(I did say probably)


@BigD

Quote:

There is now a legal precedent due to previous Ladele rulings in UK courts that anyone refusing to conduct an element of their perceived job role within the public sector can be disciplined and sacked without due care and attention paid to their religious conscience. That my friend is persecution and is the status quo failing an overturn of these foolish rulings by UK judges by European judges. That hardly speaks well of the UK legal system does it. The British legal system;built on Christian morals and destroyed by 'liberal think tanks'.

Sigh

If only you would go to the trouble of reading things that are in front of you (like the bible, if you'd read it properly, this thread would have been 2 pages long at most).

There is no legal precedent for persecution of Christians. Regarding the previous Ladele rulings and appeals,

"That was not what the Court of Appeal thought. It said that Islington's 'legitimate aim' was to minimise discrimination among its staff. 'Ladele's refusal was causing offence to at least two of her gay colleagues,' the court said. Her objection was 'based on her view of marriage, which was not a core part of her religion; and Islington's requirement in no way prevented her from worshipping as she wished'.

In other words, please quote the specific part in the Bible where is says gays are not allowed to have a civil partnership. To save some time since you are not very good at reading, there isn't any part of the Bible that does this.

The appeals court dismissed her claim that she couldn't perform her job properly because of religious considerations because she was unable to provide any evidence that her religion had any such considerations.

Or to put it another way, she could not prove that her religion prevented her from doing her job.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 02-Sep-2012 at 03:26 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 02-Sep-2012 at 03:25 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 02-Sep-2012 at 03:19 PM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

*There is speculation that this number is meant to refer to infinity. Meaning their are an infinite number of gods.

I have it from a very good source, that there are nine billion names for god.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Her objection was 'based on her view of marriage, which was not a core part of her religion; and Islington's requirement in no way prevented her from worshipping as she wished'.

The judges were trying to say that the only way your religious liberties could be compromised is if you were prevented from worshiping at church. As any sane rational person knows there is more to living out a Christian faith in Jesus than going to church on a Sunday, plus why gives a secular judge the right to decide what is or what isn't the core part of the Christian faith?

This is most definitely persecution and there were plenty of other registrars that could cope with the slow dribble of Civil Partnerships that are requested from time to time. It's hardly been a popular take since it was launched The issue is her religious considerations were not taking into account at all!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

I've decided that I am going to start worshiping Satan. As a result, I am going to insist that my employer gives me the right to sacrifice live animals in his unholy name, whilst at work. My new religion demands that I undertake this sacrifice at 10am on a Monday each week, at the busiest point in the working day.

Furthermore, I am going to have to insist that all of my workmates and customers accept this, and indeed support and encourage my right to observe my faith in the workplace.

I will be having a pentagram tattooed on my forehead, and will be wearing an inverted cross prominently on a chain around my neck.

If I am asked to do something that contravenes my belief system, such as being nice to a customer or putting others' needs before my own, then I will refuse.

If my employer subsequently disciplines me for failing to undertake my contractual obligations, I'll claim religious persecution and take them to court.

Now, given your position on this matter, I would expect your full support as I embark on legal action.

Yes?

AndyC

Last edited by AndyC on 03-Sep-2012 at 12:04 AM.

@AndyC

Quote:

I've decided that I am going to start worshiping Satan. As a result, I am going to insist that my employer gives me the right to sacrifice live animals in his unholy name, whilst at work. My new religion demands that I undertake this sacrifice at 10am on a Monday each week, at the busiest point in the working day.

It wouldn't surprise me if that was true. Stranger things happen at sea;

CNN: Royal Navy allows Satanist right to practise aboard Ship

So your point is?

Reasonable adjustments based on religious conscience is what we are asking not a reduction is working hours for Christians. What's next demanding that adoption agencies place children with homosexual couples or forcing them to close down? Oh yeah that already happened too!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

The judges were trying to say that the only way your religious liberties could be compromised is if you were prevented from worshiping at church.

You see what you want to see. We all know that in this thread since you don't seem to be living on the same planet as us.

Hell even YOU were saying there isn't anything wrong with civil partnerships as it gives gays all the rights they were after and there was no need for them to get married (which we've pointed out is wrong, but I'm just repeating your claims).

But as always, you change your views to match the latest google search that you find.

Quote:

why gives a secular judge the right to decide what is or what isn't the core part of the Christian faith?

