Reader comments · Christian registrar takes civil partnerships complaint to court of appeal · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Christian registrar takes civil partnerships complaint to court of appeal

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Pumpkin Pie 2 Nov 2009, 3:07pm

    In other news: waitress refuses to serve desserts, says she doesn’t like pudding. ¯\(º_o)/¯

    Silly woman.

  2. What Christian beliefs? Oh you mean the same ones that were used to justify the oppression of women, of blacks? THOSE ONES? (You know, the same ones that were used to justify the Inquisition, the ruthless and merciless killings of untold numbers of natives in north and south america, and australia? THOSE ONES???)

    Hint, if you’re going to cherry pick the bible, history will eventually regards you as a dysfunctional miscreant who is an embarrassment to humanity and to history.

    Funny, I am a Christian, and I am such a huge homosexual, and God loves me. I suspect that a judgemental hypocrite would fair less well than I would in the final judgement. After all, my sexuality effects no one, unless they choose, and I do mean, choose, to have their nose put out of joint about it.

    People who would seek to oppress others, who deny others rights, they are the ones who need psychological help. For realz!

  3. Simon Murphy 2 Nov 2009, 3:28pm

    What an utterly stupid woman. If she is successful in being allowed to avoid doing her job as her contract expects then before you know it people will start demanding exemptions for everything – muslim hospital workers demanding exemptions for the meals they may be required to cook; Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing to deal with blood transfusion cases etc. Where will it end?

    “If this decision is allowed to stand it will help squeeze out Christians from the public sphere because of their religious beliefs on ethical issues.”

    So what? If a public servant does not perform his or her job according to the law of the land (instead of the law as laid down by their ‘god’) then they have no place doing that job. Being a christian does not entitle you to dodge honouring your contract of employment.

    Being gay is not a choice. Being religion is entirely a choice so if this Ladele woman is being a bigot it is because she is choosing to be a bigot.

    A voluntary desire to be a twisted homophobe should not be protected in the law,

  4. She is a public servant and SHOULD carry out all duties required. When she was in the missionary position (or some other configuration) unmarried having sex I wonder where her beliefs were then? How dare she judge other people.

    Who do you think contributes to your salary Lillian love, the many gay men and women living in the borough – for some reason you have no strong beliefs accepting an income from gay men and women.

    You make me vomit, go and find a job elsewhere -not sure where because I hate to tell you, gay men and women are everywhere, heaven help us when she come across a transexual.

    This IS homophobic and needs to be stamped out.


  5. Tony Konrath 2 Nov 2009, 3:43pm

    I would have thought that a Christian would have been against ALL civil unions

  6. Muslims have been known to refuse to sell alcohol at supermarket checkouts. JW’s are always pushing the envelope with their demands. Then Christians try the patience of the saints with this sort of nonsense. They should ALL be fired on the spot. It is the only way to stop this nonsense. Religion is not an excuse not to do a job, no matter what sort of job.

    (And if a certain person has anything to say here, I’m still not at home to your interrogations.)

  7. Tony makes a good point there, actually. I never thought of that. How come she is officiating at civil weddings that the church don’t approve of in the first place? Seems like she chose the wrong job for her fundamentalist views.

  8. raymond h. burgoon-clark 2 Nov 2009, 4:09pm

    Does she also refuse to perform inter-faith marriages between Christians and non-Christians.

    Her position is analogous to a Muslim taking a job as a butcher, and then refusing to cut pork.

  9. Contradictions Contradictions Contradictions.

    Another Christian Martyr
    Another Christian slacker trying to avoid her work
    Another Christian bigot thinks she is above the law

    The Christians may be Revolting once again . . . but they seem obvious to the foul stench they create.

  10. . . . Contradictions Contradictions Contradictions.

    Another Christian Martyr
    Another Christian slacker trying to avoid her work
    Another Christian bigot thinks she is above the law

    The Christians may be Revolting once again . . . but they seem oblivious to the foul stench they create.

  11. Sister Mary Clarence 2 Nov 2009, 4:17pm

    As per the comments above, the whole job doesn’t stack up with her fair weather, whenever-it-suits beliefs.

    I hope the appeal sucks every last cent out of her and the fundamentalist nutcakes supporting here. She is twisted and the people behind her pulling the strings are twisted. Definitely from the same fruitcake mix as Miss California.

  12. Robert, ex pat Brit 2 Nov 2009, 4:17pm

    Is she’s a public servant, paid by taxpayers, here religious beliefs have NO place in her employment. They belong where they’ve always belonged, in one’s home or in a place of worship. If she can’t distinguish the difference, then she shouldn’t be working in the public sector. Let her cult employ her instead as a cleaner or flower arranger. The government issues marriage licences, not cults, so she and others like her should not be above the law. Civil partnerships have NOTHING to do with religion, nor are they marriages. If she can’t get that through her thick head, then her case should be dismissed, a frivolous one at that.

