A British court will hear quite a case this week.
A registrar named Lillian Ladele filed a suit against her employers after they became “hostile” to her gay marriage opposition.
Once able to “opt out” of same-sex registration, registrars were recently absorbed into the state machine and, thus, must comply with anti-discrimination laws. Ladele, however, insists such a ruling discriminates against her Christian beliefs:
[Ladele] claims council bosses bullied her after she told them of her religious objections to same-sex civil partnerships.
In a landmark legal action, she is suing Islington Council in North London for discrimination and victimization on grounds of her Christianity.
The case could determine whether employees can be required to act against their consciences.
Ladele told the court that she’s “unable to directly facilitate the formation of a union that I sincerely believe is contrary to God’s law.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Rory Stone
As disgusting as it might be, I have to agree with Miss Ladele. I do not condone her homophobia but why should she be forced to do something she’s completely against. These are the kind of things that fuel the homophobic rantings from the right wing party, that conservatives will be forced to negate their beliefs for the “gay agenda”.
REBELComx
As a state employee, she must adhere to the state’s rules and regulartions, regardless of her religious viewpoints. If her religion is more important than her job, she can find another job. You’re religious viewpoints do not exempt you from you’re responsibility as a civil servant.
If she is truly “unable to directly facilitate the formation of a union that [she] sincerely believe[s] is contrary to God’s law,” then the state is “unable to provide her with employment.”
Tom
This is ridiculous. If her religious beliefs preclude her from carrying out her job in officiating over gay weddings/civil unions, she should quit her job or transfer to a different position. She is a government employee who serves the public in providing government services. Her personal religiuous beliefs cannot trump/override the delivery of government services.
What if a Hindu refused to serve hamburgers at the High School cafeteria or a fundamentalist Muslim firefighter refused to put out the fire at the gay community center? Could they bring a lawsuit and claim their religious beliefs preclude them from delivering this public service? No.
Jaroslaw
I agree with both 1 & 2 – except in the case of #2 the claim would be stronger if she took the job and then protested. As it is, the job changed significantly AFTER she had it.
I will be completely on her side if she applies “God’s laws” to everything – I suggest she put herself back into slavery; she shouldn’t speak in the assembly and all the other things women are not supposed to do per the Bible. She should probably also move to her own personal island, because all governments are imperfect and do things contrary to God’s law- there is corruption at every level, governments discriminate and wage unjust wars (some are just but how to tell sometimes can be difficult.) and so on.
I also question the motives of someone taking a stand on something like this, but would they tell their neighbor or family member – sorry, you can’t come over because you are an alcoholic, adulterer, tax cheat or whatever?
Alex James
I agree with No. 2. If she cannot fulfill the requirements of her job description, then her employer should be free to discipline her or terminate her employment.
Joe M
Huh?!? It’s her JOB. If t goes against your personal beliefs, find another one. How many heterosexual marriages go against her beliefs? Would she have the right to not do her job then? A person’s personal belief system does in no way trump another’s right to lawfully live thier life. Her employers are asking her to simply do the job she was hired to do. This is clearly a far right ploy that is destined to fail. Also, any success in gay rights advancement is going to “fuel the homophobic rantings of the rightwing party”, so what? Listen, anyone has the right to be a bigot. It becomes an issue when your bigtory affects other people.
Raymie
Guess what? “God’s Law” changes from religion to religion, from the country to country, from state to state, from person to person. For the last time GOD DOESN’T MAKE LAWS, people do. And legislating morality is a scary, scary thing. Good luck world.
beefy
if your job is to register ppl for marriage, and the law says marriage now includes same sex couples… and you don’t like it- change jobs!!
ILOVEZ
Why is she still working there? What christian believes??!! It is the law! This woman is a jerk!
Now months & months we have to listen this non-sense.
http://www.ilovezeren.com
Rowen
I’d say she has some sort of chance if she also didn’t approve of marrying those who have been divorced. Jesus specifically states that that’s a major no-no.
I’m guessing though that she doesn’t, and as such should be treated like the ignorant whack job she is.
The Avatar of Blue!
If she cannot do her duty under the law, then she has no business serving in a governmental public capacity. She objects to this, then she has a recourse: she can quit her job.
Darth Paul
Then get a job with your church, b!tch.
patches
this is fucking ridiculous, what a waste of money and what a cunt, her “god” does not make laws and her cult should not have any say in the courts, she should go work somewhere else if she is not capable of doing her job. stupid Christians….
plum grenville
The reason this woman’s religious objections to registering gay marriages shouldn’t be tolerated is that the government should not endorse her bigotry.
