NationStates Jolt Archive

Here in Islington London, a Civil Registrar has refused to be involved in officiating in any Civil Partnerships because she says; it's against her Christian principles.

As it is a lawful ceremony, recognised as a legal binding contract between consenting participants, she is clearly in breach of the terms of her employment.

She argues that she should not be forced into involvement in something which she feels is morally and spiritually unnaceptable.

She has support from other Christian groups as well as criticism from many other Christian and Secular groups.

At the moment, she has been suspended pending investigations. What should the best outcome be?

I agree with her, she should not be coerced to participate in something she finds morally reprehensible.

She isn't being coerced ... she can quit.

What should the best outcome be?

If she doesn't want to do her job, she should get another one.

If she can't do the job then she should be replaced. Simple as.

If she has a problem marrying people who she thinks shouldn't be getting married then I guess its time for her to find some employment which does not offend her morals.

That's the problem isn't it, she should leave if her moral principles are being offended, it's just that, err, she doesn't want to leave, much preferring to refuse to engage in her official role but still get to be paid for her "principles"

At the moment, she has been suspended pending investigations. What should the best outcome be?

If she doesn't want to do her job, she should get another one.If she can't do the job then she should be replaced. Simple as.
If she has a problem marrying people who she thinks shouldn't be getting married then I guess its time for her to find some employment which does not offend her morals.


/\ These \/
Her filthy ass should be sacked. We don't let racist registrars "object" to interracial marriages because they find them "morally and spiritually unacceptable (oh, the Bible or Koran or whatever have easily been resorted to as excuses for all sorts marriage bigotry through the ages - their hatred hasn't always been just for faggots and dykes, you know)", and neither should we homophobic ones.

ps Welcome back Fass

What should the best outcome be?

Her filthy ass should be sacked. We don't let racist registrars "object" to interracial marriages because they find them "morally and spiritually unacceptable (oh, the Bible or Koran or whatever have easily been resorted to as excuses for all sorts of marriage bigotry through the ages - their hatred hasn't always been just for faggots and dykes, you know)", and neither should we homophobic ones.

This stupid bitch needs to shut the fuck up and do her job, or hit the bloody road.

That's the problem isn't it, she should leave if her moral principles are being offended, it's just that, err, she doesn't want to leave, much preferring to refuse to engage in her official role but still get to be paid for her "principles"

No real problem... her employer should simply say "This is what your job entails, if you choose not to perform your job to the expectations, your employment with us is at an end"

It is her choice. Stay and do the job as required, or leave to save her moral high horse.

Her filthy ass should be sacked. We don't let racist registrars "object" to interracial marriages because they find them "morally and spiritually unacceptable (oh, the Bible or Koran or whatever have easily been resorted to as excuses for all sorts of marriage bigotry through the ages - their hatred hasn't always been just for faggots and dykes, you know)", and neither should we homophobic ones.

This stupid bitch needs to shut the fuck up and do her job, or hit the bloody road.

Struck a nerve?

Struck a nerve?

That's just how I roll, sweety.

Struck a nerve?

That's just Fass...

Fuck, we can't all agree.

I agree with her, she should not be coerced to participate in something she finds morally reprehensible.

She isn't being coerced ... she can quit.

So you should have no difficulty with knowing that and agreeing with, one of the local Christian Ministers has refused to participate in any heterosexual Church Marriages (with the support of his church), until either the woman agrees to particpate or she is removed from her post.

ps Welcome back Fass

Mille grazie, tesorina mia.

Fuck, we can't all agree.

Well... I can't really say, I don't know the laws in place in England... Are there right to work laws or some such type of deal?

I know I'm stretching it here, but an employer should not have the right to force someone to do something they seriously object to. Requiring men to wear dresses (unless they want to), or women to use urinals ( I would object to it if I were a woman)

couldn't find the story but then its being overshadowed by this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7333209.stm) maybe?

Fuck, we can't all agree.
I disagree!! :D

Wait, what are we talking about? :p

So you should have no difficulty with knowing that and agreeing with, one of the local Christian Ministers has refused to participate in any heterosexual Church Marriages (with the support of his church), until either the woman agrees to particpate or she is removed from her post.

What some church leader chooses to do is his business, as well as his churches. Who am I to say differently if he, say chooses to only wed humans to gold fish until she quits.

couldn't find the story but then its being overshadowed by this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7333209.stm) maybe?

"Hosted by former Steps singer, Ian 'H' Watkins"

Wow, that's a blast from the past. "And I'm a deeper shade of blue..." and so on. I thought they died, but I guess they just came out.

Requiring men to wear dresses (unless they want to), or women to use urinals ( I would object to it if I were a woman)

Sure, assuming it isn't actually part of the job they were hired to do. But this is.

I disagree!! :D

Excellent.

Wait, what are we talking about? :p

This is NSG. Knowledge isn't required.

Well... I can't really say, I don't know the laws in place in England... Are there right to work laws or some such type of deal?

I know I'm stretching it here, but an employer should not have the right to force someone to do something they seriously object to. Requiring men to wear dresses (unless they want to), or women to use urinals ( I would object to it if I were a woman)

If wearing dresses or using urinals was necessary as within their employment contract (or necessary to fulfill their employment contract) then the employer can require the employee to do so (I dislike your use of the word force - an employment contract is a voluntary arrangement). While I have not seen her employment contract I am fairly certain one of the duties within it will beto preside over marriages. If she is unable to fulfill this duty then she needs to end her contract or it will be terminated.

All of my previous jobs have been some form of customer service job. My primary duty was to provide some sort of service to customers - If I found myself unable to do so because I dislike the customers then I would have had to either leave my employment or be made to leave.

While, if she has a problem with it she could go work for a Church where the job allows you to say no to Gays and the like.

It's part of her job and she should have to do it.

I remember thinking about situations like this when San Francisco illegally made same-sex marriages legal. Now I support same-sex marriages, but I recognize that a mayor has no right to simply do whatever he wants, regardless of what the law says. Newsom should have been arrested for issuing illegal licenses and removed from office for it.

What will people's reaction be when it's legalized and certain people refuse to perform such ceremonies? Will they be called brave like Newsom was? I think not. You have to obey the law.

Here in Islington London, a Civil Registrar has refused to be involved in officiating in any Civil Partnerships because she says; it's against her Christian principles.

As it is a lawful ceremony, recognised as a legal binding contract between consenting participants, she is clearly in breach of the terms of her employment.

She argues that she should not be forced into involvement in something which she feels is morally and spiritually unnaceptable.

She has support from other Christian groups as well as criticism from many other Christian and Secular groups.

At the moment, she has been suspended pending investigations. What should the best outcome be?

She can't be forced to do what she doesn't want to do. However, if she is incapable of performing her job, I see no reason why she should keep it. How many hindu beef butchers are there?