It doesn't matter what religious views a judge has, rulings are based on the law, not the opinion of the judge (and how do YOU know the religious views of the various legal parties? Was that just you distorting the truth again to make something sound more sensational that it is again? Like you did with the "This Morning" interview? We can see when you are doing this you know, you are not being subtle and we are not idiots).


The following is from her last appeal .Source

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
The Hon Mr Justice Elias, Mrs M McArthur BA FCIPD, Ms B Switzer
Appeal No UKEAT/0453/08/RN
BAILII: [2008] UKEAT 0453_08_1912

Quote:

Lord Neuberger MR held there was no reason to remit the case on direct discrimination or harassment. The Tribunal erred, because (1) it could not be discrimination to treat all employees in the same way (2) the appropriate comparator was a hypothetical someone who disliked gay people without it being due to a religious belief (3) looking at the plain words of regulation 5 it was clear that Ladele had not been harassed. 35. It is true that, on a pedantically literal, unrealistic, or acontextual interpretation of one or two of the recorded remarks made to Ms Ladele during 2007, it could be argued that, at least in some respects, she was being treated in the ways she complains of because of her religious beliefs... It seems clear to me that this statement was directed not to Ms Ladele's belief with regard to civil partnerships, but to the manifestation of that belief, namely her refusal to conduct such partnership duties... [...] 52. ... the fact that Ms Ladele's refusal to perform civil partnerships was based on her religious view of marriage could not justify the conclusion that Islington should not be allowed to implement its aim to the full, namely that all registrars should perform civil partnerships as part of its Dignity for All policy. Ms Ladele was employed in a public job and was working for a public authority; she was being required to perform a purely secular task which was being treated as part of her job; Ms Ladele's refusal to perform that task involved discriminating against gay people in the course of that job; she was being asked to perform the task because of Islington's Dignity for All policy, whose laudable aim was to avoid, or at least minimise, discrimination both among Islington's employees, and as between Islington (and its employees) and those in the community they served; Ms Ladele's refusal was causing offence to at least two of her gay colleagues; Ms Ladele's objection was based on her view of marriage, which was not a core part of her religion; and Islington's requirement in no way prevented her from worshipping as she wished. So far as indirect discrimination went, it was clear that the council had pursued a legitimate aim that all registrars should perform civil partnership duties as part of its dignity policy. This is performing a purely secular task. Furthermore, her view of marriage was not a core part of Ms Ladele’s religion. The requirement to perform her job’s duties did not prevent her from worshipping as she wished. It is clear that ECHR art 9 is a qualified right. Ms Ladele’s views could not override the employer’s concern to ensure equal respect for the gay community. ‘As Lord Hoffmann put it in R(SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School[1] ‘Article 9 does not require that one should be allowed to manifest one's religion at any time and place of one's own choosing’.’ Dyson LJ and Smith LJ concurred.

Quote:

This is most definitely persecution and there were plenty of other registrars that could cope with the slow dribble of Civil Partnerships that are requested from time to time. It's hardly been a popular take since it was launched

"Ms Ladele was employed in a public job and was working for a public authority; she was being required to perform a purely secular task, which was being treated as part of her job;"

Did you get that bit? Public money was being paid to her to perform her job in full, not partially, not selectively, in full. It was the contract she agreed to when she took the job. That civil partnerships between same sex couples came into effect after she signed is irrelevant, she agreed to do a job and then refused to do part of it. This is a legal point, not a view or an opinion.

" Ms Ladele's refusal to perform that task involved discriminating against gay people in the course of that job;"

There is no argument to be made here. This is what she did. She discriminated against members of the public which she had a paid duty to assist...

"Ms Ladele's refusal was causing offence to at least two of her gay colleagues;"

...as well as upsetting her fellow workers.

She is in breach of numerous laws protecting people ironically from discrimination, that is not up for dispute, what is up for dispute is the very thing you are claiming with the following...

Quote:

The issue is her religious considerations were not taking into account at all!

Again you mislead. The previous statements are true. This is not up for debate. What all the hearings and appeals and indeed the case this week are about is precisely about her religious considerations. If her religious considerations were not being taken in to account, none of these legal actions would have happened and you would never have heard about her.

