NationStates Jolt Archive

Sadly it seems a tribunal here has decided that the laws on civil partnerships only apply to the non-religous, its shambolic and sets a disturbing and unfortunate precedent.

Story: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/christian+registrar+wins+right+to+refuse+gay+civil+partnerships/2328972

Sadly it seems a tribunal here has decided that the laws on civil partnerships only apply to the non-religous, its shambolic and sets a disturbing and unfortunate precedent.

Story: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/christian+registrar+wins+right+to+refuse+gay+civil+partnerships/2328972

The question that is unanswered is, does the government have to provide a willing registrar? If so, then it's not really an attack on anyone's rights.

As NA pointed out, this really isn't a big deal so long as there are available registrars who will perform the marriage. Besdies, would anyone really want their wedding to be performed by someone who was miserable about it, anyway?

If someone takes their car to a garage, any garage, and the mechanic refuses to fix the car because that person is gay, is there a case?

It's a service much as any other and to discriminate should be illegal no?

If someone takes their car to a garage, any garage, and the mechanic refuses to fix the car because that person is gay, is there a case?

depends on the law of the jurisdiction really. It's also just a far bigger can of worms when that mechanic is employed by the state, and refuses because of his sincerely held religious belief that gay people shouldn't own cars.

If someone takes their car to a garage, any garage, and the mechanic refuses to fix the car because that person is gay, is there a case?

It's a service much as any other and to discriminate should be illegal no?
Not that I am aware of. If it's private property/non-public, the owner can make any decision they want to about serving customers.

Not that I am aware of. If it's private property/non-public, the owner can make any decision they want to about serving customers.

So as a hairdresser I can put up a sign saying 'Whites Only'?

I would say, in this case, that if the person is employed by the government, which holds a policy of non-discrimination, then the choice is for that person to leave government employ.

Does that discriminate against religious beliefs - as the article asks, which is more important?

Not that I am aware of. If it's private property/non-public, the owner can make any decision they want to about serving customers.

Laws are laws, they don't stop at the edge of private property.

Not that I am aware of. If it's private property/non-public, the owner can make any decision they want to about serving customers.

Separate but equal?

State-sanctioned discrimination is just as bad as the government allowing private individuals to discriminate over the distribution of their good or service to the public to large.

As Barring said, do you think 'Whites Only' hairdressers would be legal today?

So as a hairdresser I can put up a sign saying 'Whites Only'?
As NeoArt said, depends upon the jurisdiction, but, yes. As long as you are a fully private business, you can choose your customers.

Of course your customers can also choose you and doing so will hurt your bottom line more than anything else.

I would say, in this case, that if the person is employed by the government, which holds a policy of non-discrimination, then the choice is for that person to leave government employ.
Government is another kettle of fish, it is supposed to be blind, so if you are a government employee who doesn't like the ikky gays, either leave it at home or stay at home.

Does that discriminate against religious beliefs - as the article asks, which is more important?
As for government, again, it is supposed to be blind to religion/sex/creed/orientation/race. It might violate a personal belief of the worker, but in government service you have to give up some of those protections. I might have an issue with, say, purple people believing that they are fit only for eating and any that I see though my one eye, I go for.

But, as a teacher, I cannot refuse to teach any purple people children in my classroom. I have in effect given up a bit of my rights in order to serve.

Funny - here in the Netherlands we're going through a similar thing. The Christian political parties want to allow people who perform marriages (only a civil marriage is the 'official' one here in Holland and are performed by those appointed by the local government) to be able to refuse to do one for same-sex couples due to religious sensibilities if there is at least one there that doesn't have a problem.

They're not happy with pretty much every municipality making being willing to perform marriages to any and all couples that can legally get married a necessary condition to being hired (so if you object on religious grounds to gay marriage, you won't be hired).

I wonder what would happen if someone where to say "Marriage is a holy institution before God, and this jew/muslim/hindu/christian/athiest doesn't believe in God, so I can't marry the couple".....

Well, again, there's a key difference between "I, personally, will not serve gay people," and "gay people will not be served here." Would you feel terribly discriminated against if you brought your car to a mechanic and he said, "Hang on, I'll go get Bob," and thirty seconds later a different mechanic came in and helped you? As long as Bob or someone like him is readily available to do the job, where is the discrimination on the part of the business (since, unless I'm much mistaken, there's no law stating that an individual can't discriminate, but rather that businesses and governments can't)?

Separate but equal?

State-sanctioned discrimination is just as bad as the government allowing private individuals to discriminate over the distribution of their good or service to the public to large.

As Barring said, do you think 'Whites Only' hairdressers would be legal today?
No shoes, no shirts, no service. English Only. This is America, Order in English. This club is for members only. This restaurant has a dress code.

Sounds legal to me.

No shoes, no shirts, no service. English Only.
Sounds legal to me.

Sounds like more xenophobia, jingoism and pseudo-racism to me.

depends on the law of the jurisdiction really. It's also just a far bigger can of worms when that mechanic is employed by the state, and refuses because of his sincerely held religious belief that gay people shouldn't own cars.

It's much closer to the pharmacists who refuse to distribute the morning-after pill for religious reasons. Which troubles me greatly.

Jurisdiction matters understood.

I wonder what would happen if someone where to say "Marriage is a holy institution before God, and this jew/muslim/hindu/christian/athiest doesn't believe in God, so I can't marry the couple".....

In terms of a religious marriage, I'm okay with people not providing the service if it doesn't accord with the religion - I don't expect a vegetarian restaurant to serve me meat on demand either.

A civil marriage is different, it accords legal status and that should therefore be equal for all.

Well, again, there's a key difference between "I, personally, will not serve gay people," and "gay people will not be served here." Would you feel terribly discriminated against if you brought your car to a mechanic and he said, "Hang on, I'll go get Bob," and thirty seconds later a different mechanic came in and helped you? As long as Bob or someone like him is readily available to do the job, where is the discrimination on the part of the business (since, unless I'm much mistaken, there's no law stating that an individual can't discriminate, but rather that businesses and governments can't)?

I'm just not sure as to the underlying consistency. If there's only one mechanic within a 50 mile radius, should he be able to refuse? Using this as the base logic, just because there is an alternative doesn't mean the underlying discrimination isn't there.

I probably need to think a little deeper to make this consistent, will I bothered? Possibly not.

It's much closer to the pharmacists who refuse to distribute the morning-after pill for religious reasons. Which troubles me greatly.

what!? they actually do that? and get away with it? thats awfull

sounds like an excess of "religious freedom" zeal.

Mind you, if you want to belong to a religion that bans same sex marriages, then that is your choice, why should the govt give you the option of a civil union/same sex marraige, when your own religious decision forbids it.

You can't have you cake and eat it too, as the saying goes.

what!? they actually do that? and get away with it? thats awfull

It's against their religious beliefs. So no, they don't. Doctors don't have to prescribe birth control to someone they don't think should be having sex, like an unmarried woman. Now, where I live, surrounded by big cities, this isn't a problem so much as a nuisance, because there are plenty of doctors around who will. But in more rural areas it can be extraordinarily hard for a woman to get an abortion/get the morning-after pill, even sometimes to get birth control.

No shoes, no shirts, no service. English Only. This is America, Order in English. This club is for members only. This restaurant has a dress code.

Sounds legal to me.

Hmm, these are all slightly different. Anyone can enter as long as they follow the dress code, anyone can be a member as long as they pay their dues and/or are nominated by two existing members. The rules are equally applied for all people.

English Only - I forget how that case was ruled, it's certainly an interesting one, I don't particularly mind it.

I'm just not sure as to the underlying consistency. If there's only one mechanic within a 50 mile radius, should he be able to refuse? Using this as the base logic, just because there is an alternative doesn't mean the underlying discrimination isn't there.

I probably need to think a little deeper to make this consistent, will I bothered? Possibly not.

the phrase you're probably looking for, which is used in religious parliance, is "undue burden"

I'm just not sure as to the underlying consistency. If there's only one mechanic within a 50 mile radius, should he be able to refuse? Using this as the base logic, just because there is an alternative doesn't mean the underlying discrimination isn't there.

If there was only one mechanic, no, because he'd be the entire business unto himself, and at that point the business is discriminating.

Basically, the way I figure it, I don't care if I can't be served by one particular employee, so long as I get the same service at a given place of business as anyone else would. I shouldn't have to pay more, travel farther, or wait longer than anyone else. I have the same general attitude towards pharmacists who won't dispense "immoral" prescriptions - as long as they simply immediately walk over to the other pharmacist and have her fill the prescription instead, it's fine (if still stupid as heck on their part). If, however, there is no other pharmacist present and they still refuse, then we've got a problem.

So what get another religion that does not hate you. Find another God that does not want to smite you because you are a sodomite. Why would a gay person be a Christian in the first place? People should just abandon ancient, irrational, mythology altogether and the world would be a better place.

If there was only one mechanic, no, because he'd be the entire business unto himself, and at that point the business is discriminating.

Basically, the way I figure it, I don't care if I can't be served by one particular employee, so long as I get the same service at a given place of business as anyone else would. I shouldn't have to pay more, travel farther, or wait longer than anyone else. I have the same general attitude towards pharmacists who won't dispense "immoral" prescriptions - as long as they simply immediately walk over to the other pharmacist and have her fill the prescription instead, it's fine (if still stupid as heck on their part). If, however, there is no other pharmacist present and they still refuse, then we've got a problem.

Sure, and many people wouldn't really be fussed but I often find the law deals with those people who are fussed, at which point it needs to ask these questions.

I take your point over the business and the individual, however that individual still represents the business.

I think my analogies, and analogies are never exact, are moving away from the initial point. This is a government employee essentially, providing a government service.

I can see allowances being made for religious beliefs, I may not agree but I can see it.

So what get another religion that does not hate you. Find another God that does not want to smite you because you are a sodomite. Why would a gay person be a Christian in the first place? People should just abandon ancient, irrational, mythology altogether and the world would be a better place.
*sigh*

Yet another believing everything he hears about Christianity despite the millions of us that don't yell "ZOMG! GaYz Burnz!!!!11!1!!11!"

Am I the only one getting tired of that?

Separate but equal?

State-sanctioned discrimination is just as bad as the government allowing private individuals to discriminate over the distribution of their good or service to the public to large.

As Barring said, do you think 'Whites Only' hairdressers would be legal today?The question should be why a black person would want to go to a hair dresser that is ran by some lunatic in a two thousand year old cult that worships a holy book that talks about an all powerful ghost who smites entire cities for having people in them that are black. That is basically what is going on here you want to be in this irrational, mythological group that worships this fantasy ghost who hates you and smites entire civilizations because of people like you. I think the problem is more why you want to have a marriage done by some one in this psychopathic cult.

The question should be why a black person would want to go to a hair dresser that is ran by some lunatic in a two thousand year old cult that worships a holy book that talks about an all powerful ghost who smites entire cities for having people in them that are black. That is basically what is going on here you want to be in this irrational, mythological group that worships this fantasy ghost who hates you and smites entire civilizations because of people like you. I think the problem is more why you want to have a marriage done by some one in this psychopathic cult.

It's a government service to perform a civil service marriage, the person performing it says she doesn't want to take on gay couples as they're against her religion.

No one's choosing to get married through a religious service they don't believe in, it's just a legal service.

Your ranting aside...

It's against their religious beliefs. So no, they don't. Doctors don't have to prescribe birth control to someone they don't think should be having sex, like an unmarried woman. Now, where I live, surrounded by big cities, this isn't a problem so much as a nuisance, because there are plenty of doctors around who will. But in more rural areas it can be extraordinarily hard for a woman to get an abortion/get the morning-after pill, even sometimes to get birth control.

Now, I consider myself a Christian Extremist Zealot, but I also don't think religious mental subjugation should happen. I have no problems with a church/religious organization refusing marital rites for... well pretty much any reason, however, this same restriction should not apply to the state, merely because I believe something doesn't mean the state necessarily needs to step in and enforce that belief, otherwise quite a few things would be illegal, and thats not good.

If I were a doctor, and had some moral issue with, say, sexual activity... well I don't know, good for me I guess? I shouldn't bring this issue into my doctor's office, I'd much rather subscribe birth control, than have the mother end up getting an abortion (which I, of course, disagree with). Now, as far as a mechanic refusing service, because gay people shouldn't own cars... again, I don't see how that effects the service I should still provide. Now, as it happens, I am a cashier, and I have had suspicions of customers being of many different... anythings, sexual preferances, races, even nationalities, but my job is to serve the customer, not to serve non-gay customers, or only serve customers who seem like they came from Russia, but to serve any customer who comes through my line (whom I can actually help, sometimes I don't have the ability/knowledge to do so, but it is entirely non-customer related).

If one is going to work for the state, and specifically in the department of Civil Unions, one had better make sure to have any moral qualms out of the way, what is different between a Christian marrying a gay couple, or an athiest couple? Both fall outside the Christian sphere, but they still fall within the state sphere, which should be focus... because they are a state employee... if they have some inability (morally) to perform such horrible unions (:rolleyes:), well, I'm sure they can find a job better suited to their handicap, as it were.

[/rant]

*snip*

I imagine the majority of reasonable people feel the same way, but somehow (despite having to go through like 8 years of college) there are always a couple who get through and turn around to say, "Hippocratic oath be damned! You're not stopping an egg from implanting on your uterine wall on MY watch!"

Now, of course, doctors can choose not to perform abortions just as they can choose not to do cosmetic surgery to remove tonsils. It's a specialized field. But pharmacists have a duty to both doctor and patient to fill any prescription a doctor writes, in a timely manner, offering appropriate information and counseling. They are not in charge of deciding who needs what medicine. I can't imagine the outcry if a female pharmacist refused to fill prescriptions for viagra on the grounds that it could lead to more men committing rape.

*sigh*

Yet another believing everything he hears about Christianity despite the millions of us that don't yell "ZOMG! GaYz Burnz!!!!11!1!!11!"

Am I the only one getting tired of that?

:)

Welcome to NSG.

Full of posters who claim to be decent people who don't make generalisations, except, of course, when it comes to Christians, where they are all evil.

No shoes, no shirts, no service. English Only. This is America, Order in English. This club is for members only. This restaurant has a dress code.

Sounds legal to me.

That's not discrimination because you can always get yourselves a shoe, a shirt, speak English, become a member.

You cannot un-become a gay.

Hmm, these are all slightly different. Anyone can enter as long as they follow the dress code, anyone can be a member as long as they pay their dues and/or are nominated by two existing members. The rules are equally applied for all people.
And anyone CAN get married, you just have to get married to someone of the opposite sex, but the rules are indeed applied evenly.

The point is that, on private property in a wholly private business that does not engage in either basics such as housing or in interstate commerce; yes, it is legal to discriminate. It falls under the same reason why, here on NSG, we don't have freedom of speech. We have whatever Max Barry allows us to have, but Constitutional freedoms do not apply.

That said, and before any jumps on me, I disagree strongly with ANY form of discrimination and have no qualms about boycotting any store that does do something that stupid. Of course I'll also post this discrimination on the Net to ruin them as well, but I'm mean like that. :D

English Only - I forget how that case was ruled, it's certainly an interesting one, I don't particularly mind it.
Why? Discriminates against those who do not speak English. It annoys the hell out of me when I run into that crap here in Japan and makes me livid to see it in the US, a country that is supposed to have a large history of immigration.

