Now were are all those religious retards who regularly appear on this site defending pieces of gutter trash like Ms. Ladele, hmmm? Off praying/screaming at your imaginary god for salvation from the “hordes of evil queers” who are quite rightly rejoicing at this decision?
Looks like REAL justice has prevailed here… at last! Its about time their brand of puritan nonsense was struck down as the irrational discriminatory hate that it is.
I’m delighted! Ms. Ladele is a fool.
I do agree with the decision that has been made, however i dont think it should have really got to that stage. Forgive me for having an objective point of view here, but if you look at it another way… She cant do civil partnerships because of her beliefs, which should be respected. Lets say she couldnt do a part of her job because, say, she had an accident and developed a disability. Would they sack her? No, they would do their best to accomodate her and find something that she can do. And i firmly believe that she is entitled to the same respect we as gay people would like too. So why didnt they just work with her to find her a more suitable position? doesnt benefit anyone to have yet another unemployment notch on the figures.
And i have to say its abit harsh to be calling her all names under the sun when the only thing you know about her is that she has strong beliefs which you dont happen to share. Be realistic.
Although I do not share her beliefs, i respect them, and i do think she may have a case for unfair treatment, (but not for refusing to do civil partnertships).
Dont hate me, just my opinion, trying to stay objective :o)
Now why should anyone’s religious beliefs, a chosen belief system be allowed to play the victim and why should any government uphold and protect lifestyle choices which this clearly is? Nobody has a right to bring their personal cultist beliefs into the workplace especially when the employer is part of local government. There are places of worship where this woman can exercise her right to worship and believe as she sees fit, but the workplace definitely is not the appropriate place. If she can’t understand that, then perhaps she should seek alternate employment where she won’t have to be so conflicted. Maybe her cult or sect can find her an appropriate job instead? She could do everybody a huge favour by leaving her beliefs at home where they belong. What an idiot!
The religious right is a dying animal soon to become entirely irrelevant in an increasingly-tolerant world. As international alliances become more numerous and globalisation facilitates cultural exchange and the export and enforcement of human rights around the world, equality will eventually become universal and anyone with a creed still founded in intolerance will quickly find themselves left out in the cold, confused and alone, their desperate pleas for a return to their mediaeval hierarchies of human worth falling on a billion deaf ears.
Alex – you miss the point entirely. This woman has decided that a fairy story surrounded by myth (in this case the Bible) is reason enough to deny people their right in law.
She was threatened with the sack because she was fully capable in all respects of carrying out her duties but refused to based on her “beliefs”. Given that she knew what the job entailed it is not acceptable to bleat that “beliefs” – that after all are learned and can be changed – trump the rights of people whose gender / sexual orientation is a matter of fact and cannot be changed.
If she was that fussed she should have taken herself out of civic society and cloistered herself in a nunnery or trained to become a female priest. That would have been problematic as she is not only a bigot but a hypocritical bigot having flouted her “strongly held beliefs” by shagging outside marriage and have an “illegitimate” (her and her cronies definition, not mine) child.
In short. This woman is symptomatic of the strategic position that fundamentalist Christians have chosen to take here in the UK. They are determined to use employment law to subvert the will of Parliament (gender and sexuality equality legislation in this case) by bringing spurious claims of “religious intolerance” against anyone and everyone they think they have a cat in hell’s chance of bullying into submission.
It is refreshing given the evangelical freak (Blair) we had as PM until recently that civic society is resoundingly turning it’s back on these idiots and refusing to allow crap claims to succeed.
As to the rather silly point you make about disability – why would that stop her holding civil partnership ceremonies. IT WOULDN’T. The facts are that this silly woman refused to do the work she was employed and paid to do. If anyone does that they should expect to be shown the door. Period.
There is a not insignificant branch of Christianity, that based on a story in the bible about one of Noah’s sons seeing him naked, believes that Black people are an inferior race and should be treated as such. (Very fashionable in the southern parts of the United States in the latter century)
I would be interested to know if Ms Ladele thinks it acceptable for people in her position holding these beliefs, to be exempt from carrying out civil partnerships involving black people?
Having worked in human resources for many years, I’m a little shocked by Alex’s comments about those with disabilities. They simply can’t can’t can’t do certain things. I’m not even going to get into whether or not a job can be changed to accommodate. Disabilities aren’t a choice, like religious beliefs are. I’m also gay and believe me it’s not a choice either but those religious idiots will argue ’till the end of time that it is.
I’m tending to agree with Andysteve. I don’t believe Ms Ladele was discriminated against because she wasn’t treated differently from other registrars. If she was so religious, she wouldn’t have taken a job performing civil – ie NON-religious – marriages anyway. In my opinion, this is just another example of fundamentalist ‘christians’ looking for pawns they can use in their latest fight to prove that Christians are being victimised. They are NOT – not in the UK, at least.
