Support Islington Council and sign the petition
Christian churches need to very careful. For now, they may well think that it’s followers are following it’s guidelines – but what happens when non-practicing, non-faith people turn to the church in order to spout their hate and intolerance? You end up with a church filled with angry, spiteful, hurtful, war mongerers who have no intention of practicing faith only their discust in others.
That will the the church’s death nail…
If she does not want to register civil marriages, she should not be a civil registrar!
The same bullshit was pulled for interracial marriages. Why do *they* (all those who use the Bible/religion to hate us) forget that? Churches (in Britain and America) didn’t want to allow a white man/woman marrying a black woman/man. Strange isn’t it though, how they’ve forgotten that.
My take on it is this, quite simply, if someone is working for the public, their religious beliefs MUST be confined to the privacy of their homes or places of worship. They have absolutely NO place in employment whatsoever. This woman and others like her should realise that. Hers are chosen beliefs, she wasn’t born religious, nobody is, therefore, don’t bring your religion to work.
I wonder if Ms Ladele’ piety and fancied purity ever prevented her from ‘promoting’ heterosexual ‘sin’?
From an Evangelical Christian perspective, ANY sexual activity outside of a FIRST (and only) marriage is sin, plain & simple. This obviously includes all remarrying divorcees, whom Jesus (according to the Gospels) proclaimed were committing adultery.
Evangelical Christian pastor & scholar Lewis Smedes made a very strong case a few years ago, that, since Evangelicals had permitted the remarriage of divorcees in church – thus sanctioning these relationships – out of compassion, then they could equally ‘temper the wind to the shorn lamb’ with same-sex partners, since, in principle, the situation was the same for both.
The overriding principle being that, for Christians, compassion should trump judgement.
Have Ms Ladele’s religious principles EVER impelled her to refuse to (re)marry a heterosexual couple, either or both of whom have previously been married to someone else?
If not, why not? The principle is exactly the same.
It appears that some Christians are motivated in these cases more by an irrational, conditioned hatred of what they BELIEVE about LGBT people than by any well-reasoned, consistent ethical principle – or compassion.
We live in amazing times! Amazing on their blindness and madness. Homosexuality is called NORMAL. Without wanting to offend anybody, I still wonder: how can such view be healthy?! Pause for a moment and think: HOMOSEXUALITY is normal! Men having sex with men and women with women, burning their lust on each other! The very act of sex being an act for pro-creation and enjoyment of the opposite sex is used in the same sex acts. How this can be a NORM?! I understand that in the modern times people have rights to conduct their lives the way they want, o’k then, live how you want. BUT making it normal and equal to heterosexual relationship… o man, this is madness! You do not have to be a religious person to make this simple conclusion. It is a matter of common sense. Be honest.
There appears to be lot of confusion in your mind between what YOU consider to be ‘normal’(a personal value judgement, an opinion), and what legal and civil rights ought to be afforded to those persons whose erotic orientation and views you do not share.
In Islamic countries under sharia law, women victims of rape have been beaten and stoned to death by those who believed they had violated an accepted ‘Norm’.
This is one example of why we in Western countries need so much to appreciate the legacy of secular, liberal democracy and civil rights our foreparents struggled so hard to secure for us -frequently opposed by the pious representatives of the Christian Churches.
You said: “Men having sex with men and women with women, burning their lust on each other!”
quoting Paul of Tarsus (Romans 1) almost verbatim, thus revealing your a priori commitment to a literal, Pauline view of same-sex relationships. Suffice for now to say that Paul of Tarsus also had a negative, unhealthy view of the human body, heterosexual relationships, and women too! His negative view of ALL erotic relationships was strongly coloured by his 1st century Hellenistic Judaism coupled with a confident, and utterly WRONG expectation that ‘This World’ would end catastrophically VERY SOON (in the 1st century) to be superseded by Jesus returning as the apocalyptic Son of Man, ushering in the Kingdom of God.
It didn’t arrive.
Paul of Tarsus and his fellow Christians of the 1st Century were mistaken about the very CORE of their proclamation – the arrival of the Kingdom of God.
They were wrong about the very core of their message…what ELSE were they wrong about?
