Have gay rights gone too far?
Dear Lillian Ladele,
Your refusal to conduct civil partnership ceremonies because they were against your Christian beliefs has become one of the most intriguing court battles that I have ever seen. Yesterday, Appeal Court judges ruled that your infamous refusal constituted a breach of equality laws and that the right to express a strong Christian faith must take second place to the rights of homosexuals. Personally, I think this is a terribly depressing ruling.
Every Christian registrar must now, according to Justice Neuberger, either ’stifle’ their religious principles and perform civil partnerships or give up their job. The appeal judges admitted many people would sympathise with your predicament and they also ruled that you had suffered unfair treatment at the hands of your employer, Islington Council in North London. The judges said Labour’s 2007 Sexual Orientation Regulations – which made it illegal to refuse to serve someone on grounds of their sexual orientation – trump the rights of religious believers. “The prohibition of discrimination by the 2007 Regulations takes precedence over any right which a person would otherwise have by virtue of his or her religious belief or faith, to practice discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation,” said Justice Neuberger. “It is simply unlawful for Miss Ladele to refuse to perform civil partnerships.” Your hearing ended a four-year battle that began when the Civil Partnership Act came into force in 2005.
You tried at first to change your rota so that you did not conduct civil partnership ceremonies, but homosexual colleagues claimed that they felt victimised by this and Islington leaders took disciplinary action. Gay colleagues complained your stance was ‘an act of homophobia’ and Islington officials allowed confidential information about you to be discussed in the Council’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Forum. However, the Appeal Court judges said you had suffered no discrimination or harassment because Islington was treating you no differently to its other registrars by ordering you to carry out ceremonies. The judges overturned an employment tribunal ruling that you had suffered discrimination and upheld a subsequent appeal tribunal decision that you had not. Christian pressure groups said that the ruling could see Christians banned from some jobs. ”Civil partnerships were not being discriminated against, they were able to be performed by other registrars. Lilian Ladele has been discriminated against because of her Christian convictions,” said a spokesman for the Christian Legal Centre. “The effect of this judgment will lead to religious bars on employment,” while a spokesman from Stonewall said: “We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has upheld the right of lesbian and gay people to receive public services from public servants.”
Even as a non-religious person, I believe that freedom of expression is fundamentally important to our society. Forcing people to act against their religious beliefs - and I use the word ‘force’ very deliberately – is clearly operating against freedom of expression. However, discrimination against gay men and women is also unacceptable, so where should we draw the line? The answer is very simple. We (well, anyone with a brain) knows that discriminating against homosexuals is wrong, but I believe that this in turn reflects the underlying belief that everyone has an equal right to take part in society and nothing should stand in their way. For example, if civil partnerships were not allowed then there would be a tangible barrier that effectively excludes gay people from being an equal member in society – which is unacceptable. However, in your legal battle this was not a case of gay people being excluded from accessing a council-run service; it was about gay people being excluded from accessing a council-run service through a particular individual. Personally, I think this is a horrible distortion of what discrimination is all about. The gay couple in question could still get a civil partnership, they were not being excluded or discriminated against by the Council or by society. It was simply a matter of who conducted the ceremony, which is irrelevant as far as being equal members of society is concerned.
This same logic applies to adoption agencies. If the law says that gay couples are allowed to adopt then so be it. If gay couples were therefore banned by a local council from adopting then the council would be breaking the law by discriminating against them and would suffer the consequences. However, if a Catholic adoption agency did not wish to serve a gay couple then the couple have not been excluded from accessing the service; they simply have to access the service through another individual. The gay couple in question would still be able to adopt, freedom of expression would be protected – everyone wins. The truth is that under the current laws introduced by Labour, you have acted incorrectly, but this is simply a manifestation of Labour’s disgraceful attitude towards freedom of expression (and Christianity in general, for that matter) rather than reflecting a rational stance on discrimination. No British citizen should be barred from accessing public services, but neither should people’s religious beliefs be trampled all over by the gay rights lobby when no gay person had suffered any harm, adverse consequences or been prevented from accessing their legal entitlements. Another sad day for our legal system and for our freedom.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
To answer your question: gay rights haven’t gone anywhere. However the rights to religiously inspired bigotry have been correctly stifled by the application of the Secular law.
God tells you to hate gays? Great but act on that hate and you are breaking the law. Don’t like it? Tough.
Out of interest, how would you react to an Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, or white supremacist registrar, who refused to conduct mixed race marriages?
Would you then agree with the Justice in an American case recently who refused to issue a marriage licence to a mixed race couple on the grounds of his own deep personal conviction that these types of marriages don’t work out? After all, they were still able to obtain a licence from someone else, so where’s the harm, right?
Let’s be quite clear here – for a very small minority of campaigners, this is not (and never has been) about ‘equality’ or ‘equal treatment’ or anything else.
It’s been about rubbing the noses of people who they feel aren’t sufficiently welcoming of their lifestyle choice in their new-found power.
And that, to me, is equally as despicable as any other type of bigotry…
Civil Partnerships are not a religious ceremony, they are a state ceremony giving civil rights. If this were an argument on Gay ‘Marriage’ then I still would not agree with you, but your religious argument would have more validity.
To object on religious grounds is spurious. No more then a teacher who believes purely in creationism refusing to teach Darwinism in public schools. Personal beliefs should not take precedent when representing a public body, which in effect you are in a professional capacity.
She is welcome to her own opinions on the rights of homosexuals in society and I would not presume to give instruction on positions of faith where it relates to her private life. But in this case, we can not base the services offered by a public body on the beliefs of the individual, this open a precedent which I believe is potentially more damaging.
Have to disagree LFAT. This is not about homosexuality, discrimination or Christianity per se, but about the rule of parliamentary law and how it applies to those employed by the crown to serve the British public.
If it is in your job description that you must put force to law passed by parliament and you refuse to do this on any grounds apart from the fact that you believe that in doing so you will commit a secondary offence, you are in breach of your contract of employment and should expect action against you on that basis.
These people are supposed to be ‘civil servants’, not political or religious campaigners on the public purse.
Fine, a minority of a particular group are motivated by spite. This doesn’t change the fact that public servants have a duty to serve the whole of the public, not just the particular section of the public they feel like serving at any given time. If someone has a job to do, then they should damn well do it or find another job.
Not sure, Julia…
“Let’s be quite clear here – for a very small minority of campaigners, this is not (and never has been) about ‘equality’ or ‘equal treatment’ or anything else.
It’s been about rubbing the noses of people who they feel aren’t sufficiently welcoming of their lifestyle choice in their new-found power.”
I’m assuming you’re talking about some gay rights activists. However, your statements could just as easily apply to extreme Christians. It is THEY who want special treatment, special exemptions from laws that everyone is subject to on the basis that they believe that doing what they think their sky fairy wants makes them special.
In this respect, it’s like the Muslims who want to be judged under Sharia law in the UK rather than the law of the land.
Not even 9AM yet and 8 comments. This thread could turn into a monster.
NO ONE MENTION FOX HUNTING.
Dear LFAT.
1.Medical professionals who strongly disapprove of abortion (except for medical reasons) are in practice, not required to carry them out. Why should not any public servant who disapproves of a homosexual or lesbian formal relationship be given a similar dispensation?
2.Christians are told to “render unto Caesar what is Caesars and render unto God what is Gods” additionally, a Registary Office “Marriage” is not a Marriage in the eyes of God, but a civil ceremony recognised in the eyes of the State, Incidently, the required state document is issued after the religeous ceremony in a place of worship. To this Christian, the state marriage certificate is Caesars, the Church Marriage is God’s, and, of course, the real marriage. Unless the Registrar is a practising cleric I feel that as a Christian. she can carry out the requirements of her office, however distasteful to her, without affecting her commitment as a Christian.
3. I wonder what the reaction by the homosexual and lesbian workers at the registry would have been if the person had been a muslim? And what the reaction of the managers and the legal process would have been?
4. David Grey has written a book entitled “The Two Liberalisms” which I commend to the readership. He makes the point that traditional, humanist/christian -based liberalism is far different to the socialist/authoritarianist-based so-called “progressive” liberalism, which acts in the manner recently brought into prominence by the climate change alarmists, and the ethics of which have been publicised by Blairs confessions over the WMD affair. The homosexual lobby in the registary office could have acted with the forbearance they expect to to treated with themselves. I would have thought that being able to volunteer to carry out a function specific to their own happiness, that a colleague found difficult, would have given them much satisfaction, possibly even joy. Instead they have deliberately chosen to destroy another person’s life in a cold and calculated manner. But that, of course, is “progressive” liberalism in action.
Some interesting thoughts so far.
Ironically, I used to agree with the line that public servants must do whatever their Masters bid because they are public servants, but what I’m getting at here is the very nature of discrimination and how that interacts with religious beliefs.