Alrighty, then I guess turnabout should be fair play. People should then get to refuse to perform public services to Christians, for instance medical staff should be allowed to refuse to see and treat them if they don't want to. I'm sure some cockamamie "religious" reason could be made up for it, because who needs professional ethical standards and to do the job they were hired to do, if only their imaginary friend need tell them not to and thus they can be excused?

"Odin told me not to treat Christian bitches. Their crusty twats stink and that is an affront upon my.. I mean his holy nostrils!"

Why? Discriminates against those who do not speak English. It annoys the hell out of me when I run into that crap here in Japan and makes me livid to see it in the US, a country that is supposed to have a large history of immigration.

Then again, it is a bit silly to demand that a restaurant owner speaks every language known to man.

The question that is unanswered is, does the government have to provide a willing registrar? If so, then it's not really an attack on anyone's rights.

The thing with it is the precedent it sets.

Will we now see Muslim butchers refusing to handle pork? The synic inside me says, if you can't do the job find another one.

There's a couple of elements of this case that are unusual.

The woman was discriminated by her employer because she, a Christian, was told she had to perform gay civil unions. The employer could have taken her religious faith into account and ensured that other staff were available to perform the unions.

This Equal Status Act still stands- businesses/organisations have to provide you with a service no matter what your religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability or gender (and in Northern Ireland, political opinion).

This ruling just means that businesses also have to take into account their employers religious beliefs etc. etc.

If the business had only one employee, the Act would still have precedence. In this case, the employer had other staff they could use to provide the same service.

I'm torn on issues like this, because on the one hand, a person should never be compelled to act in a way that contradicts their religious beliefs, but on the other hand if she's going to work for the Government then there's a certain obligation to perform accordingly.


...on the other hand, she can just elect not to work for the Government, but on yet ANOTHER hand changing jobs isn't always easy and if she's been working there since before gay civil unions could be done she couldn't have foreseen...

Just not simple.

I'm torn on issues like this, because on the one hand, a person should never be compelled to act in a way that contradicts their religious beliefs, but on the other hand if she's going to work for the Government then there's a certain obligation to perform accordingly.


...on the other hand, she can just elect not to work for the Government, but on yet ANOTHER hand changing jobs isn't always easy and if she's been working there since before gay civil unions could be done she couldn't have foreseen...

Just not simple.

It seems pretty simple to me.

When you are employed you get paid to do whatever the boss tells you to do, within the confims of your job. If you can't or wont do this, time to get another job. That's simple!

It seems pretty simple to me.

When you are employed you get paid to do whatever the boss tells you to do, within the confims of your job. If you can't or wont do this, time to get another job. That's simple!

But here's the thing:

Is getting another job simple? For some, maybe...
What if she's been there since before this issue could have ever come up? Is that fair?

But here's the thing:

Is getting another job simple? For some, maybe...
What if she's been there since before this issue could have ever come up? Is that fair?

He/she's employed by the government.
I'm not sure about UK laws on this, but I know that if a person employed by the government in Germany cannot for whatever reason perform the job they are employed to do, the government has an obligation to find another position for them.

So they could go and issue passports, or organise waste management, or whatever else.

But here's the thing:

Is getting another job simple? For some, maybe...
What if she's been there since before this issue could have ever come up? Is that fair?

yes getting another job is easy. She had been in the same job for 16 years. To prospective employers that = 16 years experiance, she can get another job anywhere.

Is it fair that she should have to look for another job because she is unwilling to fulfil her duties in her present one? Hell yes.

Can you imangine if this was any other place and for any other reason than religoin?

'Colin why are you not serving that man his sandwhich'
'Coz he's a ****** sir'
'Your sacked!'

No this sets up a precedent that leaves a sour taste on the tongue.

He/she's employed by the government.
I'm not sure about UK laws on this, but I know that if a person employed by the government in Germany cannot for whatever reason perform the job they are employed to do, the government has an obligation to find another position for them.

So they could go and issue passports, or organise waste management, or whatever else.

That's one solution. Sounds good to me.

yes getting another job is easy. She had been in the same job for 16 years. To prospective employers that = 16 years experiance, she can get another job anywhere.

Is it fair that she should have to look for another job because she is unwilling to fulfil her duties in her present one? Hell yes.

I think that's an oversimplification. There are way too many factors when it comes to looking for another job. What's her skill set? Was she in that same position for 16 years because she doesn't know how to do anything else? How's the job market? What other jobs does her skill set apply to? Will a new employer be willing to take her on now that she is viewed as a homophobe in the national media?


Can you imangine if this was any other place and for any other reason than religoin?

'Colin why are you not serving that man his sandwhich'
'Coz he's a ****** sir'
'Your sacked!'

No this sets up a precedent that leaves a sour taste on the tongue.

Here's the difference: She's refusing to perform civil unions. That's not the same as refusing to sell someone a hamburger. I bet if she worked at a restaurant and a known homosexual came up to the counter she wouldn't refuse to serve him. (I'm not saying I know this for a fact, but we can't assume otherwise.)

Here's the difference: She's refusing to perform civil unions. That's not the same as refusing to sell someone a hamburger. I bet if she worked at a restaurant and a known homosexual came up to the counter she wouldn't refuse to serve him. (I'm not saying I know this for a fact, but we can't assume otherwise.)

I honestly don't see the difference. If anything, she has even less right to refuse to perform the civil union, seeing as the two wanting the civil union have a right to them, and she is employed to provide the unions to those who have the right.
If she's just selling her burger, she could sell them to whoever she wanted. They're her burgers after all, and nobody has a right to those.

As it is, she is violating other people's civil rights by refusing to performing the civil unions for them. In any other circumstances, this would be regarded as an offense (imagine a policeman refusing to take down a report on a crime because it's being reported by a woman, or imagine a garbage man refusing to collect the garbage of a black family), but in this case everybody expects religion to be an excuse for such behaviour?
I'm not buying it, sorry.

I think that's an oversimplification. There are way too many factors when it comes to looking for another job. What's her skill set? Was she in that same position for 16 years because she doesn't know how to do anything else? How's the job market? What other jobs does her skill set apply to? Will a new employer be willing to take her on now that she is viewed as a homophobe in the national media?

Things I find are generaly as simple or as hard as you choose to make them. Yes of course there are a lot of factors, but getting a job IS easyer now in the UK than it was 20 years. Easpecily if you are an adult who has been working for the last 16 years (as she has), no matter what you actual skill set, most emplyers can see transferable skills, and can see the merit in somebody with this kind of experiance. I work in IT, but I know for a fact that I can walk out of this job and start on a whole new carrer cath tomorrow if such a fancy took me, and I'm just a normal working man.


Here's the difference: She's refusing to perform civil unions. That's not the same as refusing to sell someone a hamburger. I bet if she worked at a restaurant and a known homosexual came up to the counter she wouldn't refuse to serve him. (I'm not saying I know this for a fact, but we can't assume otherwise.)

Or she may not, we can't assume. You are right there is a differance there, but she has let her religous values overrule the law of the land. She should not have been rewarded for that.

I honestly don't see the difference. If anything, she has even less right to refuse to perform the civil union, seeing as the two wanting the civil union have a right to them, and she is employed to provide the unions to those who have the right.
If she's just selling her burger, she could sell them to whoever she wanted. They're her burgers after all, and nobody has a right to those.

As it is, she is violating other people's civil rights by refusing to performing the civil unions for them. In any other circumstances, this would be regarded as an offense (imagine a policeman refusing to take down a report on a crime because it's being reported by a woman, or imagine a garbage man refusing to collect the garbage of a black family), but in this case everybody expects religion to be an excuse for such behaviour?
I'm not buying it, sorry.

Nah, let me put it this way:

Imagine for a moment that you are a lion tamer, and that I have a religious aversion to taming lions. Now let's assume that you want me to assist you in taming a lion. I refuse, on the grounds that it's against my religion.

Now imagine that you're the same lion tamer but now instead of wanting me to help you tame a lion you just want me to sell you a hamburger. No problem.

The difference is between hating YOU or enabling you to do something I am against doing. See?

So I like what you said earlier. This person should be moved to a different position that doesn't put her at odds with her official responsibility. This way everybody wins.

The question that is unanswered is, does the government have to provide a willing registrar? If so, then it's not really an attack on anyone's rights.

Here in the US, the justice of the peace and a clerk at the place where you get a marriage license is all you need to get married. You don't need to find a religious person to marry you.

When gay marriage becomes a national reality here in the US, there are probably even some religious folks who will marry you (Unitarians spring to mind).

I believe, however, that you shouldn't be able to force every religion to perform your ceremony - that would be an infringement on religious freedom. Given that you have plenty of options for someone who will marry you and conduct a brief ceremony, I think that's fair.

Things I find are generaly as simple or as hard as you choose to make them. Yes of course there are a lot of factors, but getting a job IS easyer now in the UK than it was 20 years. Easpecily if you are an adult who has been working for the last 16 years (as she has), no matter what you actual skill set, most emplyers can see transferable skills, and can see the merit in somebody with this kind of experiance. I work in IT, but I know for a fact that I can walk out of this job and start on a whole new carrer cath tomorrow if such a fancy took me, and I'm just a normal working man.


Well that's definitely a good thing. But if we're going to establish a precedent here on how to deal with these situations, then we have to have a reasonable solution that would work even if the job market was very poor.


Or she may not, we can't assume. You are right there is a differance there, but she has let her religous values overrule the law of the land. She should not have been rewarded for that.

No, I don't think she should be rewarded either, but there's a big difference between refusing to personally perform that function and getting in the way of it being performed at all. This person appears to be doing the former, not the latter.

He/she's employed by the government.
I'm not sure about UK laws on this, but I know that if a person employed by the government in Germany cannot for whatever reason perform the job they are employed to do, the government has an obligation to find another position for them.

So they could go and issue passports, or organise waste management, or whatever else.

As far as I know it's pretty much the same here. There should be no problem in searching for vacancies on other departments that don't involve issues that go against his/her religious view (or even other jobs entirely).

Working for the government means applying the government policies, and currently that includes performing civil unions on any couple (insert usual disclamer regarding relatives/kids etc). I've got no problem with her finding another dept. to work in, but while in this one she should actaully do the job.

Her religous sensibilities should not interfere with the legally awarded rights of other people.

Nah, let me put it this way:

Imagine for a moment that you are a lion tamer, and that I have a religious aversion to taming lions. Now let's assume that you want me to assist you in taming a lion. I refuse, on the grounds that it's against my religion.

Now imagine that you're the same lion tamer but now instead of wanting me to help you tame a lion you just want me to sell you a hamburger. No problem.

The difference is between hating YOU or enabling you to do something I am against doing. See?

So I like what you said earlier. This person should be moved to a different position that doesn't put her at odds with her official responsibility. This way everybody wins.


Well, that comaprison isn't quite on the dot, as you would also have to assume that despite your religious aversions, you are employed to tame animals. Lions might be a recent addition, but your contract of employement listing all your duties stays the same.

I think the example of Muslim cab drivers refusing to carry blind passengers with guid dogs would be a bit closer. Although, again, in this case the blind person has no legal right to be transported in that taxi, whereas homosexuals have a right to a civil union...

Yes, moving her to another position would be the best option. But until she can be moved, I think she will have to perform those civil unions. Or take unpaid holidays.

Well that's definitely a good thing. But if we're going to establish a precedent here on how to deal with these situations, then we have to have a reasonable solution that would work even if the job market was very poor.

I'm sorry I just don't see the job market making any differance. In any carrer if you cannot or do not perform the duties that you have been employed to do, then it is right that you no longer work there.

In fact I may have some respect for this woman, and her ideology if instead of sueing her work place, she just quit.



No, I don't think she should be rewarded either, but there's a big difference between refusing to personally perform that function and getting in the way of it being performed at all. This person appears to be doing the former, not the latter.

True, but again imagine if you refused to do what was within your remite and your contract to do.

Taking the whole religous aspect out of it, it becomes black and white, she refused to perform her duties, she should have been sacked.

I hate how religion is given a free pass. This is a case of bigotry, pure and simple. She is denying a service that her job says she must provide, because of someones sexual orientation.

If someone in a government job is guilty of misconduct, they get sacked, not relocated to a job that accomadates their bigotry. This is misconduct. If I, an atheist said, "I wont conduct that civil union because I think they are an abomination", even though this is a belief, because it's not a religious belief I'd be sacked.
My gay hating may be just as indoctrinated in me by culture, background, peer group, etc, as believing in the invisible sky fairy, but it doesn't matter. My bigotry and hate doesn't have that magic "religious veneer" on it.

For the record, I have no problems with gays getting married. I am pretty much of the opinion if it harms no-one else mentally or physically, go for it. If some busybody type says "them getting married hurts mentally because it's an abomination", well, they can piss off.

Here's the difference: She's refusing to perform civil unions. That's not the same as refusing to sell someone a hamburger. I bet if she worked at a restaurant and a known homosexual came up to the counter she wouldn't refuse to serve him. (I'm not saying I know this for a fact, but we can't assume otherwise.)

no HERES the difference

due to the religious sensibilities of people like this she is NOT going against any religious belief because these people are not GETTING MARRIED. all they are doing is registering a civil partnership.

same sex civil unions are against no one's religion. any possible religious aspects have been carefully removed to protect religious bigots from offense.

she wants more than that and its a travesty that she is allowed to.

I believe, however, that you shouldn't be able to force every religion to perform your ceremony - that would be an infringement on religious freedom. Given that you have plenty of options for someone who will marry you and conduct a brief ceremony, I think that's fair.

I agree with you there, but when it is going to the government to get married/civil partnership'd then by definition it has no religious involvment. It isn't as if they went to a church for the ceremony...

No, I don't think she should be rewarded either, but there's a big difference between refusing to personally perform that function and getting in the way of it being performed at all. This person appears to be doing the former, not the latter.
And what if this precident ends up with the local registrars all having religous aversions to granting gay people civil unions? Would you expect them to travel to possibly another county to get it performed when it is a gov. function granted to all?

I agree with you there, but when it is going to the government to get married/civil partnership'd then by definition it has no religious involvment. It isn't as if they went to a church for the ceremony...

I agree there. If you take the government registrar job, you know what's involved.

I don't think that for jobs outside of an absolutely religious job (such as being a priest, imam, religious school instructor, etc) that your religious beliefs should get you a pass.

I don't think this woman should have been given a pass - they should have fired her. Same for people who sign up to work for a grocery store, and then say, "oh, I can't handle pork or sell beer because of my religion" or sign up to be a taxi driver and say, "Oh, I can't take Seeing Eye dogs and this blind person because of my religion".

I'm sorry I just don't see the job market making any differance. In any carrer if you cannot or do not perform the duties that you have been employed to do, then it is right that you no longer work there.

In fact I may have some respect for this woman, and her ideology if instead of sueing her work place, she just quit.


So would I, since we're becoming an increasingly lawsuit happy culture.


True, but again imagine if you refused to do what was within your remite and your contract to do.

Taking the whole religous aspect out of it, it becomes black and white, she refused to perform her duties, she should have been sacked.

I agree with not taking a job that would interfere with your religion in the first place, but what about people who are in a position where their responsibilities change and now it does? Should they at least be given some kind of severance package?

no HERES the difference

due to the religious sensibilities of people like this she is NOT going against any religious belief because these people are not GETTING MARRIED. all they are doing is registering a civil partnership.

same sex civil unions are against no one's religion. any possible religious aspects have been carefully removed to protect religious bigots from offense.

she wants more than that and its a travesty that she is allowed to.