"Hosted by former Steps singer, Ian 'H' Watkins"

Wow, that's a blast from the past. "And I'm a deeper shade of blue..." and so on. I thought they died, but I guess they just came out.

nah, Rachel Stevens (http://youtube.com/watch?v=8-tts0dzvp4&feature=related) thought she could be a solo star (and I guess the rest had already too much money)

This is NSG. Knowledge isn't required.

this explains all the straw men ;)

nah, Rachel Stevens (http://youtube.com/watch?v=8-tts0dzvp4&feature=related) thought she could be a solo star (and I guess the rest had already too much money)

That's the incorrect awful late 90s mixed-sex manufactured pop band, although I can understand the error.

nah, Rachel Stevens (http://youtube.com/watch?v=8-tts0dzvp4&feature=related) thought she could be a solo star (and I guess the rest had already too much money)

You're thinking of S Club 7 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=z2q3FJTFgtk), not Steps. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=uKne3n3qGLY&feature=related)

Oh, dear. My childhood is all screeching towards me.

I don't know about England, but she cannot be fired in the US for this according to the EEOC, unless possibly if she is the only registrar and it would create undo hardship.


Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices by allowing: flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, modification of grooming requirements and other workplace practices, policies and/or procedures.

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

I wonder, just out of curiousity, if she had the job before the laws changed and made same sex marriage legal.

That's the incorrect awful late 90s mixed-sex manufactured pop band

You're thinking of S Club 7 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=z2q3FJTFgtk), not Steps. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=uKne3n3qGLY&feature=related)

it was actually a trap to see how many would correct me on the internet :p

I don't know about England, but she cannot be fired in the US for this according to the EEOC, unless possibly if she is the only registrar and it would create undo hardship.




http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

I wonder, just out of curiousity, if she had the job before the laws changed and made same sex marriage legal.

I don't see this as a reasonable accomodation.

it was actually a trap to see how many would correct me on the internet :p

http://xkcd.com/386/ :)

You're thinking of S Club 7 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=z2q3FJTFgtk), not Steps. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=uKne3n3qGLY&feature=related)

Oh, dear. My childhood is all screeching towards me.

I'm not sure why I clicked on both those links, even knowing what they would be.

I'm not sure why I clicked on both those links, even knowing what they would be.

Because you know that resistance is futile when it comes to reminiscing.

http://xkcd.com/386/ :)

LOL
and for those linkophobes...
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

I don't see this as a reasonable accomodation.


I really don't know.

I don't know about England, but she cannot be fired in the US for this according to the EEOC, unless possibly if she is the only registrar and it would create undo hardship.




http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

I wonder, just out of curiousity, if she had the job before the laws changed and made same sex marriage legal.
She did have the job before the new legislation came into being. However, she signed a contract with Islington Borough Council "Dignity for All" which is her Employers Anti Discrimination policy. There is no National legislation in England allowing for individuals to refuse to take part in their employment role for personal reasons such as you have described in the USA.

There is however anti discriminatory legislation, though sadly Homophobia is not challenged as well as other forms of intolerence (such as racism and anti religious intolerence)

Fuck, we can't all agree.
Sorry, can't oblige. I too think she should be sacked.
But just you wait, it's still early.

She did have the job before the new legislation came into being. However, she signed a contract with Islington Borough Council "Dignity for All" which is her Employers Anti Discrimination policy. There is no National legislation in England allowing for individuals to refuse to take part in their employment role for personal reasons such as you have described in the USA.

There is however anti discriminatory legislation, though sadly Homophobia is not challenged as well as other forms of intolerence (such as racism and anti religious intolerence)

Interesting. If it were me, I think if I felt this strongly about something, I would want to leave because of the conflict of emotion. I would want a job I wanted to do.

If wearing dresses or using urinals was necessary as within their employment contract (or necessary to fulfill their employment contract) then the employer can require the employee to do so (I dislike your use of the word force - an employment contract is a voluntary arrangement). While I have not seen her employment contract I am fairly certain one of the duties within it will beto preside over marriages. If she is unable to fulfill this duty then she needs to end her contract or it will be terminated.

All of my previous jobs have been some form of customer service job. My primary duty was to provide some sort of service to customers - If I found myself unable to do so because I dislike the customers then I would have had to either leave my employment or be made to leave.

I was trying to come up with a supporting argument for her refusal to do the job.

PelecanusQuicks was able to better illustrate the point I was hunting for.

Here in Islington London, a Civil Registrar has refused to be involved in officiating in any Civil Partnerships because she says; it's against her Christian principles.

As it is a lawful ceremony, recognised as a legal binding contract between consenting participants, she is clearly in breach of the terms of her employment.

She argues that she should not be forced into involvement in something which she feels is morally and spiritually unnaceptable.

She has support from other Christian groups as well as criticism from many other Christian and Secular groups.

At the moment, she has been suspended pending investigations. What should the best outcome be?

Marriage = religious ceremony
Civil union = secular institution

Learn the difference, she should be sacked for not realizing the difference. Also registrars should have to say when applying for the job if they have a problem with their own religious beliefs, and should have to agree as a condition of their employment that they will keep religious beliefs out or face the unemployment line.

This is just more Christian whingebaggery, which is all they seem to do these days, such attention whores....

Fuck, we can't all agree.

This brave woman is taking a courageous stand for Biblical values! If we start letting people marry other people of the same sex then where will it end? Soon we'll be letting adulterers marry, or the Political Correctness brigade will be telling us it's unPC to stone women if they turn out not to be virgins on their wedding night! It's a slippery slope: if we allow gay marriage today then in a few weeks they'll be demanding the 'right' to marry erm... squirrels! Yes, that's it! Think of those poor fluffy squirrels! We have to draw a line dammit!

Her filthy ass should be sacked. We don't let racist registrars "object" to interracial marriages because they find them "morally and spiritually unacceptable (oh, the Bible or Koran or whatever have easily been resorted to as excuses for all sorts of marriage bigotry through the ages - their hatred hasn't always been just for faggots and dykes, you know)", and neither should we homophobic ones.

This stupid bitch needs to shut the fuck up and do her job, or hit the bloody road.

Fassitude=Faggitude?

In a world where everyone is apparently entitled to their opinions, why is it that everyone who is White, Heterosexual, and of a non-hebrew religion, get no say at all lest they be condemned for not accepting the liberal propaganda that everyone must accept everything else

This world is seriously ****ed over if you cant hold any kind of belief that some P-o-S can consider Anti-anything

Just because when someone doesnt want to be a mindless sheep and accept every change in the world, they get harassed by all the people who are sheep

*grabs popcorn*

*grabs popcorn*

This should be entertaining :p

Fassitude=Faggitude?

