Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

religious freedom rights are greater than sexual preferance rights it seems

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
dangerous precedent in my opinion, don't work in a civil registrars if you define yourself a christian is the lesson i think

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033955/Victory-Christian-registrar-bullied-refusing-perform-sinful-gay-weddings.html
«1

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Except that for a while there will be people who applied and got the job before Civil Partnerships were allowed.

    In essence the job of registrars has changed and to me it seems reasonable for current registrars to raise objections if its compromises their religious beliefs.

    If she had started the job since Civil Partnerships started it would be a different matter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i don't think there was enough clarification in the ruling also

    some of the treatment was blatant bullying, but some of it was perfectly reasonable ie to call her homophobic, because she is...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But as that wasn't what the tribunal ruled on it's in a way irrelavant.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Typical Daily Mail .. to describe 'her nightmare began in 2004'.

    Nightmare?????

    For fuck sakes, the McCann's are having a 'nightmare' ... the families of soldiers lost in Iraq are having a 'nightmare' .... Iraq itself is a 'nightmare'!!!

    This can hardly be considered a 'nightmare'. At least she can say 'no'. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm going to tell my boss it contravenes my personal beliefs to work on the websites of clients who are Christian or read The Daily Mail.

    I suspect that gay couples wouldn't want to be married by such a nasty fucking bigot anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What's the difference between a registrar refusing to marry a gay couple for ethical reasons and a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill for ethical reasons? Not much I can see.

    Of course she is not marrying people under religious rules, she's marrying them under a civil law that explicitly prohibits religion in the registry office. So I'm not quite sure what her problem is, except that she's a fucking retard, like all homophobes. I'm not surprised she was treated like a pariah, she is one.

    Doctors and pharmacists are allowed to let their religious views colour their judgment so it's a bit unfair to say she can't, though.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ^ :thumb:
    I completely disagree with this woman's beliefs but I can see a parallel with doctors being asked to perform abortions.

    I can't see the parallel. Civil partnerships are about giving equality to two people that love each other. Abortion is a way of ending a potential life. (Whilst I'm pro-choice I can accept the moral basis for opposing abortion - although when that extends to wishing to take away that moral choice and right to decide from other people I think it's entirely unacceptable... Civil partnerships on the other hand are about equality and fairness - and anybody who opposes them is a homophobe and should be exposed as such, call a spade a spade...)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It isn't just doctors and abortion though, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense quite a lot of prescriptions to do with reproduction, including the MAP and the contraceptive pill. A contraceptive pill can't be said to be ending a life, even if you agree that the foetus is alive (which I don't- it's not alive because without the umbilical cord it will die).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    What's the difference between a registrar refusing to marry a gay couple for ethical reasons and a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill for ethical reasons? Not much I can see.

    Not much. They're both pretty fucking abhorrent things to do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense quite a lot of prescriptions to do with reproduction, including the MAP and the contraceptive pill. A contraceptive pill can't be said to be ending a life, even if you agree that the foetus is alive (which I don't- it's not alive because without the umbilical cord it will die).

    The pill is also prescribed for other stuff too I think... hence Catholics can sometimes justify it using the principle of double effect.

    Absolutely ridiculous though - if they can't do their job and dispense what a doctor has prescribed they're in the wrong job - and deserve to be sacked.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not much. They're both pretty fucking abhorrent things to do.

    I'd completely agree, but it's a pretty bum deal to allow one dispensation to the pharmacist but not to the registrar.

    I think the tribunal made the wrong decision. A registry office wedding is, by law, not allowed to make any mention of religion- you can't use religious songs or poetry, or mention religion in the vows. Therefore it seems a bit odd to allow the registrar to choose who she marries on religious grounds.

    If she believed in her religion she wouldn't be a registrar, as a registry office wedding is not before God. Clearly she's just a hypocrite and should have been told to FOAD.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I personally feel that if doctors and pharmacists get the opt out, and what they opt out of was there when they started their jobs, then registrars who started pre civil ceremonies should definitely get the opt out.

    And regardless, bullying in the work place should not be tolerated, whether you happen to think the person is a prat or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote: »
    I'd completely agree, but it's a pretty bum deal to allow one dispensation to the pharmacist but not to the registrar.

    I think that neither the woman in question nor the pharmacist should be able to refuse to do their job and continue to work. It's a slippery slope; you'll have Manchester United fans legitimately refusing to operate on Manchester City fans and Conservatives refusing to collect the rubbish of Liberals.
    I think the tribunal made the wrong decision. A registry office wedding is, by law, not allowed to make any mention of religion- you can't use religious songs or poetry, or mention religion in the vows. Therefore it seems a bit odd to allow the registrar to choose who she marries on religious grounds.