School teaching is different because you are not ‘expressing’ beliefs, you are simply passing on information, and ‘personal convictions’ are not comparable because random opinions are manifestly different from religious beliefs (the basis of which is, in theory, testable in a court of law). Interestingly, Stonewall inadvertently supported my argument by talking about their aim being to get public service from public servants – but my argument is that they were always able to get the service that they sought.
Regular readers of this blog will know that I’m a fan of secular education and a broadly secular society, but this whole ‘my rights trump your rights’ malarky is deeply disturbing. The balance between freedom of expression and discrimination is a very very very thorny issue, but I don’t think the law as it stands takes that into account. Besides, these new laws were only introduced in 2007 and Lillian Ladelle presumably started working for Islington council well before then. GOM raises an interesting parallel in terms of medical professionals and abortion – would be keen to hear people’s thoughts on that.
Oh, and fox hunting sucks.
Regarding doctors and abortion, a medic’s professional duty (their first duty, in fact) is to do no harm. I may strongly disagree with a medical practitioner’s view on what does or does not constitute harm, but if in his or her’s professional view suggest a specific treament violates this duty, then it’s a very tricky situation in which to dictate what the medic should be compelled to do.
Regarding civil partnerships, no corresponding duty exists. The first duty of a public servant is emphatically not “to do nothing that conflicts with my personal religious view”.
@Madeley – Why shouldn’t we mention fox hunting? Apart from being way O/T of course.
@Madeley – @0923. sorry Madeley, doen’t wash. Generally, but not invariably, the refusal to do abortions rests on religeous grounds, The Basic premise , that the fetus is a human being and has the right to life, is grounded in religeon. And doctors are public servants too. would you like to have another go?:)
In umpteen situations, at every level of society, the facility to ‘declare an interest’ and withdraw, leaving an act or decision to others is well established and understood; most frequently without argument or rancour. Why not here?
I nearly said ‘then everybody happy’ but one doubts that is a path frequently trodden by LGBT and Stonewall who seem to wallow, even delight, in being ‘victims’. But with decisions and pronouncements like those here, I suspect they do themselves few favours with the otherwise tolerant, sympathetic, get-on-with-their-own-lives majority (incidentally, one of whom I consider myself to be). Don’t they see that there is a danger of making this majority a minority?
GOM – Nah, not really.
‘However the rights to religiously inspired bigotry have been correctly stifled by the application of the Secular law.
God tells you to hate gays?’
Shaun, on some occasions, you are well wide of the mark and this is one of them.
For a start, nowhere in the Bible does God say to hate gays. As with a number of your posts, your own prejudices shine through.
The intolerant attitude you accuse Christians of leaps out of your comments.
LFAT makes a clear point. If we truly lived in a tolerant society, those having a conscientious objection could be accomodated whilst at the same time ensuring those wishing a civil ceremony are not denied it.
The effect of a lot of this equality legislation is to discriminate against those with a deeply held religious view.
I find it interesting how you herald the trumping of religious coviction as just, when it clearly engenders another form of discrimination, which is acceptable to you because…….. it fits your world view and sense of justice.
To me, that is just hypocrisy.
“I’m assuming you’re talking about some gay rights activists. However, your statements could just as easily apply to extreme Christians.”
Indeed they could. That’s the point. They are no better than the people they claim to oppose ‘for the good of all’ when they act from these motives.
AFAIAC, Lilian Ladele is employed and paid to do certain things, and this is purely an employment rights type case. If she refuses to do them, then she can go and look for another job.
PS, Matthew Parris reckone ‘gay rights’ had gone far enough, in practice gays are not discriminated* against so the government has done as much as it can.
* Of course there are still homophobic religions and thugs, but that is a criminal matter, not an ideological one.
“This doesn’t change the fact that public servants have a duty to serve the whole of the public, not just the particular section of the public they feel like serving at any given time. If someone has a job to do, then they should damn well do it or find another job. “
Ah, but as GOM points out, there’s already a ‘conscience clause’ wrt abortions and medical staff.
Having opened that door, you can’t be too surprised when lots of other people try to get through it….
You and GOM are right on that, Julia, and have convinced me. Medical practitioners who make decisions that aren’t based on solid medical and scientific principles should have their licences revoked.
@Madeley –
Are you now arguing that, as solid medical evidence empirically demonstrates that the survival rate of an aborted unborn child is zero, and that Doctors have a duty to do no harm, that all doctors who carry out abortions should have their licences revoked? I too wish that life was that simple.
GOM – No, I’m saying that a doctor refusing to extract non-sentient cellular tissue on spurious woo-woo grounds shouldn’t be allowed to practice. But I suspect you already knew what I was getting at.
GOM – In retrospect, please disregard my previous comment. I don’t want to derail the thread into a discussion of the definition of abortion.
Madeley said,
“Medical practitioners who make decisions that aren’t based on solid medical and scientific principles should have their licences revoked.”
So, the ’solid scientific principles’ you are thinking of would be of the same kind as those employed by the advocates of AGW and of such as Mann and Jones, would they?
” I don’t want to derail the thread into a discussion of the definition of abortion.”
Too late! At least you didn’t mention foxes…
JuliaM – Argh, I know, but it’s never too late to furiously backpeddle. At least it wasn’t me who brought up climate change…
Madeley. Neither do I. I cited the abortion conumdrum as an example of where a public servant is allowed freedom of conscience in the performance of their public duties. This is the old liberalism in action. The indication in LFAT’s original letter is that homosexuals and lesbians at Islington Council mounted a concerted campaign to oust someone who cited freedom of conscience in the performance of her duties. This is “progressive” liberalism in action. I further argued that the situation could have been resolved without recourse to a legal farrago if a reasonable attitude by both sides had been taken. Miss Ladele could have been less confrontational and still have protected her tender conscience. The homosexual and lesbian community could have been far more understanding and less militant without compromising their hard-won legal position.
Madeley, climate change isn’t the issue, but all kinds of people, with their own agendas, will use so-called ’scientific principles’ in order to realize them. The homosexuals use all kinds of ’scientific principles’to argue their case and then use ‘hate crime’ legislation against others who want to oppose the homosexual’s arguments. The same kind of practices are being used in AGW debates.
Who would have thought that global warming, fox hunting, abortions and spurious woo-woo grounds would have got a mention on a post about someone getting sacked?!
I think what this thread is illustrating rather well is that Labour’s attitude towards discrimination is not objective nor does it focus on what I consider to be the core issue – namely, whether people are fully incorporated into society. Sadly, Labour use discrimination legislation to promote the interests of their favoured group over others, which I find extremely distasteful.
Apologies in advance for the cynicism but, in my humble opinion, situations like the one described in my letter are inevitable when you have a Government who show such contempt for freedom of speech, freedom of expression and voter groups who traditionally support their opponents (e.g. Christians).
LFAT. …when you have a Government who show such contempt for freedom of speech, freedom of expression and voter groups who traditionally support their opponents (e.g. Christians).
could you rephrase that? I don’t quite get what your point is.
It is illegal to discriminate against gay people.
Equally it is illegal to discriminate against black people.
The fact that Ms Ladele exercises discrimination on the grounds of her religion is irrelevant – would she accept “Sorry Love, can’t register you as your skin is a bit too brown and my religion disapproves” – Of course not, the woman is a mischief making hypocrite trying to milk the system for a bit of cash.
Can I be the first here to cast doubt on her Christian credentials by pointing out she has a child out of wedlock.
GOM, my point is that Labour pander to the gay rights lobby as they are one of their target voter groups, whereas Christians are certainly not a target group so Labour are perfectly happy to undermine the rights of Christians in favour of the gay rights lobby. I don’t like it, but that’s just the way it is.
VR, didn’t realise that she’d had a child out of wedlock!
NHS Dr’s who refuse to perform abortions on medical grounds should be struck of, they are being paid to provide medical services, nothing more and nothing less, it should be up to the paitaint to decide based on the associated risks on how to proceed.
Dr’s who refuse to perform abortions because the child isnt wanted are not failing to provide *needed* medical care, and so i would say are entilted to refuse.
The person in question is paid to provide a non religous state service, and that’s all.
I also rather suspect that if one was to read the bible i could probably find 100s of things that confict with her job/life and beliefes, but i bet that this is the only one she takes issue with.
The short answer to the question is: “Yes.”
@JuliaM – Hear Hear Julia. Well said.
‘Can I be the first here to cast doubt on her Christian credentials by pointing out she has a child out of wedlock.’
VR,
It is of course possible that her child was born out of wedlock before she became a Christian, but of course we wouldn’t want to consider that if it spoils the opportunity to besmirch someones character.
@vulpus_rex – You can be first but that statement is irrelevant. Christians are not perfect, and make mistakes.