:rolleyes:

In a world where everyone is apparently entitled to their opinions, why is it that everyone who is White, Heterosexual, and of a non-hebrew religion, get no say at all lest they be condemned for not accepting the liberal propaganda that everyone must accept everything else

This world is seriously ****ed over if you cant hold any kind of belief that some P-o-S can consider Anti-anything

Just because when someone doesnt want to be a mindless sheep and accept every change in the world, they get harassed by all the people who are sheep

Is this combination of straw men and nonsense supposed to be at all convincing?

:rolleyes:



Is this combination of straw men and nonsense supposed to be at all convincing?

Shhhh. Don't put the fire out before we get to watch the fireworks :D

Fassitude=Faggitude?

In a world where everyone is apparently entitled to their opinions, why is it that everyone who is White, Heterosexual, and of a non-hebrew religion, get no say at all lest they be condemned for not accepting the liberal propaganda that everyone must accept everything else

This world is seriously ****ed over if you cant hold any kind of belief that some P-o-S can consider Anti-anything

Just because when someone doesnt want to be a mindless sheep and accept every change in the world, they get harassed by all the people who are sheep

In one post, we have a personal attack on someones sexual orientation, a victim complex from the majority, and and some random reference to sheep. I congragulate you.

Fassitude=Faggitude?

It's "faggotry", honey. Glorious, shit-packing faggotry. Say it with me: "Blowing! And rimming! And fisting! Oh, my!"

Just because when someone doesnt want to be a mindless sheep and accept every change in the world, they get harassed by all the people who are sheep

You're already miserably failing at trolling with this in another thread, so it is a bit superfluous here, yes. So, stick to being under one bridge at a time, I say and skip the bite.

"Hosted by former Steps singer, Ian 'H' Watkins"

Wow, that's a blast from the past. "And I'm a deeper shade of blue..." and so on. I thought they died, but I guess they just came out.

Good to see you again, Fass.

*grabs popcorn*

That guy has opened up a can of fabulous whoopass. *brings beverages*

Fassitude=Faggitude?

In a world where everyone is apparently entitled to their opinions, why is it that everyone who is White, Heterosexual, and of a non-hebrew religion, get no say at all lest they be condemned for not accepting the liberal propaganda that everyone must accept everything else

This world is seriously ****ed over if you cant hold any kind of belief that some P-o-S can consider Anti-anything

Just because when someone doesnt want to be a mindless sheep and accept every change in the world, they get harassed by all the people who are sheep
what sort of defecation do you suppose would represent the guy who should be the God of the mindless sheep (cough!)

Just because when someone doesnt want to be a mindless sheep and accept every change in the world, they get harassed by all the people who are sheep
You poor thing, harassed by sheep.
http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb115/nipeng_bucket/WallaceSheepBig.jpg

I don't know about England, but she cannot be fired in the US for this according to the EEOC, unless possibly if she is the only registrar and it would create undo hardship.




http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

I wonder, just out of curiousity, if she had the job before the laws changed and made same sex marriage legal.

Would you also call refusing to marry an interracial couple a "reasonable accommodation"? What if the couple were Atheists and she objected on those grounds? When in your book does it stop being a "reasonable accommodation" to allow her bigotry to interfere with her job?

I sympathize with her dilemma, but how can she have it both ways? If she wants the job, she should have to do the job. If she is unable to do so, she should seek employment elsewhere. To avoid any lawsuit-inducing hard feelings, however, her employers should offer her a new job with the same pay, but different responsibilities. If she doesn't accept this arrangement, I would tell her to kindly go **** herself.

Would you also call refusing to marry an interracial couple a "reasonable accommodation"? What if the couple were Atheists and she objected on those grounds? When in your book does it stop being a "reasonable accommodation" to allow her bigotry to interfere with her job?


:confused:

It isn't for me to decide if you are asking me personally. I already posted that I didn't know if her actions would fall under this or not when LG asked the question.

Interesting but not surprised to see the amount of people ready to do away with this woman. She has merely made a stand against what she believes in, something which is usually encouraged in the western world.

Were she an army soldier and refused to go to Iraq because she believed that it was an illegal war, would we be saying the same thing to her? Shut up and quit your job, maybe who knows.

If she was working for the German Government in the late 1930's and refused to round up Jews because of her beliefs would we be criticising her?

I don't know, it is all very well to criticise her and tell he to "fuck off" but perhaps it would be better to explain why she is wrong, you will always get a much better response through explanation than random insults

Interesting but not surprised to see the amount of people ready to do away with this woman. She has merely made a stand against what she believes in, something which is usually encouraged in the western world.

Were she an army soldier and refused to go to Iraq because she believed that it was an illegal war, would we be saying the same thing to her? Shut up and quit your job, maybe who knows.

If she was working for the German Government in the late 1930's and refused to round up Jews because of her beliefs would we be criticising her?

I don't know, it is all very well to criticise her and tell he to "fuck off" but perhaps it would be better to explain why she is wrong, you will always get a much better response through explanation than random insults

If she were a soldier opposed to a war or a civil servant opposed to the government's policy of genocide I should sincerely hope that she quit her job.

Interesting but not surprised to see the amount of people ready to do away with this woman. She has merely made a stand against what she believes in, something which is usually encouraged in the western world.

Agreed. However, she has a choice, and since her job requires her to proceed according to the laws of the land, and civil unions are the law, I can say without fear of hypocrisy that she needs to quit lest she be fired for dereliction of duty.

Were she an army soldier and refused to go to Iraq because she believed that it was an illegal war, would we be saying the same thing to her? Shut up and quit your job, maybe who knows.

I would, and many here have. You're a soldier, war is part of your job description, and the reasons behind it aren't supposed to be your concern. If they become your concern and you find you can't fight in good conscience, then you leave or are dismissed.

If she was working for the German Government in the late 1930's and refused to round up Jews because of her beliefs would we be criticising her?

I'm sure some did, and I'm sure they were released and eventually followed and perhaps even sent to a concentration camp, but hey, why not just blow the whole issue out of proportion by bringing up the Nazis? Always good for a rational argument, eh?

I don't know, it is all very well to criticise her and tell he to "fuck off" but perhaps it would be better to explain why she is wrong, you will always get a much better response through explanation than random insults

I understand your reticence, and I even agree with it to a point. But you have to expect a certain amount of indignation when someone's reason for not fulfilling their duty is because they're morally opposed to something that's A) the law and B) something the indignant one probably supports wholeheartedly.

Interesting but not surprised to see the amount of people ready to do away with this woman. She has merely made a stand against what she believes in, something which is usually encouraged in the western world.

Were she an army soldier and refused to go to Iraq because she believed that it was an illegal war, would we be saying the same thing to her? Shut up and quit your job, maybe who knows.

If she was working for the German Government in the late 1930's and refused to round up Jews because of her beliefs would we be criticising her?