That leads me to a question: Has the issue been settled on the terminology? Because in the US there's been a suggestion of allowing civil unions that are essentially the same as marriage, just called something else as a way to satisfy the religious, but it hasn't gained much support.


And what if this precident ends up with the local registrars all having religous aversions to granting gay people civil unions? Would you expect them to travel to possibly another county to get it performed when it is a gov. function granted to all?

Good question. I don't know exactly how it is in the UK but in the US even civil unions are performed by private parties. My wife and I were married in a private law office in Virginia. If the Government in the UK is simply allowing civil unions without furnishing the means, then I'd say that problem would be solved on its own by people who ARE willing to do it moving into the area to set up business. If the Government DOES furnish the personnel then they simply have to hire people who will do it, or have those who refuse trade jobs with those who will.

Wait, I think I may be talking out of my arse here...

Is the registrar the person who PERFORMS the ceremony, or just the one who rubber stamps the certificate and puts it in a file?

Wait, I think I may be talking out of my arse here...

Is the registrar the person who PERFORMS the ceremony, or just the one who rubber stamps the certificate and puts it in a file?

Both.

Both.

Ok. 'cause I was gonna say if she's just the person that stamps and files it, and is refusing to do THAT, then fire her ass!

I agree with not taking a job that would interfere with your religion in the first place, but what about people who are in a position where their responsibilities change and now it does? Should they at least be given some kind of severance package?

I don't see why they should. In the normal working plae if you find that you are performing duites that are not on your contract, then the sensible person whould get the head down do the extra tasks and bring it up when pay review times comes along.

Why should religoin make any differance, why should it get prefferantiol treatment in law?

What if a Rastaman refused to work untill he had his 11:00 o'Clock spliff?

Yes I know possesing splif is against the law, but you know if this woman can bend the law her way because of her faith, then I don't see why the Rastaman can't do the same huh?

And this is exactly what I mean by a bad precedent. Now we could have all sorts of crazyness going on based on 'religouse' ideaology.

While I'm thinking about it, what exactly are the reoigous grounds that this woman got away with it on?

Does her refuseal to 'marry' them suddenly make them not gay anymore? Can anybody show me where exactly in the bible it says 'thou shalt not marry a homosexual couple'?

Exactly which religous rule did she think she may be bracking by performing her duties? Or is it a personal dislike with the cape of religion to cover the stink of homophobia?

Ah that's too bad. I think the USA is winning the race now.

Ok. 'cause I was gonna say if she's just the person that stamps and files it, and is refusing to do THAT, then fire her ass!

Jeez, even with the ceremony...
Seriously, if you think gay sex is sinful, fair enough. But she is not asked to engage in it, or approve of it.
She's asked to perform a civil ceremony for a couple, as a legal representative of the country, not as a private person.

Jeez, even with the ceremony...
Seriously, if you think gay sex is sinful, fair enough. But she is not asked to engage in it, or approve of it.
She's asked to perform a civil ceremony for a couple, as a legal representative of the country, not as a private person.

It is a bigger deal than that though to someone who has a strong moral objection. Imagine if slavery were still happening and you were asked to officiate at a slave auction as a Government representative. Nobody's asking you to own a slave or endorse slavery, but would you still feel comfortable in that role?

Me neither.

It is a bigger deal than that though to someone who has a strong moral objection. Imagine if slavery were still happening and you were asked to officiate at a slave auction as a Government representative. Nobody's asking you to own a slave or endorse slavery, but would you still feel comfortable in that role?

Me neither.

I think I would have the decency to just quit, in this case, and not kick up a stink about how my religious rights are violated...

I don't see why they should. In the normal working plae if you find that you are performing duites that are not on your contract, then the sensible person whould get the head down do the extra tasks and bring it up when pay review times comes along.

Why should religoin make any differance, why should it get prefferantiol treatment in law?

What if a Rastaman refused to work untill he had his 11:00 o'Clock spliff?

Yes I know possesing splif is against the law, but you know if this woman can bend the law her way because of her faith, then I don't see why the Rastaman can't do the same huh?

And this is exactly what I mean by a bad precedent. Now we could have all sorts of crazyness going on based on 'religouse' ideaology.

While I'm thinking about it, what exactly are the reoigous grounds that this woman got away with it on?

Does her refuseal to 'marry' them suddenly make them not gay anymore? Can anybody show me where exactly in the bible it says 'thou shalt not marry a homosexual couple'?

Exactly which religous rule did she think she may be bracking by performing her duties? Or is it a personal dislike with the cape of religion to cover the stink of homophobia?

Well you're not gonna find that passage in the Bible. Nevertheless it is what it is.

I see the severance package as reasonable only if here job went from not being a conflict to being in conflict subsequently. In which case the graceful approach is to move on but in recognition of the fact that she had done a good job up to that point I think a little something is reasonable.

I think I would have the decency to just quit, in this case, and not kick up a stink about how my religious rights are violated...

Even if your duties in your job didn't previously require you to do that?

Even if your duties in your job didn't previously require you to do that?

Well, if the job changes and I'm not willing to go along with it, I go.
It's the only reasonable thing to do. I don't expect the world to accomodate me and my attitudes, I have to make accomodations for the world.

It is a bigger deal than that though to someone who has a strong moral objection. Imagine if slavery were still happening and you were asked to officiate at a slave auction as a Government representative. Nobody's asking you to own a slave or endorse slavery, but would you still feel comfortable in that role?

Me neither.

Not the same thing at all though is it. Slavery is now more or less a world wide reconised unethical thing.

Homosexuality is more or less a world wide reconised genetic thing. So we are talking about the differances in a mostly global morality, and choice based on religious dogma to discriminate against those who really have no choice about their sexual orientation.

Well, if the job changes and I'm not willing to go along with it, I go.
It's the only reasonable thing to do. I don't expect the world to accomodate me and my attitudes, I have to make accomodations for the world.

Agreed - back to Neo B's example of the grocery (though slightly missing the target)... if the store didn't stock pork when XXX religous person started working, and it was decided for whatever reason that pork would be sold from the shop, what would be the outcome then?

and different source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7499248.stm

Well you're not gonna find that passage in the Bible. Nevertheless it is what it is.

I see the severance package as reasonable only if here job went from not being a conflict to being in conflict subsequently. In which case the graceful approach is to move on but in recognition of the fact that she had done a good job up to that point I think a little something is reasonable.

Again I really don't see the need. Why should religoin get this extra nice treatment and say not discrimination based on race?

So I can get a nice severance pay if I have to leave a job because I choose to discriminate against people based on my religous dogma, but not if I choose to discrimnate based on my racist idealogy?

Thats mad isn't it?

To comply with the Brown v. Board decision, plans were made to integrate Central High School in September of 1957. When nine black high school students arrived to attend Central High, they were met by an angry crowd. Despite his pledges of cooperation, the governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, in fact, ordered the Arkansas National Guard to keep the black students, known as the "Little Rock Nine," out of the school. Faced with this defiance of a federal court order, President Dwight Eisenhower responded by sending troops from the 101st Airborne to Little Rock with orders to protect the nine students. Eisenhower also federalized the Arkansas National Guard. This marked the first time since Reconstruction that federal troops were sent to the South. This incident was the first of several in which the governor of a state refused to ensure a peaceful process of integration and thereby forced the President of the United States to act (see the University of Mississippi and the University of Alabama incidents below).

Governments have done much more to ensure equality against people's strongly held beliefs.

Agreed - back to Neo B's example of the grocery (though slightly missing the target)... if the store didn't stock pork when XXX religous person started working, and it was decided for whatever reason that pork would be sold from the shop, what would be the outcome then?

and different source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7499248.stm


Serve the pork or get another job.

Not the same thing at all though is it. Slavery is now more or less a world wide reconised unethical thing.

Homosexuality is more or less a world wide reconised genetic thing. So we are talking about the differances in a mostly global morality, and choice based on religious dogma to discriminate against those who really have no choice about their sexual orientation.

All that's beside the point for the sake of the hypothetical though. It's an analogy, not an exact duplicate scenario.

Again I really don't see the need. Why should religoin get this extra nice treatment and say not discrimination based on race?

So I can get a nice severance pay if I have to leave a job because I choose to discriminate against people based on my religous dogma, but not if I choose to discrimnate based on my racist idealogy?

Thats mad isn't it?

Religious belief =/= some random racist ideology. Most people actually RESPECT religion and people's right to have one, whereas an racist ideology is nothing. Again, the person isn't refusing to serve homosexuals in any capacity by virtue of their being homosexuals. She's refusing to perform a specific task that directly contradicts her religion.

That may seem like a minor difference but it's an important distinction.

Religious belief =/= some random racist ideology. Most people actually RESPECT religion and people's right to have one, whereas an racist ideology is nothing. Again, the person isn't refusing to serve homosexuals in any capacity by virtue of their being homosexuals. She's refusing to perform a specific task that directly contradicts her religion.

That may seem like a minor difference but it's an important distinction.

That's fair enough, but when working for a secular government you can't expect every edict, law and policy they set out to be in accordance with your individual religion, even if it is held by a majority of the population.

I think people who perform weddings (or whatever you call it) should have the right to choose who they perform marriages for. They should have the right to turn away a straight couple too.

I think people who perform weddings (or whatever you call it) should have the right to choose who they perform marriages for. They should have the right to turn away a straight couple too.

For the religous ceremony (or even a secular one), sure. But for the legal registration of the civil union/partnership/wedding/whatever as long as it is within the law for two people to be coupled as such, they should not be refused at all.

She's refusing to perform a specific task that directly contradicts her religion.

That may seem like a minor difference but it's an important distinction.

Is she though? Can you show me where in the bible it says: 'It is considered a sin to perform the ritual of cival partnership for gay couples'. In fact can you point me towards any biblical scriputre that specificly prohibits a Christian from performing this duty, or is she just using her religion to cover her personal disatse?

And I'll ask again why does religoin get treated like this when the example I used was raceial discrimination does not?

Why is it fine to discriminate when you can claim your religoin tells you to, but not fine for just about everybody else? Remember I ask this as religouse person myself.

She's refusing to perform a specific task that directly contradicts her religion.

That may seem like a minor difference but it's an important distinction.

Is she though? Can you show me where in the bible it says: 'It is considered a sin to perform the ritual of cival partnership for gay couples'. In fact can you point me towards any biblical scriputre that specificly prohibits a Christian from performing this duty, or is she just using her religion to cover her personal disatse?

And I'll ask again why does religoin get treated like this when the example I used was raceial discrimination does not?

Why is it fine to discriminate when you can claim your religoin tells you to, but not fine for just about everybody else? Remember I ask this as religouse person myself.

That's fair enough, but when working for a secular government you can't expect every edict, law and policy they set out to be in accordance with your individual religion, even if it is held by a majority of the population.

This is true, but by the same token it's extremely rare that an issue like this comes up, I think precisely because Government usually tries to stay out of the arena of moral issues.

This is another reason why I think it would be of benefit for Government to get out of the marriage business altogether and let it be treated as a simple contract between parties.

Is she though? Can you show me where in the bible it says: 'It is considered a sin to perform the ritual of cival partnership for gay couples'. In fact can you point me towards any biblical scriputre that specificly prohibits a Christian from performing this duty, or is she just using her religion to cover her personal disatse?


I think it's safe enough to accept as an axiom that Christianity generally does not condone gay marriages. The Bible isn't, nor has it ever, been the only source of doctrine for the Christian religion.

(I know there are denominations that are fine with it, but this woman is obviously not a member of one of them. If she were, I'd say she has absolutely nothing to complain about.)


And I'll ask again why does religoin get treated like this when the example I used was raceial discrimination does not?

Why is it fine to discriminate when you can claim your religoin tells you to, but not fine for just about everybody else? Remember I ask this as religouse person myself.

I don't know how to answer beyond what I said before:


Religious belief =/= some random racist ideology. Most people actually RESPECT religion and people's right to have one, whereas an racist ideology is nothing. Again, the person isn't refusing to serve homosexuals in any capacity by virtue of their being homosexuals. She's refusing to perform a specific task that directly contradicts her religion.

That may seem like a minor difference but it's an important distinction.

We, as a society reserve certain exceptions for religious beliefs as a way of respecting the fact that we don't all believe in the same things. That's the basis for religious tolerance. This woman isn't stopping gay unions, she's simply refusing to take part in them.

This woman should not be allowed to let her personal prejudice (oh, I'm sorry, her "religious convictions") interfere with the performance of the job the government pays her to do. If she doesn't care to do her job, she can find another job, and the government should have explained it to her in just those terms.

Take it from an American. In this country, those of us who believe government should be secular have been fighting this sort of nonsense for at least 20 years, and seem to be prevailing for now. Unfortunately, once the door is open to it, the battle never ends, because religious fundamentalists cannot and will not appreciate that anyone who thinks differently than they do could possibly be right.

In my own state (Illlinois), there has been very little sympathy on the part of the government towards pharmacists who refuse on the basis of religious scruples, to dispense emergency contraception. Of course, Illinois is one of the most left-leaning states in the US at this point, thank Heaven for small mercies.

This is true, but by the same token it's extremely rare that an issue like this comes up, I think precisely because Government usually tries to stay out of the arena of moral issues.

-snip-

We, as a society reserve certain exceptions for religious beliefs as a way of respecting the fact that we don't all believe in the same things. That's the basis for religious tolerance. This woman isn't stopping gay unions, she's simply refusing to take part in them.

Unfortunatly this issue is an example of both religous morals and individual civil rights. I agree no-one should force her to sign off the partnership, but if it is in her job description (even as a recently added item) to do this then she has no legal basis to refuse while working that job.

The only part of the BBC report I would argue on her side for is that she should not have been harrassed/picked on etc, but instead be given help to find a position where she could work without the conflict arising.

Neither source says if she was given this option, but she should not stay in that government-based job if she will not complete all the contracted lawfull duties to anyone legally entitled to them.
(that last sentance really hurt my head)

Unfortunatly this issue is an example of both religous morals and individual civil rights. I agree no-one should force her to sign off the partnership, but if it is in her job description (even as a recently added item) to do this then she has no legal basis to refuse while working that job.

The only part of the BBC report I would argue on her side for is that she should not have been harrassed/picked on etc, but instead be given help to find a position where she could work without the conflict arising.

Neither source says if she was given this option, but she should not stay in that government-based job if she will not complete all the contracted lawfull duties to anyone legally entitled to them.
(that last sentance really hurt my head)

I pretty much agree.

I think an issue like this can be unnecessarily polarizing. IMHO the wisdom is somewhere in the middle on an issue of this nature.

As NA pointed out, this really isn't a big deal so long as there are available registrars who will perform the marriage. Besdies, would anyone really want their wedding to be performed by someone who was miserable about it, anyway?

The problem with this argument is that it assumes the availability of willing registrars. Of course, we can assume that there *will* be those registrars who have no objection, but what happens if next week a religious revival takes places among civil servants in the UK, and as a consequence NONE of them will do it?

IMHO, this is a public service, that is it. When dealings with government offices, I can't imagine that people are generally concerned with how the civil servant who is assisting them *feels* about what they're doing, but rather with accomplishing whatever task it is that brought them to that particular office in the first place.

This makes me think of Jehovah's Witnesses and the Amish. They do not believe in secular goverment and do not participate in it, as is their prerogative. This woman could opt out as well. No one is holding a gun to her head and forcing her to work in the registrar's office. Perhaps a stated requirement for the job should be a willingness to live in the 21st century?