This is her original argument

Quote:

The claimant was a Registrar who, amongst other things, registered marriages. When the Civil Partnerships Act came into force, she refused to participate in registering such partnerships because to do so was inconsistent with her religious beliefs. The council insisted that she should undertake at least some of these duties, and disciplined her and threatened her with dismissal when she refused. She alleged that she had been discriminated against by reason of her religious belief in various ways. The allegations were that there had been direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment. The indirect discrimination argument was based on the fact that the council had chosen to designate the claimant as someone suitable to do civil partnership work notwithstanding that they knew that she had genuine and strong religious reasons for not wanting to do it.

My emphasis to answer your point above. They weren't singling her out do do them, she was refusing to do any. Were her co-workers unable to perform them due to prior commitments or any other reason, the public would not be able to have their civil rights heeded. She was sacked for breach of contract, not because of her religious views.

Were the requirements to perform civil partnerships between same sex couple in place prior to her employment, she simply wouldn't have got the job (or applied in the first place). This whole mess has come about because of bad timing. It's is a unique situation and one that is unlikely to repeat given anyone applying for this job will be aware of the requirements in the future.

What is basically happening is two laws which are relatively new are clashing with each other. The purpose of all these legal actions is to fix the problem. In the above quote, her first case, she won.

Did you get that bit?

On appeal, the case was overturned so she appealed and lost.
And now she is making another appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.


This is one of these rare occasions where the stars align and I find myself agreeing with you (in part). I don't think this was handled as well as it could be and I do think the council were overzealous in the way they treated her, for the very reasons I gave above. This is bad timing.

I do not agree however, that this case has ANYTHING to do with discrimination against Christians or any other conspiracy you care to come up with. Laws clash from time to time, that's why we have the whole appeals process.

An appeals process you might take a note of, that was put in place by these "secular liberal think tanks" you were going on about earlier.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

Quote:

It wouldn't surprise me if that was true. Stranger things happen at sea; CNN: Royal Navy allows Satanist right to practise aboard Ship So your point is?

Wait? Did you just mock a religious person for having religious beliefs? And/or mock the Navy for allowing him to practice them?! (while utterly missing the point of his post)

Quote:

hyp·o·crite a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings Examples of HYPOCRITE the hypocrites who criticize other people for not voting but who don't always vote themselves the hypocrites who criticize other people for having weird religious beliefs but who have weird religious beliefs themselves.

You really need to familiarise yourself with the above. It's how you will be remembered.



Quote:

What's next demanding that adoption agencies place children with homosexual couples or forcing them to close down? Oh yeah that already happened too!

Oh you mean the bit where orphans are being excluded from a loving family environment because of the bigoted beliefs of those running the place?

Thankfully that idiotic practice has come to an end and helpless children don't have to suffer because an adult that isn't their parent is placing their own values above the value of the child.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 03-Sep-2012 at 01:54 PM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: @BigD Quote: It wouldn't surprise me if that was true. Stranger things happen at sea; CNN: Royal Navy allows Satanist right to practise aboard Ship So your point is? Wait? Did you just mock a religious person for having religious beliefs? And/or mock the Navy for allowing him to practice them?! (while utterly missing the point of his post)

It's BigD's kind of tolerance of religion. His must be honored and tolerated and everyone else burned in stake.

@Rose

Quote:

It's BigD's kind of tolerance of religion. His must be honored and tolerated and everyone else burned in stake.

No one said anything about being burned at the stake, but allowing someone to worship the prince of darkness and performing sacrificial rituals on a British Warship?! Britain is a Christian Nation and the Queen is the defender of the faith (singular). Someone professing to worship Lucifer in the UK is giving more rights for his faith to be lived out than a Christian like Lilian Ladele. Do you really think that's a sensible or fair state of affairs?

@SpaceDruid

Well done for attempting to summarise the court case. Are you trying to get extra marks for trying to show your paying attention or something I'm fully aware of the details of the case.

Your understanding is flawed in that you seem to think the opinionated judges are perfectly correct to deem that the only area of religion worth protecting is the right to worship on a Sunday. That is insane and completely misses the point that a Christian is accountable to God seven days a week. The judges had no logical reason to interpret Article 9 the way they did and to say that the judge's personal prejudices don't come in to it is very naive of you. This is an issue of the balancing of rights and at the moment the case law seems heavy stacked in the favour of homosexuals to the detriment of religious freedom and it will take some European judges to put these arrogant UK judges back in their place

Last edited by BigD on 03-Sep-2012 at 07:45 PM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

Someone professing to worship Lucifer in the UK is giving more rights for his faith to be lived out than a Christian like Lilian Ladele.