I don't know, it is all very well to criticise her and tell he to "fuck off" but perhaps it would be better to explain why she is wrong, you will always get a much better response through explanation than random insults
Civil unions are a secular institutions, meaning if someone wants to discriminate against homosexuals then you should stick to those reactionary religious ceremonies called 'marriage'...

If she was working for the German Government in the late 1930's and refused to round up Jews because of her beliefs would we be criticising her?

No, the more apt Nazi analogy here would be that she herself is the Nazi working in a democratic country's civil service refusing to offer said service to Jews/Homosexuals/Roma/etc. And, yes, we would be criticising her for that as well, since the excuse for her bigotry (be it a holy book or Mein Kampf, a religion or Nazism itself) changes nothing about, nor does it actually excuse or make acceptable her discrimination against minorities. So you see, it isn't at all like she's "fighting Nazis" - it's her being like a Nazi, if you wish to resort to Godwin.

At the moment, she has been suspended pending investigations. What should the best outcome be?
A lot of people have already said it, but I agree: the best outcome would be for her to find a job she does wish to do, and which would not conflict with her religious principles. She obviously does not want and cannot adequately carry out the job she has.

Fire her. She has failed to do the job for which she was employed, and stated she will not do so. Simple.

Here in Islington London, a Civil Registrar has refused to be involved in officiating in any Civil Partnerships because she says; it's against her Christian principles.

As it is a lawful ceremony, recognised as a legal binding contract between consenting participants, she is clearly in breach of the terms of her employment.

She argues that she should not be forced into involvement in something which she feels is morally and spiritually unnaceptable.

She has support from other Christian groups as well as criticism from many other Christian and Secular groups.

At the moment, she has been suspended pending investigations. What should the best outcome be?

If true, throw her out on her ass, without pay. She has refused to perform her legal job function. She can now be terminated for breech of contract.

She can whine about it all she wants, but so long as she refuses to continue to act in a manner contrary to government policy, she hasn't a leg to stand on.

Fassitude=Faggitude?

In a world where everyone is apparently entitled to their opinions, why is it that everyone who is White, Heterosexual, and of a non-hebrew religion, get no say at all lest they be condemned for not accepting the liberal propaganda that everyone must accept everything else

This world is seriously ****ed over if you cant hold any kind of belief that some P-o-S can consider Anti-anything

Just because when someone doesnt want to be a mindless sheep and accept every change in the world, they get harassed by all the people who are sheep

:rolleyes:



Is this combination of straw men and nonsense supposed to be at all convincing?

No, it's just your everyday KKK supremacist making with his daily raving for not being able to throw non-Aryans into extermination camps because of the "evil PC brigade overlords"

Fassitude=Faggitude?

In a world where everyone is apparently entitled to their opinions, why is it that everyone who is White, Heterosexual, and of a non-hebrew religion, get no say at all lest they be condemned for not accepting the liberal propaganda that everyone must accept everything else

This world is seriously ****ed over if you cant hold any kind of belief that some P-o-S can consider Anti-anything

Just because when someone doesnt want to be a mindless sheep and accept every change in the world, they get harassed by all the people who are sheep

Tell us more about black people all being criminals and about the vast jewish conspirecy.


Tell me, would you be defending me if I refused service to Christians because I find their religion morally repulsive? I think not.

Its funny when the majority pulls the "Help help Im being repressed!" bullshit.

She has merely made a stand against what she believes in, something which is usually encouraged in the western world.

How about doctors refusing to treat patients on religious grounds hmm? Would you encourage that? Or maybe bankers refusing to give loans to people on religious grounds? How about let's take it one step further. Registry offices refusing to register new citizens, or issue birth certificates, because new people are against their religion?

If you don't like what you are doing, don't do it. Nobody is putting a gun to her head saying "CAKE- I MEAN REGISTER OR DEATH!"


Were she an army soldier and refused to go to Iraq because she believed that it was an illegal war, would we be saying the same thing to her?


I'd say she should quit, or be penalized according to whatever the contract she signed stated.


If she was working for the German Government in the late 1930's and refused to round up Jews because of her beliefs would we be criticising her?


She could always quit. Except the Nazi government would probably have her killed, where the whole coercion thing comes into play. Nobody is coercing this particular whiner.

hmm, too much of a coincidence I say. She was probably already involved with the Christian lobby before she went for the job, and probably had this situation in mind.

Props to the registrar. The more people stand up and speak out against this idiotic notion, the sooner sanity will be restored to Western civilization.

One man, one woman. Only. Ever. End of issue.

Props to the registrar. The more people stand up and speak out against this idiotic notion, the sooner sanity will be restored to Western civilization.

One man, one woman. Only. Ever. End of issue.

What difference does it make to you who gets married?

What difference does it make to you who gets married?

You know how it is with conservatives and sex.... (when your not getting any that is;))

One man, one woman. Only. Ever. End of issue.

Your wishful thinking is bound to be as effective as your prayers. :)

Props to the registrar. The more people stand up and speak out against this idiotic notion, the sooner sanity will be restored to Western civilization.

One man, one woman. Only. Ever. End of issue.

Dont you have a palestinian in your basement you should be waterboarding?

Props to the registrar. The more people stand up and speak out against this idiotic notion, the sooner sanity will be restored to Western civilization.

One man, one woman. Only. Ever. End of issue.

And to anyone who believes differently, in the land of the free?

As long as everyone else is playing hyperbolic with "what if", how's about this one, NM?

What if the registrar refused to grant a business license to a legal business she had a moral issue with? Say a head shop or adult entertainment shop/venue? If licensing those places were legal under the statutes of the government for which she was working, what would you say then?

I'm not going to rise to the bait of "end of issue", 'cause it's too easy to debunk, and that's what you want anyway. Can you argue this in a way that doesn't involve Biblical pretexts?

By the way, has anyone noticed the misleading thread title here? I just did -- no registrar has ever had to participate in any ceremony. I used to grant marriage licenses as part of county government from 1999 to 2001. I never had to participate in anything but taking the licensees' money, swearing them to tell the truth before they signed the license, making sure the license was correctly filled out and filed properly with the clerk's office.

So she's not having to participate in anything. I smell a mole.

This is just more Christian whingebaggery, which is all they seem to do these days, such attention whores....

This morning I volunteered to help the homeless in a couple of weeks. Thanks for stereotyping though, it's always appreciated.

Fassitude=Faggitude?

In a world where everyone is apparently entitled to their opinions, why is it that everyone who is White, Heterosexual, and of a non-hebrew religion, get no say at all lest they be condemned for not accepting the liberal propaganda that everyone must accept everything else

This world is seriously ****ed over if you cant hold any kind of belief that some P-o-S can consider Anti-anything

Just because when someone doesnt want to be a mindless sheep and accept every change in the world, they get harassed by all the people who are sheep

Actually, she had a job that she refused to do. That's really all there is to it. If she wants to object, then that is her right. But she can't do it while she's employed to fulfill that exact action.