Or FLS’ point could be true
The other point is that Lillian Ladelle was not hired to conduct gay marriages. She was hired as registrar, then – much later- her employer, the government, not only decided that her job should now involve doing stuff completely contrary to her religion, but that she *specifically* should be made to do it, even when there were co-workers perfectly willing to step in and perform the same tasks.
This is where it’s at. She’s not refusing to do her job, she’s refusing to do some whole other job, a job that strikes at the heart of her religious convictions and which her employer is insisting she do for no reason other than to signal contempt for her religion.
I think that her child is irrelevant.
So it was born out of wedlock? Well, at worst, that violates a different Christian tennet (sex within marriage) from the one she’s applying here (that homosexuality should not be recognised as it is abhorrent in the eyes of God). So it doesn’t make her a hypocrite – merely, as FLS and others observe, a generically flawed human being.
I would contend that this woman’s problem is as much psychological and theological as anything else.
Somehow, as a devout Christian, she can reconcile herself to putting people into a ‘godless’ secular civil marriage. By denying God’s role in this, to her, they must surely be unmarried and about to depart for a life of illicit, sinful fornication. But she carries the ceremonies out.
And yet, when the word ‘marriage’ is removed (as an express concession to the religious) and replaced with ‘partnership’, as a devout Christian, she cannot reconcile herself to putting people of the same sex into a ‘godless’ secular civil partnership. By denying God’s role in this, to her, they must surely be expressly saying nothing about her faith, about Christian marriage.
Or, evidently, not…
Two separate issues in my original post.
I think she is a hypocrite because I do not believe she would accept racial discrimination from a civil servant on the grounds that it was required by, or a side effect of, the civil servant’s religion. I don’t know the woman but I think it unlikely and therefore hypocritical.
I do not think she is a hypocrite because she has a child out of wedlock.
To be fair to her I don’t know the circumstances under which the child was born.
To be fair to myself I think it would be extremely relevant to this discussion if she managed as a christian to overlook one aspect of christian teaching and get herself knocked up whilst at the same time claim to be a devout Christian who because of the latter can’t do one aspect of her jopb she claims is against her faith.
Given that I don’t know I accept it was a bit ungentlemanly to raise it. Interesting though.
As a Christian, she should not be judging others but letting God do the judging. If homosexual sex is wrong, then it is up to God to punish the couple. Gay couples simply want to live together and have the same rights as a straight couple (by getting a civil partnership). It would be anti-Christian to deny them the same rights as everyone else. After all, it isn’t like they are getting married anyway – only priests can conduct marriage.
Shaun,
The Bible does not differentiate between a ‘Godless’ marriage and ‘Godfull’ marriage. It recognises marriage simply as the union of a man and a woman (that being central to the point here). Therefore, conducting a civil marriage presents no issue.
Secular & Islamic marriages are contracts while the Christian (and Jewish, i think) marriage is seen by those entering it as both a contract (which is required to comply with the law) and a Covenant before God (and i agree that the fact that Christians have the same divorce rate as the secular world sets a poor example).
The issue at the centre of this is sin (or being in the wrong before God). Homosexual practice is deemed by the Bible as sin (and we should be clear here, homosexual practice was not singled out for special punishment. If you want to quote Leviticus, it is listed along with pre-marital sex, adultery, bestiality and rape).
Now I understand (and respect) that you don’t believe in God, and assume that the concept of sin is something you also don’t accept, BUT to the Christian what you are asking them to do is participate in something they consider sinful. You might as well ask for help robbing a bank.
To me, an objection of conscience in this case is not about pointing the finger and saying ‘you’re a nasty horrible gay and i hate you and i’m not going to marry you’ it’s saying ‘i’m sorry, but I believe this is wrong and I can’t take part in it’.
It’s like making a Jew eat pork. You (or I) might not deem the eating of pork as wrong, but it is to a Jew (most anyway). Would you think it equitable to change the law to force them to eat pork?
And finally, with respect to ‘hating people’ I would just point to the story of Jesus, when the religious hypocrites of his day brought a woman caught in adultery before him. They were trying to trap him as they knew the penalty of the Judaic Law was stoning to death (interestingly, despite being ‘caught’ in the act, there is no man brought before him, deserving of the same punishment)
What happened? He showed love and compassion. He forgave. BUT he said to go and commit adultery no more. He didn’t say ‘it’s all right, times have changed, just carry on’.
And yes, Christians would do well to show more love and compassion.
Unlike the writer of this column, I have zero sympathy for Lillian Ladele.
Ladele’s job responsibilities include granting civil partnership licenses to qualified gay couples and solemnizing gay relationships on equal terms as those which apply to heterosexual relationships. It is a precept of our system of government that no person may use his or her personal religious beliefs as a mace with which to craft law and public policy, just as it is a precept of our system of government that the state may not meddle in ecclesiastical matters. Absolutely nothing about performing gay civil partnerships prohibits Ladele from expressing her personal views, opinions, and religious beliefs; she remains absolutely free to believe that gay relationships should not enjoy legal recognition for religious reasons, and she remains absolutely free to worship as she sees fit. However, her personal refusal, on religious grounds, to perform gay civil partnership ceremonies flies in the face of this venerated principle in our democracy.
Substitute mixed-race couples for gay couples, and the true depths and the ugliness of the homophobia that really animates Ladele’s behaviour become clear. Would we even be having this discussion were the issue to involve mixed-race couples? Would people weep for Ladele’s discomfort were she to have been ordered to perform mixed-race marriage ceremonies in violation of her personal, religious beliefs?
It is only when such comparisons are made – it is only when homophobia is compared to racism or religious bigotry – that the true ugliness that undergirds Ladele’s position becomes clear.
As members of an ordered society in which we nevertheless enjoy substantial and significant liberty, we may not pick and choose which laws to uphold and which laws to ignore on the basis of our personal religious beliefs. The writer of this column asserts that we should in fact carve out such exemptions when the issue at stake involves the rights of gay persons balanced against the rights of religious persons. As a practical matter, where does this end? Would it be acceptable were all of the officials empowered with the task of performing civil partnerships in that particular council to refuse to do so on religious grounds? (After all, according to the logic employed by the writer of this column, gay couples living in that region could obtain their civil partnerships from other councils.) Why should religious belief trump the law of the land?
The bottom line is simple – if Ladele is not up to the task of performing gay civil partnership ceremonies, she should resign and let another person do her job.
PHILIP CHANDLER
FLS writes: “To me, an objection of conscience in this case is not about pointing the finger and saying ‘you’re a nasty horrible gay and i hate you and i’m not going to marry you’ it’s saying ‘i’m sorry, but I believe this is wrong and I can’t take part in it’.
It’s like making a Jew eat pork. You (or I) might not deem the eating of pork as wrong, but it is to a Jew (most anyway). Would you think it equitable to change the law to force them to eat pork?”
I respectfully submit that this issue is most certainly not analogous to forcing a Jewish person to eat pork. It may be analogous to requiring a Jewish person to serve pork to customers who do eat pork, when that Jewish person works alongside non-Jewish persons in a cafeteria that serves numerous different meals to numerous different customers. This would be a much more compelling analogy. But that is where the analogy ends – nobody is requesting that Christian registrars actually enter into gay relationships. Legal recognition of a relationship is not the same as personal moral approval of that relationship.
PHILIP CHANDLER
Of course gay rights trump religious (or political) ones – gayness is not a choice, whereas religion/politics is mere opinion, which one has elected to follow. Non-choice attributes should always trump choice ones when it comes to rights – that’s why it’s right to have incitement to gay/race hate legislation, but wrong to have incitement to religious hatred laws – we should be willing and happy to defend our religious views, but we shouldn’t have to defend our sexuality!
Is there a national shortage of Registrars? Because if not, all the local council need do is shuffle around duties so that those who hold genuine views can be accomodated. I do wonder however whether a different decision would been arrived at were the Registrar a Moslem?
Just a thought – what would have happened if a muslim lady had objected to carrying out civil partnerships on religious grounds? And as I understand it, homosexuality doesn’t go down well among muslims. Just a thought.
“GOM – No, I’m saying that a doctor refusing to extract non-sentient cellular tissue on spurious woo-woo grounds shouldn’t be allowed to practice.” – Madeley
Dear Madeley,
I cannot help but take exception to this rather thoughtless statement.
I am not religious, and have a background in science. I do however think that, on balance, abortion is unethical. This is not based on woo-woo, as you say, but on my own reasoning.
These include but are not limited to arguments such as:
1) It is wrong to kill a human save for in immediate self defence.
2) Scientifically speaking, species is defined by its genome alone.
3) A foetus has its own unique genetic material and possesses the human genome. It is therefore scientifically a human individual.
4) The foetus shows all the biological characteristics of life.
5) Temporary lack of sentience is not important. It is still unethical to kill an unconscious human.
I could continue, but my point is not to persuade you but to help you understand that reasonable people can differ without needing to belittle each other.