I pretty much agree.

I think an issue like this can be unnecessarily polarizing. IMHO the wisdom is somewhere in the middle on an issue of this nature.

We have… achieved consensus? (obscure random cookie up for grabs)

Sadly it seems a tribunal here has decided that the laws on civil partnerships only apply to the non-religous, its shambolic and sets a disturbing and unfortunate precedent.

Story: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/christian+registrar+wins+right+to+refuse+gay+civil+partnerships/2328972

The fact that gay people would want a religious wedding in the first place is disturbing and unfortunate. Why should they want their marriage validated by people who hate them?

We have… achieved consensus? (obscure random cookie up for grabs)

On NSG? More likely one or both of us is just stoned.

Will we now see Muslim butchers refusing to handle pork? .


Where have you EVER seen a Muslim butcher handling pork?

In a Bodega run by Pakistanis, I once pointed out to them that they had bags of Fried Pork Rinds on the shelf, next to the Doritos. They were practically in tears. They reacted as if they had just done something unforgivable. "please, sir, it was not us, it was the guy who stocks the chips!"

They would never, ever have ham in the deli case.

Personally, I feel sorry for them. The idea of a quarter of the Human population, forever shut out from Cubano Sandwiches...

The fact that gay people would want a religious wedding in the first place is disturbing and unfortunate. Why should they want their marriage validated by people who hate them?

The fact that you think all religious denominations and all religious people hate gays is both disturbing and unfortunate.

The fact that you think all religious denominations and all religious people hate gays is both disturbing and unfortunate.

So, I used insufficiently specific language. I was, of course, referring to religious beliefs such as that which inspired the thread.

So, I used insufficiently specific language. I was, of course, referring to religious beliefs such as that which inspired the thread.

Right. While a gay couple might assume there would be a very unsuitable welcome for them in a Catholic Church, said gay couple could also assume that there would be a suitable welcome for them in a government office where they would go to fetch their civil marriage license.

They would have no way to know that on this particular tuesday afternoon at 3h00, it'd be the hateful-old-religious-nutter-hag-who-hates-fag's shift.

Hence, your previous comment is still somewhat off the mark. The woman's not seen as belonging first and foremost to her religious group, whatever it may be, by the soon-to-be-wed husbands/wives. She's perceived as a government employee, in a country where gay marriage is legal, therefore expected by default to perform a gay marriage if she is required to.

If she worked at a church and had the ability to register a marriage, I'd have no issue with her being able to refuse service based on religion.

But, as far as I can tell, she is a government official. As such, I don't think this is a good decision.

That said, as long as no one is inconvenienced by it (ie. she is never the only registrar on duty at the particular building in which she works and this never makes a gay couple unable to get joined in a timely manner), I suppose the government can choose to give her special consideration. I don't think they should, but that's just me.

It's much closer to the pharmacists who refuse to distribute the morning-after pill for religious reasons. Which troubles me greatly.

who goes to a pharmacist. they have those in vending machines in the US. sometimes when i get bored i buy a lot of them and eat them.

in other news i think ive grown boobs.

Unfortunatly this issue is an example of both religous morals and individual civil rights. I agree no-one should force her to sign off the partnership, but if it is in her job description (even as a recently added item) to do this then she has no legal basis to refuse while working that job.

The only part of the BBC report I would argue on her side for is that she should not have been harrassed/picked on etc, but instead be given help to find a position where she could work without the conflict arising.

Neither source says if she was given this option, but she should not stay in that government-based job if she will not complete all the contracted lawfull duties to anyone legally entitled to them.
(that last sentance really hurt my head)

Well put.

And I would not have any problem with the government moving her into a different job that did not conflict with her religious beliefs (and I think she should have asked for such a move).

Its a competition of rights. The right of gay marriage verses the right of christian registar. Its not that gay rights have been pushed back. Gays can still get married elsewhere

The decision just says that relgious beliefs should not be overrun by the law. Its not a sad day for gay rights at all. Its a good day for religous freedom however.

The Christian faith established what it considered a proper marriage long ago. Far before gay marriages were allowed in the UK.

This is a Christian registar that should therefore have the right to registar marriages according to the christian faith. If a gay couple still wants to get married they can go to a non-secular registar instead of overriding the beliefs of the christian faith

this is not a health issue somehow related to the morning after pill. People can pick and choose which regestar to go to. However the more popular option at the moment is religous discrimination instead of telling the gay couple to go to a nonsecular registar

Its a competition of rights. The right of gay marriage verses the right of christian registar. Its not that gay rights have been pushed back. Gays can still get married elsewhere

The decision just says that relgious beliefs should not be overrun by the law. Its not a sad day for gay rights at all. Its a good day for religous freedom however.

The Christian faith established what it considered a proper marriage long ago. Far before gay marriages were allowed in the UK.

This is a Christian registar that should therefore have the right to registar marriages according to the christian faith. If a gay couple still wants to get married they can go to a non-secular registar instead of overriding the beliefs of the christian faith

this is not a health issue somehow related to the morning after pill. People can pick and choose which regestar to go to. However the more popular option at the moment is religous discrimination instead of telling the gay couple to go to a nonsecular registar


noooo she is a civil registrar who is a christian.

she is registering civil unions for the UK government. for the local council. she happens to be a christian who thinks that that means that its some kind of violation of her rights to do her freaking job as it is outlined.

she doesnt have to bless them, i assume (and god knows i could be wrong since its the UK) that the ceremony doesnt mention god or religion at all. she was working at the islington town hall (or so it seemed from the video). its not taking place in a church. she isnt required to give a religious OK.

this is an outrageous ruling. imagine going in to get married and having someone refuse you, walking away, and getting someone else to do the job.

fuck her.

Its a competition of rights. The right of gay marriage verses the right of christian registar.

There is no right to remain in a job you will not perform.

The decision just says that relgious beliefs should not be overrun by the law.

Wrong. It says that religious beliefs should get extra consideration under the law.

Its not a sad day for gay rights at all. Its a good day for religous freedom however.

Once again, religious freedom does not entail being able to stay in a job you refuse to perform on religious grounds. If your religion will not permit you to perform your job in a satisfactory manner, you need a new job.

Religious freedom does not exempt you from dealing with the consequences of your decisions.

This is a Christian registar that should therefore have the right to registar marriages according to the christian faith.

Wrong. She is a government official who happens to be Christian. Christianity is not a part of her job description. Therefore, she should either registrar marriages based on the law, or not at all. Her religion should not come into it.

I'm a scientist who is a Christian. But if I refused to do certain research because of my faith, I certainly wouldn't expect them to go on paying me if that's the research they wanted me to do.

If a gay couple still wants to get married they can go to a non-secular registar instead of overriding the beliefs of the christian faith

How would they know the faith of the particular government official they seek out to obtain their license? Why should someone going to a government official for a legal document have to check on their individual religion first?

I come late to the party and find that Ashmoria and Dempublicents have made my argument for me. As usual. :)

The only part of the BBC report I would argue on her side for is that she should not have been harrassed/picked on etc, but instead be given help to find a position where she could work without the conflict arising.
Why? Why should religious belief be given special priviliges. What if a bigot didn't want to serve niggers (offensive word deliberately used to hghlight the bigotry)? He would be sacked in a second. No, redeployment, just see you later you racist tool.
She is a bigot. If she wants to hide her prejudices behind a shield of religion, then I shall remind her of her religions supposed tolerance. There is no place for prejudice in government employment whatsoever.

Ashmoria and Dempublicents beat me too it, and were more polite than me.

Why? Why should religious belief be given special priviliges. What if a bigot didn't want to serve niggers (offensive word deliberately used to hghlight the bigotry)? He would be sacked in a second. No, redeployment, just see you later you racist tool.
She is a bigot. If she wants to hide her prejudices behind a shield of religion, then I shall remind her of her religions supposed tolerance. There is no place for prejudice in government employment whatsoever.

I tend to agree. You should no more be able to use religion to excuse homophobia than you can use religion to justify racism or sexism.

You work for the government, you're bound by the government's rules while on the job. You don't get to pick and choose. It's that simple.

If the job hurts your sensibilities too much, don't take it.

You work for the government, you're bound by the government's rules while on the job. You don't get to pick and choose. It's that simple.

One of the expressions I loathe the most is "it's that simple". It would appear that under British law it is in fact not that simple, and is indeed decidedly more complicated.

One of the expressions I loathe the most is "it's that simple". It would appear that under British law it is in fact not that simple, and is indeed decidedly more complicated.
Skaladora is saying that's what it should be. It should be that simple. Because some crazy christians try to impose their will in secular democracies, and they are a large enough voting block to be relevant, it becomes more complicated, when it really shouldn't be.

At least, that's what I think was the intent. Apologies to Skaladora if I'm wrong.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes the availability of willing registrars. Of course, we can assume that there *will* be those registrars who have no objection, but what happens if next week a religious revival takes places among civil servants in the UK, and as a consequence NONE of them will do it?


Erm, how exactly does saying "this is okay if and only if X is the case" assume that X is the case? I believe I've been quite clear in my position - if anyone, at any point, actually experiences even inconvenience because of her religious issues, then she really ought to be looking for a new job, but so long as any couples who want to get married can do so with equal ease, I don't see this decision as a terrible one in itself. Sheesh.

One of the expressions I loathe the most is "it's that simple". It would appear that under British law it is in fact not that simple, and is indeed decidedly more complicated.
Here's what's that simple: It is unethical for a person to accept a job that has a certain set of required duties and then refuse to perform those duties for some reason that has nothing to do with the job itself.

The registrar who refuses to fulfill her duties to certain citizens for her own private religious reasons is behaving unethically. What she should do is ask to be moved to a different job or else quit working for the government. To me, that really is that simple.

Here's what's less simple: If the government were to fire this person, would they be doing it because of her religion or because she failed in her job? Are they required to give jobs to people who don't want to do them the way the government wants them too? Are they required to protect everyone's personal liberties all at the same time, in every situation? If so, how can they do that? Does the government have a responsibility to this registrar? What about its responsibility to the rest of the citizens? The government has to decide where its duty lies here. My personal opinion is that the government's responsibility is to see to it that its laws and regulations are carried out, not to find ways for its employees to circumvent those laws and regulations. I understand that the question is not as clear for the government as I find it to be for individuals. But I am the kind of person who strips problems down to their core in order to get the clearest perspective on what they are about and find the most direct and effective way of resolving them. And when I do that, the government's problem becomes significantly less un-simple. It has to decide where the greater need is and then decide what it will do to meet that need and how it will make it up to the people whose needs don't get met as a result.

Erm, how exactly does saying "this is okay if and only if X is the case" assume that X is the case? I believe I've been quite clear in my position - if anyone, at any point, actually experiences even inconvenience because of her religious issues, then she really ought to be looking for a new job, but so long as any couples who want to get married can do so with equal ease, I don't see this decision as a terrible one in itself. Sheesh.

Ok. How far does that go, though?

Suppose there are many couples waiting in line to have their ceremony and they are rotating through the different people on duty who can perform such ceremonies. The next couple in line is a same-sex couple and the person in the rotation is someone who refuses to perform the ceremony. They have to wait longer than any other couple in line. Is that enough of an inconvenience?

Not to mention - what about the inconvenience to her immediate employers? They now have to make special considerations for the fact that she will not completely perform her job. Scheduling, etc. will all have to be shuffled around her issues. And it will only get worse if others follow suit.

As far as I'm concerned, if an individual's religion keeps them from performing their job to its fullest, it is their responsibility to find a new job, not their employers' to work around them. The employer can be nice and try to shift them into a job they don't have a problem with, but the ultimate responsibility should lie with the person who has religious objections - not with others.

Ok. How far does that go, though?

Suppose there are many couples waiting in line to have their ceremony and they are rotating through the different people on duty who can perform such ceremonies. The next couple in line is a same-sex couple and the person in the rotation is someone who refuses to perform the ceremony. They have to wait longer than any other couple in line. Is that enough of an inconvenience?

For me, yes, since at that point her prejudice has actually caused a problem, albeit a comparatively minor one, in practice. Essentially, my whole point was that I don't see that she needs to be fired for beliefs that could affect the service citizens/customers receive, but only for actions that do affect the service citizens/customers receive.

Not to mention - what about the inconvenience to her immediate employers? They now have to make special considerations for the fact that she will not completely perform her job. Scheduling, etc. will all have to be shuffled around her issues. And it will only get worse if others follow suit.

As far as I'm concerned, if an individual's religion keeps them from performing their job to its fullest, it is their responsibility to find a new job, not their employers' to work around them. The employer can be nice and try to shift them into a job they don't have a problem with, but the ultimate responsibility should lie with the person who has religious objections - not with others.

We are essentially in agreement. If scheduling around her presents unreasonable difficulty to her employers, then they certainly shouldn't have to do it. I may have misunderstood (or forgotten, at this point - I'm sleepy :p ) the details of this case, but all I was ever arguing was that IF her beliefs don't actually cause problems, they are not necessarily in and of themselves a reason to fire her. :)

For me, yes, since at that point her prejudice has actually caused a problem, albeit a comparatively minor one, in practice. Essentially, my whole point was that I don't see that she needs to be fired for beliefs that could affect the service citizens/customers receive, but only for actions that do affect the service citizens/customers receive.

Presumably, there was already a problem. Otherwise, we wouldn't know that she was refusing to perform the service for same-sex couples.

She was disciplined for it, but that has now apparently been overturned by this ruling.

We are essentially in agreement. If scheduling around her presents unreasonable difficulty to her employers, then they certainly shouldn't have to do it. I may have misunderstood (or forgotten, at this point - I'm sleepy :p ) the details of this case, but all I was ever arguing was that IF her beliefs don't actually cause problems, they are not necessarily in and of themselves a reason to fire her. :)

=)

If someone takes their car to a garage, any garage, and the mechanic refuses to fix the car because that person is gay, is there a case?

It's a service much as any other and to discriminate should be illegal no?

the difference is greater than that. To Christians, marriage isn't just a custom, but a deeply religious event. furthermore, all Christians I know, myself included, believe homosexuality to be sinful. So the comparison is flawed in that the mechanic would have to believe that homosexuals are not allowed to have their cars fixed because it is morally wrong. I do believe that gays have a right to a form of civil union, for legal purposes and for the sense of unity that comes with marriage. My beef is with people who demand that they have a ceremony presided over by a Christian clergy member performing a Christian service.

the difference is greater than that. To Christians, marriage isn't just a custom, but a deeply religious event. furthermore, all Christians I know, myself included, believe homosexuality to be sinful. So the comparison is flawed in that the mechanic would have to believe that homosexuals are not allowed to have their cars fixed because it is morally wrong. I do believe that gays have a right to a form of civil union, for legal purposes and for the sense of unity that comes with marriage. My beef is with people who demand that they have a ceremony presided over by a Christian clergy member performing a Christian service.

Who is demanding that?

Who is demanding that?

Maybe not demand, though there have been those that ask for it and those who perform it, which, in my opinion, is wrong.

My bad, "demand" was a poor word choice.

Maybe not demand, though there have been those that ask for it and those who perform it, which, in my opinion, is wrong.

My bad, "demand" was a poor word choice.

Those who perform it are following their own religious convictions. Why shouldn't they?

As long as no church is forced to perform any kind of ceremony for a marriage they don't condone, I don't really see the problem.