If gays cannot come to a government office and get the same service as anyone else, they are being treated unequally. The government would be saying, in effect, “We value this woman’s religious beliefs more than we value your right to be treated equally. We know there’s a certain amount of indignity and onconvenience for you as a result, and it’s true we don’t ask any other group to put with lesser treatment, but don’t take it personally.”
It’s noteworthy that many people (although not on this blog) think this is a close case. I suspect that very few people would have a problem with firing a clerk who refused to register interracial marriages on religious grounds. People still have trouble taking homophobia as seriously as they do discrimination on other grounds.
Buffy
@No. 4 · Jaroslaw
Even if certain policies change after you take a job, the employee is still required to follow those policies. Policies are always subject to change.
Leda
“I agree with both 1 & 2 – except in the case of #2 the claim would be stronger if she took the job and then protested. As it is, the job changed significantly AFTER she had it.”
Even then. The fact is that the law changes all around us, and sometimes it shifts under our feet in ways that might make us unhappy. We have the right to protest and oppose, for sure – but not to break the new law, whatever it may be.
The fact that anti-discrimination laws protecting equal provision for gay couples came in AFTER this lady had taken her post has absolutely no bearing on anything: she has to comply regardless.
Two side points occur. One; she seems to believe that she’s preventing “sin” by not marrying these couples. Should someone tell her that they’re probably already having lots of sex, and that her refusal to officiate will not do anything to stop them?
Two; she’s either ignorant of the facts, or being a hypocrite. These aren’t church weddings she’s being asked to perform – they are purely legal proceedings. Considered bluntly, even a male/female couple who marry in her office are still not married by the rules of HER religion, and so she’s already facilitating sex outside of marriage.
Len
Jaroslaw, I understand your point, but I disagree. The job did not change after she took it. Her job was to officiate at civil unions for citizens who are legally able to marry. That’s still her job.
SeaFlood
Separation of Church and State, much?
See, here’s something gay white queers might not identify with: Why, when I read the title and saw the picture think, “Goddess no… why does she have to be B/black?”
See, places like these are where, inadvertantly, people start to form opinions about “how homophobic the B/black community is…” (Even the ones in England!) or where we take her at her word instead of realizing she’s nuts and should be fired.
Fired because she has found a way not to do her JOB. Her JOB is to registar people who want to marry, not MARRY them. She has confused things and she needs to be set free to find new work.
Work that she wants to do for a paycheck.
nikko
Excellent answers, all of you! Message to stated employee who does not want to carry out her new duties: You’re fired!!! Listen up, England. And if she really believes all of the bible, then she should go back to slavery.
Tom
I had the same reaction to Seaflood about her being black. I just wondered how long it would take for some idiot on here to make a comment about her race. Overall, I have been presently surprised that the knuckleheads did not show up. However, there have been a few comments that she should go back to slavery.
I am just curious about the psychology of someone who thinks this. Do they believe that the bible says something about Africans being enslaved? I can tell you, money and greed motivated slavery, and the bible had nothing to do with it. I suspect the slavery reference is just a convenient, yet small-minded and bigoted, way to take a personal swipe at the woman.
I just wish people (of all races) would debate an issue for the issue itself and not indiscriminately interject race or ethnic stereotypes into the picture when it clearly is not relevant.
REBELComx
Actually, Tom, the bible specifically states that you may own slaves: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/topics/slavery.html
The South was using this as part of their argument to keep slavery legal during the Civil War, and even 100 years earlier when the Declaration of Independence was signed. The original Declaration had language expicitly vilifying slavery, but this language was scratched out because the Southern colonies would not sign it if it was included.
So if this woman wants to adhere to the Bible, she should stop eating pork and shellfish, stop wearing pants, NOT HAVE A JOB, and would willingly reverse the abolishon of slavery since the Bible says slavery is ok.
Michelle
“I don’t want to perform this wedding for this Puerto Rican couple. I just don’t believe they can get married”
Yeah, I’m sure THAT would hold up well…
Unfortunately, I’m not very well read on British policy, but, yeah SeaFlood, I wonder what their church/state policies are. The U.K. seems a hell of a lot more enlightened than the U.S.; certainly she has the right to sue, but I’m curious to know how this holds up in court.