Now, you may disagree with my conclusions, and that is fine. It is possible, due to the is-ought dichotomy, that science cannot help us to understand matters ethical. Indeed the idea of ethics may be entirely unreasonable. But can you honestly not see how terrifying and authoritarian your view is? That a man must relegate his own ethics, arrived at through the use of his own reasoning powers, however limited they may be, to match whichever view is currently in the ascendency? That a doctor who has studied for many years to help his fellow man should lose his licence for disagreeing with the ethics of a particular procedure?
Obviously, I don’t expect to convince anyone to change their mind on this issue, but if you could take one thing from this post it would be that this is not a simple issue and that disagreeing with abortion does not necessarily mean someone has disengaged their brain and relies on religious doctrine for their ethical direction.
Forcing humans to forget about their personal concept of right and wrong is a critical facilitating step in practically all the horrendous actions that humans take as groups.
************
Response:
************
What applies to Christians applies to Muslims. What applies to a Christian registrar applies to a Muslim registrar. If a Muslim registrar refuses to perform civil partnerships on personal or religious grounds, then that registrar should be sacked.
I hope this clarifies my point…
PHILIP
Good luck to homosexuals, but is there really any need to force it down everyone’s throat? Strikes me there’s a lot of intolerance amongst the commenters and it’s not coming from those with strong religious beliefs. No, it’s “rub your noses in it” time. Oh, God, please tell me Labour 1997-2010 was just a nightmare.
“Is there a national shortage of Registrars? Because if not, all the local council need do is shuffle around duties so that those who hold genuine views can be accomodated.”
That would be the sensible thing, yes. But that wouldn’t appease the small minority of activists for whom it isn’t enough that people tolerate their lifestyle choice. They must be made to embrace and celebrate it. Or else!
@JuliaM – Dear Julia, as we both pointed out much earlier, this solution would have prevented much agonising and not a little expense to the taxpayer. The overnight post contains several examples of aggressive behaviour from the homosexual lobby, with little acknowledgement of the development of the thread. Indeed, several blogs seem to have been written provocatively in order to promote an aggressive response so that “homophobia” can be screamed from the mountaintops. Other correspondents have taken a more tolerant view and have attempted to suggest workable “win/win” solutions.
We have not yet reached the point where intense dislike of a lifestyle is in itself a crime, though no doubt the more extreme of the PC cabal are working on that. “I do not agree with how you conduct your life, but I respect your right to live as you wish”, would appear to be the general consensus of the, presumably, hetrosexual bloggers. A pity the homosexual lobby cannot find the humanity and tolerance to reciprocate.
I consider myself a libertarian, but do not support Ladele.
If she did not want to perform same-sex ceremonies, then she could have got a job elsewhere.
Her job was to serve every member of the community, she did not do that. She got fired. What is the news? Woman refuses to do job, gets fired!
I think Catholic adoption agencies should be able to discriminate against same-sex couples. However, there should be no opt-out clauses for the public service. None, not based on religion, conscience, belief or ethics.
Ladele had a belief system which meant she was unable to provide services to the entire community – therefore she deserved to loose her job.
In regard to doctors performing abortions, I also do not think there should be conscience opt-out clauses – if they are public workers, they should not get the right to opt out merely because they think that they are wrong.
It is like the recent cases of Muslim workers suing because they had to handle alcohol or pork. Utterly ridiculous. Or will LFAT also post on how Muslims should not have to sell alcohol or pork, because it goes against their religion?
—
Grumpy Old Man
//“I do not agree with how you conduct your life, but I respect your right to live as you wish”, would appear to be the general consensus of the, presumably, hetrosexual bloggers. A pity the homosexual lobby cannot find the humanity and tolerance to reciprocate. //
I have that tolerance. I think Ladele should be able to live anyway she wants, and if she wants to perform ceremonies only for different-sex couples, she she go and work for a private organisation that discriminates against same-sex couples. Simple.
I do not believe in anti-discrimination laws, hate speech laws, or any of those forms of restrictions on freedom. However, the current duty of the state is to provide services to all society, so the public servants have to provide services to all people.
I carry this argument through to its logical conclusion. People should be fired if they refuse to perform ceremonies uniting mixed-race couples, mixed faith couples, etc. There are no good grounds to demand that you not be fired for not doing your job, just because you think it is unethical. I take this to the extreme, and say that even were it made legal for a man to marry a goat, that people who refused to perform those unions on ethical grounds, should also be fired. There should be no tolerance in state provision of services for plurality of belief or ethics. In civil society, have a field day – discriminate against who you want, for the most trivial of reasons – fire people at the drop of a hat, doesn’t bother me.
Of course, the way to solve this problem, is for the state to withdraw entirely from the marriage license business. They should be conducted entirely by private institutions, without any input from the state. Having the government involved just complicates things.
There is no right to a job. So when people complain that the terms of Ladele’s employment changed, so what? It is the prerogative of the employer to change the terms of employment at the merest whim – I have little affection for the state enforcing so-called “rights” of workers.
I am surprised the mention of Nazis has not occurred. Just to pre-empt the point, about people being forced by the state to do things that went against their ethics. Note the use of the word “force” – the people co-opted by the Nazis state were threatened with violence and death if they refused to perform the action the state wanted. There is no comparable action in the Ladele case – no gun aimed at her head, no threat of bodily harm, nothing, just the loss of her job (which she did not have by “right”), and she has had to go back into civil society, and peddle her skills to private employers. Had Ladele been forced to be a registrar, under pain of death, torture etc, then I would condemn that utterly. However, she was not forced in any such way. Therefore, the argument that she was “forced” to perform civil partnerships completely devalues the term “force”.
There used to be a legal concept called “Conscientious Objection”, and we allowed people NOT to join the army if this applied.
Whatever happened to that ?
Alan Douglas
It seems odd that a Christian would object to the creation of a loving and committed relationship – it’s only anal sex (and then only really the submissive position) which is frowned on in the Bible. Since a great many gays don’t have anal sex, and a great many of those who do are ‘tops’, shouldn’t she enquire about their sex life before she assesses how they fit with biblical criteria?
“We have not yet reached the point where intense dislike of a lifestyle is in itself a crime”
We came incredibly close just a month ago. The House of Lords had to step in
“The clause reads, “For the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09111204.html
Firstly, Labour’s equality legislation is certainly not about ‘helping their favourite groups’ but rather about giving those groups equal status in society to those groups that are currently without it. It is quite right for the council to take disciplinary action for many of the reasons already stated. She is employed by the state to uphold and deliver legislation passed by our parliament. If public employees refuse to participate in part of that role then it will require more employees at further expense to cover them. As mentioned it is a civil, not a religious ceremony and therefore her objection is just the result of a bias against those equal civil rights and a desire not avoid having to accept them personally.
href=’#comment-15804′>@Old Holborn –
As I said in a comment much earlier: Progressive Liberalism = Extreme Authoritarianism.
Jake. Whatever the good intentions of Labours’ legislation, the main effect has been to increase differentiation within society by giving certain groups privileges not granted to all. These laws are not for the peaceful governance of the realm, but are in the main ill-thought -out attempts at social engineering, and merely excite contempt and passive resistance from the majority.
‘I respectfully submit that this issue is most certainly not analogous to forcing a Jewish person to eat pork. It may be analogous to requiring a Jewish person to serve pork to customers who do eat pork, when that Jewish person works alongside non-Jewish persons in a cafeteria that serves numerous different meals to numerous different customers. This would be a much more compelling analogy. But that is where the analogy ends – nobody is requesting that Christian registrars actually enter into gay relationships. Legal recognition of a relationship is not the same as personal moral approval of that relationship.’
Philip,
That is indeed a better analogy and expresses the point i was trying to make more clearly – thankyou.
However, i disagree with your next point. You are asking a Christian to be complicit in an activity which they believe to be sinful.
Except, FLS, it is emphatically NOT a marriage. It’s a civil partnership for which a civil partnership ceremony is held, not a civil wedding. The reason it’s NOT called marriage was as a deliberate sop to the religious who feel that the term ‘marriage’ is reserved for their religious connotations.
Civil partnership? Aha! ha! ha! It aint a real marriage.
All of this we want equal treatment bollocks is a big sham. (Some) Nasty, vindictive gays just want to say ha ha we got married and you couldnt stop us. It aint a real marriage though. Everyone knows it’s been forced upon the decent folk! Maybe if (some) gays didnt run around creating drama where there was none they’d get further. Who cares anyway, like I said it aint aven a real marriage. Oh does anyone else think gays are hypocritical? They hate all religion and yet they want to get married? Why?
Jake
December 18th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Firstly, Labour’s equality legislation is certainly not about ‘helping their favourite groups’ but rather about giving those groups equal status in society to those groups that are currently without it.
“Their favourite groups”? Of course it’s about doing all they can for their favourite groups. You new labour apparatchiks need to realise that your hogwash is not believed by anybody. Reiterating the same s*** over and over again is not going to work. I spose that’s what you act like when you think you know it all ah? “Equal status” is just another cliche pal. Your arrogance is showing. Opps!