Those who perform it are following their own religious convictions. Why shouldn't they?

As long as no church is forced to perform any kind of ceremony for a marriage they don't condone, I don't really see the problem.

Legally, there is no problem.
But morally, according to Christian, Biblical doctrine there is.
I don't care, every last gay in the world can get married, but if they profess to be Christian and have no problem with what it is they're doing, I'm going to get a mite ornery

Legally, there is no problem.
But morally, according to Christian, Biblical doctrine there is.
I don't care, every last gay in the world can get married, but if they profess to be Christian and have no problem with what it is they're doing, I'm going to get a mite ornery

I'm sure they would feel the same way about you.

Legally, there is no problem.
But morally, according to Christian, Biblical doctrine there is.
I don't care, every last gay in the world can get married, but if they profess to be Christian and have no problem with what it is they're doing, I'm going to get a mite ornery
Ever worked on a weekend? Will you get annoyed if I offer to buy your daughter? You can't pick and choose your scripture. You have probably broken as many rules from the bible as the gay person has.

Erm, how exactly does saying "this is okay if and only if X is the case" assume that X is the case? I believe I've been quite clear in my position - if anyone, at any point, actually experiences even inconvenience because of her religious issues, then she really ought to be looking for a new job, but so long as any couples who want to get married can do so with equal ease, I don't see this decision as a terrible one in itself. Sheesh.

It certainly seemed you were saying that because of this woman's religious scruples, people should be put in the position of being humiliated, inconvenienced and judged by this sanctimonious fool.

Let me make my view quite clear: I am a secular humanist. The idea of a personal God (i.e., a God who has the attributes of a person and can communicate those to humanity) seems to me very close to the imaginary friends that children frequently have. If having an imaginary friend gives meaning to someone else's life, then more power to them. When, however, they start presuming to pass judgment on others' personal lives or refusing to do the job they are hired to do on the basis of the perceived dictates of the imaginary friend, then there's a big problem.

Off topic slightly, but George W. Bush has maintained that HIS imaginary friend spoke to him on the subject of Iraq and urged him to invade.

Ever worked on a weekend? Will you get annoyed if I offer to buy your daughter? You can't pick and choose your scripture. You have probably broken as many rules from the bible as the gay person has.

Quite so. However, I don't think the objective of Christianity is to be perfect, but to attempt to live a life according to the Bible.

Still doesn't condone the way that some Christians treat gays. I don't believe it's right - I don't, however, pass laws and hate them for it.

depends on the law of the jurisdiction really. It's also just a far bigger can of worms when that mechanic is employed by the state, and refuses because of his sincerely held religious belief that gay people shouldn't own cars.

If you work for the government you do not, and should not, have a right to an opinion (editing clarification: while on "duty"). While you work for the government, and are in "uniform" (whether it be a registrar, soldier, or street cleaner), your opinion is non-existant. You are the pawn of the state and do and think precisely as it wants you to so that you work for the betterment and ideals of the state. While this sounds extrordinarily fascistic, I mean it actually in the greatest sense of providing civil liberty. This way, those ignorant bastards who "disapprove" of homosexual marriage are checked by their job, which is to provide the state's service of granting marriage.

In the military, this is so, and as a teacher this is so. I know that I'd get fired from a teaching position if I started spewing pro-national socialist messages and in the military I'd get relieved of command if I said that I thought the government, all its leadership, and my immediate and extended superiors were loonies and should be canned. Why should registrar's be treated any different?

the difference is greater than that. To Christians, marriage isn't just a custom, but a deeply religious event. furthermore, all Christians I know, myself included, believe homosexuality to be sinful.

That's weird, 'cause I know a lot of Christians who don't think homosexuality is sinful. It's almost like there's some disagreement among Christians as to what the Bible really says and means.

It's almost like there's some disagreement among Christians as to what the Bible really says and means.

Really? I never noticed. :p

Religious belief =/= some random racist ideology. Most people actually RESPECT religion and people's right to have one, whereas an racist ideology is nothing. Again, the person isn't refusing to serve homosexuals in any capacity by virtue of their being homosexuals. She's refusing to perform a specific task that directly contradicts her religion.

That may seem like a minor difference but it's an important distinction.

I don't see it that way. Everybody is free to believe whatever they want, be it religion, racism or Santa. That's everybody's right.
However, that right doesn't give you the right to demand special treatment to accomodate whatever you personally happen to believe in. No matter if it's a religion or not.

Its a competition of rights. The right of gay marriage verses the right of christian registar. Its not that gay rights have been pushed back. Gays can still get married elsewhere

The decision just says that relgious beliefs should not be overrun by the law. Its not a sad day for gay rights at all. Its a good day for religous freedom however.

The Christian faith established what it considered a proper marriage long ago. Far before gay marriages were allowed in the UK.

This is a Christian registar that should therefore have the right to registar marriages according to the christian faith. If a gay couple still wants to get married they can go to a non-secular registar instead of overriding the beliefs of the christian faith

this is not a health issue somehow related to the morning after pill. People can pick and choose which regestar to go to. However the more popular option at the moment is religous discrimination instead of telling the gay couple to go to a nonsecular registar

*sigh*
Wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to begin:

1) She is working for a secular government, which has granted both heterosexual and homosexual civil unions. Her job is to perform those unions. She refuses to do her job, and by doing that refuses other people's rights.
She does not have the right to do that. I would see it as a reason to fire her, but if she can be moved to a position where she doesn't feel the need to infringe on other people's rights, good for her.

2) She is not being discriminated against. She has a job to do, and in refusing to do so not only denies services to a group of people, but denies them services they HAVE A RIGHT TO. They have a right to get married anywhere they choose to.

3) The Christian faith has f*** all to do with marriage. If it did, Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Hindus, atheists, etc. could not get married.
Nor was marriage defined in any way by the Christian faith. It existed long before it. All Christianity did was consider it useful and slap the label "religious" on it.

the difference is greater than that. To Christians, marriage isn't just a custom, but a deeply religious event. furthermore, all Christians I know, myself included, believe homosexuality to be sinful. So the comparison is flawed in that the mechanic would have to believe that homosexuals are not allowed to have their cars fixed because it is morally wrong. I do believe that gays have a right to a form of civil union, for legal purposes and for the sense of unity that comes with marriage. My beef is with people who demand that they have a ceremony presided over by a Christian clergy member performing a Christian service.

It's a civil union. There is nothing religious whatsoever involved.
This woman is not a clergy member, she's a registrar. She does not perform religious ceremany, she is doing civil unions.

Legally, there is no problem.
But morally, according to Christian, Biblical doctrine there is.
I don't care, every last gay in the world can get married, but if they profess to be Christian and have no problem with what it is they're doing, I'm going to get a mite ornery
The fact that there are Christian churches and Christian clergy perfectly willing to perform same-sex marriages, existing right alongside Christian churches and clergy who do not do that, is a strong indicator that your blanket pronouncement of what constitutes Christian doctrine on this matter is not correct. Clearly, there is not just one universal Christian position on this.

Also, your comment is irrelevant because, as has been pointed out, the registrar was conducting a civil service, not a religious one, and also because no one is asking any church to perform services against its own doctrines in any way at all.

the difference is greater than that. To Christians, marriage isn't just a custom, but a deeply religious event. furthermore, all Christians I know, myself included, believe homosexuality to be sinful. So the comparison is flawed in that the mechanic would have to believe that homosexuals are not allowed to have their cars fixed because it is morally wrong. I do believe that gays have a right to a form of civil union, for legal purposes and for the sense of unity that comes with marriage. My beef is with people who demand that they have a ceremony presided over by a Christian clergy member performing a Christian service.

i completely agree with you. no one should go into a church and demand that they conduct a religious ceremony that this religion bars for the particular participants.

its a good thing that this is not the situation in the case presented in this thread.

Ever worked on a weekend? Will you get annoyed if I offer to buy your daughter? You can't pick and choose your scripture. You have probably broken as many rules from the bible as the gay person has.

I have broken rules, and I know for a fact that I have. The difference is that I admit to breaking the rules, and am sorry for what I've done. In the case of gays who profess to be Christian, it is obvious that they either do not realize their sin, or are unwilling to admit its sinfulness. The entire point of Christ's sacrifice was to pay for the sins we commit. But without the law to tell us that we have sinned, there is no need for forgiveness, because we've done nothing wrong. In a similar way, those who ignore the law's existence are not forgiven because they do not wish to come to God because, by their actions, they have showed that they believe that they were never away from God in the first place.

I have broken rules, and I know for a fact that I have. The difference is that I admit to breaking the rules, and am sorry for what I've done. In the case of gays who profess to be Christian, it is obvious that they either do not realize their sin, or are unwilling to admit its sinfulness. The entire point of Christ's sacrifice was to pay for the sins we commit. But without the law to tell us that we have sinned, there is no need for forgiveness, because we've done nothing wrong. In a similar way, those who ignore the law's existence are not forgiven because they do not wish to come to God because, by their actions, they have showed that they believe that they were never away from God in the first place.

jesus came to save the sinner. ALL sinners.

YOU will be judged by how you treat the least of your brothers.

making a gay couple's civil wedding day miserable isnt a good way to treat a brother.

The fact that there are Christian churches and Christian clergy perfectly willing to perform same-sex marriages, existing right alongside Christian churches and clergy who do not do that, is a strong indicator that your blanket pronouncement of what constitutes Christian doctrine on this matter is not correct. Clearly, there is not just one universal Christian position on this.

Also, your comment is irrelevant because, as has been pointed out, the registrar was conducting a civil service, not a religious one, and also because no one is asking any church to perform services against its own doctrines in any way at all.

As a general rule, I have found that Christians are followers of Christ, hence the name. In order to be so, they would have to accept Christ's teachings, which include the Old Testament, which clearly displays homosexuality as sexual immorality.

And thank you, I do realize that the service is a civil one, as everyone in this thread has pointed out to me. But if this person truly believes that what is happening is wrong, couldn't they simply find another registrar? If the service is an obvious source of discomfort, isn't it within their rights to request that they not be involved?

I have broken rules, and I know for a fact that I have. The difference is that I admit to breaking the rules, and am sorry for what I've done. In the case of gays who profess to be Christian, it is obvious that they either do not realize their sin, or are unwilling to admit its sinfulness. The entire point of Christ's sacrifice was to pay for the sins we commit. But without the law to tell us that we have sinned, there is no need for forgiveness, because we've done nothing wrong. In a similar way, those who ignore the law's existence are not forgiven because they do not wish to come to God because, by their actions, they have showed that they believe that they were never away from God in the first place.

So you feel like a sinner for not selling your daughter and other rules which are found on the same page of the bible as the anti-gay passage?

jesus came to save the sinner. ALL sinners.

YOU will be judged by how you treat the least of your brothers.

making a gay couple's civil wedding day miserable isnt a good way to treat a brother.

Jesus came to save all sinners. But excommunication is used for those who do not wish to admit to their sins, which effectively separates a person from God by denying Christian fellowship through the Lord's supper. This is done in order that the sinner may see the seriousness of their actions and turn from them.

I will treat my brothers with the respect they deserve, through their own concern and respect for their spiritual welfare

So you feel like a sinner for not selling your daughter and other rules which are found on the same page of the bible as the anti-gay passage?

Point out the daughter-selling passage to me, and I'll feel sorry for it.

As a general rule, I have found that Christians are followers of Christ, hence the name. In order to be so, they would have to accept Christ's teachings, which include the Old Testament, which clearly displays homosexuality as sexual immorality.
No True Scotsman fallacy? Are you saying that the Christian churches that do perform same-sex marriages -- and do so on the grounds that Christ taught them not to judge others -- are not true Christians? If so, what authority do you carry that allows you to determine what a "true" Christian is or is not?

And thank you, I do realize that the service is a civil one, as everyone in this thread has pointed out to me. But if this person truly believes that what is happening is wrong, couldn't they simply find another registrar?
Couldn't the registrar explain her discomfort to her boss and request reassignment rather than interfere with other people's exercise of their legal rights and the smooth operation of governmental business?

If the service is an obvious source of discomfort, isn't it within their rights to request that they not be involved?
Absolutely. They can do it by going to their boss, explaining their problem, and requesting a transfer to another department and reassignment to desk duties until such transfer comes through.

But if they do it by simply refusing to perform the duties of the job they have at the moment, then they are in the wrong. Nobody gets to pick and choose, unilaterally, what parts of their job they feel like carrying out -- not without getting fired.

Jesus came to save all sinners. But excommunication is used for those who do not wish to admit to their sins, which effectively separates a person from God by denying Christian fellowship through the Lord's supper. This is done in order that the sinner may see the seriousness of their actions and turn from them.

I will treat my brothers with the respect they deserve, through their own concern and respect for their spiritual welfare

and who did JESUS ever excommunicate?

No True Scotsman fallacy? Are you saying that the Christian churches that do perform same-sex marriages -- and do so on the grounds that Christ taught them not to judge others -- are not true Christians? If so, what authority do you carry that allows you to determine what a "true" Christian is or is not?


They can be true Christians, simply misguided.
These marriages are an example of a group of people failing to point out the sin of their brothers and sisters. How many times did Jesus condemn people for unrepentant sin? how many times did he judge them that they may see their error and come to the truth? Wouldn't one, as a Christian, wish to follow Christ's example?

Jesus came to save all sinners. But excommunication is used for those who do not wish to admit to their sins, which effectively separates a person from God by denying Christian fellowship through the Lord's supper. This is done in order that the sinner may see the seriousness of their actions and turn from them.
Are you the Pope, or some other church leader? I'm asking because I am amazed at your description of what excommunication is for. I am wondering just which church you are talking about and how you know this to be the specific purpose of excommunication.

Also, kindly inform me who and/or how many sinners Jesus exommunicated or otherwise caused to be separated from God as a punishment for non-compliance. Because if Jesus came to "save all sinners," then who was it who decided to deny that salvation to some sinners? Was it Jesus? If so, when and where, please? If it was not Jesus, then who was it, and why should anyone listen to them rather than to Jesus himself?

and who did JESUS ever excommunicate?

He never excommunicated anyone. He did point out Peter's sin, and called him Satan, and in Matthew 18, Jesus says: "But if (your brother) will not listen, take one or two others along... if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (NIV; Matt. 18:16-17)

They can be true Christians, simply misguided.
You failed to answer the question that came with that paragraph. Who are you to decide whether they are right or wrong?

If you are just expressing your personal opinion, that's fine, but if you are claiming that they are in fact "misguided," then you need to be able to back that up, by showing me how you know it to be so and why I should believe you about it.

These marriages are an example of a group of people failing to point out the sin of their brothers and sisters.
The government, presumably, is not paying them to preach. Let them point out the sin of their brothers and sisters (annoying and presumptuous habit) on their own time and dime. In other words, let them quit their jobs and demonstrate on the street outside city hall if they feel that strongly about it. And while they're at it, let them use their new free time to remove the plank from their own eye before bitching about the mote in their neighbor's.

How many times did Jesus condemn people for unrepentant sin? how many times did he judge them that they may see their error and come to the truth? Wouldn't one, as a Christian, wish to follow Christ's example?
I am not aware that Jesus ever condemned or judged anyone for any reason, EXCEPT the time he cast the money changers out of the temple. But I am not aware that the money changers were gay and waiting at the temple to be married.

Kindly quote the passages from the Bible that show Jesus condemning and judging people.