Ah, Lucifer. An interesting name that. And here was I thinking that the Bringer of Light was the good guy - certainly that's the impression the book gives when the creator says 'let there be light'. Ah well, we weren't really expecting narrative consistency anyway.

And no, our satanist example isn't really being given more rights than Ladele. To be honest, his account reads like yet another angry non-christian trying to piss off the christian community, but it is a credit to our system and the Navy that it took this in its stride and let him get on with it within the bounds of his own free time and private space. His quotes indicate that he went into this expecting to be 'persecuted', while in fact no persecution exists against him in law.

Does this sound familiar?

Quote:

Your understanding is flawed in that you seem to think the opinionated judges are perfectly correct to deem that the only area of religion worth protecting is the right to worship on a Sunday. That is insane and completely misses the point that a Christian is accountable to God seven days a week.

And which part of Christ's teachings was Ladele upholding when she refused to register non-religious civil partnerships for same-sex couples? Certainly not the part about doing unto others. Nor the bit about rendering unto Caesar that which is his. Frankly, its not a stance that is consistent with anything I've ever read Jesus quoted as saying. Probably fits in with something elderly and superseded in Deuteronomy, but I think we can put that alongside abominable mixed fabrics and shellfish, really.

Quote:

...detriment of religious freedom and it will take some European judges to put these arrogant UK judges back in their place

Remove the plank from your eye and you might more accurately perceive the alleged mote of arrogance you detect in those of the judges.

Although I will admit to a moment of amusement at the concept of an obviously ultraconservative right-winger like yourself appealing to European High Court judges to overturn a British court ruling.

Last edited by T-J on 03-Sep-2012 at 08:21 PM.

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: Britain is a Christian Nation and the Queen is the defender of the faith (singular).

That's the biggest load of bullshit I have ever heard in my life...

Britain is not a "Christian Nation" nor is it any other type of religious nation for that matter...

Britiain is a group of islands populated by human beings, if some of those people choose to believe in religion that is fine but just because they happen to believe in religion don't dare to pretend that this country and it's populace can have a daft label stuck on all of them like "Christian Nation" just because you and some others happen to believe in religion...

Simple fact is, human beings were here on these isles long before anyone even dreamt up the concept of religion so please don't try and label our nation with your (or any others) religious nonsense...

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

It wouldn't surprise me if that was true. Stranger things happen at sea; CNN: Royal Navy allows Satanist right to practise aboard Ship So your point is?

And your point is ?

Its all the same, pure superstition, whether you worship Christ or Satan its all bollox. None of you believers have any realistic view of the world. Whether you call your imaginary friend, Jesus, Yaweh, Jehova, Lucifer, Satan, God, Santa Claus, Zeus, Aphrodite, Quetzalcoetal or whatever, they still don't actually exist and never have done except in the minds of the gullible.

@BigD

Quote:

Britain is a Christian Nation

I sincerely hope it is not. Most people are agnostics or aetheists. A few gullible fools still belive in the fairy stories but not many.

Quote:

and the Queen is the defender of the faith (singular).

The other day you were telling us all how evil Henry VIII was for his type of Christianity, he was the first "Defender of the Faith", ironically a title he was given by the pope at the time. Yet you now bring up that heritage you rejected not long back !

Quote:

Someone professing to worship Lucifer in the UK is giving more rights for his faith to be lived out than a Christian like Lilian Ladele. Do you really think that's a sensible or fair state of affairs?

Of course not as ALL religion is superstition none of them should have ANY rights if they contravene the law. I guess that claiming you believe in your imaginary friend is so close to insanity that may be why religious beliefs are tolerated far too much. Yet insane people can be extremely dangerous so I don't think insanity whether religious or otherwise should be automatically a get out clause for everything.

@BigD

The results of the last census showed that around half of the population professed to having a faith. That includes all faiths, therefore whilst Christianity is the majority religion, more Britons don't believe than do. It included people like me, who disagree with everything you say, but ticked the box "Christian" when asked.

Also, as an aside, the Queen is the head of the Church of England, but is only a member of the congregation of the Church of Scotland.