Many Christians used the Bible to justify discrimination against black people – would Ms Ladele be happy if she was refused service in shops and offices by such Christians because she was black? Should we allow those whose religion permits murder (ie killing certain people as punishment) to claim that the UK laws forbidding murder discriminates against them?
AT best Ms Ladele is misguided and needs to be pitied for letting herself be used in this way, at worst she’s a bigot who needs to think whether her god really approves of such hatred in his name.
Religious beliefs aren’t any more important than non-religious beliefs. Some are acceptable, some are not. I don’t expect the law to sympathise with a racist who’s unable to practice his racist beliefs at work (because those beliefs are abhorrent to any decent human being), and I don’t expect it to sympathise with someone who wants to discriminate against LGBT people at work either – whether those beliefs are religious or secular.
Firstly, @Alex, You appear to be suggesting that having a religion is a disability. An attractive thought but…….well, I jest.
Secondly, Ladelle’s religious belief seemed confined to homosexuality and not to re-marrying divorcees, wearing mixed fibres, eating shellfish, killing disobedient children etc. She is just another pick n mix bigot seeking refuge in the “you must respect my delusion” defence.
Thirdly, there is some other really good news buried in here. It is that she was refused costs. This is bad news for the Christian Institute who, having funded this case and others recently, are about to run out of money in the next few weeks and are desperately appealing for funds.
Finally, this shows that Strathclyde council were total pussies in not seeing through the Glasgow firefighters case. With luck, the clear outcome for Islington in this case will put some lead in the pencil of other public bodies when dealing with similar whackos in future.
I can sympathise [to some extent] with people whose religious beliefs conflict with their jobs, but they have to recognise that if their religious belief is THAT important to them then they have a responsibility to themselves and their God to question whether that job is right for them. They also have a responsibility, if they claim to be Christian, to obey Christ’s command to “render unto Caesar the hings that are Caesar’s” .. in other words obey the law of the land, rather than seek to profit from a perceived conflict.
Ms Ladele chose to be religious, if that conflicts with her legally appointed duties then she is the one to change jobs, the job should not be changed to suit her!
Part of Ms. Ladele’s job is marrying people, just like it’s the garbage-collector’s to pick up people’s trash, that’s what they’re being payed for. It wouldn’t be accepted if the collector refused to pick up the trash of people he didn’t approve of for whatever reason, so why should it be any different for a registrar?
She’s not even British !
If she wins – all the new regulations on equality are invalid !!
I just love it, the Islington Council ‘OVER’ reacted to her not doing her job…what a gem ! HULLO!..’Public Service’ where you don’t/ can’t choose whom you serve. Should we be so lucky especially in London with a very diverse community. Silly Cow, wrong job in the first place, obviously she has her nose stuck up her gods bum hoping for divine intervention from above !Or more likely the Christian Institute whom are coughing up for her fees,
think how many NEEDY people that money could have helped !!!!!!
So Alex, what if a gay person refused services to straights because of homophobia or a gay registrar refused to perform a civil marriage because his or her sexual orientation precludes them from having the same right to marry? How would you deal with that? You can bet he or she would lose their job without further ado and similarly be advised to look elsewhere for employment and probably would not have a right to appeal as this stupid bigot did.
Hats off to Islington London Borough Council for taking on this squalid excuse for blatant discrimination on the part of Ladele. I hope that she is landed with an enormous legal bill for wasting everyones time. I also hope that the “Christian Institute” f**k off to the hinterland of obscurity they so richly deserve
A triamphe for reason over the foil hat bregade
If you’re paid out of the public purse you have an obligation to serve all members of the public, regardless of your personal beliefs. Lillian Ladele and the Christian Institute do not believe this is the case. They seem to feel that it’s alright to be paid out of the public purse (a purse everyone – gay, bi, straight, whatever pays into), and that they should pick and choose which members of the public they serve. That at the very core is discrimination – no two ways about it. They can dress it up in what ever beliefs they want, but the hard fact is Lillian Ladele refused to serve members of the public she was required to serve as part of the terms of her employment. Rather than stand up and be honest about the fact she felt she had a given right to practice discrimination she chose to hide behind her faith. She feels that she has been discriminated against because of her beliefs which she feels should allow her to discriminate against others. I wonder if she’s realised the irony in that.