    Agree.
    If she believed in her religion she wouldn't be a registrar, as a registry office wedding is not before God. Clearly she's just a hypocrite and should have been told to FOAD.

    Yeah, she's a nasty bigot who fully deserve to be made to feel like a pariah.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah, she's a nasty bigot who fully deserve to be made to feel like a pariah.


    So we're allowed to bully and discriminate based on religious beliefs now are we?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So we're allowed to bully and discriminate based on religious beliefs now are we?
    Nobody should be bullied but the only discrimination is that done by her to same-sex couples.

    I am yet to hear one good reason why bigotry and prejudice in the name of religion should actually be tolerated. What exactly is the difference between this case and, say, a Liverpool FC supporting registrar who refuses to marry off Manchester United supporters?

    That it is very important to them? No, same difference.

    That their beliefs prevent them from dealing with such people? No, same difference.

    That they genuinely, truly believe they are doing the right thing and that the subjects of their displeasure are in the wrong? No, same difference.

    So why do we not allow intolerance streaming from football allegiances, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender and countless others, but we allow it from religion? Why should religion be a special case? Why?

    The sooner we stamp out this favouritism, the better. If registrars, doctors, pharmacists or anyone else feel their religion makes it impossible for them to attend to certain people or practices, then they should resign their positions and find a job that doesn't clash with their beliefs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So we're allowed to bully and discriminate based on religious beliefs now are we?

    I'm fed up of people using the 'religious beliefs' card.

    If the BNP/National Front was a religion would we have to accommodate their racism? e.g. allow a fascist to refuse to serve black people.

    In a lot of jobs people need to be able to keep their religious/political beliefs outside of the workplace - it's not unreasonable to expect religion and politics to be a personal and private matter.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So we're allowed to bully and discriminate based on religious beliefs now are we?

    She's a nasty bigot. Nasty bigots deserve to be told, and to feel like, the nasty bigots they are. Just because her small-mindedness is born out of - or at least bolstered by - her purported religious belief, doesn't give her carte-blanche to do whatever the fuck she likes. The various religions who take a negative stance of homosexuality are abhorrent, immoral and archaic; people who hold these views, and people who defend them, should be exposed and ridiculed.

    Let me reiterate: If you hold these awful, backwards views because of a few lines in a really bad, centuries old work of fiction, you're a total and utter cretin who's surrendered all reason to egregious and bigoted wish-thinking; you're a cunt and deserve to be told you're a cunt. Labelling your belief "religious" and then declaring it can't be touched holds no water with me - and let's be fair, is a fucking ridiculous thing to do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interesting that no one other than me seems to be interested in her rights to work without harassment.

    If you read a range of sources it becomes apparent that take away the spin and the ruling has as much to do with harassment on religious grounds rather than favouring religious rights over the rights of homosexuals.

    That said, you have all reminded why I stay out of P&D. The implication in this thread is that anyone who holds a firm Christian belief is a bigot and deserves to be persecuted for it, and that this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

    If you're going to witter on about tolerance, maybe you want to think about being tolerant towards Christians, although I'm sure you're going to tell me that they are beyond the pail and you should be able to pick and chose who you are tolerant towards.

    :wave:

    I'm off to the rest of the boards.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Poor management to be honest. They had a system which could accomodate her beliefs and then changed it. Doesn't matter whether you agree with her or not...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interesting that no one other than me seems to be interested in her rights to work without harassment.

    If you read a range of sources it becomes apparent that take away the spin and the ruling has as much to do with harassment on religious grounds rather than favouring religious rights over the rights of homosexuals.

    That said, you have all reminded why I stay out of P&D. The implication in this thread is that anyone who holds a firm Christian belief is a bigot and deserves to be persecuted for it, and that this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

    If you're going to witter on about tolerance, maybe you want to think about being tolerant towards Christians, although I'm sure you're going to tell me that they are beyond the pail and you should be able to pick and chose who you are tolerant towards.

    :wave:

    I'm off to the rest of the boards.

    You could always stick about and provide coherent and cogent reasons as to why you believe what you believe, but i guess it's a lot easier to not question yourself and to write everyone else off as nasty, religion haters.