It is quite right for the council to take disciplinary action for many of the reasons already stated. She is employed by the state to uphold and deliver legislation passed by our parliament.
Seeing as you’re so sure that people employed by the state should uphold and deliver legislation passed by the parliament (which parliament?) feel free to go ahead and condemn Gordon Brown, Tony Blair et al for their non-adherance to upholding and delivering legislation passed by the state, i.e. selling their pathetic a***s to EUROland. Go on then, do it!!
If public employees refuse to participate in part of that role then it will require more employees at further expense to cover them.
Say after me SACK THE IDIOT PM!
As mentioned it is a civil, not a religious ceremony and therefore her objection is just the result of a bias against those equal civil rights and a desire not avoid having to accept them personally.
Thnaks to the way it’s been done most normal people don’t agree with it.
@Shaun Pilkington –
Wrong. God doesn’t tell anyone to hate gays and Lilian Ladele never claimed that He did. On the contrary, the much maligned Ladele insisted that she loved everyone, as her God bade her to do so.
You could at least get the facts right, Shaun.
@Mark Wadsworth –
Lilian Ladele was not paid and employed to conduct civil partnerships when she began working as a civil registrar. Until December 2008 registrars were freelance and could opt out of performing ceremonies. Then they were brought under the control of town halls and their employment contracts unilaterally reworked.
Having been forced out of her job by a nasty campaign conducted against her by a pair of Stalinoid fanatics, it is flippantly suggested that she find another job. In the midst of the Great Recession Lilian Ladele may not be able simply to find another job. I suspect that those directing invective at Ladele would be rather pleased if she didn’t.
FLS writes: “Philip,
That is indeed a better analogy and expresses the point i was trying to make more clearly – thankyou.
However, i disagree with your next point. You are asking a Christian to be complicit in an activity which they believe to be sinful.”
My next point was the following: “Legal recognition of a relationship is not the same as personal moral approval of that relationship.”
I fail, utterly, to see how executing the laws of the land constitutes personal moral approval of gay relationships, which appears to be what you are arguing. Would you tolerate the behaviour of a registrar who refuses to perform marriages for previously divorced persons? Would you tolerate the behaviour of a registrar who refuses to perform marriages for Muslims? Would you tolerate the behaviour of a registrar who refuses to perform interracial marriages?
The bottom line is that, if we are to live together in relative harmony whilst still enjoying the right to dissent from the status quo, we may not pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws to ignore, nor may we pick and choose when to follow a particular law and when to ignore it.
The whole point of getting married by registrars as opposed to getting married by the Church is to grant to all persons the right both to get married and to marry others according to the dictates of their consciences. Religious people may join churches, some of which do and some of which do not encourage gay relationships. Non-religious persons like me may choose to get married by the city registrar precisely because they want absolutely nothing to do with the church or with organized religion. Ladele seeks to have it both ways — not only does she wish to be able to exercise her right to refuse to marry gay couples in church, but she also seeks a “right” to refuse to perform entirely secular unions of gay couples in the eyes of the law.
Where would you let this end? Should a Post Office clerk have the “right” to refuse to serve a gay customer who wishes to mail a love letter to another gay customer? Should that Post Office clerk have the “right” to refuse to handle soft-core gay pornography (which may be mailed under the law)? Should a restaurateur have the “right” to refuse to serve a gay couple? After all, by your logic, this behaviour “forces” the Christian to be complicit in an activity which he or she believes to be sinful.
We live in a pluralistic, secular society in which many persons of vastly different belief systems live cheek by jowl. Sectarian laws of general application which are not crafted with the aim of harming a particular form of religious expression, but which have the incidental effect of burdening the practice of a particular religion, cannot be ignored under a religious exemption defense. (This is the state of the law in the US, under controlling US Supreme Court precedent — see Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith 494 U.S. 872 (1990)). Were we to permit such behaviour, our society would descend into lawlessness and anarchy…
PHILIP CHANDLER
Shaun – the lawyer in you is bursting out
The term is actually irrelevant. What it describes is relevant. They both describe the union of two people.
The Bible is quite clear that the (sexual) union of two people is only acceptable to God when it is between a man and a woman (taking on board that you do not believe in God and therefore do not hold the Scriptural view as a valid one.)
The point here is not whether you think that is acceptable or not (which is an entirely different debate), rather it is that to the Christian who holds this view, you are asking them to participate (by effecting the union in law) in something they consider to be unnacceptable to God.
Therefore we come back to the issue at hand which basically comes down to whose rights are held to be higher in law. So we’ve ended up with government sanctioned discrimination.
FLS writes: “The point here is not whether you think that is acceptable or not (which is an entirely different debate), rather it is that to the Christian who holds this view, you are asking them to participate (by effecting the union in law) in something they consider to be unnacceptable to God.”
************
Response:
************
Again, I refer you to my message above. Should a Postal Service employee who is also a Christian be permitted to refuse to serve a gay customer who wishes to mail a love letter to another gay customer? Should that Postal Service employee have the “right” to refuse to handle soft-core gay pornography of the type which may be mailed without breaking the law?
When a person interacts with other people in a free society, that person loses certain rights that he or she enjoys in the context of strictly personal relationships. You have every right to make friends only with people of the same race as yourself. You have every right to associate only with like-minded Christians. However, you do NOT have the right, under our civil rights laws, to refuse to serve persons of different races at your shop. You do NOT have the right, under our civil rights laws, to refuse to rent your property to persons of another religion. The law cannot prevent or control personal biases, but it also cannot give effect to personal biases.
You seem to believe that religious belief trumps everything.
I beg to differ — and I believe that the law is firmly on my side…
PHILIP
Alan Douglas,
//There used to be a legal concept called “Conscientious Objection”, and we allowed people NOT to join the army if this applied.
Whatever happened to that ?//
I think it still exists. As far as I am aware, Ladele was not conscripted into the civil registrar service, under threat of loosing her freedom.
@indigomyth –
Conscientious objection wasn’t and isn’t limited to conscript armies. It includes nurses and doctors – who aren’t conscripted into medicine – who don’t want to take part in abortions.
Red Maria,
//Conscientious objection wasn’t and isn’t limited to conscript armies. It includes nurses and doctors – who aren’t conscripted into medicine – who don’t want to take part in abortions. //
Duly noted. However, my point is still the same – Alan was saying that we allowed people to not join the army because they have a conscientious objection to war. Note, we did not let them join, only to refuse to fight a particular war or conflict (I think). Based on this logic therefore, doctors, nurses and registrars who enter the public service are choosing to do so, and should submit to all the demands of the customers of their services. Indeed, we still have conscientious objection, in the sense Alan means – don’t like performing abortions, then do not become a public doctor, become a private one, do not like performing a civil partnership, do not become a public registrar. That is the choice to make, not what parts of your employment you will and will not do, based on your ethics.
Indeed, I think people have been sidelined by the morality of civil partnerships, when that is, in fact, quite irrelevant. The issue is one of “is it a right for an employee to not do part of their job, because they have a conscientious objection”, and it would seem clear to me that it is not a legally protectable right. It may be good business practice to keep an otherwise good employee, even if they refuse to do a particular part of their work, however, that is done by the grace of the employer, and should not be construed as a legal right (unless, of course, it has been agreed in contract between the employee and employer, in which case the employee could sue for breach of contract, but the basis of that case would not be their human right to not do part of their job, but rather the employer for breaching the agreement).
I find the whole argument about Ladele not being a “proper” Christian because of the illegitimate child to be quite unpleasant. And focusing the argument on the morality of same-sex unions is just a distraction. I do not believe people should have a legal right to opt out of parts of their job – in any circumstance, regardless of belief or ethics.
Let us take this to the extreme – if I got a job as a baby raper, then I should either rape babies, or leave the job. If my current job description changed to include raping babies, and I did not want to do that, but my employer insisted, then I have no right to remain in that employment, since I cannot (because of my ethics) perform the duties required of my new job description. This can be applied to less extreme examples, including the Ladele case.
If publicly employed doctors do not want to perform abortions, then there is every right to fire them. They can go into private practice – there is no “right” to work in the public sector.
I guess it is the essential idea of “conscientious objection” that I disagree with. You conscientiously object by not going into a line of work that requires you to do thinks you do not want. If anyone tries to force you, using threat of imprisonment, torture, or death, to get you to do those things against your will, then that is a violation of human rights.
Philip,
Sorry, we are not going to agree on this. You will not convince me and I will not convince you.
WRT religious belief trumping everything, I’ll explain my viewpoint and you can decide..
The Bible quite clearly requires me to follow the laws of the land. This means I pay my taxes and conduct myself according to those laws.