He never excommunicated anyone.
So, in other words, excommunication was some other person's idea and is not in keeping with Jesus' own words and actions. Huh, I thought as much. Now, tell me, how then is excommunicating people a Christian act, if it is not something Jesus would have done?

He did point out Peter's sin, and called him Satan, and in Matthew 18, Jesus says: "But if (your brother) will not listen, take one or two others along... if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (NIV; Matt. 18:16-17)
Matthew was a tax collector. And the Roman centurion whose servant was healed by his faith in Jesus' goodness and purity was a pagan. So I guess the above quoted passage means that Christians should treat unrepentant sinners with respect, acceptance and good fellowship, and in full acknowledgement that they can find salvation without your help, just as Jesus treated tax collectors and pagans.

I am not aware that Jesus ever condemned or judged anyone for any reason, EXCEPT the time he cast the money changers out of the temple. But I am not aware that the money changers were gay and waiting at the temple to be married.

Kindly quote the passages from the Bible that show Jesus condemning and judging people.

"And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths." (NIV; Matt. 11:23)

He never excommunicated anyone. He did point out Peter's sin, and called him Satan, and in Matthew 18, Jesus says: "But if (your brother) will not listen, take one or two others along... if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." (NIV; Matt. 18:16-17)

and did jesus put "being gay" on the list of things so bad that you must toss out the offender?

and maybe you should continue reading matthew 18....(you can check out the beginning of the story yourself eh?)

32 Then the master sent for the man and said to him, "You wicked servant, I cancelled all that debt of yours when you appealed to me.
33 Were you not bound, then, to have pity on your fellow-servant just as I had pity on you?"
34 And in his anger the master handed him over to the torturers till he should pay all his debt.
35 And that is how my heavenly Father will deal with you unless you each forgive your brother from your heart.'

So, in other words, excommunication was some other person's idea and is not in keeping with Jesus' own words and actions. Huh, I thought as much. Now, tell me, how then is excommunicating people a Christian act, if it is not something Jesus would have done?


Matthew was a tax collector. And the Roman centurion whose servant was healed by his faith in Jesus' goodness and purity was a pagan. So I guess the above quoted passage means that Christians should treat unrepentant sinners with respect, acceptance and good fellowship, and in full acknowledgement that they can find salvation without your help, just as Jesus treated tax collectors and pagans.

Ah, but you are entirely ignoring the context. Jesus said "you" and not "I" and in that time period, the Jewish public had great disdain for tax collectors, and pagans, believing the former were traitors and the latter were below them.

"And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths." (NIV; Matt. 11:23)
Who said that line of dialogue? In what context? What does NIV stand for? And when are you going to answer my questions? So far, they are as follows:

1) On what church's doctrines are you basing your understanding of excommunication and "true" Christianity?

2) How is excommunication a Christian act if it was not an act of Christ?

3) Who decided to excommunicate sinners if it was not Christ and what power (temporal or divine) gave them the authority to add that to Christ's teachings?

4) What incidents in the Bible show Jesus judging or condemning people, besides the money changers in the temple? The comments to Peter could have been mere observations of Peter's bad habits (Satan's great sin was pride, after all), and the first quote from Matthew can be interpreted reasonably in more than one way. As for the second quote, it means nothing without the context of the conversation it was in.

and did jesus put "being gay" on the list of things so bad that you must toss out the offender?

and maybe you should continue reading matthew 18....(you can check out the beginning of the story yourself eh?)

32 Then the master sent for the man and said to him, "You wicked servant, I cancelled all that debt of yours when you appealed to me.
33 Were you not bound, then, to have pity on your fellow-servant just as I had pity on you?"
34 And in his anger the master handed him over to the torturers till he should pay all his debt.
35 And that is how my heavenly Father will deal with you unless you each forgive your brother from your heart.'

We should be forgiving, but the servant thrown in jail said: "be patient with me, and I will pay you back" in verse 29, which shows that he was knowledgeable of and willing to pay for his debt.

Ah, but you are entirely ignoring the context. Jesus said "you" and not "I" and in that time period, the Jewish public had great disdain for tax collectors, and pagans, believing the former were traitors and the latter were below them.
So, now you're telling me that I should be thinking like an ancient Israelite, and not like Jesus? Really?

And are you telling me that Jesus advised people to pick certain groups to despise, distrust and treat as inferior? Really?

We should be forgiving, but the servant thrown in jail said: "be patient with me, and I will pay you back" in verse 29, which shows that he was knowledgeable of and willing to pay for his debt.
In the context of this issue, who do you think the "servant thrown in jail" is -- the gays or the registrar?

Because the way I read the lines quoted by Ashmoria, Jesus is telling his own followers that they must completely forgive all those they disagree with or think of as sinners, or else they will be the ones who suffer under their god until they do. In other words, he is saying that his followers owe a debt to their god which can only be paid by forgiving others. He is not saying that sinners must pay a debt. He is talking to his followers, not to the tax collectors and pagans, and to me, it reads like an instruction not to be judgmental.

By that reading, the registrar = the servant.

Who said that line of dialogue? In what context? What does NIV stand for? And when are you going to answer my questions? So far, they are as follows:

1) On what church's doctrines are you basing your understanding of excommunication and "true" Christianity?

2) How is excommunication a Christian act if it was not an act of Christ?

3) Who decided to excommunicate sinners if it was not Christ and what power (temporal or divine) gave them the authority to add that to Christ's teachings?

4) What incidents in the Bible show Jesus judging or condemning people, besides the money changers in the temple? The comments to Peter could have been mere observations of Peter's bad habits (Satan's great sin was pride, after all), and the first quote from Matthew can be interpreted reasonably in more than one way. As for the second quote, it means nothing without the context of the conversation it was in.

1)My understanding of Christian doctrine and Christianity come from biblical teachings. Where is it you get your understanding of excommunication, if not from the biblical teachings regarding it?

2) it is a Christian act because it was taught by Christ, as in the first quote

3) See #2

4) Peter was called Satan because he thought that Christ had come to release Israel from Roman captivity, if i remember correctly, which is not the case. The second quote comes from Jesus, who was condemning the unrepentant cities in which he had performed miracles.

In the context of this issue, who do you think the "servant thrown in jail" is -- the gays or the registrar?

Because the way I read the lines quoted by Ashmoria, Jesus is telling his own followers that they must completely forgive all those they disagree with or think of as sinners, or else they will be the ones who suffer under their god until they do. In other words, he is saying that his followers owe a debt to their god which can only be paid by forgiving others. He is not saying that sinners must pay a debt. He is talking to his followers, not to the tax collectors and pagans, and to me, it reads like an instruction not to be judgmental.

The servant thrown in jail is the sinner, because he owed a debt to another servant, who in turn owed a debt to his master, which was cancelled. The master is God, the debt is sin. And he is saying that all human beings owe a debt to god, which cannot be paid, only forgiven through the grace of the one to whom the debt is owed.

So, now you're telling me that I should be thinking like an ancient Israelite, and not like Jesus? Really?

And are you telling me that Jesus advised people to pick certain groups to despise, distrust and treat as inferior? Really?

I'm telling you that Jesus told his disciples that they should remove unrepentant sinners from their midst, because he is lost, and the only way he will find his way back is to see the fact that he is lost and needs guidance. This act is obviously only to be taken after the person in question has been confronted several times and those who love them have tried to explain to them that they are caught in a path that leads the wrong way.

1)My understanding of Christian doctrine and Christianity come from biblical teachings. Where is it you get your understanding of excommunication, if not from the biblical teachings regarding it?
I have no understanding of excommunication, and that is why I am asking you to explain your assertions about it.

I am not a Christian. I only know what Christians tell me about exommunication, and I have never before heard any of them describe it the way you do.

2) it is a Christian act because it was taught by Christ, as in the first quote
The first quote of what in which post? I have not seen you post anything that shows Christ telling people to excommunicate sinners. On the contrary, you yourself said he came to "save all sinners." How could he do that if he excommunicated them? And your subsequent quotes from the Bible do not clearly show Jesus teaching excommunication, either. As I showed you, they can easily be read a different way. What makes you right about it then?

3) See #2
As I said, you have failed to show me Jesus teaching excommunication. And you yourself admitted that he never excommunicated anyone. So where do you get the "he taught it" notion?

4) Peter was called Satan because he thought that Christ had come to release Israel from Roman captivity, if i remember correctly, which is not the case.
Really? When did Satan take an interest in Roman policy in Judea? And what does that have to do with excommunication?

The second quote comes from Jesus, who was condemning the unrepentant cities in which he had performed miracles.
No quote this time?

And, for those who were wondering, NIV stands for New international version, the translation of the bible with which I am personally familiar

I'm telling you that Jesus told his disciples that they should remove unrepentant sinners from their midst, because he is lost, and the only way he will find his way back is to see the fact that he is lost and needs guidance. This act is obviously only to be taken after the person in question has been confronted several times and those who love them have tried to explain to them that they are caught in a path that leads the wrong way.
And that equates to excommunication how?

How does an instruction for you not to hang out with people who won't listen to you become an instruction to deny such people communion with their god?

And, for those who were wondering, NIV stands for New international version, the translation of the bible with which I am personally familiar

Thank you. Now people can look it up for themselves, if they want to challenge you verse by verse.

I have no understanding of excommunication, and that is why I am asking you to explain your assertions about it.

I am not a Christian. I only know what Christians tell me about exommunication, and I have never before heard any of them describe it the way you do.


The first quote of what in which post? I have not seen you post anything that shows Christ telling people to excommunicate sinners. On the contrary, you yourself said he came to "save all sinners." How could he do that if he excommunicated them? And your subsequent quotes from the Bible do not clearly show Jesus teaching excommunication, either. As I showed you, they can easily be read a different way. What makes you right about it then?


As I said, you have failed to show me Jesus teaching excommunication. And you yourself admitted that he never excommunicated anyone. So where do you get the "he taught it" notion?


Really? When did Satan take an interest in Roman policy in Judea? And what does that have to do with excommunication?


No quote this time?

The quote in Matthew 18 in which Jesus tells his disciples to treat the unrepentant sinner as a pagan or tax collector is the first quote, the second is the Capernaum quote, and Satan never had any interest in Roman policy, but is commonly accepted as the source of evil in a majority of Jewish and christian circles in the first century AD

And that equates to excommunication how?

How does an instruction for you not to hang out with people who won't listen to you become an instruction to deny such people communion with their god?

The line: "treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
They wouldn't eat with these people, they wouldn't interact with them in any way. Giving a person the cold shoulder isn't going to show them their sin, but refusing them the chance to be reassured of their forgiveness will.
Another passage: "when you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus... and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the last day." (1 Corinthians 5:4-5 NIV)

The quote in Matthew 18 in which Jesus tells his disciples to treat the unrepentant sinner as a pagan or tax collector is the first quote, the second is the Capernaum quote, and Satan never had any interest in Roman policy, but is commonly accepted as the source of evil in a majority of Jewish and christian circles in the first century AD
1) I'm assuming that you are an actual new poster, not a returning old poster. You really are going to have to do better than this. You are not the only person quoting things in this thread. Please refer specifically to your past statements if you want to cite them specifically. Simply referring to "first" and "second" quote, etc, will get confusing.

If you want to refer to or quote Bible passages, it will serve you in good stead to provide links to them. Here, you can use this:
http://www.ibs.org/niv/

Publishers of the NIV Bible. They claim they have the full text posted somewhere in there.

2) I have already suggested an alternative reading of your quote from Matthew. Do you intend to simply ignore what I said about it, rather than explain how you are right and I'm not?

3) I have asked you to provide the context of dialogue in which the quote about Capernaum was said. You can use the link I gave you for that purpose, thanks. Since this is not a Bible study group, not all of us have the time to read the whole of Matthew to find it.

4) Finally, if Satan had no interest in what the Romans did in Judea, then why would Jesus have called Peter Satan because he thought Jesus came for a political purpose having to do with the Romans? Why wouldn't he have called him Satan for some other, more Satanly reason, such as saying that Peter was being too prideful or too worldly?

1) I'm assuming that you are an actual new poster, not a returning old poster. You really are going to have to do better than this. You are not the only person quoting things in this thread. Please refer specifically to your past statements if you want to cite them specifically. Simply referring to "first" and "second" quote, etc, will get confusing.

If you want to refer to or quote Bible passages, it will serve you in good stead to provide links to them. Here, you can use this:
http://www.ibs.org/niv/

Publishers of the NIV Bible. They claim they have the full text posted somewhere in there.

2) I have already suggested an alternative reading of your quote from Matthew. Do you intend to simply ignore what I said about it, rather than explain how you are right and I'm not?

3) I have asked you to provide the context of dialogue in which the quote about Capernaum was said. You can use the link I gave you for that purpose, thanks. Since this is not a Bible study group, not all of us have the time to read the whole of Matthew to find it.

4) Finally, if Satan had no interest in what the Romans did in Judea, then why would Jesus have called Peter Satan because he thought Jesus came for a political purpose having to do with the Romans? Why wouldn't he have called him Satan for some other, more Satanly reason, such as saying that Peter was being too prideful or too worldly?

3) I provided verse and chapter numbers, and I invite you to look those up upon your own reading if you wish to know context. I'm not going to go about writing the entire chapter out, and you can look them up online as easily as I by now

4) Jesus was telling Peter he was being too worldly. Peter had taken Jesus aside and had rebuked Jesus for telling them what exactly would happen to him when he entered Jerusalem during Holy Week, which was not in agreement with what the Jews, including Peter, had hoped the Messiah would do.

2) sorry, I thought I had already addressed it, but was mistaken.
Jesus treated tax collectors and pagans with respect, but the average Jew did not. The jews at this time had great disdain for both. They would have expelled them from their midst, and in a way, excommunication is an act of love and respect, an attempt to bring the unrepentant back to the truth that they might turn from the harm that the sin they are engaged in will cause them

The line: "treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
They wouldn't eat with these people, they wouldn't interact with them in any way. Giving a person the cold shoulder isn't going to show them their sin, but refusing them the chance to be reassured of their forgiveness will.
Another passage: "when you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus... and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the last day." (1 Corinthians 5:4-5 NIV)
OK, I'm going to remind you that I am not a Christian. I hope you realize that this means that your quotes mean very little to me, except for the face meaning of their words. I read them as literature and interpret them according to their context within the book and according to English grammar. Nothing more.

This means that, if you expect me to see how your quotes support your argument, you are going to have to explain the connection to me.

Because, without context or explanation, I fail to see how the Corinthians quote supports the assertion that Jesus taught Christians to excommunicate people. The words "in the name of our Lord Jesus... and the power of our Lord Jesus is present" strongly suggest that someone other than Jesus is talking. Who? And why should their words take precedence over Jesus' words?

Finally, I have asked you several times to explain your concept of excommunication. All you have said is that you got it from reading the Bible. So far, the Corinthians quote is the only one you've posted that talks about giving a sinner over to Satan, which in terms of the base wording is not the same as cutting a sinner off from god (so you'll need to explain that too). I am still waiting, therefore, for an answer to my question.

Also, earlier, you described excommunication as being cut off from God. Now you seem to be describing it merely as being cut off from God's worshippers. What exactly do you think excommunication is? And are you aware that other Christian churches, such as the Catholic church, consider it far more serious than merely being given "the cold shoulder"?

Finally, when are you going to address my question about who, in the context of the thread topic, you think stands in as the servant who went to jail, who it is who is being told to give their god his due -- the gays or the registrar?