    The woman in question is a nasty piece of work. I've not heard one defence of her actions other than "it's her religious belief and it's not right to criticise her for it". Fuck her and fuck her shitty, backwards religious beliefs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interesting that no one other than me seems to be interested in her rights to work without harassment.
    I'm very interested in that. It's just odd that some people (including a court) consider criticism of their religious beliefs to be harrassment, when said religious beliefs are directly affecting someone's ability to do a job. You choose to follow a religion. If you choose to do anything else that interferes with your ability to do a job, you have to either stop or leave the job. A vegetarian chef would be rightly fired for refusing to cook meat, for example. A waitress would be rightly sent home if she refused to tie her hair back.
    That said, you have all reminded why I stay out of P&D. The implication in this thread is that anyone who holds a firm Christian belief is a bigot and deserves to be persecuted for it, and that this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
    Funny, because the implication of your post is that you believe that a bigotted belief with a religious basis shouldn't be subject to the same scrutiny as any other bigotted belief. I'd love to hear your reasoning for that. We're just treating religiously-based opinions in exactly the same way as any other opinion on anything.
    If you're going to witter on about tolerance, maybe you want to think about being tolerant towards Christians, although I'm sure you're going to tell me that they are beyond the pail and you should be able to pick and chose who you are tolerant towards.
    Fine, but when the fundamentalist muslim teacher refuses to teach girls, for example, you have to be tolerant of that too. You don't want tolerance, you want special treatment. Of course it's wrong to discriminate against religion, in the same way that it's wrong to discrminate against the car someone drives, or their taste in music. However, it's not wrong to demand that these things don't interfere with their ability to do the job you've hired them to do.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That said, you have all reminded why I stay out of P&D. The implication in this thread is that anyone who holds a firm Christian belief is a bigot and deserves to be persecuted for it, and that this is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

    People who cannot keep their personal beliefs out of their work should not be in employment. No, the woman should not be bullied because of her faith, but she wasn't being bullied because of her faith. She was being bullied because she is a nasty bigot who cannot keep her hate-filled opinion separate from her professional life.

    Religion, by law, plays no part in a civil marriage therefore she has no grounds to refuse to do her job. If she persistently refuses to do the job she is paid to do then she should be sacked. My contract of employment states that if I act in a homophobic manner, or refuse to work for homosexual people, then I will be immediately dismissed for gross misconduct. It is only right and proper that people who are homophobic are sacked if their views cloud their work.

    At the end of the day it's all about professionalism. This woman has none, was dismissed for it, and has now had a deranged tribunal rule in her favour.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Poor management to be honest. They had a system which could accomodate her beliefs and then changed it. Doesn't matter whether you agree with her or not...

    This is more like the point I am (probably inarticulately) trying to get at.

    She took a job that didn't conflict with her personal morals/ethics, they then changed her working practises and she was harrassed because her beliefs now contradicted the new working conditions. Initially she made a reasonable effort to work round this, then when swapping between registrars was stopped the problem began.

    If she'd started the job as it currently is then fair play, there would be far less of a case. As it is, if you read past the sensationalism there is far more of one.

    Going back to the vegetarian chef point, would you think it reasonable to sack, or bully out of the job a vegeterain chef who refused to cook meat if they had been hired to cook only vegetables and then you changed the job description? Because taking religion out of it, that is what has happened in this case.

    On further thought, my biggest gripe with this forum is the agressive/abusive/foul language that comes up, but that's probably because once upon a time I was taught to argue and debate with elegance and grace :angel: (shame I lost that skill).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    This is more like the point I am (probably inarticulately) trying to get at.

    She took a job that didn't conflict with her personal morals/ethics, they then changed her working practises and she was harrassed because her beliefs now contradicted the new working conditions. Initially she made a reasonable effort to work round this, then when swapping between registrars was stopped the problem began.

    If she'd started the job as it currently is then fair play, there would be far less of a case. As it is, if you read past the sensationalism there is far more of one.

