Display:
I can read past the intro, it's too awful.

The argument that the Ladele case tried to put forward was that she shouldn't be forced to go against her beliefs and do something that she felt was wrong (ie a conscience clause should apply for her).  I'm very pleased that the ruling didn't go her way.  And yet those who protect the rights of same sex couples not to be subject to prejudice and discrimination are the intolerant ones...

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 01:05:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm pleased, too.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 01:13:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The thing I don't get is that she was not involved in a religious ceremony, so where do her religious beliefs come into it ? If she was against any civil partnerships on religious grounds then it is inconsistent for her to enable civil hetero partnerships. If marriage is a god-y religion thing, her very job would be sinful.

So refusing to officiate civil partnerships cannot be based on religion be cause she is not joining together under the sanction of god. Heck she isn't even marrying.

She's just a bigot who thinks mumbling to the spirit in the sky (be doo da da da da da) gives her a pass on humanity.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 02:43:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Civil partnerships in the UK are not available for straight couples but the point still stands that as registrar she is presiding over non-religious ceremonies and marriages so why pick only on gay couples in this instance?

Ad astra per aspera
by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 02:59:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series