Great Britain is a secular state, albeit you are right in saying our history is overwhelmingly Christian, and as such this will have influenced the development of our legal system.

Prince Charles has already indicated that he intends to change the title to "Defender of Faith" to reflect the changes in society, much to the chagrin of Daily Telegraph readers everywhere...

Prince Charles' Plan to change his title...

Also, with rules on the line of succession expected to change soon...

Changes to the line of succession

... then it's only a matter of time until the discrimination against Catholics is successfully challenged. Not that I really care one way or the other.

Either way, it's just more examples of why we are moving away from your world view towards a new, more progressive and fairer world view. God you must hate that!

AndyC

PS. And while I remember, let's bear in mind that the CofE has held talks at a high level with the Roman Catholic church to enable the Anglican church to rejoin the Roman Catholic congregation, on the issue of gay clergy no less. Such delightfully tolerant people...

Last edited by AndyC on 03-Sep-2012 at 10:08 PM.

@BigD

Quote:

Someone professing to worship Lucifer in the UK is giving more rights for his faith to be lived out than a Christian like Lilian Ladele.

In what way does he have more right to practice his professed religion than the "christian" woman? Do you have any evidence that he is permitted to ignore the orders given to himself and his christian, or muslim, or hindu, etc.crewmates. The only thing that you find unfair is that a christian is not given privileged status in society, because we all have equal rites

Quote:

I'm fully aware of the details of the case.

You may be aware of the details of the case, but you are clearly choosing to ignore the pertinent facts of the case.

Quote:

Your understanding is flawed in that you seem to think the opinionated judges are perfectly correct to deem that the only area of religion worth protecting is the right to worship on a Sunday

The parts of her religion that the judges deemed "not worth protecting" as you put it, was her right to dictate to her employer what part of her job she would perform, and also her right to pick and choose which secular laws she felt inclined to obey.

Quote:

This is an issue of the balancing of rights and at the moment the case law seems heavy stacked in the favour of homosexuals

The law is that it is illegal to discriminate against anybody, and this self righteous female considered that her professed religion would protect her from the requirement to obey the law. She was nort sacked for being a christian, she was sacked for breaching anti discrimination legislation and demanding special treatment. As the judges expressed it "It cannot be discriminatory to treat Ms Ladele in the same manner as her fellow workers"

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@AndyC

Quote:

... then it's only a matter of time until the discrimination against Catholics is successfully challenged.

And on that day we will lose the absurdity that it is illegal for the reigning monarch to marry a catholic, yet there is nothing in law to prevent him (or her) from marrying a
satanist.
I think that we should keep that law as it is, and just ignore it, simply because it is just too totally ridiculous to be real.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Hail Satan!!!

@BigD

Quote:

No one said anything about being burned at the stake

I did, many times. I said that you would have been burned at the stake for owning a Bible written in English by the very people you wish to defend.

You'd also bee burned for posting yesterday since it's the Sabbath.
And for all the times you claimed to be speaking for God.
And all the times you've lied.
And for your comments about Catholicism.
And your false judgements (only God is allowed to judge).


IF you REALLY believe the words you spew, then you know if you are right, it won't be God waiting for you one the other side. My advice? Join the Navy and become really good mates with that Satanist fellow. He might put in a god word for you.

Quote:

, but allowing someone to worship the prince of darkness and performing sacrificial rituals on a British Warship?!

And that's more bizarre than what you do, how exactly?

Quote:

Do you really think that's a sensible or fair state of affairs?

And just when has sense had anything to do with religion?

Quote:

Well done for attempting to summarise the court case. Are you trying to get extra marks for trying to show your paying attention or something I'm fully aware of the details of the case.

The details weren't meant for you. You can't read at the best of times, so lawyer speak must just be a blurry mess. It was meant for those in the thread capable of understanding words that they are reading, which you clearly have not since you claim to be "fully aware" despite all your previous posts about this case which prove the contrary.

Quote:

Your understanding is flawed in that you seem to think the opinionated judges are perfectly correct to deem that the only area of religion worth protecting is the right to worship on a Sunday.

Again with the Sunday, no wait, it was Church that you claimed before was the limitation..

/me cuts and pastes from above.

