Jump to content

Redneck registrar loses on appeal.


indi
 Share

Recommended Posts

Council in registrar appeal win

 

 

A council has won its appeal against a ruling it discriminated against a Christian registrar who refused to conduct same-sex civil partnerships.

 

Lillian Ladele said she could not carry out same-sex ceremonies "as a matter of religious conscience".

 

An Employment Tribunal found in July that Islington Council, in north London, had unlawfully discriminated against her.

 

But an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has now upheld the authority's appeal.

 

Ms Ladele claims she suffered ridicule and bullying as a result of her stance and said she had been harassed and discriminated against by the council.

 

The EAT ruled the earlier tribunal had "erred in law" and there was no basis for concluding that any "discrimination had been established".

 

But it also said there were "unsatisfactory features" about the way the council had handled the matter.

 

It ruled: "The council were not taking disciplinary action against Ms Ladele for holding her religious beliefs.

 

"They did so because she was refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies and this involved discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

 

"The council were entitled to take the view that they were not willing to connive in that practice by relieving Ms Ladele of the duties, notwithstanding that her refusal was the result of her strong and genuinely-held Christian beliefs."

 

However, the judgment added not all of the council management team treated Ms Ladele's beliefs sensitively.

 

'Unsatisfactory features'

 

In a statement outside the court, Ms Ladele's solicitor Mark Jones said she would now take her case to the Court of Appeal.

 

He added: "She wants to make it clear that, whatever other commentators may have said, this case has never been an attempt to undermine the rights of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender communities.

 

"The evidence showed that Lillian performed all of her duties to the same high standard for the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender communities, as she did for everyone.

 

"This case has been about the shortfall between the principle of equal dignity and respect for different lifestyles and world views, and Islington Council's treatment of Lillian Ladele - conduct which the tribunal felt moved to describe as extraordinary and unreasonable."

 

Islington councillor John Gilbert said: "The council is extremely pleased with this decision which it believes to be the right one."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7791660.stm

 

 

 

Good, fucking stupid redneck deserves to lose her job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest firetotheworks

I dont see how shes a redneck for standing up for her religion? I think same sex marriages are a good thing and all the same rules should apply. But not within religion, its a complete contradiction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the woman wasn't religious and felt uncomfortable with doing it, she shouldn't have lost her job in my opinion. People have to be realistic and appreciate the fact that the woman faced a huge change in her job description.

 

However, any new employee should have to be willing to do same sex marriage ceremonies, and if they aren't the job just isn't for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly James, fair enough they should still perform the ceremonies, but they shouldnt make somebody go against there religious views and if they do they lose their job. Thats taking the piss out of her in my opinion and out of her religion, undermiming her beliefs and values.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry james, i know you get a lot of pretty unfair criticism, but on this one you couldn't be more wrong. This woman is a registrar, she conducts civil ceremonies, the whole fucking point of her job is to allow people to celebrate the important events of their lives (births deaths marriages) free from religious bigotry and persecution from god-bothering nut-jobs! Religion is banned from civil ceremonies and rightly so it has no place there, if this bitch wants religion in her work she should have...

Link to post
Share on other sites

...become a member me the clergy, but she's so fucking stupid that she's probably against female clergy too! Basically what's happened her is this woman has refused to do her job due to her prejudice and has tried to get away with it because her religion is also prejudiced. It wouldn't be acceptable if it was any other prejudice and it's particularly unacceptable given her chosen profession. She's a stupid fucking redneck bitch and i hope she spends the rest of her life rotting on the dole. It's probably...

Link to post
Share on other sites

...insulting to rednecks for me to associate someone like her with them, so i apologise to any rednecks reading this. By the way i work in a register office and a number of the registrars are religious (the most religious is also gay, but there you go, people are unusual creatures) and none of them have any problem keeping their faith out of their job because they are actually professionals, unlike this bigoted twat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the homosexual issue is the last great fight for Christianity.  Lose this one - as they will- and pretty much all moral authority by the church will be gone.  Already, people can see how anachronistic the church can be and their refusal to accept modernity will be their downfall.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same kind of nonsense as pharmacists who refuse to dispense the pill and checkout operators who refuse to serve alcohol, if requirements of your job are against your religion then find another job.

 

Should a registrar also be allow to refuse to marry hetrosexual couples if they feel they have a spiritual obligation not to, and not do any work until there's a same sex partnership?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading about the case at the time, I agree with the ruling that the council did itself no favours with how it handled things but obviously I agree that people shouldn't overplay the conscience thing to excuse bigotry.

 

I know from history that the question of putting conscience against the law is an iffy one (Tolpuddle martyrs, Suffragettes etc) but I think they were clearly causes for an idea which wasn't based on hatred which religious homophobia obviously is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the long reply on your mobile indi, but although I can't abide with the registrars views either, I am of the opinion that during a period of any social change, you cannot ostracise people from older generations for not changing with the times, and that as the judge said, this issue could have been handled much more positively.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the long reply on your mobile indi, but although I can't abide with the registrars views either, I am of the opinion that during a period of any social change, you cannot ostracise people from older generations for not changing with the times, and that as the judge said, this issue could have been handled much more positively.

 

Judging by her photo, she's not that old, and she's not being ostracised, she's simply being sacked for refusing to do her job due to prejudice, in exactly the same way that she would if she had refused to marry people due to any other prejudice. Yeah the council could have dealt with this more professionally, but that doesn't change the fact that she's committed a sackable offence and has rightly been sacked because of that. She's 100% in the wrong, I have no sympathy for her whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...