*as a Blatina, I was thinking the same thing: “damn, she’s black.” Why does she have to make the rest of us look like ignorant, God-fearing fools?!
Puddy Katz
I believe the state court which originally heard the Loving case (in Va) argued that God had intended different races to stay apart and not marry “…cause Gawd had put em on different continents”. I guess registrars in Virginia and elsewhere in the South could claim that their religion forbade them from marrying white and black folk together.
People are allowed to protest laws even by civil disobedience. The kicker is that you have to be willing to accept the consequences of your disobedience. If my religion and higher moral principles forbids me to accept racial segregation I can protest, sit in the front of the bus or at the counters of restaurants and be arrested (as people did). All of these may inspire others to join me and overturn the unjust laws. If she thinks gay marriage is an unjust law let her take the steps MLK Jr. took. She is, however, unlikely to find many followers which may be why she, and the religious right everywhere, resorts to law suits. So much easier and safer for them. No messy jails and stuff.
Daniel
She is an official of the Brtish government. She is obligated to act in accordance with the law of the land. When she took the job, I am certain there were many duties that interfered with her religious beliefs. Yet, she stayed for the paycheck. This new found Christian belief that they are being discriminated against is a new tool in the arsenal of homophobes. Nothing more and nothing less.
Miss Understood
She’s an idiot, pure and simple. She, like many others, is using “her “religious beliefs” as an excuse to discriminate. The details of marriages of the people she is registering are none of her business. She’s behaving in a completely unprofessional manner and should e fired.
Kenster999
So, who makes marriage policy — her, or the government?
Tom
My point is not everyone of African descent is a descendant of slaves. So, unless the bible says something specific about all African (black) people should be slaves (which it doesn’t), then the slavery reference to every black person is a generalization, stereotype and bigoted.
Chris
@SeaFlood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_by_country#United_Kingdom
BobP
She doesn’t work for God, she works for the government. If she has issues she should either suck it up and do it or get the hell out.
FYI- I took an HIV counseling course and a black woman told me (in front of 20 other people) that the bible tells her she could “fix” me. When I asked her if she was talking about the same bible that told me I could keep her as a slave she screamed out that I attacked HER!!! I’m just saying…
Tom
Just saying what BobP? That she is stupid for thinking she could fix you and you are stupid for thinking that story has some relevance here? You are both meant for each other.
Keep hope alive.
nikko
Nice try,Bob, but that was a stupid response on your interpretation…….. Rebelcomx has it right.
alan brickman
big surprise its a black woman…i thought they woul would understand being a minority..guess itsnot true about minoritys understanding about other minoritys….
Nitesurf
Many, but not all black folks are heavily involved in the church and they hold onto the ridiculous belief that there’s something inherently wrong with being gay, but the same can be said about religious people of all races. I’ve seen plenty of racist comments towards blacks here and other gay sites, but I’m not going to make the assumption that every gay person is racist because of it.
Dom
I wonder how long I would have my job if I refused to marry two people of different religions or different races because it was against my religious views. I’ll bet in ten minutes I would be looking thru the Want Ads for a new job. They should tell her to do her job or quit and go work somewhere else.
Jaroslaw
For the record, I’m not suggesting for a minute that I’m really on her side at all. I just try to allow for the possibiltiy there really are conscientious objectors. But on this issue there can never be a CO, because you can never consistently apply your religious beliefs in a government setting. And two people getting married doesn’t hurt anything or anyone.
But the much more important point, these religious people act as though if they don’t marry Gay people or acknowledge us, we cease to exist. Sorry religiouis folks we are here whether or not YOU choose to see us.
And as someone else more succinctly pointed out, “God’s Law” changes from religion to religion.
sunshine
REBELComx, you are totally right
It is indeed like for an Indian trying to sue the state for not selling me hamburger – because it is against his or her religions beliefs
Andrew Pakula
Lillian Ladele says she will not register civil partnerships because “I cannot condone something I see as sinful.â€
We live in a society with people of many different religions, and each faith issues its own prohibitions and requirements, which its adherents may follow to varying extents. It is in all of our interests to be sensitive to many ways of life, and yet it can not be up to society or employers to make all of the accommodations. There will always be jobs that some religious people will not want to do because of their beliefs: a Muslim or a Jew will not want to work in a facility where he will have to handle pork. A Buddhist or a Jain will not want to be a cook where she is required to taste the meat dishes she is preparing.
The possible conflicts with religion are complex and virtually endless. It hardly seems sensible that employees – particularly public servants – should be given the latitude to take a job and then decline to do it. Employers should not bear the burden of carefully tailoring jobs to each person’s individual beliefs. It is the religionist’s responsibility to find a job that is suitable for them.
And it is particularly outrageous for an employee to refuse to perform her job when result is illegal discrimination. Lillian Ladele feels that she is being discriminated against, persecuted, and bullied. As a straight person in a country with an established Christian church, she is in the privileged majority in several ways. Gays and lesbians have long been oppressed in this country and elsewhere. Now that the Civil Partnership Act has helped to begin to equalise their status, no one should be permitted to turn back the clock, as Ms. Ladele seems determined to do.
Lillian Ladele does not have the right to choose which aspects of the law she will follow and which she will refuse. If she is truly a principled person, she should not want to be employed by an organisation that condones what she sees as sinful. Unless her true agenda is to challenge the law, the obvious answer is to find another job.
Andrew Pakula
Minister, Newington Green and Islington Unitarians, London
noah
For God’s sake, let’s not make this about race! She’s British! You have no idea what branch of Christianity to which she belongs. Therefore, let’s stop talking about the “black church.”
Nowhere in the article does it state if the woman attends a predominately black British church. She could be Catholic. Remember, the Catholic Church that constantly demonizes gays? That church that is led by mostly white men? And, like it or not, most Christian churches do not support gay marriage. It’s a new concept for many. Shuffle on over to your Baptist or Jehovah’s Witness house of worship and ask about getting hitched there.
First, British law is different than American law in that the country is monarchy with the Crown (Queen Elizabeth) is the head of the Anglican Church.
Therefore, there separation of Church and State is not the point here. (In Canada, the state pays for both public secular schools and parochial (usually Catholic) schools).
In the United States, pharmacist have been successful in declaring that providing contraceptives is against their religion. Some have been able to sue successfully to uphold this position. Pharmacies who do this must either have another person on staff to dispense said medication or provide directions to a pharmacy that will help. This, of course, is a problem in smaller communities where there may be only one pharmacy.
The Christian Right, evangelicals and Catholics, have been at the forefront of pushing these conscientious objection stances.
Now, as for this woman, employees of the state should abide by the laws of the land as long as those laws do no harm.
Also, calling this woman a “c*nt” is blatantly sexist. Given all of the attacks on Hillary Clinton that were legitimately described as sexists (versus the bullshit spouted by Geraldine “Klansman” Ferraro), could we not practice any misogyny?
Finally, this whole conversation about slavery needs to be dropped and buried since it is unequivocally racially based. Not all black people are descended from slaves, especially black Britons since many come from former African colonies. Let’s not forget that every one has probably had an ancestor who enslaved whether as an indentured servant, feudal serf, peon to landed gentry, coal miner, or factory worker in the early industrial age through the early 20th Century. Read a history book about the lives of child laborers, miners, or women who worked in textile mills before the labor movement fought back.
Slavery still exists, sadly, even in the U.S. today. Migrant workers on farms are frequently held hostage. Hundreds of thousands of women and children are also held as sexual slaves in the United States. Human trafficking brings thousands into the U.S. for servitude in illegal brothels, while other slaves may just be regular people who have been disappeared off the streets, like the case of the young boy who was recovered last year in Minnesota or the Austrian woman who was held captive by her rapist father for 20 years.
Sorry to go on this rant about slavery as it exists today, but I think people are too flippant in their use of slavery. It was and is a horrible institution whether in plain view or hidden.
Laura
Tom: The Bible says that it is OK to enslave your neighbors. So, technically, Americans can make slaves out of Canadians or Mexicans, but not Africans. If you want to enslave someone from Africa, you have to move to a neighboring country.
The Bible also says that he who eats shellfish is an abomination, and condemns to death anyone who works on Sundays. It requires a man to marry his brother’s widow and forces a woman to remain in a tent for a week after she gives birth to a male, two weeks after she gives birth to a female.
All of that is in the Old Testament, however. Jesus said to love your fellow man. In fact, Jesus spent all of his time with 12 dudes and a fag hag, so I’m not sure where all this homophobia really originated. Christianity teaches that all of that “you’ll go to hell if you do this” stuff was for those who were not ready to accept a loving God, and that it wasn’t meant to apply today.
All, of course, except the part that denounces homosexuality. Which, for the record, only says that God will punish gays, not that man has any right to do so.