OK, I'm going to remind you that I am not a Christian. I hope you realize that this means that your quotes mean very little to me, except for the face meaning of their words. I read them as literature and interpret them according to their context within the book and according to English grammar. Nothing more.

How dare you not accept the word of god? Well ok, not the word of god, but the english translation of the word of god.....well, ok an english translation of a latin translation. OK fine, a english translation of a latin translation of a hebrew translation. Well, alright, an english translation of a latin translation of a hebrew translation of an Aramaic word of god.

But still, you know, word of god.

We should be forgiving, but the servant thrown in jail said: "be patient with me, and I will pay you back" in verse 29, which shows that he was knowledgeable of and willing to pay for his debt.

absolutely.

up to the limit of how you would treat others.

we ALL have unpayable debts. its best to let god sort that out and let others worry about their own sins.

3) I provided verse and chapter numbers, and I invite you to look those up upon your own reading if you wish to know context. I'm not going to go about writing the entire chapter out, and you can look them up online as easily as I by now
You don't have to write out whole chapters. Just find the Bible text pages on the NIV publisher's website and give the link to the page along with your quotes identified by chapter and verse. That would be considerate of those who you are debating with. It will also save confusion of people trying to refute your reading of the Bible by reference to other versions of it.

Also, be prepared to have your arguments attacked for cherry-picking, if you refuse to give context, even by descriptive explanation.

As for myself, I'm lazy. If a person cannot be bothered to present their argument fully explained, I usually find it easier to simply assume that they did not provide context because the actual context does not support them. I am seldom motivated to other people's research for them. I will read the Bible if I want to make a counter assertion with specific reference to a verse.

4) Jesus was telling Peter he was being too worldly. Peter had taken Jesus aside and had rebuked Jesus for telling them what exactly would happen to him when he entered Jerusalem during Holy Week, which was not in agreement with what the Jews, including Peter, had hoped the Messiah would do.
Is that worldliness, or pridefulness? Whatever, I still fail to see what it has to do with your argument. I remind you that you first mentioned it in support of your assertion that Jesus judged and condemned people. All I see is a rebuke, not a judgment or condemnation.

2) sorry, I thought I had already addressed it, but was mistaken.
Jesus treated tax collectors and pagans with respect, but the average Jew did not. The jews at this time had great disdain for both. They would have expelled them from their midst, and in a way, excommunication is an act of love and respect, an attempt to bring the unrepentant back to the truth that they might turn from the harm that the sin they are engaged in will cause them
Yes, I got that. That is not what I did not understand.

What I did not understand is why I should care more about what ancient Jews thought than what Jesus said and did? All I see here is you applying an interpretation of Jesus' words that does not fit into the context of what Jesus actually did.

Also, your explanation of excommunication sounds a lot like how the Inquisition described what they did. That hardly recommends it to me. And to an outsider, it hardly seems very Christian, considering, again, how it breaks with Jesus' words and actions. Actually, it looks a lot like someone doing something that Jesus would not have done and trying to find some way to justify it by claiming that it really is Christlike in spite of what it is.

How dare you not accept the word of god? Well ok, not the word of god, but the english translation of the word of god.....well, ok an english translation of a latin translation. OK fine, a english translation of a latin translation of a hebrew translation. Well, alright, an english translation of a latin translation of a hebrew translation of an Aramaic word of god.

But still, you know, word of god.
I know, I'm impossible, ain't I? Especially since this is the New International Version of all that, which really should be good enough for anyone, wouldn't one think? ;)

OK, I'm going to remind you that I am not a Christian. I hope you realize that this means that your quotes mean very little to me, except for the face meaning of their words. I read them as literature and interpret them according to their context within the book and according to English grammar. Nothing more.

This means that, if you expect me to see how your quotes support your argument, you are going to have to explain the connection to me.

Because, without context or explanation, I fail to see how the Corinthians quote supports the assertion that Jesus taught Christians to excommunicate people. The words "in the name of our Lord Jesus... and the power of our Lord Jesus is present" strongly suggest that someone other than Jesus is talking. Who? And why should their words take precedence over Jesus' words?

Finally, I have asked you several times to explain your concept of excommunication. All you have said is that you got it from reading the Bible. So far, the Corinthians quote is the only one you've posted that talks about giving a sinner over to Satan, which in terms of the base wording is not the same as cutting a sinner off from god (so you'll need to explain that too). I am still waiting, therefore, for an answer to my question.

Also, earlier, you described excommunication as being cut off from God. Now you seem to be describing it merely as being cut off from God's worshippers. What exactly do you think excommunication is? And are you aware that other Christian churches, such as the Catholic church, consider it far more serious than merely being given "the cold shoulder"?

Finally, when are you going to address my question about who, in the context of the thread topic, you think stands in as the servant who went to jail, who it is who is being told to give their god his due -- the gays or the registrar?

The Corinthians quote was written by the Apostle Paul, and is not in any way in conflict with Jesus teachings in Corinthians 18, because both describe the same thing, dealing with unrepentant sinners through excommunication. Paul's words have authority to me because i believe he wrote Corinthians under divine inspiration, which is of no concern to you because you are not a Christian, so before you attack these statements, bear in mind, you've already made it clear that it doesn't matter to you what is written in the Bible because it does not pertain to you, and I am quoting these passages believing they all have equal authority, because they all were essentially written by the same person

Excommunication is not allowing a person to receive Communion, which is separation from God and his grace, and from the fellowship they have with other believers. it is only to be used in extreme cases of unrepentance. Giving a person over to Satan, the accepted "jailer" in hell, would be allowing the person to suffer the full consequences of their sin, or it could mean that the person is being cut off to face their temptations alone, without the support of God or their fellows, both of which would cause them to see their sins.

The comment on the cold shoulder was said in context of the post which I had quoted, which said something along the lines of, how is not hanging out with a person cutting them off from God, and so my comment was one that shows it is much more than refusing to hang out with someone.

i am curious to know what it is you've heard about excommunication that conflicts with what I'm saying.

Finally, if you would read my posts many of these questions would be answered, including your last paragraph's worth

Yes, I got that. That is not what I did not understand.

What I did not understand is why I should care more about what ancient Jews thought than what Jesus said and did? All I see here is you applying an interpretation of Jesus' words that does not fit into the context of what Jesus actually did.

Also, your explanation of excommunication sounds a lot like how the Inquisition described what they did. That hardly recommends it to me. And to an outsider, it hardly seems very Christian, considering, again, how it breaks with Jesus' words and actions. Actually, it looks a lot like someone doing something that Jesus would not have done and trying to find some way to justify it by claiming that it really is Christlike in spite of what it is.

The context of the time, Jesus is telling these people to act toward sinners as they would treat pagans and tax collectors. It is rather plain when you read the quotes.

And just because something is cruel, brutal, or "mean" doesn't mean it isn't Christ-like. I'm not going to condone the inquisition, they did what they did without any evidence. Excommunication is used in open sins, because we cannot see nor judge secret sins. But Christ did say: "I came not to bring peace but a sword." Matt. 10:34. He didn't come to end sorrow, or pain, nor did he come to tell everyone they were okay how they were. He came to die painfully for the dirty, filthy, corrupt beings which we all are, and because of this conflict would take place, he wouldn't be involved with it, but it would come in the form of religious persecution on both sides: Christian and not. It would come in war and sin and death, and all are signs of the end times.

Also, i am not trying to convert you, not trying to make excommunication appeal to you. I made a comment according to my beliefs and opinions.

How dare you not accept the word of god? Well ok, not the word of god, but the english translation of the word of god.....well, ok an english translation of a latin translation. OK fine, a english translation of a latin translation of a hebrew translation. Well, alright, an english translation of a latin translation of a hebrew translation of an Aramaic word of god.

But still, you know, word of god.

Actually, the New testament was written in Greek, most of the old in Hebrew, and only one book, Daniel if I'm not mistaken, is in Aramaic.

And, all the pastors i know are taught to read and translate all three languages, taking the words from the original language and context and preaching on them knowing all of the subtle nuances and idioms that appear in the text

The Corinthians quote was written by the Apostle Paul, and is not in any way in conflict with Jesus teachings in Corinthians 18, because both describe the same thing, dealing with unrepentant sinners through excommunication. Paul's words have authority to me because i believe he wrote Corinthians under divine inspiration, which is of no concern to you because you are not a Christian, so before you attack these statements, bear in mind, you've already made it clear that it doesn't matter to you what is written in the Bible because it does not pertain to you, and I am quoting these passages believing they all have equal authority, because they all were essentially written by the same person

1) If I attack anything, it will be the structure and logic of your arguments as you attempt to make them applicable to other people (in how you think they should behave or how they should be treated). I do not, will not, and would never, attack your religious beliefs in and of themselves. However, it is important to understand what those beliefs are in order to understand why you structure your arguments in the way you do ("you" being the rhetorical "you," meaning "one" as in anyone).

2) I know many Christians who would disagree very strongly with you about the authority of Paul compared to the authority of Jesus. I understand now why you are quoting him, but I hope you will understand why I am not willing to accept your attempts to show me how Jesus taught excommunication by quoting Paul teaching it, just because they are associated with the same god. They may have been followers of the same god, but they were not the same man. If you say one said something, please quote him saying it, not someone else.

3) You have yet to show me Jesus teaching excommunication. I know, you keep sending me back to that quote from Matthew, but I have already explained why I reject it as an example and am waiting for your counter argument.

Excommunication is not allowing a person to receive Communion, which is separation from God and his grace, and from the fellowship they have with other believers. it is only to be used in extreme cases of unrepentance. Giving a person over to Satan, the accepted "jailer" in hell, would be allowing the person to suffer the full consequences of their sin, or it could mean that the person is being cut off to face their temptations alone, without the support of God or their fellows, both of which would cause them to see their sins.

The comment on the cold shoulder was said in context of the post which I had quoted, which said something along the lines of, how is not hanging out with a person cutting them off from God, and so my comment was one that shows it is much more than refusing to hang out with someone.
I see. So you do believe excommunication is as strong a penalty as other Christians have told me it is. Then again, I fail to see anything in the quotes you have posted that has Jesus advocating that his followers do that to someone else.

i am curious to know what it is you've heard about excommunication that conflicts with what I'm saying.
It turns out that it does not.

Finally, if you would read my posts many of these questions would be answered, including your last paragraph's worth
I have read your posts and I have explained exactly how they have failed to answer my questions. If they are all the answer you have to give, then I must go away dissatisfied.

then I must go away dissatisfied.

see, it's time you stepped up to a real.....poster

2) I know many Christians who would disagree very strongly with you about the authority of Paul compared to the authority of Jesus. I understand now why you are quoting him, but I hope you will understand why I am not willing to accept your attempts to show me how Jesus taught excommunication by quoting Paul teaching it, just because they are associated with the same god. They may have been followers of the same god, but they were not the same man. If you say one said something, please quote him saying it, not someone else.

The Matthew passage tells how if someone sins, you should show them their sin alone. If they do not listen, you should take a few others and ask them to repent again. If they continue to refuse to admit their sin, you tell the church, which then asks them to discontinue their open sin. If they remain stubborn, you then expel them from their midst "as you would a pagan or tax collector" in the context of the time and place of the text. Beyond that, I don't see how you don't make the connection between the passages, but third time's the charm, eh?

The context of the time, Jesus is telling these people to act toward sinners as they would treat pagans and tax collectors. It is rather plain when you read the quotes.
OK, I see what I need to be clearer about:

The ancient Jews did not cast out tax collectors and pagans from their society (probably just because they couldn't). They merely did not associate with them socially.

So, my reading of the Matthew quote is that Jesus is telling his followers not to hang out with unrepentant sinners, and that is all.

He says nothing at all about doing something to separate those people from God. He is telling his followers how to behave for themselves, not what to do to sinners. Basically, he's telling them just to ignore unrepentant sinners and leave them alone, just like they did with tax collectors and pagans.

By the way, the Matthew quote does not stand very well as an example of Jesus advocating excommunication, because excommunication is meaningful only to people who are practicing members of a church. Tax collectors, if they were Jews, were presumably not observant ones, and the pagans didn't even believe in the Jewish god, so I doubt they would have felt very left out if someone had told them they were separated from the God of Abraham. The same goes with unrepentant sinners, by virtue of their non-repentance. It kind of implies that they don't care.

And just because something is cruel, brutal, or "mean" doesn't mean it isn't Christ-like.
Well, that's a fresh perspective. I can honestly say I've never heard anyone say that before.

I'm not going to condone the inquisition, they did what they did without any evidence.
They said they had evidence. Today, we wouldn't consider it good evidence (and in fact in the 16th century it was not considered good evidence, either), but for a while there, it was accepted by both church and secular legal authorities.

Excommunication is used in open sins, because we cannot see nor judge secret sins. But Christ did say: "I came not to bring peace but a sword." Matt. 10:34.
In addition to believing the entire Bible to be the seamless word of God, do you also believe every word in it is to be taken literally? I was under the impression Jesus was referring to figurative sword.

He didn't come to end sorrow, or pain, nor did he come to tell everyone they were okay how they were. He came to die painfully for the dirty, filthy, corrupt beings which we all are, and because of this conflict would take place, he wouldn't be involved with it, but it would come in the form of religious persecution on both sides: Christian and not. It would come in war and sin and death, and all are signs of the end times.
Are you quoting somebody? Those words seem familiar to me.

Also, i am not trying to convert you, not trying to make excommunication appeal to you. I made a comment according to my beliefs and opinions.
That's fine. I didn't think you were trying to convert me.

see, it's time you stepped up to a real.....poster*sticks around and waits to be satisfied* ;)

The bible is very antihomosexual
Conservapedia shows a list of examples

Altho im not a fan of conservapedia they do show how a fundamental christian view can be against homosexual encouters let alone marriage

There is nothing to stop the homosexual couple going to a non religous person to authorize their marriage. There are plently of athiests out there like myself that would do it

However this is a case where people wish to overrule a religous belief because they find gay marriage far more important. It really shows the intollerance of some of the people.

Whilst the bible may be a complete load of fiction (I believe it is) who are you to overrule a persons beliefs? This is as bad as them forcing the religion upon you.

The line: "treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
They wouldn't eat with these people, they wouldn't interact with them in any way.

But Christ would. Are we not supposed to follow the example of Christ - the one who sat and ate with people his disciples despised and who chided those disciples when they complained about it?

The Matthew passage tells how if someone sins, you should show them their sin alone. If they do not listen, you should take a few others and ask them to repent again. If they continue to refuse to admit their sin, you tell the church, which then asks them to discontinue their open sin. If they remain stubborn, you then expel them from their midst "as you would a pagan or tax collector" in the context of the time and place of the text. Beyond that, I don't see how you don't make the connection between the passages, but third time's the charm, eh?

Here's the disconnect for me:

One action has you cutting them off from YOU.

The other action has you cutting them off from their GOD.

Do you not see the difference in those? A person's soul does not suffer torment just because he can't hang out with you (I presume), as long as he can find his god elsewhere -- like in his own heart or the wilderness or wherever, places where lots of people found god in the Bible.

As I understand it, excommunication is a rite of a church that has to be performed and announced and which has the effect of telling a person that they can no longer be members of that church. So they have to be members to begin with, right? Obviously, there is no point in excommunicating someone who was never communicated in the first place. Now, unlike the social shunning of tax collectors and pagans, excommunication really hurts the person it is done to, because they presumably believe in the religion they are being cast out of.