Discrimination is discrimination, doesn’t matter how you dress it up or colour it, it is what it is – and it’s wrong. It’s a real shame that civil rights for the LGBT community isn’t going to benefit from the lessons learned from the civil rights movement for the Black community – or even from the Suffragette momvement. LOL, I wonder how many people don’t realise that women, in the UK, have only been able to vote since 1918 – that’s not even 100 years… and hey, many would say that equality for women still hasn’t happened. Many would say that racial equality still hasn’t happend yet either. Funny that both those groups have full legal protection though – and 99.9% of people agree to the hilt with them having it. I wonder if Lillian Ladele, a black woman, actually realises the irony of what she has done, and how she has spit on the faces of all those who faught for her equal rights in the past.
It is all about money; just a ploy to get an enhanced redundancy package from Islington Council, or an award for compensation from the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Let hope she gets neither.
All the best.
I’ve been following this story from the outset (I live in Islington & I’m naturally concerned that my council tax is paying for civil servants who would potentially refuse to serve me on the basis of my sexuality).
It seems to me quite clear that the Christian Institute has used this as a test case to establish that religious rights “trump” gay rights. This is outrageous & INCREDIBLY DANGEROUS.
Look at this from another perspective. Klan members / white supremacists refusing to serve black & minority ethnic people on the basis of their fervently held beliefs (trust me if you look hard enough you’ll find a biblical reference you can spin to your own ends – in this case I believe the basis for black “inferiority” comes from the ‘story’ regarding the sons of Noah). Is this acceptable? Hardly.
I think in this case Ladele is a pawn in the Christian Institutes wider agenda. If we need to vent or focus on a “villain” lets get with the programme & realise exactly who the bad guys are here.
Some of the posters here say that people *choose* their religious beliefs. Really? Think about the things you believe: do you really believe them in consequence of a *choice*?
I believe my boyfriend is at this moment at a meeting, but I haven’t chosen to believe that – I just *do* believe it.
I believe today is Thursday, but I haven’t made a choice that this is what I shall believe – I just *do* believe it.
I believe Labour is far too timid about criticism capitalism, but I haven’t opted to believe this – I just *do* believe it.
So why all this talk about people choosing to believe in God, etc? I don’t think they do.
Perhaps the thought is that unless they choose to believe in God they can’t be criticised.
Oh yes they can.
Several posters speak of people *choosing* their religious beliefs. Really? I don’t think what you believe is a matter of choice.
I believe today is Thursday but I haven’t made a choice that that’s what I shall believe – I just do believe it.
I believe that my boyfriend is at this moment at a meeting but I haven’t *chosen* to believe that – I just do.
I believe Labour is too timid about criticising capitalism – but I don’t believe that in consequence of a choice – I just do believe it.
So why should we think people choose their religious beliefs?
Sure, they can choose whether or not they *act on* those beliefs and they can choose to act *as though* they believe this or that. But neither of those means they chose to believe what they believe.
Perhaps the thought is that if they don’t choose what they believe they can’t rightly be criticised. Oh yes they can. We can still say that beliefs are false, barbaric, silly, unjustifiable, and productive of dreadful consequences.
Paul, you don’t get the point. NOBODY comes into this world religious. We do choose if wish to be and many of us are raised with a religious tradition, in other ways, learned behaviour. I don’t care what people believe in, the point is, one’s religious beliefs should have absolutely no place in or relevance to one’s employment or ability to work, especially when its in the public sector. I may not like working with homophobes or providing services to them, but we do because we know if we don’t, we face the consequences of losing our jobs or worse, prosecution. Why should this hypocrite be any different just because she thinks religion must trump everybody else’s rights and freedoms. She deliberately chooses to live that way and she has no right forcing her religious “lifestyle” on the rest of us who pay her salary out of our taxes. Where did this behaviour come from if she wasn’t raised religious or didn’t choose that path?
Many of these cases are backfiring on the religious fringe, and creating a sympathetic bank of supportive caselaw for our side of the argument. Not what they wanted to achieve!
As for this case, she is a hypocrite, since she is involved with civil not religious marriages, and whether she ‘agrees’ with civil partnerships or not is not the issue.
I see that Robert has not lost his old habit of quick contempt for other posters. No, Robert, it’s *you* who don’t get the point.
I’m talking about *beliefs* not *behaviour*. Behaviour is or can be chosen; beliefs can’t be, though you can choose to act on those beliefs or not act on them. Much of what you say is about chosen *behaviour* not chosen *beliefs*. You say, for instance, “She deliberately chooses to live that way.” Nothing I said is remotely inconsistent with that, because living in a certain way is *acting* in a certain way, and acts can be chosen. Again, you say that religion is learned “behaviour”. I wasn’t talking about behaviour but about belief. I can’t choose to believe in God or not to believe but I can choose to go to church or not to and I can choose to beat you up for not believing and I can choose not to beat you up for not believing.
