European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Welcome civil partnerships ruling

by In Wales
Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 09:07:47 AM EST

UK equalities legislation is fairly complex and patchy, with different groups having varying levels of rights, leading sometimes to a hierarchy of rights within society.

Unsurprisingly, the conflict between religion and sexual orientation has hit the headlines a number of times, mainly with Christian individuals refusing to provide services to gay and lesbian couples on the grounds of their religious beliefs.

The Ladele case of a registrar who refused to carry out her duties for civil service ceremonies (only available to gay and lesbian couples) reached a welcome conclusion today where the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal by Lillian Ladele against the decision that her employer, the London Borough of Islington, had not discriminated against her when it refused to allow her not to register civil partnerships.

TUC Press release

TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber said: 'This ruling is very good news for everyone who believes in equality.
'Lesbian and gay people are entitled to be treated as equals. No one is allowed to pick and choose whether to provide a service to someone because of their race or gender - so why should they be allowed to do so on the grounds of sexuality?
'Had Ladele won her case, it would have created the perverse position that the more prejudiced you are against lesbian and gay people because of your religion, the more the law permits you to discriminate against them.'

But of course Ladele, and the Christian Institute who have been supporting her case with appeal further against the ruling, and there is a similar case going through the courts for another registrar.

From the Pink News

The Christian Legal Centre (CLC) said that Ladele's beliefs should have been tolerated.
CLC director Andrea Minichello Williams told PinkNews.co.uk: "This is a very sad day for 21st century democracy when a lady such as Lillian Ladele, who has been a brilliant worker for Islington council, cannot be reasonably accommodated.
"Civil partnerships were not being discriminated against, they were able to be performed by other registrars. Lilian Ladele has been discriminated against because of her Christian convictions.
"In a tolerant and civil society, we should be able to accommodate different groups.

Yes, indeed. Tolerant and civil. How in a tolerant and civil society is it ok to be able to speak out against gay couples in a such a way. If any couple had refused that particular registrar because she was black, would that have been acceptable? Absolutely not.

"There will be serious consequences for religious freedom, conscience, acts and speech if we can't learn to accommodate different groups."

Exactly who here is refusing to accommodate different groups? How can a Council legitimise an individual who is prejudiced by allowing her to boycott and refuse a service to gay couples?

Last month, a Christian relationship counsellor who refused to work with gay couples lost his appeal for unfair dismissal.
Gary McFarlane, from Bristol, was sacked by Relate last year after saying he would not "encourage sin" in gay and lesbian couples.
At an employment tribunal last year, Relate admitted wrongful dismissal but the tribunal rejected his claims of unfair dismissal and religious discrimination.

I'm pleased that the rulings so far have made clear that it is unacceptable to harbour irrelevant and unfounded prejudices against others in society.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Welcome civil partnerships ruling | 10 comments (10 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Welcome civil partnerships ruling (4.00 / 2)

In the UK civil partnerships are available to same sex couples although marriage isn't (but vice versa for straight couples).

Do any other countries find conflicts like this in terms of services for gay people being withheld by service providers?

Ad astra per aspera

by In Wales (inwales aaat eurotrib.com) on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 09:11:32 AM EST

Re: Welcome civil partnerships ruling (4.00 / 4)

There has been a conflict in Sweden.

Until recently marriage was for straight and civil union for same sex (with afaik exactly the same legal implications). Marriage could either be performed by a priest or by city council official (or sometimes a judge), while civil union was a council affair. I think there was some council conflict on introduction of civil unions, but it quickly passed (perhaps because performing marriages/civil unions is largely a voluntary extra-work (payed, but in addition to your daytime job)). Some churches also offered a blessing ceremony, with some conflict within the church.

The big conflict centered around the churches when last year the legislation was merged into marriage for all. This means that either the churches give up performing marriages, or they accept everyone who wants to get married (provided they are members of the church in question). The churches threatened getting out of the marriage biz, but the parliament called the bluff and the churches caved.

Interestingly enough the small christian democrat party's last fall-back position was something liberals had argued for some time. That legal marriage should be performed by a council/court official and then congregations could have whatever ceremonies they wanted without legal effects. The churches - spearheaded by the totally dominating swedish lutheran church (formerly a branch of government) - did not support that however, as it would mean an even more marginalized existence.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 11:00:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Welcome civil partnerships ruling (4.00 / 2)

Until recently marriage was for straight and civil union for same sex (with afaik exactly the same legal implications). Marriage could either be performed by a priest or by city council official (or sometimes a judge), while civil union was a council affair.

This is still the case in Denmark, with the exception that church priests can fill out the forms for civil unions as well. They are not required to do so, but it's normally not hard to find one who doesn't object.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 11:36:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Welcome civil partnerships ruling (4.00 / 2)

In a tolerant and civil society, we should be able to accommodate different groups.

oh dear, oh dear, oh dear

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 10:32:55 AM EST

Re: Welcome civil partnerships ruling (4.00 / 2)

Apart from debate on the differential instrumentalities of "marriage" and "civil union," I believe that the registrar's dilemma is one test of a collection of American legislation to protect individual religious freedom however obligations to which the individual subscribes contravene duties of licensure and also public business, whether commercial or not. That is "conscience clauses" that indemnify (read, hold harmless) discrimintory practices of purportedly pious persons.

The legal foundations of the privilege is given in the 1st Am of the US Constituion and affirmed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which excludes religious and some private associations (e.g. "clubs") from scrutiny of equal protection compliance through charter or membership.

wiki lists 14 of 17 (according to Amnesty) state legislatures that've adopted conscience clauses that, one way or another, circumscribe medical benefits. Americans lurv their children but hate their women.

See for example Pharmacists for Life if you dare.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 12:46:58 PM EST

Re: Welcome civil partnerships ruling (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Welcome civil partnerships ruling (none / 0)

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 ]

Re: Welcome civil partnerships ruling (4.00 / 2)

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 ]

Re: Welcome civil partnerships ruling (none / 1)

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 ]

Re: Welcome civil partnerships ruling (4.00 / 3)

A public official duty is to the Public.

There's a distinction to be made, here.

One is an individual's moral stance resulting in a restriction or oppression of minorities; I have no sympathy or toleration for this view.

The other is an individual's moral stance resulting in minorities being treated as if they were members of the majority. I support this view.

I would argue this registrar, falling under the first of my two categories, has no Public moral standing and if she finds herself unable to preform her public duties she should quit or be fired.

No one could have predicted

by ATinNM on Tue Dec 15th, 2009 at 02:40:19 PM EST

Welcome civil partnerships ruling | 10 comments (10 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]