  13. Robert, ex pat Brit 2 Nov 2009, 4:19pm

    And what if a gay registrar or an atheist refused to perform a straight marriage? She’d be singing a different tune for sure, reversed discrimination no doubt.

  14. She like other Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses have a very simplistic view of people and life. There is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ with nothing inbetween. They try the patience of a Saint (not me!) with their childlike attitudes. Maybe they could find her a job cleaning and flower arranging in church. That would suit her immature attitude to life.

  15. Allen . . . the flower arranging might turn out to be too “gay”
    . . . no doubt she would refuse to work with the Panseys.

  16. john sharp 2 Nov 2009, 4:34pm

    why she not ask god for a job!
    since god guides here life so he sould feed her
    pray with you mouth open and the pudding will cum

  17. The argument from people like the Christian Institute is that marraige is a state of union between a man and a woman, and that marriage is something that the Church has control over.

    The Civil Partnership is not a marriage, so forgive me for being really dense here – what is her problem.

    If she is now saying that she cannot carry out a civil partnership as this contradicts with her religious views, is she not saying therefore that a civil partnership is a marriage.

    I wonder if she marries divorcees, as that should also be against her religious views, assuming she sticks to all of the beliefs found in the Bible, but maybe that questions should not be asked as I suspect we already know the answer to that on.

    Another bigot cherry picking those bits of the Bible she wants to follow and conviniently ignoring the rest of it.

  18. The poor woman is only worrying in case her God boils her in oil forever. She cant stand shoulder to shoulder with the sodomites now can she.
    Well, Ive got news for you sister. You will boil in oil anyway, cos women shouldn’t be marrying anyone according to you’re God
    Talk about cherry pick!

  19. I wouldn’t want her doing my CP, she looks like a shrunken head!

  20. @ron753: Don’t worry about Liberty. They’re on Islington’s side. They wanted (I think) the court below to go further and say that Islington were positively prohibited from allocating CPs only to those who were OK with them; the court said that it would be reluctant to positively prohibit a council from doing this if it seemed to be the right thing to do (over simplified summary). I’m with Liberty on this. All or nothing.

  21. How disgraceful. As a public servant she should not be able to get away with this. What is even worse is that Liberty are partly funding her appeal. Her liberties are certainly NOT being infringed.

  22. I believe she had a child out of wedlock

  23. The first “related article” at the bottom of this article is titled: Islington registrar denied right to appeal over civil marriages ruling.
    And now this article is about her appeal… isn’t it?

  24. Lillian and her defence council are on seriously shaky ground. As a matter of historical fact all the main Christian denomination were implacably opposed to the state getting involved with civil sanctioned unions (registry office marriages). Claiming that only priests had a right to ‘marry’ people. As entirely un-godly unions she should be opposed to all civil ceremonies – gay or straight – so why then did she become a registrar? Seems like she’s a dumb as she is bigoted. A real triumph!

  25. Coemgenus 2 Nov 2009, 6:45pm

    Isn’t this the self-righteous prig who tried to force her private religious beliefs about “morality” onto the taxpayer whilst concealing the fact that she had dropped a bastard child?

    You’ve got to say it – certain “Christians” have got a LOT of chutzpah!!

  26. She’s a single mother?!! Typical religious hypocrite. Hides behind religion to justify her bigotry, then conveniently ignores the parts of her ‘faith’ that don’t fit in with her lifestyle. I’ve seen it so many times.

  27. 1) She is not British so she is welcome to leave if she does not want to live by our laws

    2) Of course gay rights come before religious rights.

  28. The Halcyon 2 Nov 2009, 7:11pm

    This story never fails to make me laugh; she’s performing secular ceremonies despite her being a Christian (and so technically her career choice should be at odds with her faith) and yet she complains. Why can’t she just go get ordained on the internet and perform all the ceremonies she wants.

  29. Shame on this purported “Christian” woman for being a gullible pawn – yet still being paid the big-bucks by Islington Council. Does she not understand she is a PUBLIC SERVANT and as such duty-bound to serve the public? I guess prejudice knows no bounds.

  30. John (Derbyshire) 2 Nov 2009, 8:20pm

    They are not asking her to officiate at gay Maraiages (which do have a religious connotation)-but at Civil Unions-which are expressly non-religious ceremonies. So what she on about?

  31. “Instead they chose to make gay rights more important than religious rights.”

    They are.