I believe that I will have to give account of my actions one day and the only allowable exception to not following the laws of the land is where they contradict the laws of God. The story of Daniel illustrates this point quite succinctly (he would not worship an idol).
You appear to have elevated the law to something untouchable. Bad law and badly implemented law is just that. Nothing more.
If nobody had chosen to disobey the civil law in Germany up to and during WWII, no Jews would ever have been smuggled out.
The point about being a public servant is misdirection. I and every Christian i know pay their taxes which support public servants. So i guess what your saying is that despite paying my equal share, i have no right to exercise my conscience?
In a tolerant society, there is room for objection on religious grounds. The definition of tolerance requires it.
“If publicly employed doctors do not want to perform abortions, then there is every right to fire them. They can go into private practice – there is no “right” to work in the public sector.” -Indigomyth
An excellent argument that strikes to the heart of the concept state provided services. I doubt that was what you meant by it, though!
I think this is what a lot of left wing individuals do not understand about the ‘right’, if we are to call libertarians that.
I do not oppose state controlled healthcare because I want people to not be able to afford the care they need to stay alive(not that I believe that would happen). I oppose it because of the corollary you touch on above.
When the state takes over an industry it becomes an employer of such power and size that it far exceeds the kind of corporate hegemony that the left would ordinarily balk at. Somehow an employer so large that you are effectively stopped from practicing your trade if it refuses to employ you does not seem to bother people, so long as it is called a government. It is the illogical nature of state provided services which creates all of the heated discussion above.
If the state did not interfere in healthcare people would just go to another doctor and this non-problem would solve itself.
Oligarchia,
Indeed, by removing the state entirely from the marriage and unions business, this whole problem goes away. When you start to think about what state-recognised marriage is, it is quite appalling – the notion that the state is somehow imbued with the authority to recognise the legitimacy of a relationship, and, if it approves of it, to bless it with other peoples money. The state uses marriage as a form of enslavement to itself – you suggest to people that the state should be out of the marriage business altogether, and they look at you like you are mad. Thus the state has entangled itself with peoples lives so closely that they cannot fully understand interpersonal relationships that do without that recognition. The recognition and approval of the state has actually become a factor in peoples understanding of value with regard to interpersonal relationships – I doubt that there is a more insidious, surreptitious, and universal enslavement to the state, than through state-recognised marriage.
NB – This is not an invective against marriage, generically, but rather to the compulsion people have to get the state to recognise it, and the idea that the state should shower married people with other peoples cash.
@indigomyth – Nicely put. It is really rather bizarre when you think about it.
@FLS –
FLS — you are right, we are not going to agree. I fail utterly to see any validity in your implicit comparison of obedience of laws permitting gay persons to register their relationships on equal terms with those of heterosexual persons to obedience of laws mandating the genocide of the Jews in the Holocaust! (For that matter, let me point out that the Nazis also persecuted and “exterminated” gay men — see the long and bloody history of Germany’s “Paragraph 175″ for more on this subject). While I am sure you did not intend to make this comparison directly, it nevertheless shines through your response.
I am not holding the law to an absolute standard, as you assert. I do, however, believe that the secular concept of the equal protection of the laws (mandated in the US by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and by the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause) is a governing principle that must be accorded respect in a diverse, pluralistic society such as that in which we live, if we are to function as a society without fragmenting into anarchy and chaos.
Good luck with respect to your argument…
PHILIP CHANDLER
“In a tolerant society, there is room for objection on religious grounds. The definition of tolerance requires it.”
People like Philip Chandler don’t want tolerance. They want submission to their views. It’s their way, or the highway.
They are as intolerant as any ‘gay basher’, in their own way.
Indigomyth has the right of it; get the state out of the marriage/civil partnership business and nip most (sadly, not all) of these arguments in the bud.
Julia M. Not that simple. State recognition of marriage confers certain legal rights to the woman, and certain legal duties to the man,(Love, honour, cherish and always take the blame) according to the Law. Therefore the State needs to be involved in the recording of that marriage. In the good old days before the cancer of Socialism spread like a plague through the minds of Humankind, marriage in the Anglican Church was the only form of marriage recognised by the State. The spread of religious tolerance throughout the land led to introduction of a civil marriage, concurrent with the religious one, so that the rights of the married couple married in other denominations, or none at all were recognised. This, of course, is a typical English fudge, but it worked, more or less. I am not aware of any problems arising from a registrar of one faith objecting on religious grounds to conducting a civil ceremony for those of another, even though words like “idolater”, “heathen”, “apostate”, “sky fairy” and “Godless scoffer” were freely bandied around by the overcommitted.
GOM,
//Julia M. Not that simple. State recognition of marriage confers certain legal rights to the woman, and certain legal duties to the man,(Love, honour, cherish and always take the blame) according to the Law. Therefore the State needs to be involved in the recording of that marriage.//
Not really. All the state needs to do is to agree to enforce the parameters of all legal contracts entered into – rather like any other business, civil or commercial contract. Why do interpersonal relationships require this sickening level of state interference, where none other do? Major businesses change hands with the power of legal contracts, millions of pounds are transferred, property is altered, and somehow people have been duped into thinking that interpersonal relationships require a nice, special, little section, all on its own. Indeed, the right direction is in the form of pre-nup agreements. At least these recognise the individuality of every union, rather than the blunt little tool of the universal legal obligations and responsibilities of marriage.
It is ironic that the people who say that gay people can already enjoy the “benefits” of marriage, through legal contracts and wills, baulk at the idea that different-sex couples do the very same thing.
And the state only needs to be involved in interpersonal contracts, in order to provide the force necessary to extracts remuneration, should either party renege on the terms of the agreement. Of course, in the case of large businesses, they can afford to employ their own bailiffs and collection men.
@indigomyth –
“Major businesses change hands with the power of legal contracts, millions of pounds are transferred.” Ever heard of the Monopolies Commission?
“Indeed, the right direction is in the form of pre-nup agreements” Been around for donkey’s years, mostly used by those to whom marriage was/is a political tool, Kings, dukes, earls and business tycoons.
“And the state only needs to be involved in interpersonal contracts, in order to provide the force necessary to extracts remuneration, should either party renege on the terms of the agreement.” You mean divorce courts, the power of the State to freeze the disposal of all assets of both parties, whether jointly held or not, Magistrates courts serving injunctions preventing access to children etc?
GOM,
//“Major businesses change hands with the power of legal contracts, millions of pounds are transferred.” Ever heard of the Monopolies Commission?//
Yes, although it is now Competition Commission. I have a dubious view of such organisations. It seems rather an odd idea – “competition is good, therefore we will make you compete”. Ayn Rand’s head would explode, I think.
//“Indeed, the right direction is in the form of pre-nup agreements” Been around for donkey’s years, mostly used by those to whom marriage was/is a political tool, Kings, dukes, earls and business tycoons.//
And good luck to them. Now let us see more people using those agreements. Indeed, let them replace state-recognised marriage.
//You mean divorce courts, the power of the State to freeze the disposal of all assets of both parties, whether jointly held or not, Magistrates courts serving injunctions preventing access to children etc? //
The state ought to have no power to enforce beyond the terms of contracts entered into voluntarily by parties. However, the state does not have these powers by virtue of merely being the state, but rather by virtue of the fact that a breach of contract has occurred, in an individual instance. So, in one case, the state will have power X, but in another case it will not, since X was not a stipulation of the legal contract. So, for instance, in one case it may be that someone has agreed to transfer the car as part of a legal settlement, with refusal to do so giving the other party the authority to take it, or to get the state to do it for them. In a different case, the car may not be part of the agreement, and the state has no authority to cease it. As soon as the state tries and take something that was not specified in the contract between the legal parties, something odd is going on.
@indigomyth
Very well and convincingly argued. I agree in principle with the thrust of your arguments, and I too would like to see less State interference with our lives. I’m a bit more cynical about human nature, (or maybe more resigned to human frailty) than you and am not certain where exactly one can draw the line in this case. I would probably be happy with a little more State involvement than you, but would stop short of measures designed for social engineering so beloved of this Gov’t.
GOM,
The unfortunate thing is that socialism has spread to so many avenues of thinking, that it is difficult to make a difference.
Still, that is why we have LPUK. A small ray of hope.
can anyone tell me what a ” sodomite ” is ?
Jason Norris,
//This is where it’s at. She’s not refusing to do her job, she’s refusing to do some whole other job, a job that strikes at the heart of her religious convictions and which her employer is insisting she do for no reason other than to signal contempt for her religion.//
But, if her contract of employment has changed, her job IS now to perform civil partnerships – no amount of wriggling is going to get around that fact. If her contract had suddenly changed to include more money, that would now be part of her job, if had included a set uniform, that would be part of her job, the fact that this change happens to conflict with her ethics is completely irrelevant. Her job is that which is described by her contract – her contract had changed, therefore he job had changed. Simple.