One thing that I find difficult to understand is that black people always complain of discrimination, and yet so many of them are so hateful and homophobic towards gay people.
I am proud of my Civil Partnership; conducted by two smashing ladies in Berkshire, the thought of having the ceremony conducted by any black or white Born Again Christian fills me with dread.
Homophobia, Religion, and this Vile Creature, all belong in the trash.
Alex may consider that -
1. it is not necessary for all human beings to pass on their DNA – in fact there are 4 times as many humans as can be sustained, in pollution terms;
2. humans survive, and contribute by passing on ideas, not genes;
3. gay people are just as capable of producing children, and the evidence shows that same sex couples are perfectly capable of bringing up children.
4. who cares about ‘normal’? why is it important for everyone to behave according to the norm (your norm, we presume)? homosexuality is natural – it is after all the result of brains that have evolved by natural selection over millions of years, to be large enough to have imagination, and the capacity to enjoy sex for the sake of sex; it’s found in hundreds of other species too;
5. for that matter, human beings with their bigger brains, do lots of things that have nothing to do with passing on DNA: using contraceptives, taking up leisure pursuits, sending probes to Neptune, eating junk food, wasting trillions of dollars praising non-existent gods.
6. Purpose is a human invention; so to say that specific body parts are ‘for’ a certain function is a bit like saying flowers are ‘for’ pretty gardens. In any case, we know that at any time, statistically speaking, thousands of people at least will almost certainly be enjoying themselves immensely, having gay sex somewhere around the world.
6. the bible does not inform public life, and least of all legislation. And in a country where most people want nothing to do with religion, people who think it should are going to find themselves out of jobs.
But, more importantly –
7. other people’s private, harmless arrangements, and sources of pleasure and happiness are none of your business in any case. And it is not for the state to interfere. Because if it did, should all those who do not have kids (after a certain period of time) be forced to separate? Should contraceptives be prohibited?
So, Alex, on what basis do you say the state should stick its nose in and deny happiness to those who don’t fit your norm? why do their actions threaten you, or the nation? the fact that you presumably don’t like gay sex is not a relevant reason.
This is the one to be won by Islington Council.
If she wins – it is the end of equality for religion – race – sexuality etc….
WE ALL HAVE one kind of person we dont like (be honnest) but this will allow to refuse contact/service/help with them – and that is what anti discrimations laws are for.
This woman entered a contract with her employer with which she is obliged to comply. She cannot pick and choose which provisions to observe, and which not. She is also a public servant under the law and is obliged to serve that public according to the law. If she feels that employees should have a legal right to carry out their duties in significantly variable ways depending on religious belief, then in a free society she can campaign for this (and much good may it do her), but if she is unable to work as stipulated and she originally accepted, she must leave the job. My work sometimes obliges me to deal with people I would rather not deal with, but that, as they say, is tough, and I don’t believe that claiming supernatural or other belief as a reason for not dealing with them should put me in better case.
Lilian Ladele has a teenage son who was born to her out of wedlock (the Guardian did a story on this). Therefore in the eyes of her church she gave birth to a bastard and she is a disgusting sinner. Who on earth does she think she is casting moral judgement on others that I am certain she does not apply to herself. Then again she is a christian so hypocrisy and double standards are only to be expected.
Ms. Ladele accepted the job to be performed as the law dictates, knowing that it could be changed at any time. Now that it has, she does not get to have her own way. Can’t (or won’t) perform her duties, then tough luck. She does not get to discriminate against the law and other people, and then cry foul when she is called out. A reasonable accomodation would be for the council to offer her another position (if one is available) where she does not have contact with the public. If she refuses to take it, then they should tell her not to let the door hit her on the ass on her way out.
I simply love the stupidity of the “normal” argument put forward by our dear friend Alex. They can define normal as something only within their small view of the world.
Tell you what Alex, next time you have a medical condition, let god sort it out, okay? Because at the end of the day, surgery isn’t “normal”, nether is medication, or transplants… these are all “unnatural” things.
Hopefully its a serious medical condition, as we’ll see how you want to cry about what’s normal and what’s not.
You stupid cow.