Props to the registrar. The more people stand up and speak out against this idiotic notion, the sooner sanity will be restored to Western civilization.

One man, one woman. Only. Ever. End of issue.

youre opposed to civil unions?

youre opposed to civil unions?

Of course he is.


Anything but missionary position man on top lights off reprodutive purposes only sex that is pleasurless to the female is morally repulsive to conservatives :p

Of course he is.


Anything but missionary position man on top lights off reprodutive purposes only sex that is pleasurless to the female is morally repulsive to conservatives :p

ahhhhhh so they long for a return to the time when all gays were in the closet married to poor unsuspecting straight opposite sex partners who never understood why the sex was so awful.

Of course he is.


Anything but missionary position man on top lights off reprodutive purposes only sex that is pleasurless to the female is morally repulsive to conservatives :pI question that sentiment. Obviously such action's moral repulsiveness is inversely related to how public the act is. They'll do it, alright: but only if they they think they won't be found out. If that weren't the case, how could they possibly live up to the level of hypocrisy that is expected from them?

ahhhhhh so they long for a return to the time when all gays were in the closet married to poor unsuspecting straight opposite sex partners who never understood why the sex was so awful.

Actually, they prefer that gays were either stoned in public or sent to re-education camps to be "made straight".

Here in Islington London, a Civil Registrar has refused to be involved in officiating in any Civil Partnerships because she says; it's against her Christian principles.

As it is a lawful ceremony, recognised as a legal binding contract between consenting participants, she is clearly in breach of the terms of her employment.

She argues that she should not be forced into involvement in something which she feels is morally and spiritually unnaceptable.

She has support from other Christian groups as well as criticism from many other Christian and Secular groups.

At the moment, she has been suspended pending investigations. What should the best outcome be?

If she is unable to fulfill the requirements of her employment, she should seek other employment.

Here in Islington London, a Civil Registrar has refused to be involved in officiating in any Civil Partnerships because she says; it's against her Christian principles.

As it is a lawful ceremony, recognised as a legal binding contract between consenting participants, she is clearly in breach of the terms of her employment.

She argues that she should not be forced into involvement in something which she feels is morally and spiritually unnaceptable.

She has support from other Christian groups as well as criticism from many other Christian and Secular groups.

At the moment, she has been suspended pending investigations. What should the best outcome be?
To paraphrase Hillary Clinton's demands regarding the White House travel office employees... Fire her ass!

To paraphrase Hillary Clinton's demands regarding the White House travel office employees... Fire her ass!

We need to somehow work in a "vast right wing conspirecy" quote here too;)

By the way, has anyone noticed the misleading thread title here? I just did -- no registrar has ever had to participate in any ceremony. I used to grant marriage licenses as part of county government from 1999 to 2001. I never had to participate in anything but taking the licensees' money, swearing them to tell the truth before they signed the license, making sure the license was correctly filled out and filed properly with the clerk's office.

So she's not having to participate in anything. I smell a mole.

http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/011808/inews011808_02.html

She has to officiate at the civil partnerships, which is what she refuses to do.

We need to somehow work in a "vast right wing conspirecy" quote here too;)
It's not my fault... We've been having Presidential campaigning for the last year and still a year to go... I've been overdosed on politics...

It's not my fault... We've been having Presidential campaigning for the last year and still a year to go... I've been overdosed on politics...

I was actually genuinly trying to think of a way to impliment my favorite HC quote into this discussion.

http://www.thecnj.co.uk/islington/2008/011808/inews011808_02.html

She has to officiate at the civil partnerships, which is what she refuses to do.

Ah, that's where I was getting mixed up. To me, a registrar sells you the license and the officiant marries/joins you. Thanks. So the OP woman is a kind of JotP, then.

Ah, that's where I was getting mixed up. To me, a registrar sells you the license and the officiant marries/joins you. Thanks. So the OP woman is a kind of JotP, then.

Similar. A Registrar here solely presides over wedding ceremonies, I believe it's the same in Britain.

Civil unions sound pretty good, I wonder if they exist in Australia. I am not a fan of the whole song and dance type approach to relationships.

Civil unions sound pretty good, I wonder if they exist in Australia. I am not a fan of the whole song and dance type approach to relationships.

Not officially, but effectively. They're officially "Marriages" regardless of whether officated over by a Priest or a Registrar, but it's the signing of the Marriage License that is the important thing as far as the Government is concerned.

Isn't Castlemilk in Glasgow?

One man, one woman. Only. Ever.
How incredibly tedious. It’s always nice to spice things up.

But remember kids, play safe!


Isn’t Castlemilk in Glasgow?
Yup.

If memory serves, NC moved away from Glasgow some years back.

Interesting but not surprised to see the amount of people ready to do away with this woman. She has merely made a stand against what she believes in, something which is usually encouraged in the western world.

Were she an army soldier and refused to go to Iraq because she believed that it was an illegal war, would we be saying the same thing to her? Shut up and quit your job, maybe who knows.

If she was working for the German Government in the late 1930's and refused to round up Jews because of her beliefs would we be criticising her?

I don't know, it is all very well to criticise her and tell he to "fuck off" but perhaps it would be better to explain why she is wrong, you will always get a much better response through explanation than random insults

Well if she was a soldier, she could do her job, or leave the army. There's no hypocrisy there. You're essentially saying the homosexuality and genocide are of comparable "objectionable-ness".

Right, because letting innocent people get slaughtered = gays getting married.

You're not comparing like situations, and the comparisons are at best flawed

Here in Islington London, a Civil Registrar has refused to be involved in officiating in any Civil Partnerships because she says; it's against her Christian principles.

As it is a lawful ceremony, recognised as a legal binding contract between consenting participants, she is clearly in breach of the terms of her employment.

She argues that she should not be forced into involvement in something which she feels is morally and spiritually unnaceptable.

She has support from other Christian groups as well as criticism from many other Christian and Secular groups.

At the moment, she has been suspended pending investigations. What should the best outcome be?

She should resign. No one should force her to do things she disagrees with, but it is her job to follow the law, so if her beliefs conflict with the law, she should resign from her job. That way, the law is upheld, as are her rights to believe what she wants.

youre opposed to civil unions?

I think NM tends to be opposed to such things.

Interesting but not surprised to see the amount of people ready to do away with this woman. She has merely made a stand against what she believes in, something which is usually encouraged in the western world.

Were she an army soldier and refused to go to Iraq because she believed that it was an illegal war, would we be saying the same thing to her? Shut up and quit your job, maybe who knows.

Not only would I, I have.

How incredibly tedious. It’s always nice to spice things up.

Indeed. Now, two men and two women....

Props to the registrar. The more people stand up and speak out against this idiotic notion, the sooner sanity will be restored to Western civilization.