If you think beliefs can be chosen, try choosing to believe that grass is red from 11 a.m. on Monday, March 16th. You can’t. You can, for whatever reason, choose to *act as though* you believed it, and you might even post fiery messages on this board saying that people who don’t believe grass is red are stupid, bigoted, or don’t get the point. Yes, you can choose to do those things because they are *acts* and you can choose what acts you perform. But you can’t choose to believe that grass is red.
I don’t want to get involved in a complicated semantic argument here, and I do get both sides of what you’re saying, Paul and Robert. However, in my opinion, Ms Ladele believes something that is incorrect (just like your example of the grass being red). I think that she’s letting her own personal emotions cloud her judgement. Yesterday I genuinely believed it was Wednesday – however, when I saw the news and checked the calendar, etc, I saw that my belief was mistaken and it was, in fact, Thursday. Therefore I CHOSE to discard my previous belief and replace it with a more logical one based on evidence. I think that’s what most people do in their lives – beliefs are constantly being ‘updated’.
If a person chooses not to revise their belief in the face of overwhelming evidence (or overwhelming censure, I guess too), then I consider that to be a deliberate decision on their part. Patient people could explain to those like Ms Ladele that people are born gay, show her all kinds of evidence and examples and explain why her behaviour/beliefs/whatever need some personal examination from her, and, I’d hope, some revision, but she can still choose to ignore all that and stubbornly persist in an outdated, cruel (in my opinion) belief which even other Christians don’t hold.
Beliefs can change (for better or worse) because we are not fixed machines, we are living, thinking, intelligent organisms.
I hope some of that made sense.
Iris, did you really CHOOSE to discard your previous belief (as you might, say, choose to take a cheese salad rather than a ham salad onto your cafeteria tray), or did your belief merely *change* once you had checked the calendar, etc? In rational people that’s what happens when they check the evidence: their belief changes if the evidence consulted is contrary to their belief. Could you really have CHOSEN to continue to believe it was Wednesday? Of course, you could have chosen to continue to ACT as though you believed it was Wednesday when you didn’t really believe it, but that’s a different matter. And you could have chosen not to perform those acts that would have checked your belief it was Wednesday – could have turned down the corner of the newspaper so that you didn’t see it, etc. And you (I don’t mean to say this is true of you personally) might have been so irrational that though you did look at the calendar, etc, your belief that it was Wednesday didn’t change. That’s serious irrationality. But I don’t think any of this means that we choose our beliefs. I’ll concede this, though: our beliefs are at least partly the consequences of the choices we make as regards consulting (or not consulting) evidence (these latter being acts and so genuinely matters of choice).
I agree with your last sentence, Paul :)To answer your question – yes, in my opinion I did CHOOSE to amend my belief that it was Wednesday. It wasn’t compulsory that I change my belief – as you say, I could have continued to irrationally insist it was Wednesday in the face of all evidence. I chose to change my way of thinking – yes, changing was an act, but the initial motivator of that change was my choice, not something that just happened to me automatically.
I think some (some, I emphasise) people with religious beliefs ignore evidence and persist in an irrational belief. To me, they have chosen to ‘stick their fingers in their ears’ to stop themselves hearing things that might contradict their long-held belief. I consider that to be their choice – they won’t hear the evidence that may prove them wrong. So they chose to persist in a belief that could be irrational/incorrect.
I understand that some Christians genuinely believe homosexuality is wrong, but, in my opinion, they are a minority, and most who object to it do so for other reasons like their own fear, ignorance, incomprehension or wish to victimise/bully others who are ‘different’.
No problem with using the word ‘choice’ for beliefs.
No one is born with Christianity, or any other superstition. Furthermore, people can and do stop believing in god – as the ‘converts’ corner’ section on richarddawkins.net, the empty Churches resembling the Marie Celeste, and the Committee of Ex-Muslims are testament to.
She is welcome to have her opinions, but they do not deserve to count, least of all be in a position to disadvantage others. I am sure she can choose another more suitable job. If one group acts above the law, there is no reason to stop others wishing also to be above the law…. gay people refusing to serve Christians; muslims refusing to handle alcohol… the list goes on.
I am a Civil Partnered Gay Christian. The Registra in Southampton welcoms Civil Partnerships and so should all other Registras or they should Quit.
The arguments of the Christian Right are ridiculous and their arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. The Equality laws do not stop christian believing what they want to believe, they simply stop people being treated differently becasue of a protected characteristic. Asking this worman to carry out Civil Partnerships never stopped her from believing homosexuality is wrong or that marriage should by reserved for heterosexuals. However, she chose to impose her beliefs on others and cause harm in doing so.