatory behaviour. I am not sure the tribunal appreciated that."

He added: "So often employers get things badly wrong. In this case in Islington, I would say that argument could probably be sustained. But getting things wrong is not the same as discrimination."

Justice Elias said a judgment on the appeal was expected some time around Christmas.
Click to expand...

There's more in the story and if it appears on Islington Gazette's website I will provide a link.
 
In a loose connection to this story, there are a couple of news reports on Lawyers in Mumbai refusing to defend the surviving terrorist there, some even risking losing their licence (I would link, but not enough posts yet). Would Mumbai's legal aid department be justified in sacking those who won't comply?
Jen
I hope it's not a derail, as I can see some of the issues raised in the OP being connected to the issues here: personal choice vs. Professional duty. J
 
This would be an open and shut case in New Zealand.

Government officials are prohibited from discriminating against people on grounds of race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc...

It is irrelevant what you claim your "justification" for discriminating is, you cannot do it. This woman would have been warned, and if she did not comply she would have been fired.

Employers are only required to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees if it does not cause disruption to their business.

Further, while New Zealand recognises the right to hold any belief you want, it does not protect an unlimited right to act in accordance with that belief. Within a specific community discrimination is allowed in accordance with that community's beliefs (such as only allowing male priests), however in any other context that discrimination is not permitted (for example a publicly accessed store could not sell to only men).
 
Slightly related to this story (as it also takes place in Islington) is the attempt by two heterosexual British civil servants, Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle, to be allowed to have a civil partnership ceremony instead of a marriage.

There is a story in the Islington Tribune:

Mr Freeman said: “We think the ‘separate but equal’ system which segregates couples according to their sexuality is not equal at all.

“All loving couples should have access to the same institutions, regardless of sexuality. There should be parity of respect and rights”.
Click to expand...

I may try to go along on Tuesday morning to support them in their campaign.
 
Wolfman said:
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).
Click to expand...

Suppose you feel it is morally wrong to marry black men and white women.

You have a right to feel that way.
You cannot be forced to do it.

But you can't keep your job as a registrar, either.

I oppose gay marriage. But I oppose, even more, public servants forcing their religious or moral beliefs on the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom