Civil Marriage: The Right To Discriminate
DIZZY looks at the Christian registrar who refused to perform same-sex civil partnership unions because she believes that gay marriage is “sinful”. She has won her claim for discrimination:
And so it came to pass that on the seventh day identity politics was shown to be the most absurdly contradictory and inherent upholder of all that it seeked to destroy. If you’re wondering what I’m talking about it’s the news that an orthodox christian registrar in Islingtom has has had her claim of discrimination on religious grounds upheld by a tribunal after the council said she could not refuse to carry out same-sex civil partnership because she considered them sinful.
The gay rights movement is inevitably outraged by this. Outrages Peter Tatchell that it was not a victory for religious liberty but a ‘victory for the right to discriminate’. Meanwhile Stonewall’s head says that because the women is public servant she can’t choose what public services she will do. Thus we now have two distinct identity groups claiming discrimination and each wanting to discriminate. Whoever had won the other side would be claiming the right to discriminate had been upheld for the winner.
What makes no sense is how nobody seems to be able to see this absurdity or dares to question it. What has happened to this country?
So very, well, Christian of her…
Posted: 11th, July 2008 | In: Politicians, Twitterings Comments (15) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- yampster on Global Warming: Every Time You Breathe A Bangladeshi Dies
- Paul Wainwright on Global Warming: Every Time You Breathe A Bangladeshi Dies
- tuesday on The 19th Annual Le Bal Crillon In Pictures And ‘Well-Born Young Ladies’
- June on The 19th Annual Le Bal Crillon In Pictures And ‘Well-Born Young Ladies’
- Fact Checker on The 19th Annual Le Bal Crillon In Pictures And ‘Well-Born Young Ladies’
July 12th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
The following comment was inadvertently posted on the wrong thread. I am reproducing a copy of it here >>>
Charlotte Says:
There will always be people against equality. For the truth about gay marriage check out our short. Produced to educate & defuse the controversy it has a way of opening closed minds & provides some sanity on the issue: http://www.OUTTAKEonline.com The truth will set them free…
July 12th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I don’t think anyone here has commented either way about same sex marriages, it was more to do with the handling of the situation that arose.
I know many gay men and women, some I like and some I don’t. Bit like how I feel about all the heterosexuals I know!
Their sexuality is irrelevant to me.
July 12th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Recently same-sex marriage is a hot topic. Personally, i think it’s great, especially for GLBT. One of my friends, who found her another part on the online community BiLoves, decided to get married recently. Hope they have a great marriage life.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
and it doesn’t matter if its religion vs religion, religion vs race, or sexuality vs fatness, all discrimination should be removed from the work place (and every where else).
To dream the impossible dream….
July 11th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
the tabloids? again
July 11th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Noseycow, I do agree and it would be good to take all religion out of civil life, schools etc (I felt decidedly uncomfortable on a hospital visit to have a doctor in a veil, could have been anyone IMO) but we’re too far down the line for that now.
However, this case could easily have been dealt with in-house. It wasn’t religion V religion but religion V sexuality. Why not deal with it sensibly? Someone wanted this to blow and they succeeded. But who?
July 11th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
But these cases are no longer dealt with in house.
In fact the exact people who ‘object on the grounds of religion’ are the ones who will not have a gentle and understanding conversation to talk it through.
they are the ones who go through the courts and the press, in fact I often wonder whether it is religious freedom they want or to cause trouble.
May I remind you of a certain Muslim classroom assistant and her veil, and a certain airport worker and her cross?
Sometimes I wonder whether the French have it right on this issue, we brits can be too tolerant IMO.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Nosey….. I’m sure we wouldn’t hear about it because it would be dealt with in-house as I think this should have been. Don’t you think?
I’m all for religious / sexual / racial freedom combined with a great big dose of common sense and tolerance.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Cooland calm
How far do we take it???
Would you feel the same way if it was a Muslim Secondary school teacher refusing to teach boys over the age of 14?
July 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Has Anorak commented on the braille application pack for an Air Traffic Controller?
Just wondering…….
July 11th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Is the Registrar of a small ethnicity?
July 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Daniel said……….. the religious rights of public employees trump the religious rights of the taxpayers….
…………………..
Not sure how you make that argument run. A civil ceremony is not a religious ceremony so I don’t see how the ‘religious rights’ of the taxpayer are being infringed.
However, the words mountains and molehills spring to mind.
I don’t understand why they couldn’t sort it out among themselves. Someone else does the gay ceremonies and she does extra chavs or somesuch.
Thats how it works with christian nurses and abortions……. Opt out.
What’s wrong with compromise and understanding of beliefs whether you agree with them yourself or not?
Methinks someone is making mileage out of a situation but I’m not really sure who!
July 11th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Quite right. If two gay men wish to take each other up the aisle, who are we to try to put them asunder
July 11th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
The obviously-corrupt Employment Tribunal ruled that the religious rights of people paid to do secular work overrule the religious rights of people seeking those secular services, even though the employee is being paid with tax dollars to carry out secular activities. In other words, the religious rights of public employees trump the religious rights of the taxpayers funding their salaries and seeking the services paid for by those taxes - you do not get more blatantly backwards or discriminatory than that! Thus, for example, women should not call the police for help because they may get an Islamic officer who can refuse to help based on their religious belief. And black people should not call the fire department because they may get a Mormon fire fighter who can refuse to help based on their religious belief.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Whats the fuss about, can’t she just direct them to St Bartholomew the Great…..