I am relieved. This woman has won the right to discriminate and it is wrong. The bible justifies (amongst other bizzare things) that slavery is quite ok, as long as you buy your slaves from another country (Leviticus) Now modern christians who oppose tolerance of homosexuals on religeous grounds claim that one can’t pick and choose which parts of their bibles to ignore, and that the scriptures clearly condemn us all to hell. The very same (old testament) which these hypoctrates refer to clearly states that it is a sin to cut ones hair, that it is a sin to eat (i)pork (ii)prawns (iii) shelfish, that a young man who disrespects his father should be stoned to death (along with WOMAN adulterers)..this list goes on. It is just plain stupid. Somebody please read Leviticus! It’s almost a comedy!
I am so relieved. This woman has won the right to discriminate and it is wrong. The bible justifies (amongst other bizzare things) that slavery is quite ok, as long as you buy your slaves from another country. I wonder how she feels about that particular biblical assertion? Now modern christians who oppose tolerance of homosexuals on religeous grounds claim that one can’t pick and choose which parts of their bibles to ignore, and that the scriptures clearly condemn us all to hell. The very same (old testament) which these hypoctrates refer to clearly states that it is a sin to cut ones hair, that it is a sin to eat (i)pork (ii)prawns (iii) shelfish, that a young man who disrespects his father should be stoned to death (along with WOMAN adulterers)..this list goes on. It is just plain stupid. Somebody please read Leviticus! It’s almost a comedy!
Ray, its what I’ve been posting here ad nauseum. NOBODY, not even those whose religious beliefs conflict with the law of the land should be above any law, no exceptions. Religious beliefs are a personal choice, learned behaviour and as such, should be confined with the walls of one’s home. They have absolutely no place in the public sector or the political arena. Our orientation is NOT a choice and the sooner these people learn that the better. Further, it is NOT Jesus Christ or God describing homosexuality as an abomination but a Levite, a man, and men are infallible, imperfect. The scriptures say many things that are at best risible, e.g. we should cut off our hands if they offend us, we must kill our wives for adultery and our children for insolence, not shave our beards, not wear clothes of more than one thread, the list is endless, but do the majority of Christians and Jews believe this? NO! So why would they deliberately select one questionable quote in Leviticus? We all know why don’t we? HOMOPHOBIA, BIGOTRY and HYPOCRISY of which most who condemn us are guilty. They have chosen to cast the first stone by judging us. The double standards are so apparent.
If this woman is allowed to break the law of the land by putting her religious beliefs above it then what’s to stop Muslims stoning adulterers to death.
Since the Goods and Services act came into force this sort of thing shouldn’t be allowed. They are setting a dangerous precident. C21st and still we are second class citizens. If there is the chance that during the course of you carrying out your job, you will clash with your personal belief, then either relise you don’t have the right to judge others and do the job. Or change your job so that you can remain an out of date Biggot.
Robert for councillor!!!!!!!
Jason, I only wish but thanks for the vote of support!
Well said, Robert – you’ve said everything that I wanted to say. I just hope that the appeal’s successful. Imagine if some registrar had refused to marry black people? But gay people are fair game, it seems.
Excellent decision and let’s hope the Appeal Court does its job more thoroughly than the industrial tribunal to look into the consistency of Ms Ladele’s objections to doing her job for gay people when as far as we know she never refused to marry heterosexuals of any shade of ‘sinner’ (in her book): divorcees, adulterers and those with children out of wedlock – all sinners in her high view of holy matrimony that the tribunal accepted unchallenged.
I must admit that I was so incensed by this finding that I wrote to Islington Council urging them to appeal, along with many others, I’m sure. I am completely with Robert. In fact, I would also question why religion and belief are factors which are protected by anti-discrimination laws at all. In fact, it is children who need to be protected from religious indoctrination! It teaches them that apostacy will bring eternal suffering (in mainstream cases.) I don’t understand why religious people are afforded the right to protection from discrimination. I agree that every individual should have the right to practice and hold these beliefs, but they must not impinge on public life with disinterested parties involved, otherwise harm is almost always caused to someone. Surely (caring)discrimination, in this area, is the most natural form of social censorship of hurtful doctrine? It would challenge dogmatic views and rigid forms of thinking. I respect people of faith, I am one myself, but that is a spiritual set of ideas relating myself, personally, to the cosmos. I do not have the audacity to feel pompous enough to speak for others. Further, I must always recognise the fallibility of each and everyone of these ideas (and the evidence that they are based on)and the way I relate to them. Perhaps religious-thinkers ought to exercise a little more humility and restraint before assuming their sole interpretation of religious texts etc. are the word of ‘god’. (Iris Robinson).
Can we also get a word in about The Christian Institute. Bigot woman was just a pawn in their game – they’re the ones who are working night and day to shove us back into the Stone Age. They backed her action against Islington – from their website:
” The case was financed by The Christian Institute. Its Head of Communications, Mike Judge, said: “This important ruling confirms that gay rights should not be treated as trumping religious rights. The law clearly recognises this.
“If we really believe in equality before the law, that means respecting people who have sincerely held religious beliefs on sexual ethics. The witch hunt against those who disagree with homosexual practice has to stop.”
Mark Jones, solicitor for Miss Ladele, said: “Hopefully this decision will encourage other employers to balance competing rights where they conflict. In standing up for her faith, Lillian Ladele found herself vilified by various people, including some holding themselves out as protectors of the rights and freedoms of others. She faced this with a quiet dignity. ”
Clearly they intend to spread this as far as possible. I would say God help us, but it seems like a bad cultural reference here, and he or she is too busy helping out poor victimised Lil at the mo.
Anyhow, know your enemy, visit them at their website, they even have a ‘contact us’ section. How fantastic!!: http://www.christian.org.uk/news/
stop religions now .religions spread hate now
they did help build the world when there was no order now they do the opposite .
Rich is right on the nail (see above). I have made similar comments here that have been deleted, so I’ll say it again: any equality legislation that includes religious belief or faith will not work in the end, because religion and the rights of women and sexual minorities simply do not mix. I think that religion ought not be included in equality legislation. Why should they have rights to impose their beliefs on others and to be discriminating in how they treat those who are not like them? Religion, particularly in Europe, had ruled with an iron fist for centuries and some of the most vile and cruel behaviour has come about in the name of religion. I think the time has come to tilt the scales away from religious rights and push it into the private – rather than public – domain. God-botherers have had it easy for too long. Now it should be our turn.