    Going back to the vegetarian chef point, would you think it reasonable to sack, or bully out of the job a vegeterain chef who refused to cook meat if they had been hired to cook only vegetables and then you changed the job description? Because taking religion out of it, that is what has happened in this case.
    Fair enough, but where do you draw the line? She wasn't asked to do something that wasn't in her previous job description. And even if the job description is changed, surely it's up to employers to decide what the requirements of the job are, and to employ people on their willingness to do that job? I agree, let's take religion out of it. And if we take religion out of it, we have a woman who does a job that is no longer required (marrying only straight couples), who is then offered a job doing a job that is required (marrying all couples). She refuses the second offer. That's all. If I'm changing my restaurant from a vegetarian one to a meat-serving one, I have no job for someone who will only cook vegetables. I can then offer them a new job cooking everything, or I can let them go. Any business undergoing a fundamental change in practice will ask staff members if they're happy with the changes. But if the staff members say no, then there's nothing wrong with them not offering them a job under the new system, because not having a position for a vegetarian chef (or a registrar who only does straight couples) is an entirely legitimate reason to make someone redundant. It was the woman herself that brought religion into it, because without religion, she doesn't have a leg to stand on (not that she should have a leg to stand on with religion imo). And let's be fair, you'd have to have your head buried in the sand not to know this was coming. It's like a doctor refusing to retrain, and still expecting to have a job in a few years time. We all have to do new things in our job every now and then, and as long as the actual job we have to do doesn't change (which hers didn't), that's something you have to expect from any job.
    On further thought, my biggest gripe with this forum is the agressive/abusive/foul language that comes up, but that's probably because once upon a time I was taught to argue and debate with elegance and grace :angel: (shame I lost that skill).
    It's just a style of writing. Don't take it to heart. And don't say fuck or bugger. :p But people are going to have strong opinions in this forum. Hang around for a while and you become immune to it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And incidentally, this view that she holds is not a "Christian" belief - it's a personal one.

    Well what is a "Christian belief" then? She seems to consider it a Christian belief, and so does the court.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Islington Council, you say? Ah yes, one name comes to mind... Margaret Hodge. She was the leader of this council from 1982 to 1992. For most of this time, the council was plagued by accusations that council staff were abusing children in care during the 1980s and 1990s. Hodge did absolutely nothing about any of this. During the Blair years, she was appointed first as Industry Minister and then Children's Minister. Only a man as terminally stupid as Tony Blair would have made this woman a government minister at all.

    Left-wingers have a huge habit these days of bullying and harassing anyone who doesn't agree with their increasingly warped views of the world. If you happen to work in education, and you don't agree with the stupid idea of giving sex education to 4-year-olds, you'll be hounded out of your job. This woman faced bullying and harassment because of her beliefs, and that is wrong. By all means, question her views - I certainly do. But bullying someone because of what they believe is wrong, inappropriate and will not make them change their minds. They will simply dig in. Recent example on the boards - Rolly recently said in a thread that he found the sight of two men kissing very uncomforting. Fair enough, I thought. But predictably, the contemptible Namaste comes along and starts haranguing him for daring to express his views. What happened? Rolly stuck to his guns, effectively telling her to piss off. And I don't blame him one bit.

    One final question. Let's say that this registar was a Muslim woman. Would those trendy liberals at Islington Council have dared bully and harass her in this way for believing what she did? Who here is honestly stupid enough to believe the treatment would have been no different?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Islington Council, you say? Ah yes, one name comes to mind... Margaret Hodge. She was the leader of this council from 1982 to 1992. For most of this time, the council was plagued by accusations that council staff were abusing children in care during the 1980s and 1990s. Hodge did absolutely nothing about any of this. During the Blair years, she was appointed first as Industry Minister and then Children's Minister. Only a man as terminally stupid as Tony Blair would have made this woman a government minister at all.

    Left-wingers have a huge habit these days of bullying and harassing anyone who doesn't agree with their increasingly warped views of the world. If you happen to work in education, and you don't agree with the stupid idea of giving sex education to 4-year-olds, you'll be hounded out of your job. This woman faced bullying and harassment because of her beliefs, and that is wrong. By all means, question her views - I certainly do. But bullying someone because of what they believe is wrong, inappropriate and will not make them change their minds. They will simply dig in. Recent example on the boards - Rolly recently said in a thread that he found the sight of two men kissing very uncomforting. Fair enough, I thought. But predictably, the contemptible Namaste comes along and starts haranguing him for daring to express his views. What happened? Rolly stuck to his guns, effectively telling her to piss off. And I don't blame him one bit.

    One final question. Let's say that this registar was a Muslim woman. Would those trendy liberals at Islington Council have dared bully and harass her in this way for believing what she did? Who here is honestly stupid enough to believe the treatment would have been no different?

    You could save yourself a lot of time by just posting keyword responses.

    e.g.

    Lefties; Labour; Liberals. - Then we'd know you though left-wing liberals were to blame and that Labour was the catalyst.

    Or

    Liberals; Guardian; Decline of society - We'd read: Liberals on the march with copies of the Guardian under their arm causing the decline of society.

    It's just a more succinct way of getting across your generic, stock answers.
Sign In or Register to comment.