So, she did refuse to do her job, so she got fired. Fancy an employer making an employee to something in their contract! Its madness!
And the whole business about other people willing to do her job is also clutching at straws. Some other councils may have had the grace to alter working patterns to accommodate an individuals personal ethics, however, ethical exception was not part of her contract, and therefore cannot be relied on. It is not a “right” to be exempt for doing parts of your job, even if you find them abhorrent. You either do them, come to some arrangement with your employer, or leave your job – simple. As I made clear with my other posts, this goes for anything – if she had been asked to rape babies as part of her new contract, she should either have done that or left her job.
At least she can hold her head up high and look at the world in the eye, the others cant, because same sex marriage is an abberation of nature.Sure sodomy was always there but was never given the respectful stance that it now enjoys. That is why Islam has my respect because it abhors this behaviour.Our society is being dragged down to their level and looked what happened to sodom and gomorrah. Of course, you can always take the easy way out and say you dont believe, but that will not last because people know that the act itself is perverse, putting things where they were not intended to be for example.
Jason Norris,
//Of course, you can always take the easy way out and say you dont believe, but that will not last because people know that the act itself is perverse, putting things where they were not intended to be for example.//
It does not matter what I believe – nor does it matter what you believe regarding personal conduct. Individual freedom and liberty means that consenting adults are able to do whatever they want with their genitals. To argue otherwise is to say that other people have part ownership over another non-consenting individuals body, which is just slavery. It is the same reason why people should be free to poison their bodies with whatever chemicals and drugs they choose, eat whatever they want, smoke whatever they want. My beliefs, your beliefs, the Pope’s beliefs about their behaviour is irrelevant to what laws and statutes the state should enact.
So, I do not have to argue that I don’t believe, (which I do not), however, even where I to do so, that still would not mean that I would advocate state control of sexual activity. I am not left-wing, and therefore do not believe in state interference. You do, maybe?
no , I dont believe in state control, and what people do behind closed doors is nobodys business only their own. However, sodomites ( the correct word to use according to the oxford concise ) for instance have to have parades to publicise their difference, the difference that they deviate from the norm. I happen to believe in the Holy Bible, but I am not what one might describe as a ” thumper “. I have personal experience of the Lord and my faith is a rock. However, as far as I am concerned let them do what they like in private, and keep it private because they are a corrosive and malign influence to our society. I do not hate them but look upon them as lost souls.
Jason Norris,
//However, sodomites ( the correct word to use according to the oxford concise ) for instance have to have parades to publicise their difference, the difference that they deviate from the norm.//
And it is their right to do so, because there are things like freedom of assembly, and freedom of expression. So they can parade all they like, it is their right to do so. To deny the right to protest, to campaign publicly, to have ones voice heard, is the mark of a totalitarian state.
//However, as far as I am concerned let them do what they like in private, and keep it private because they are a corrosive and malign influence to our society. I do not hate them but look upon them as lost souls. //
So what if they are a corrosive and malign influence on society? Society does not have any “rights”, because rights are only of individual humans. I may argue that smoking and drinking has malign and corrosive affects on society – it matters not a jot, for it is still the individuals right to do what they will with their own bodies, and “promote” it whatever way they choose.
If you believe in free speech, and freedom of expression, then one must also accept the fact that it is a right to say that homosexuality is not abhorrent and unnatural – much as it is a right to say that blacks are inferior to whites, Islam is inferior to Christianity, and Jesus was a deluded fool. Freedom of speech and expression means that people can articulate whatever idea or thought they want, even if that idea is abhorrent, destructive and corrosive. It is for that reason that I utterly oppose the German bans on the svastika and Nazi symbols; it is a curtailing of free speech and expression that has no place in an open society.
//I do not hate them but look upon them as lost souls.//
Some might just argue that if you want to curtail free speech, restrict freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly, then that is a pretty good indicator of hatred, at least of some form.
you are forgetting one very salient point, in my point of view, and that is the corruption of children and young persons. I do not say that all corruptors are sodomites but they certainly make up the list. I notice also that you use the words ” deluded fool ” in the same sentence as Jesus. I know that you are not saying that but you would not use it in the same use if you were referring to allah. You would be too afraid of upsetting the muslim community, better and more pc to pick on the Christians, of which I am one.
Jason Norris,
//you are forgetting one very salient point, in my point of view, and that is the corruption of children and young persons. I do not say that all corruptors are sodomites but they certainly make up the list.//
Perhaps, however, I may say that Muslims corrupt children by perverting their minds with nonsense – but that is also irrelevant. Parents should be free to raise their children as they wish, and have them educated as they want. And, if some liberal parents wants to tell their children that homosexuality is fine, then it would be most authoritarian of me, or you, or the state, to dictate that they could not do so, or that they could not send their children to a school that taught a liberal sexual policy. The evil of Section 28, was that it made a blanket rule for all schools, in all councils and localities. It, effectively, took away a parents right to choose whether or not to provide their child with a “pro”-gay eduction.
Of course, society is not some sort of crèche – society is not meant to be “child safe”. So, to try and sanitise the media of everything that may be found “offensive”, “corrupting” or “unChristian”, is a profound restriction on free speech. One of the current problems we have now is too many people going around, shrilly crying “wont somebody please think of the children!”.
If parents do not want their children to see, read or hear something, they can control their child. They have no right, or authority, to get the state to restrict what is said in the public media. Because, of course, parents have very different ideas about what is “corrupting” – there are many many people that believe that a strict Christian upbringing is very damaging, hence the desire to destroy faith schools. This is utterly wrong, yet is a similar sort of restriction that you want to impose.
Parents are in charge of their children. They are not in charge of other adults, and have no authority to dictate or forbid what can and cannot be said in the public media.
Of course, adults cannot talk to children without the permission of the parents. However, the problem with so many laws restricting speech is that they are applied to all media, all public outlets.
//I notice also that you use the words ” deluded fool ” in the same sentence as Jesus. I know that you are not saying that but you would not use it in the same use if you were referring to allah. You would be too afraid of upsetting the muslim community, better and more pc to pick on the Christians, of which I am one.//
Nah, I would call Mohammed a paedophile, war-warmongering, moon worshipping, desert tribe leading, authoritatian idiot, whose teachings have had a terrible consequence in many places of the world. And Allah is pretty much a standard deity – smite you and you and you, oh and you. Except, Allah is quite fixated on food. And the Koran has the usual religious smattering of nonsense – the Moon being cracked in two, horses sprouting wings, all pretty standard fictitious fare.
indigomyth, glad to see you can berate the muslims as well and agree with what you say, the christian church has used the Lord as an excuse for bloodletting, perversion, corrupters of children since man decided that he knew beetter. Just look at the rc church in ireland, the muslims are just as perverted, but I say that the majority of muslim and christian people are honest and law abiding and it is the so called leaders who are to blame. However, to get back to sodomites, please call them by the correct term Sodomite, because you do bring the word gay into total disrepute. Do ever hear these people refer to themselves as sodomites? No and you will not because the word details the truth of the act.Disgusting. It is also condemned in the Bible so that will do me.
Jason Norris,
//However, to get back to sodomites, please call them by the correct term Sodomite, because you do bring the word gay into total disrepute. Do ever hear these people refer to themselves as sodomites? No and you will not because the word details the truth of the act.Disgusting. It is also condemned in the Bible so that will do me. //
I will call them by whatever I please. And, since I do not hold with the Bible, I have no compunction to call them Sodomites. It is rather like calling Muslims “Mohammedans” – accurate for some, not so for others.
Also, we were not really talking about “Sodomites” at all, but rather the rights and freedoms of every person – the right to free speech, the right to free assembly, the right to free association, the right to freedom of belief. We were talking about how you wish to restrict those rights, because you happen to have a belief-system which condemns homosexuality.
A Muslim may equally say that denying the validity of Muhammed is a sin, and is punishable by death, or that apostasy is evil. Yet this does not mean that they have the authority to restrict the speech and actions of Christians, merely because it offends them and their sensibilities.
I may find the BNP disgusting, neo-Nazis disgusting, Communists disgusting, yet wherein that disgust is the authority to restrict someone elses freedom?
You seem to be under the impression that the state should be an arm of your own sensitivities and taboos? Tell me, do you also support laws restricting blasphemous speech? What about laws restricting the promotion of Nazism, Communism, or atheism?
The Lord gave man free will, hence the world is descending into chaos, moral chaos. This is mainly due to the “anything goes ” type of person perpetuated by such as you. Look upon the Bible as a rule, the same type of rule that a builder would use to keep a straight line.You obviously have no stopping moral line because if you did you would not have the views that you have. I personally would allow sect marches if so asked for, such as the commos, nazi etc, even sodomites. Once a year, in the middle of the yorkshire moors or such desolate places
Jason Norris,
//The Lord gave man free will, hence the world is descending into chaos, moral chaos. //
Lol, forgive me, but in that sentence, you seem to be questioning the wisdom of having free will? And “moral chaos” is only a fearful result for those that believe that control and enforced order is preferable to an organic, changing, and flexible free market of ideologies and ethics. If your Christian morality cannot survive in the free market of ethics, without the use of state violence to enforce it, perhaps it shows something of the weakness of Christian morality?