One man, one woman. Only. Ever. End of issue.

Got any excuse beyond your religion?

And to anyone who believes differently, in the land of the free?

As long as everyone else is playing hyperbolic with "what if", how's about this one, NM?

What if the registrar refused to grant a business license to a legal business she had a moral issue with? Say a head shop or adult entertainment shop/venue? If licensing those places were legal under the statutes of the government for which she was working, what would you say then?

Lets use something NM might actually support instead. What if an Atheist registrar refused a license to a Christian bookstore?

I understand your reticence, and I even agree with it to a point. But you have to expect a certain amount of indignation when someone's reason for not fulfilling their duty is because they're morally opposed to something that's A) the law and B) something the indignant one probably supports wholeheartedly.

In regards to point B yes that is correct but it will hardly help the situation as people will never learn.

Now yes it is the law but does mean that they can't be opposed to it? whether because it is due to their morals and ethics (which by the way people does not have to be based on religion) she should still be allowed to be opposed to the law regardless of what it is, and claim that it goes against her morals, and while she could quit her position she could also request to be only involved with non same sex registers.

A question for Brits, Is this civil union viewed upon by the government as a marriage?

She's a muslim though. So really should she be fired?

She's a muslim though. So really should she be fired?

I don't give a damn if she's a Martian. If you're unable to do your job due to religious bigotry (or bigotry from any source) then you shouldn't HAVE your job.

She's a muslim though. So really should she be fired?

No she's not (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=506344&in_page_id=1770).

No she's not (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=506344&in_page_id=1770).

And it wouldn't be relevant if she WERE.

Now yes it is the law but does mean that they can't be opposed to it?

Of course she can. She can make every effort she wants to change the law in her spare time. During working hours she has to do her job.

and while she could quit her position she could also request to be only involved with non same sex registers.

She could indeed. If that is a desireable situation or not is up to the employer.

And it wouldn't be relevant if she WERE.

I wasn't implying that it would be relevant, I was just trying to keep facts straight.

I wasn't implying that it would be relevant, I was just trying to keep facts straight.

Sorry, mainly clarifying for other posters not you.

She could indeed. If that is a desireable situation or not is up to the employer.

Exactly it is up to her and her employer so why are we talking about it and why should we care?

Sorry, mainly clarifying for other posters not you.

Fair enough.

Well... I can't really say, I don't know the laws in place in England... Are there right to work laws or some such type of deal?

I know I'm stretching it here, but an employer should not have the right to force someone to do something they seriously object to. Requiring men to wear dresses (unless they want to), or women to use urinals ( I would object to it if I were a woman)

But these requests are unreasonable because they have nothing at all to do with the job.

If memory serves, NC moved away from Glasgow some years back.
How nice to be remembered :) I did move from Glasgow to London

Props to the registrar. The more people stand up and speak out against this idiotic notion, the sooner sanity will be restored to Western civilization.

One man, one woman. Only. Ever. End of issue.

Unless you're a republican senator in an airport bathroom. :D

Now yes it is the law but does mean that they can't be opposed to it? whether because it is due to their morals and ethics (which by the way people does not have to be based on religion) she should still be allowed to be opposed to the law regardless of what it is, and claim that it goes against her morals, and while she could quit her position she could also request to be only involved with non same sex registers.

She could request that, but why would the council employ someone who will only work on some cases when they could get someone who would do all and thus be more efficient overall?

A question for Brits, Is this civil union viewed upon by the government as a marriage?

Yes, all but in name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_partnership


Seeing as the woman is a civil servant, she is required to work within the law. Discriminating is not within the law. She cannot do her job properly and should leave or be sacked.

Here in Islington London, a Civil Registrar has refused to be involved in officiating in any Civil Partnerships because she says; it's against her Christian principles.

I think the woman is slightly confused. I'm not sure what part of different sex marriages she thinks are 'Christian' in a civil ceremony.

Here in Islington London, a Civil Registrar has refused to be involved in officiating in any Civil Partnerships because she says; it's against her Christian principles.

As it is a lawful ceremony, recognised as a legal binding contract between consenting participants, she is clearly in breach of the terms of her employment.

She argues that she should not be forced into involvement in something which she feels is morally and spiritually unnaceptable.

She has support from other Christian groups as well as criticism from many other Christian and Secular groups.

At the moment, she has been suspended pending investigations. What should the best outcome be?

Sack her, if she can't do her job, in line with the law, then out she goes.

Sack her, if she can't do her job, in line with the law, then out she goes.Yep, just hand her over to a church that still uses stakes... ;)

Yep, just hand her over to a church that still uses stakes... ;)

Ohh Ohh I know one of them!

Yep, just hand her over to a church that still uses stakes... ;)

Just jumping in here but I'm not so sure a church like that would be all too keen to burn someone for being a homophobe...

Just jumping in here but I'm not so sure a church like that would be all too keen to burn someone for being a homophobe...

Ahh no of course, but for being a Christian.....:D

Well it seems almost redundant at this point but yes, if the job requires her to do this sort of thing then she needs to move on to another job.. I know it isn't that simple, that finding a new job can be difficult and she may not be able to afford to be unemplyed, but a decision's got to be made here and she'd be better off resigning than waiting for them to fire her.

I think we prettymuch all agree.

Exactly it is up to her and her employer so why are we talking about it and why should we care?

Because she's being a git about it and involving other people.

As with any civil servant or military personnel, if her job requires her to do something that is against her beliefs/religion/politics then she should resign. Civil servants are there to enact policy not decide on it. You do your job up until the point you can't (for whatever reason), then you resign. End of.

My faith in humanity is gradually being restored by a lot of the comments in this thread...

From a legal standpoint, however, it is important to note the differences between a marriage and a civil partnership (as far as I understand it... I'm not a lawyer, but lots of our clients are).

A marriage is a religious ceremony, recognised in law as a union of two people. It's up to that particular faith as to what they will and will not allow. There are very few instances where the state would intervene, notably where recognition of such a union would break other laws (e.g. one recent notable case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7304698.stm) where a marriage was not recognised in law due to the mental impairment of one of the participants).

Some religious authorities permit a blessing of same-sex unions, but to be quite honest, it's really up to the religious authorities concerned. One of my in-laws has some dreadful "New Age" ceremony on an island in the Mediterranean, and a civil ceremony in the UK (where he wore a white suit and no socks - good god man, what is the world coming to?...).

A civil partnership is a secular ceremony which confers broadly the same legal status of the marriage in terms of inheritance tax, succession of tenancy, tax, divorce and so on.

Which is why I rejoiced when same-sex civil unions came in - it seemed terribly iniquitous that same-sex partnerships of a long-term nature not be afforded the same legal rights as long-term straight relationships.

To get vaguely back on topic, yes, if the lady in question is unable to perform her occupational duties, she should resign and find another job, much the same as would happen to me if I refused to provide a service to our gay and lesbian clients.