  32. Robert, ex pat Brit 2 Nov 2009, 8:26pm

    Phillip, civil marriage has nothing to do with religion either and are secular. This is the argument that needs to be made for for same-sex marriage. Religious cults should have the option not to perform or recognise them and who cares anyway? Every one of the seven countries that allow us to marry have legislated that no religious cult is mandated to perform a same-sex marriage. They should keep their nonsensical beliefs to themselves and stay out of politics altogether where thy have NO place or logical right to meddle in the lives of other people let alone take away or deny our rights. Further, no government should be in the business of supporting a chosen belief system over others, a lifestyle in fact, unlike ours which isn’t. Religion is NOT immutable after all and shouldn’t be a protected class, nor should it be above the law or given carte blanche to run rough shod over any group, then claiming victimisation when they’re challenged.

  33. Oh dear! This bloody woman won’t go away. I wish she’d go away. Surely the law is clear on such matters: a public servant who discriminates is in breach of trust and her contract of employment, as well as other anti-discrimination legislation.

    The law applies equally to everyone, including her. I am convinced that the Christian Institute is behind this. I await the court’s judgement with interest.

  34. You know how ridiculous it can get when religion is brought ibto everything. When I was working in Malaysia, a newly-employed secretary, a Muslim, demanded to have a new keyboard just in case the one the previous (Chinese) secretary had used had been touched to type “unclean” words like pork, dog, pig, etc, etc….. Unbelievable how these people give up having a mind!

  35. Alan Edwards 2 Nov 2009, 10:33pm

    The fundamental question….”Is Secular Law more important than God’s Law”. The answer has to be in the affirmative because individuals have no option but to adhere to Secular Law because they are residents in a country which permits Parliament to pass such Laws. By definition it has become accepted that those who adhere to God’s Law have the choice to do so. There is no such choice given to the populace of the UK.

    It’s fine if this lady wishes to live by God’s law. She has had a child out of wedlock…she should be stoned! Lilian stop this nonsense and realise that you are flouting the law of the land, and you are greatly in the minority. The public is using common sense here!

  36. Har Davids 2 Nov 2009, 10:35pm

    Just suppose I was a member of the KKK and a registrar, would I get away with refusing to perform civil partnership ceremonies for non-whites? White supremacy is about as scientific as the religious variety and likewise founded on ancient ‘wisdom’, so I guess I should be allowed to put on my KKK-gear and adamantly refuse to do my duty. I wonder who would give the legal aid I would surely need.

  37. Sister friendly 2 Nov 2009, 10:53pm

    Jane, out of curiousity, did the muslim secretary ever have to type those ‘unclean’ words herself?

  38. Vincent Poffley 2 Nov 2009, 11:00pm

    Of course religion is no excuse for not doing your job. That really isn’t an issue to any sane person. But why should religious groups be allowed to refuse marriages to gay people based on their arbitrary dogmas? What about gay christians and muslims and jews who want to get married within the framework of their religious hobby group? Surely if the religion is providing a service it should not be allowed to discriminate, like any other service provider? Would we put up with a “no left-handers supermarket” refusing to serve left-handed people based on its owner’s bizarre prejudices? Would we put up with an official “racist library”, refusing entry to black people because it is run by racists? What about a “homophobic university”?

    If religions were private clubs, in receipt of no government funding at all, with no legal or civic powers whatsoever, then they could be permitted any kind of discrimination they like. But since they ARE allowed to perform legally binding marriages, and get tax breaks, they should submit to the same non-discrimination laws as everyone else.

  39. Well, good question, how she managed that I really don’t know, maybe she had some way round it. If you said anything, you were being “insensitive to Muslims’ feelings”. All one way, of course, just like the woman in this article.

  40. I’ve never understood why black people have been so assiduous in taking up the banner of the religions of their former master, both Muslim and Christian. These are institutional religions that at some time or other in history have oppressed, enslaved, murdered, maimed, mutilated, kidnapped, raped, and stolen from black people with the full approval of their head conjurers.
    Yet here is a woman who has not even paused to examine that truth, and she wields her “beliefs” like a cudgel.

  41. Yes and it was striking in the Proposition 8 vote in California that the black vote was overwhelmingly against gay marriage. As you say, do they have no collective memory?

  42. Check out what the Christian Institute (Homophobic Fundamentalists) are saying about this story

  43. @Ron753: I think you may be mistaken in your belief that Liberty are backing this person, sounds the other way around to me. Guardian quotes their legal rep as saying
    “Liberty fiercely defends freedom of conscience and religion, including its reasonable expression in the workplace. But other people have rights and freedoms too,” said Corinna Ferguson, legal officer at Liberty, which is intervening in the case.

    “Ms Ladele is entitled to her views but not to pick and choose who is worthy of public services.”

  44. Brian Burton 3 Nov 2009, 12:33am

    What a stewpot!….Lets see what comes out of it?

