Competitive victimhood

July 10th, 2008 § 0 comments

[[image:wedding_rings.png:Wedding rings:left:0]]BBC:

A marriage registrar was harassed for refusing to conduct same-sex ceremonies, a tribunal has ruled.

Lillian Ladele, who said the civil partnership ceremonies went against her Christian faith, hailed the decision as a “victory for religious liberty”.

The tribunal ruled that Miss Ladele was discriminated against on grounds of religious beliefs and was harassed.

Islington council said it was “disappointed” and was considering an appeal against the ruling

So, someone who doesn’t want to be discriminated against for her religious beliefs discriminates against a couple for their sexual orientation.
Bit of a quandry this one.

I think this one comes down to when this woman was taken on by her employer, which I do not know.
If Miss Ladele was performing marriages before same-sex marriages were legal, then there would be no expectation on her to perform them at that time, for obvious reasons.
If Miss Ladele was taken on after the marriage were made legal then she has no reason to refuse, as it would’ve been explained in the application/interview/training.
If she was performing marraiges when the law changed, she might have a case to be exempted from performing same-sex marriages, as this turn of events couldn’t have been foreseen when she chose her career.
But then again, as a registrar, she is representing the state, not her god, and as such needs to be able to discharge her duties as required by the state.

She is to perform a public service and should not be able to discriminate against members of the public.

Until December 2007 registrars in Islington effectively worked on a freelance basis and could swap with each other to avoid same-sex ceremonies.

That’s the beauty of freelancing. You can pick and chose your clients.

But since then they have been under direct control of the local authority which, it is claimed, has led to far less flexibility about the registrars’ responsibilities.

But when you work for the council, or whatever public body runs marriages, you are representing the state. The state cannot be allowed to, or be seen to, discriminate against it’s citizens.

Miss Ladele said she was being effectively forced to choose between her religion and her £31,000-a-year job as a result.

If one is not prepared to do your job, then they should not be employed in that position.

I realise that equality laws mean that religious beliefs have to be taken into consideration, and provided for where possible. But. If you cannot do the job or are not prepared to do the job as required by law then you should not be employed in that position.
You wouldn’t employ a Mormon to work in a bar, would you? Let him only serve non-alcoholic, caffienne-free drinks and pay him the same as the barman that served all the drinks? That’d just be ridiculous, wouldn’t it?

The last words go to Peter Tatchell

“Lillian Ladele claims she has won a victory for religious liberty. No, she has not. She has won a victory for the right to discriminate,” he said.

“Public servants like registrars have a duty to serve all members of the public without fear or favour. Once society lets some people opt out of upholding the law, where will it end?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What's this?

You are currently reading Competitive victimhood at Sim-O.