"which you clearly have not since you claim to be "fully aware" despite all your previous posts about this case which prove the contrary. "

And "opinionated judges", is that just the ones that you didn't agree with? She won the first case, was that an opinionated judge as well? Or was he the only judge to pass muster with you? If you care to read the court papers again (you won't, you didn't read them the first time), you'll see it wasn't a single judge that came up with the rulling, he was supported by all sides of the bench (that's why I quoted "Dyson LJ and Smith LJ concurred."

They weren't the only ones, try reading the flippin paperwork. Try it, you might like it. Then you might do it some more, then some more and again after that. And before you know it, you'll be learning facts! And knowing what "evidence" means. Who knows, perhaps you might learn sufficient things about this world that you don't keep seeing scary conspiracies and agendas everywhere. Maybe you might realise why absolutely no person on this forum believes a word you have posted.

If you do that, you will unlock the achievement "Acquired sentience" It's awesome!

Quote:

This is an issue of the balancing of rights

Careful now, I told you that. You thought you had big enough a grip on geology to get away with your claim about that, don't be digging another hole for yourself by claiming to understand what "balancing of rights" means.

Quote:

at the moment the case law seems heavy stacked in the favour of homosexuals to the detriment of religious freedom and it will take some European judges to put these arrogant UK judges back in their place

Who's going to be the one to tell him it was the European judges that gave us the Human Rights laws that were behind this woman's sacking? Shall I do it, or does anyone else want to try?

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 04-Sep-2012 at 12:23 AM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Careful now, I told you that. You thought you had big enough a grip on geology to get away with your claim about that, don't be digging another hole for yourself by claiming to understand what "balancing of rights" means.

You obviously don't understand it if you think Islington Council were justified in sacking Lilian Ladele. That decision itself should have been informed by a consideration of the balancing of rights of the offended homosexuals (what's it got to do with them as they were colleagues not a person seeking a Civil Partnership) and Lilian's right to uphold her Christian belief that her job was to 'marry' heterosexuals not give credence to the institution that emboldened lobbyists to push for the destruction of marriage (against all prior reassurances that it wouldn't happen). Registrars traditionally married people and it has only been proven recently (after Lilian was sacked) in the Bull & Bull -v- Hall and Preddy case that Civil Partnerships equate to marriage in law. Still Christians do not accept this as homosexuality is described as a sin in the Bible and so we cannot view it as equal when we are asked to administer over the ceremony in our working life. It's an issue of conscience and Lilian should have been allowed to carry on administering marriage services only.

Also, I consider a Geology degree enough credibility to comment about issues of Geology, sorry that gets on your wick but that's where I stand!

Quote:

Who's going to be the one to tell him it was the European judges that gave us the Human Rights laws that were behind this woman's sacking?

Yeah and Lilian's rights to practise and live out her faith were trampled on and not even considered by Islington Council.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

You obviously don't understand it if you think Islington Council were justified in sacking Lilian Ladele. That decision itself should have been informed by a consideration of the balancing of rights of the offended homosexuals (what's it got to do with them as they were colleagues not a person seeking a Civil Partnership) and Lilian's right to uphold her Christian belief that her job was to 'marry' heterosexuals not give credence to the institution that emboldened lobbyists to push for the destruction of marriage

Lilian was clearly wrong about the details of her job. Her job was not to push her faith onto others. Lilian's job was a Civil Servant. That title should be sufficent to understand that she was carrying out duties as assigned by Laws and Regulations. If she was unable to follow the law she should step down and let someone do the job who can follow the law.

Lilian does not have the right to supercede the will of the people as established by the government. That is clearly not her position. Yet, that is what she did.

Quote:

Yeah and Lilian's rights to practise and live out her faith were trampled on and not even considered by Islington Council.

Another way to look at it is we have 2 different competiting religious rights being practiced. In the case of Lilian her belief is that civil partnership is against her faith. In the case of the person requesting legal service from the government it's their belief that civil partnership is in alignment with their faith. ... Since Lilian's job is not a Judge of law but to follow the law to service the public and she failed to do that she should be sacked. Her faith may be her reason why she couldn't follow the law. Since she's unable to fulfill the duties of her job she shouldn't have the job.

In short Lilian's faith is only superior to the governments laws for Lilian. Lilians faith is not superior to the law and everyone else's faith in society. That later sentence, if true, would mean we do not have freedom of religion in the society. We'd have Lilian's religious dictates instead.