My faith in humanity is gradually being restored by a lot of the comments in this thread...

From a legal standpoint, however, it is important to note the differences between a marriage and a civil partnership (as far as I understand it... I'm not a lawyer, but lots of our clients are).

A marriage is a religious ceremony, recognised in law as a union of two people. It's up to that particular faith as to what they will and will not allow. There are very few instances where the state would intervene, notably where recognition of such a union would break other laws (e.g. one recent notable case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7304698.stm) where a marriage was not recognised in law due to the mental impairment of one of the participants).

Some religious authorities permit a blessing of same-sex unions, but to be quite honest, it's really up to the religious authorities concerned. One of my in-laws has some dreadful "New Age" ceremony on an island in the Mediterranean, and a civil ceremony in the UK (where he wore a white suit and no socks - good god man, what is the world coming to?...).

A civil partnership is a secular ceremony which confers broadly the same legal status of the marriage in terms of inheritance tax, succession of tenancy, tax, divorce and so on.

Which is why I rejoiced when same-sex civil unions came in - it seemed terribly iniquitous that same-sex partnerships of a long-term nature not be afforded the same legal rights as long-term straight relationships.

To get vaguely back on topic, yes, if the lady in question is unable to perform her occupational duties, she should resign and find another job, much the same as would happen to me if I refused to provide a service to our gay and lesbian clients.

Heh so what about us people that had a secular wedding, and still call ourselves married?

she should be sacked, simple as.

Here in Islington London, a Civil Registrar has refused to be involved in officiating in any Civil Partnerships because she says; it's against her Christian principles.

As it is a lawful ceremony, recognised as a legal binding contract between consenting participants, she is clearly in breach of the terms of her employment.

She argues that she should not be forced into involvement in something which she feels is morally and spiritually unnaceptable.

She has support from other Christian groups as well as criticism from many other Christian and Secular groups.

At the moment, she has been suspended pending investigations. What should the best outcome be?

I'm making a couple of assumptions here, but as long as we are talking about a legal ceremony and not a religious one, I'd say she should find another job if she isn't willing to perform the one she has.

Religious freedom does not mean you get out of doing your job because of religion. She is free to choose a profession that does not conflict with her religious beliefs.

Heh so what about us people that had a secular wedding, and still call ourselves married?Yeah, it's a silly semantics debate, particularly since it doesn't take into account the usage of the word in other languages.

Heh so what about us people that had a secular wedding, and still call ourselves married?

In the eyes of the law, yes, as long as all the legal procedures were correctly followed.

As to what different religious faiths would say, you'd have to ask them. If it really mattered, and I suspect it doesn't! (wishing you both many years of :) and :fluffle:)

What are the laws in the UK regarding employment, etc? That's my question.

If you give anyone else an out for their religion in their place of employment, then she gets one. If you don't, then fire her and move on.

So, if you say, "an employer can't force you to do something that violates the tenets of your religion", then she can stay on and doesn't have to do the same sex stuff. Otherwise, fire her.

Can an employer in the UK force someone to sell alcohol, or handle pork products if it's against their religion to do so?

What are the laws in the UK regarding employment, etc? That's my question.

If you give anyone else an out for their religion in their place of employment, then she gets one. If you don't, then fire her and move on.

So, if you say, "an employer can't force you to do something that violates the tenets of your religion", then she can stay on and doesn't have to do the same sex stuff. Otherwise, fire her.

Can an employer in the UK force someone to sell alcohol, or handle pork products if it's against their religion to do so?


I'm not sure as to the actual law regarding that, but common sense tells me that if you are Jewish then you'd be better off not looking for a ob as a pig farmer!

Same with JW's not working in a pub. If you cannot perform your duties due to religous dogma, then what are you doing inthe job. Contrary to popular belife, it's actualy piss easy to find work.

Exactly it is up to her and her employer so why are we talking about it and why should we care?

Because her employer in this case is the government. That makes it public business.

I wonder if the people (all though few) on here who are defending this woman for "standing up for what she believes in" would be defending me if I refused to marry Christians because I felt that them procreating was a threat because they would teach their children a potentially violent and bigoted religion?


Me thinks they would not find me "standing up for what I believe in" acceptable then. Double standard much?

I'm not sure as to the actual law regarding that, but common sense tells me that if you are Jewish then you'd be better off not looking for a ob as a pig farmer!

Same with JW's not working in a pub. If you cannot perform your duties due to religous dogma, then what are you doing inthe job. Contrary to popular belife, it's actualy piss easy to find work.

Well, yes, there's common sense. But there's precious little of that in the world. There seem to be plenty of people who want to use their job to make life difficult.

Well, yes, there's common sense. But there's precious little of that in the world. There seem to be plenty of people who want to use their job to make life difficult.

Ahhh yes you mean like bus drivers. *nods*

I wonder if the people (all though few) on here who are defending this woman for "standing up for what she believes in" would be defending me if I refused to marry Christians because I felt that them procreating was a threat because they would teach their children a potentially violent and bigoted religion?

But of course they would. They are after all honest, freedom loving people.

Right ?

What are the laws in the UK regarding employment, etc? That's my question.

If you give anyone else an out for their religion in their place of employment, then she gets one. If you don't, then fire her and move on.

So, if you say, "an employer can't force you to do something that violates the tenets of your religion", then she can stay on and doesn't have to do the same sex stuff. Otherwise, fire her.

Can an employer in the UK force someone to sell alcohol, or handle pork products if it's against their religion to do so?

I think it depends on whether the religious requirements can be reasonably accommodated while still fulfilling your contract. An issue relating to this has been clothing. Recently a teaching assistant was sacked for wearing a full veil (after being given the choice to remove it and just have the headscarf) because it interfere with her ability as a teacher. Similarly bans on Sikh headscarfs in food packing factories have been upheld due to health and safety legislation.

I wonder if the people (all though few) on here who are defending this woman for "standing up for what she believes in" would be defending me if I refused to marry Christians because I felt that them procreating was a threat because they would teach their children a potentially violent and bigoted religion?

Me thinks they would not find me "standing up for what I believe in" acceptable then. Double standard much?

I think she should stand up for what she believes in, even if I believe it to be utterly vile.

I also think that, as a part of standing up for what she believes in, she should wear her pink slip as a badge of honor. You aren't really "standing up for what you believe in" when you expect people to coddle you and protect you from the consequences of that choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peepelonia
I'm not sure as to the actual law regarding that, but common sense tells me that if you are Jewish then you'd be better off not looking for a ob as a pig farmer!

Same with JW's not working in a pub. If you cannot perform your duties due to religous dogma, then what are you doing inthe job. Contrary to popular belife, it's actualy piss easy to find work.

Well, yes, there's common sense. But there's precious little of that in the world. There seem to be plenty of people who want to use their job to make life difficult.