I still fail to see anything in the Matthew quote that has Jesus telling his followers to cut believers in God off from God, which is what the rite of excommunication purports to do. All the Matthew quote says is that they should cut the unrepentant sinner off from them -- from the company of other fallible humans. It says nothing at all about denying them communion with their god.

I have to conclude by saying that, in all this discussion with you, I have only seen you attempting to interpret a few small quotes, presented out of context, in such a way that they appear to support your assertions. I have not seen you quote anything that is actually on point to your assertions. This leaves me with the impression that, though you have claimed that you are telling us what the Bible says, you are really only giving us your personal opinions.

To which you are entitled, of course, though they may not carry much weight with anyone else.

I'm off to dinner now. Later.

There is nothing to stop the homosexual couple going to a non religous person to authorize their marriage. There are plently of athiests out there like myself that would do it

Why should they need to shop around for a government official who doesn't happen to be religious?

Do you know if the people at the DMV or at the post office or at any other government office are religious? Why should you be expected to know the religion of your registrar?

However this is a case where people wish to overrule a religous belief because they find gay marriage far more important. It really shows the intollerance of some of the people.

If someone's religious belief conflicts with their job, they should quit their job or ask to be transferred to something that doesn't conflict.

That isn't intolerance. It's common sense.

Whilst the bible may be a complete load of fiction (I believe it is) who are you to overrule a persons beliefs? This is as bad as them forcing the religion upon you.

Expecting someone to do their job in its entirety is as bad as forcing religious belief on someone? Really?

This is actually an interesting issue. Does the neutrality of the State apply to every individual public servant or does it apply only to the service in question as a whole? You could argue that there isn't a problem as long as another registrar is available who doesn't object to performing same-sex civil unions, but in my opinion no public servant should be allowed to treat same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples differently in the exercise of her functions. If her religious beliefs don't allow that, then she shouldn't be a registrar.

Why should they need to shop around for a government official who doesn't happen to be religious?

Do you know if the people at the DMV or at the post office or at any other government office are religious? Why should you be expected to know the religion of your registrar?

Its not that hard. It would only be a few people in the area and they can always just move to the next desk. Its not that much effort.

If someone's religious belief conflicts with their job, they should quit their job or ask to be transferred to something that doesn't conflict.

Why should you be intolerant of a large percentage of the population? Gay marriage is a new thing. Christians in the public sector is not. There would be someone else there willing to do it. Or should they just fire all religious people in a line of work that they would have been typically happy to do. They were in the position first.

It is just plain discrimination to tell the Christian employees to leave. This isnt a matter that needs to be sorted out in that second due to a life and death scenario. I am sure the gay couple can wait a few minutes.

Why should you be intolerant of a large percentage of the population? Gay marriage is a new thing.

Marriage between non Christians is not. The employees are also required to marry atheists, muslims and so on - regardless of their own feelings on the validity of such marriages. Making an official exception for one type suggests the state justifies their objections against the exception.

Its not that hard. It would only be a few people in the area and they can always just move to the next desk. Its not that much effort.

It's more effort than an opposite-sex couple would have to put in. Therefore, it is unequal protection under the law.

Why should you be intolerant of a large percentage of the population?

Expecting someone to do her job is intolerant?

In that case, I am intolerant of the entire population. I expect everyone to either do his job or find a new one. It's this crazy thing we call "work ethic."

Gay marriage is a new thing. Christians in the public sector is not. There would be someone else there willing to do it. Or should they just fire all religious people in a line of work that they would have been typically happy to do. They were in the position first.

And, if they are now unable to perform it, they should be moved to a job they can perform to its full extent. (And this option should only be available for people who were in the job before the change. Anyone taking the job afterwards should summarily be fired for refusing to perform it.)

It is just plain discrimination to tell the Christian employees to leave.

Luckily, it wouldn't be based on their religion. You tell any employee that will not complete his job to leave. The religion of that person is irrelevant.

It's also interesting to note, by the way, that not all Christians would have a problem with performing this job.

It's more effort than an opposite-sex couple would have to put in. Therefore, it is unequal protection under the law.


It's the UK. That doesn't wash.

I agree that the registrar shouldn't be allowed to make these distinctions, but as long as people pander to fairy stories this type of thing is going to crop up.

It's the UK. That doesn't wash.

No, it doesn't.

But it's still a standard by which I judge government action.

Hmm, been away for just a day and this thread has gone through biblical translations, religion in a general sense and back on topic...

I've noticed one thing though - before this was an issue this woman was able to trade shifts *in advance* to someone more willing (or at least sympathetic) to sort out the paperwork etc.
Has anyone found a good reason why this just wasn't allowed to continue? None of the sources give even an excuse for the change, and I'm now wondering if the change was more for persecution...

If she was new to the job then fair enough don't allow it, but as that work-around was available and working (and when all the old staff have moved to a different job, would not be needed at all) how come it was stopped?

In regards to all the biblical quotations. The west wing said it better than I ever could.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWqgD7lGneU

Explain why you consider the anti-homosexual stuff so much more important than a lot of the stuff in the bible that is so out of date it's ignored by all but the most extreme of Christians.

The persons job previously did not involve legalizing gay marriages. The job was changed upon her.

Her religious beliefs were established prior to the law being established. Changing jobs is not an easy thing. She may have enjoyed her current work and would not appreciate a transfer due to family stress or the work type

There has been no complaint of how she handles straight marriages (which is what he job solely involved prior to the legal change). It is the change in the law that caused the problem in the first place

I still do not see the harm in gay marriages being passed onto another person in the same building.

The persons job previously did not involve legalizing gay marriages. The job was changed upon her.

There is no change in job description. Her job is to perform marrriage ceremonies that are legal according to the laws of her country, regardless of her personal feelings surrounding the validity of those marriages.

That laws can change in ways you do not like is the risk of being a civil servant. I do think the state should help her look for a new job if it is that much of a problem for her, but that is just because I am nice.

Not that I am aware of. If it's private property/non-public, the owner can make any decision they want to about serving customers.

You oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1968, then?

The persons job previously did not involve legalizing gay marriages. The job was changed upon her.

Her religious beliefs were established prior to the law being established. Changing jobs is not an easy thing. She may have enjoyed her current work and would not appreciate a transfer due to family stress or the work type

There has been no complaint of how she handles straight marriages (which is what he job solely involved prior to the legal change). It is the change in the law that caused the problem in the first place

I still do not see the harm in gay marriages being passed onto another person in the same building.

There is no change in job description. Her job is to perform marrriage ceremonies that are legal according to the laws of her country, regardless of her personal feelings surrounding the validity of those marriages.

That laws can change in ways you do not like is the risk of being a civil servant. I do think the state should help her look for a new job if it is that much of a problem for her, but that is just because I am nice.
I agree with TAM. To me this is obvious in the extreme. Being a registrar is a job. The daily demands of jobs change all the time. Welcome to reality. If a job changes in a way that makes it uncomfortable for an employee to do it, they are free to leave it.

Now, because it is a government job, and because this woman had been a solid employee for a while before this problem arose, I personally believe the government should make an effort to transfer her to a job that will not conflict with her beliefs. But I will never waver from my position that if she merely, acting on her own, refuses to do her job for certain citizens, then she is not only behaving unethically (towards her employer) but also failing on her job and thus warranting dismissal.

Now, if she deals honestly with her employer, asks for transfer to another department or reassignment to duties not dealing with the public, and her employer refuses, then she might have grounds for a complaint against them. Maybe. Or if she continues performing her job properly AND asks for such transfer/reassignment for religious reasons, and gets fired instead, then she might have a complaint for wrongful dismissal against them.

But if she just plain starts screwing around with how she does the job, then she doesn't have a leg to stand on, as far as I'm concerned. Fire the self-centered cow.

The persons job previously did not involve legalizing gay marriages. The job was changed upon her.
If you work for the government that is always a risk. Government changes. Legislation changes. I know. I work for Centrelink. There are some laws that I think suck. Such as a couple who have an income of over $200K getting welfare dollars. Do I refuse to process their claims? No. I do my Job.
Her religious beliefs were established prior to the law being established. Changing jobs is not an easy thing. She may have enjoyed her current work and would not appreciate a transfer due to family stress or the work type.
And bigots like her and her bigot religious crew have made it hard for gays for years. I'm crying buckets. She is creating the stress by being bigoted. Reap what you sow.
I still do not see the harm in gay marriages being passed onto another person in the same building.
Because you can't pick and choose your customers. It also sets a dangerous precedent. If one employee can choose not to serve one group, what about another employee choosing not to serve a different group, etc.

Also, anyone saying it wont affect service has never worked in customer service. Due to sick days, just bad luck with a whole group of people coming in all at once, a mess up in scheduling, whatever, there will be times when everyone will be busy. If she finishes a job and a gay couple come up, does she just sit on her ass doing nothing, making them have bad service, until a less bigoted staff member finishes their job.
It's not the kind of thing that you can change who's doing the job midway through. "Oh, Estelle, the next jobs a couple of poofs, I'll step in and finish off your heteros, and you can do those abominations. That's a dear, thanks." :rolleyes:

Her job is to serve the public. All the public. That's why they are called public servants.

If you work for the government that is always a risk. Government changes. Legislation changes. I know. I work for Centrelink. There are some laws that I think suck. Such as a couple who have an income of over $200K getting welfare dollars. Do I refuse to process their claims? No. I do my Job.

And no doubt the woman has "happily" married Pagans, Atheists, Satanists, Catholics/Protestants/Reformed/Jehovas witnesses or whatever else she considers abominations. Not to mention 18 year old girls to 70 year old men, people with various skincolours to people with other skincolours, people she considered smelly, people wearing "I love Satan"t-shirts and so on.

Not her job to judge. Just her job to marry.

Her job is to serve the public. All the public. That's why they are called public servants.
This. It's rather ironic that this rather self-centred piece of work is claiming that she's being discriminated against because she can't discriminate against someone else. One's religion is not (or at least, should not be) a legal trump card one can play to excuse homophobia, racism or freedom of expression.

This. It's rather ironic that this rather self-centred piece of work is claiming that she's being discriminated against because she can't discriminate against someone else. One's religion is not (or at least, should not be) a legal trump card one can play to excuse homophobia, racism or freedom of expression.

I wanted to leave some love for Newer Burmecia. I couldn't have said it better myself - thank you!

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/regina/story.html?id=ce6e0de8-abd2-4c4d-bb0a-42b7ff2b148b

The same thing happened in one of the western Canadian provinces, only this time, the public servant was the one who was found guilty of breaking the law:

A Regina marriage commissioner for 25 years, he was found guilty of violating the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code for declining to perform a same-sex marriage three years ago. Nichols too will be asked to comply and if he won’t, he’ll likely be allowed to complete any outstanding bookings for weddings before he loses his appointment as a commissioner, Morgan said.

So anyone wanting a civil partnership ceremony in this district can get one, yes? This woman's actions do not make it difficult for the council to provide civil partnerships given that she is one of a number of registrars? I disagree with the tribunal's decision but let's get some perspective here: no gay people actually lose out as a consequence of this woman's behaviour or the tribunal's decision. The sky is not falling.

So anyone wanting a civil partnership ceremony in this district can get one, yes? This woman's actions do not make it difficult for the council to provide civil partnerships given that she is one of a number of registrars? I disagree with the tribunal's decision but let's get some perspective here: no gay people actually lose out as a consequence of this woman's behaviour or the tribunal's decision. The sky is not falling.
By accepting her behaviour, you are saying bigotry is acceptable. Let's stop marrying niggers. They are just going to breed more thieving brats anyway. :rolleyes:
Judging people on their colour, gender or sexual orientation is no longer acceptable. If a non religious person tried this, they'd be out on their ass. Her religion doesn't excuse her behaviour.
Justice not only needs to be done, it needs to be seen to be done. Her discrimination Must have consequences. That consequence being her losing her job.

Here's the disconnect for me:

One action has you cutting them off from YOU.

The other action has you cutting them off from their GOD.

Do you not see the difference in those? A person's soul does not suffer torment just because he can't hang out with you (I presume), as long as he can find his god elsewhere -- like in his own heart or the wilderness or wherever, places where lots of people found god in the Bible.

As I understand it, excommunication is a rite of a church that has to be performed and announced and which has the effect of telling a person that they can no longer be members of that church. So they have to be members to begin with, right? Obviously, there is no point in excommunicating someone who was never communicated in the first place. Now, unlike the social shunning of tax collectors and pagans, excommunication really hurts the person it is done to, because they presumably believe in the religion they are being cast out of.

I still fail to see anything in the Matthew quote that has Jesus telling his followers to cut believers in God off from God, which is what the rite of excommunication purports to do. All the Matthew quote says is that they should cut the unrepentant sinner off from them -- from the company of other fallible humans. It says nothing at all about denying them communion with their god.

I have to conclude by saying that, in all this discussion with you, I have only seen you attempting to interpret a few small quotes, presented out of context, in such a way that they appear to support your assertions. I have not seen you quote anything that is actually on point to your assertions. This leaves me with the impression that, though you have claimed that you are telling us what the Bible says, you are really only giving us your personal opinions.

To which you are entitled, of course, though they may not carry much weight with anyone else.

I'm off to dinner now. Later.

You can deny the Matthew quote as proof, but the quote from 1 corinthians is one that plainly teaches excommunication.

You can deny the Matthew quote as proof, but the quote from 1 corinthians is one that plainly teaches excommunication.

http://www.hookahforum.com/uploads/1165808825/gallery_2063_3_17264.jpg
At least it wasn't a long-dead thread, I suppose.

Point out the daughter-selling passage to me, and I'll feel sorry for it.

Exodus 21:7.

Exodus 21:7.

It doesn't command the selling of your daughter. This was, basically, a form of income. Women of standing would have handmaidens who would help them with whatever duties they required aid in. Parents would put a daughter "on the market" so to speak and would receive payment.

It doesn't command the selling of your daughter. This was, basically, a form of income. Women of standing would have handmaidens who would help them with whatever duties they required aid in. Parents would put a daughter "on the market" so to speak and would receive payment.

So selling's a no-no, but renting's cool?

The thing with it is the precedent it sets.

Will we now see Muslim butchers refusing to handle pork? The synic inside me says, if you can't do the job find another one.

Were I a Muslim (or Jewish) butcher I would work in a Halal (or Kosher) shop where this wouldn't be a problem. If I lived in an area that did not have a Halal or Kosher Butchers shop I would find work as something other than a butcher.

Here's the difference: She's refusing to perform civil unions. That's not the same as refusing to sell someone a hamburger.

Since that is a function of her job, yes it's exactly the same. She is refusing to the duties of her job, therefore no more job.

It is just plain discrimination to tell the Christian employees to leave.

They don't have to leave, they could do their job instead.

well ..on one hand: it is their job to register civil unions ..if they dont they might as well resign ...

but

on the other hand: religious beliefs must also be protected among many other things ...
so if she refuses then so be it ...

but it raises the question of which is more important ..religios protection or duties to the state .. i think that in canada the tribunal would rule the same way but they would also say that unless impossible . registrars should do their jobs ..

but i feel that UK should decide ..are they secular or religious ? if the civil public service and the nation is secular then duties to the state trumps over religios protection but if they say that they are of a certain religion then it is the opposite ..of course that raises the issue then of religious discrimination against minority religions and atheism ...