//You obviously have no stopping moral line because if you did you would not have the views that you have.//
Of course I have a moral line – if I did not how could I say that a state that wants to restrict individual liberty is evil? The only difference is, is that I recognise the difference between a personal moral code, and the moral and ethical code that the state ought to enforce. That is why I am a Libertarian.
//Look upon the Bible as a rule, the same type of rule that a builder would use to keep a straight line.//
Now, replace that line with “Look upon the Koran as a rule, the same type of rule that a builder would use to keep a straight line”, and you will see where that sort of political ideology leads – theocracy.
//This is mainly due to the “anything goes ” type of person perpetuated by such as you.//
No, it is mainly due to socialist redistributionists who advocate state welfare payments for people who have failed in their lives. Were I to have my way, this welfare state would be utterly destroyed. It is that which causes the problems, and separates people from the consequences of their actions.
//I personally would allow sect marches if so asked for, such as the commos, nazi etc, even sodomites. Once a year, in the middle of the yorkshire moors or such desolate places //
Then you would be a dictator, a tyrant, who believes that they have the right, the authority, to dictate what people can say and do. Would you like a throne and sceptre?
When a child comes into this earth it is totally innocent. It then goes to school and is taught, or rather should be taught, as per our christian values. However nothing in this world is perfect and bad apples are formed, perhaps through bad family life etc. However, in this country, which used to have christian values, children are now given lessons on , guess what, not theft, burglary,or cheat, no, sodomites.That to me is the marker, corruption of the young by state controlled perversion. As far as the majority of this country is concerned enough is becoming enough, you cant fly the union flag in some council areas, you have people clad in sinister clothing prowling our streets, we are not allowed a vote on the eu, even so called true blue cameron has backed down, the answer is the BNP. If you would like to join let me know. The liberterian approach that you take is fine if one is in control of ones country, but the british people have had control taken from them and your attitude just does not wash.What you are spouting is a speak of no backbone.Both brown and cameron have now no authority to run this country. They are on the road to becoming quislings.
(comment deleted for breaking the rules of this blog)
Jason Norris,
//When a child comes into this earth it is totally innocent. It then goes to school and is taught, or rather should be taught, as per our christian values. However nothing in this world is perfect and bad apples are formed, perhaps through bad family life etc. However, in this country, which used to have christian values, children are now given lessons on , guess what, not theft, burglary,or cheat, no, sodomites.That to me is the marker, corruption of the young by state controlled perversion.//
I agree that it should not be state-controlled, but disagree that the teaching of what you call perversion and non-christian values should not be taught to children, if the parents so wish. I want to see parents decide what their children are taught – not you, not teachers, and not the state. And if some liberal parents wish to have their children taught about sex, or homosexuality, then that is their wish, and the state has not right to ban that.
Also you say “our Christian values”? Which “our”? What “our” are you referring to? Surely you mean “your Christian values”? Do you mean the “British” or “English” people? For how can a group of people be said to have a value system, when they are made up of individuals with a multiplicity of value systems, even if they call them all “Christian”. You are attempting to paint with the brush of collectivism again.
//As far as the majority of this country is concerned enough is becoming enough, you cant fly the union flag in some council areas, you have people clad in sinister clothing prowling our streets, we are not allowed a vote on the eu, even so called true blue cameron has backed down, the answer is the BNP. If you would like to join let me know.//
I agree that restrictions on flying the flag are disgusting, because they are authoritarian. And we should vote on the EU. However, I see no reason to ban people from wearing the clothes that they want, even if you find them offensive.
//The liberterian approach that you take is fine if one is in control of ones country, but the british people have had control taken from them and your attitude just does not wash.//
I fail to see the difference between the tyranny that you propose – the restrictions on what you can wear, what you can say, where you can assemble, what you can protest at – and the tyranny that you fear. I fail to see the advantage in submitting to a nationalistic / Christian government, or a Islamic / Sharia law based one. Indeed, as Sharia law dictates what can and cannot be worn, so you want to dictate what can and cannot be worn. As Sharia law wants to dictate what can and cannot be said, so you want to dictate what can and cannot be said.
//What you are spouting is a speak of no backbone.Both brown and cameron have now no authority to run this country. They are on the road to becoming quislings. //
I have backbone – as anyone that defends liberty must have. And I agree that the country is in a poor state. However, that will not be solved by more government interference, or more socialism, which is what the BNP is, ultimately. It is, perhaps, even more left-wing then Labour, in terms of its economic positions. I fail to see how the government interfering in the economy is going to make things better, or freer, and yet that is what the BNP want to do – increase meddling (albeit from a British government, not an EU one).
indigo, my main theme is the fact that the british nation, which always had respect for itself is in longer allowed to do so. I have nothing against any person in our country whether they are white or otherwise, in fact, the mixture actually enhances the nation, but the union flag should appear everywhere in all facets of life, the same way that the americans revere their flag. I am not a member of tne BNP and agree a lot of what you expound but there are times when severe welding has to be done to fix the broken metal and that starts with clearing the rag, tag and bobtail of mps out(not all) and electing persons loyal to our flag, not only by words but by actions. The eu is a good concept as far as trade is concerned but it shouls stop there, better we stick with the yanks and anzacs. I do not see them refusing to supply us with ammunition, as did the belgians in the falklands conflict. That really sticks in my craw, especially with thousands of our brave dead lying in their fields.Then cameron does the u turn on the referendum, that really says it all.So brits like myself have no-one with true grit to vote for, only new men wearing high heel shoes.
Jason,
//indigo, my main theme is the fact that the british nation, which always had respect for itself is in longer allowed to do so.//
In what sense? How can a nation have respect for itself? Is not respect a quality of individuals? It is rather like saying that Italy painted the Mona Lisa, or Britain made the steam engine. These are the actions of individual genius and brilliance.
//I have nothing against any person in our country whether they are white or otherwise, in fact, the mixture actually enhances the nation, but the union flag should appear everywhere in all facets of life, the same way that the americans revere their flag.//
Well, I agree the Union flag should appear on all government buildings. But the state should not mandate display of it on private property.
//I am not a member of tne BNP and agree a lot of what you expound but there are times when severe welding has to be done to fix the broken metal and that starts with clearing the rag, tag and bobtail of mps out(not all) and electing persons loyal to our flag, not only by words but by actions//
Well, I would sooner that they wed themselves to the value of freedom and individual liberty, so that the flag means something worthy of pride. There is little value in adhering to a nationalist sentiment, if the nation you are revering is an authoritarian, statist, one. If an MP reveres freedom and individual liberty, and makes the flag they honour the symbol of that freedom, then the flag becomes something worthy of reverence. Rather like the svastika – it had a meaning of hope and renewal – then the Nazis came along and ruined everything. In the same way, the symbol of a flag rises and falls on the basis of what it stands for. To merely say “loyal to the flag”, ignores what that flag means. And while MPs stand for authoritarianism, repression and corruption, I do not really want them associated with the flag.
//The eu is a good concept as far as trade is concerned but it shouls stop there, better we stick with the yanks and anzacs.//
To a certain extent the EU is a good concept as far as trade goes, however, that is rather like saying that cutting your hand off if it is trapped under a heavy rock, it a good concept.
//.So brits like myself have no-one with true grit to vote for, only new men wearing high heel shoes. //
You could vote for LPUK, if you believed in individual liberty, personal responsibility, and less state interference.
Jason Norris,
//However, to get back to sodomites, please call them by the correct term Sodomite, because you do bring the word gay into total disrepute. Do ever hear these people refer to themselves as sodomites? No and you will not because the word details the truth of the act.Disgusting. It is also condemned in the Bible so that will do me. //
Would now be a good time to point out that ‘the act’ is only engaged in by about 60% of gay men (and obviously not lesbians!), so really that’s not what we’re talking about when we speak of ‘homosexuality’. Certainly, I’m a sodomite, and have no problem saying that but many gays aren’t, so the label is silly. There was no notion of ‘homosexuality’ until the late C19th, so the idea that it could be condemned in the Bible is nonsense – though sodomy appears to be, certainly (though possibly only being the ‘bottom’, and not the ‘top’, as this was considered emasculating). But as others have said, I don’t need my lifestyle to be vindicated by anyone, least of all God, so it really doesn’t matter – what does matter is that we treat others as we’d wish to be treated, and my homosexuality and its practice does absolutely nothing to impinge on that.
[...] 17th December, Letters from a Tory published a piece about whether gay rights have gone too far. That piece has become one of the most commented posts on the blog, with 103 comments as I write [...]