The thing is she had the job before the laws changed to allow civil union. So it isn't like she went hunting a job she knew ahead of time she couldn't do.

Like if the JW mentioned above, worked in a restaurant that later got a liquor license and started serving. Is that the employees fault that the establishment changed? She hired in knowing it didn't serve liquor so it wasn't an issue.

I don't know about Britian, but in the US many a law suit has been lost because a job description changed and no one bothered to update the formal written job description of an employee.

Here there are Right to Work laws protecting employees in such instances not to mention the EEOC as I stated earlier.

I haven't a clue though if England's laws resemble ours or not regarding employee/employer responsibilities.

I think she should stand up for what she believes in, even if I believe it to be utterly vile.

I also think that, as a part of standing up for what she believes in, she should wear her pink slip as a badge of honor. You aren't really "standing up for what you believe in" when you expect people to coddle you and protect you from the consequences of that choice.



Standing up for what you believe in is all well and good, but the manner she did it in is utterlly irresponsible and deserves nothing but being fired and public scorn.

The thing is she had the job before the laws changed to allow civil union. So it isn't like she went hunting a job she knew ahead of time she couldn't do.

She also signed a non-discrimination document.

Besides of which, that gay people would be allowed to get unioned/married in Britain someday has been obvious for a decade or so. The unions became possible in 2005 - so it is hardly new information for her.

The thing is she had the job before the laws changed to allow civil union. So it isn't like she went hunting a job she knew ahead of time she couldn't do.

Like if the JW mentioned above, worked in a restaurant that later got a liquor license and started serving. Is that the employees fault that the establishment changed? She hired in knowing it didn't serve liquor so it wasn't an issue.


Thats a good point, but I thing it still stands that she should leave the job. If you don'tlike what you do, where you work, or can no longer do the job, change your job. It is that easy.



I don't know about Britian, but in the US many a law suit has been lost because a job description changed and no one bothered to update the formal written job description of an employee.

Here there are Right to Work laws protecting employees in such instances not to mention the EEOC as I stated earlier.

I haven't a clue though if England's laws resemble ours or not regarding employee/employer responsibilities.

I'm not sure as to the law either but I can certianly say that in most places you have a yearly review, where changes to the job description, and any extra duties are taken into account.

It seems ludicrus that this women would not be aware of these duties and so had the chance to get out before this conflict of interest took place.

So then I find it highly doubtfull that this is anything but another Christian jumping on the 'Poor opperessed Christians' bandwagon.

Interesting but not surprised to see the amount of people ready to do away with this woman. She has merely made a stand against what she believes in, something which is usually encouraged in the western world.

But she hasn't really "made a stand," now has she?

She wants the label of making a stand while being sheltered from the consequences of making that stand - the martyr label while being protected from any harm coming to her.

If she was truly proud of this decision, she'd take her pink slip and wear it as a badge of honor.


Standing up for what you believe in is all well and good, but the manner she did it in is utterlly irresponsible and deserves nothing but being fired and public scorn.

I don't think she's actually done it. Right now, she's cowering behind her religion and actually refusing to truly take a stand.

Thats a good point, but I thing it still stands that she should leave the job. If you don'tlike what you do, where you work, or can no longer do the job, change your job. It is that easy.

I would go even further and state that her employer would have been required to help her find a different job without moral problems for her.

However, as I said, civil unions have been possible in Britain since december 2005. It is now april 7 2008. She has had plenty of time to express a desire to get a different job.

I would go even further and state that her employer would have been required to help her find a different job without moral problems for her.

However, as I said, civil unions have been possible in Britain since december 2005. It is now april 7 2008. She has had plenty of time to express a desire to get a different job.



But see, if she had peacefully left to find a new job, she wouldnt get to play the poor oppressed Christian trump card and be "oppressed" in a vry public way.

But see, if she had peacefully left to find a new job, she wouldnt get to play the poor oppressed Christian trump card and be "oppressed" in a vry public way.

If you're required by law to do something at work that you don't want to do for moral reasons, you contact the press, state your moral objection, and then quit.

Historically, many people have done such a thing, including people in high office, or those who are officers in the military. Some have even been imprisoned or shot afterwards.

Merely staying on, and saying you have the right to be employed in that job AND to defy regulation and law isn't being "oppressed".

I've worked in an office where we all had it with our boss. Around 200 of us walked out one sunny afternoon, all at once...

I think they got the message - but I don't work there anymore.

What if the registrar refused to grant a business license to a legal business she had a moral issue with? Say a head shop or adult entertainment shop/venue? If licensing those places were legal under the statutes of the government for which she was working, what would you say then?

I wonder what NM would make of a Muslim registrar who refused to license pubs or liquor stores... ;):p

Unless you're a republican senator in an airport bathroom. :D

Is this a time to post Larry Craig is Completely Heterosexual (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIsLFjWCTsk&feature=user)?

My faith in humanity is gradually being restored by a lot of the comments in this thread...

From a legal standpoint, however, it is important to note the differences between a marriage and a civil partnership (as far as I understand it... I'm not a lawyer, but lots of our clients are).

A marriage is a religious ceremony, recognised in law as a union of two people. It's up to that particular faith as to what they will and will not allow. There are very few instances where the state would intervene, notably where recognition of such a union would break other laws (e.g. one recent notable case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7304698.stm) where a marriage was not recognised in law due to the mental impairment of one of the participants).

Some religious authorities permit a blessing of same-sex unions, but to be quite honest, it's really up to the religious authorities concerned. One of my in-laws has some dreadful "New Age" ceremony on an island in the Mediterranean, and a civil ceremony in the UK (where he wore a white suit and no socks - good god man, what is the world coming to?...).

A civil partnership is a secular ceremony which confers broadly the same legal status of the marriage in terms of inheritance tax, succession of tenancy, tax, divorce and so on.

Which is why I rejoiced when same-sex civil unions came in - it seemed terribly iniquitous that same-sex partnerships of a long-term nature not be afforded the same legal rights as long-term straight relationships.

To get vaguely back on topic, yes, if the lady in question is unable to perform her occupational duties, she should resign and find another job, much the same as would happen to me if I refused to provide a service to our gay and lesbian clients.

Not quite right. 'Marriage' is not a religious institution, and in fact the religious element is purely an optional extra (that's why, if you get married in a church, you have to go down to the registry office afterwards to make it official). 'Civil partnerships' are practically the same as weddings in legal terms, but they made the name different to stop the Churches from whining to loudly.

I wonder what NM would make of a Muslim registrar who refused to license pubs or liquor stores... ;):p

I suppose I do too, but I hesitate to get into the "what if" game too much with folks like NM, 'cause that's one of their favorite "tactics" to draw attention away from the actual issue at hand. I do agree that yours is a fairly accurate analogy, though.