  45. Lillian Ladele was working in a secular environment and was not being asked to perform a gay ‘marriage’. The opposition of Christians to the concept of gay marriage has seen to it that this function is not legally available to homosexuals in the UK. Given this, her dismissal on the grounds that she was failing to perform her duties seems fair. I take it that Islington’s legal team will be investigating whether she refused to register births of children from unmarried couples, refused to perform marriage ceremonies for previously divorced heterosexuals or refused to register the deaths of lesbians and gays if this death was reported to her by their surviving Civil Partner? They might also question whether she wore clothes of mixed fibres and all the other nonsensensical rulings that the Bible instructs its followers on.

    Once all these questions have been answered maybe the tribunal will be able to decide whether Lillian Ladele was following a strictly observed religious belief or was just displaying disgusting bigotry and prejudice and was thus deserving of her dismissal because of the way this contradicted her terms of employment.

  46. lizichell 3 Nov 2009, 2:26am

    Our taxes pay for her to perform a certain role, in that role she is required by the council to perform civil ceremonies. If she doesn’t want the job we pay her to do, then she can go and find another one.

  47. JohnK, post 43, she says she was being asked to carry out duties which are “contrary to God’s law”. Well, her morality doesn’t stop her staying in her job and taking her salary for the job which includes these duties! Why doesn’t she ask her God to magically deposit her salary into her bank account each month?

  48. Clearly just an attention seeking Martyr – Surely if you don’t like ya job… Find another!

  49. Harvey, not just an attention-seeking martyr, you can be sure a claim for “damages” would follow straight on…………

  50. Jane:- yep, your right and what a president this case will set if she wins! A step back for us all!

  51. Believing in a book of bronze age sheep sacrificing fairy tales does not give someone the right to hate a minority in 2009. She should do the job she’s paid to do .. or go and find something else to do that panders to her petty vindictive twisted little mindset. The woman in a bigot.

  52. 21stCenturySpirituality 3 Nov 2009, 10:56am

    If this case wins it will imply that in law Christianity is deemed superior to all other religions. How, then, will my human right to freedom of thought, conscience, & religion, be protected? How will my spiritual beliefs be protected and represented by the law?
    I fear that a very dangerous presedent will be set if this case wins.

  53. She is a a pawn being used by the Christian Institute. They are the hate factory making the bullets for dupes like Ladele to fire. Mike Judge is the representative of the CU – and his job is built on hate, grouse and grumble. That’s all the Christian Institute was founded for.

  54. Brian Burton 3 Nov 2009, 11:36am

    This ofcourse, is fundamentalist stupidity. If the Law of the land says she must perform Civil Partnership cerimonies, then the Judge will rule that be so. The Judge will also say that only new legisation can change it!

  55. “she says she was being asked to carry out duties which are “contrary to God’s law”. Well, her morality doesn’t stop her staying in her job and taking her salary for the job which includes these duties! Why doesn’t she ask her God to magically deposit her salary into her bank account each month?”

    . . . exactly

  56. Jean-Paul Bentham 3 Nov 2009, 1:44pm

    “Ms Ladele is entitled to her views but not to pick and choose who is worthy of public services.”

    This sentence sums it up for me. I hope a civil servant is not granted the right to pick and chose his/her workload, and this case is an important one in the history of equal civil rights.

  57. Its all very simple. She is a civil servant and as such can not decide who she will or will not provide services too just because she may not “like” their lifestyles. If she had refused to serve a woman in a beurka, there would have been a god almighty fuss with potential riots on the street. But no, she picked on the only group that she still felt she could use her warped religious ideas about and picked on Gays! She should have got the sack! I am a civil servant and would expect to get the sack if I refused to offer services to a member of the public! I was also a police officer and you can not refuse, in fear or favour not to treat members of the public with equal respect! If you don’t like it find a job where you don’t deal with the general public!

  58. BTW if she is so into gods law why does she work in a civil register office? Surely God requires people to marry in Church(!)

  59. Bishop Ioan 3 Nov 2009, 2:29pm

    This woman’s case has little or no merit. She is a civil servant and as such, she is required to perform civil unions for LGBTQ couples. This should be thrown out of court. These bigots must be stopped sometime, somehow.

  60. 21stCenturySpirituality 3 Nov 2009, 2:31pm

    This women is doing Christianity no favors at all. A bit like the Alpha course

  61. And, who is going to pay for this court of appeal – us the tax-payers??

  62. What a hornet’s nest has been stirred up by this tale of a wrong woman in a wrong job who is using Christianity as a shield for her Bigotry. Shame on you!
    To read some of the negative comments on Christianity here, you’d think that all Christians feel the same about gays and gay relationships – well, they don’t, and I for one feel that my own Christianity is being pilloried alongside the Christian Fundamentalists and other Right-wing Christian organisations.
    These foolish few really don’t know the extent of what they do, do they?

  63. Robert, ex pat Brit 3 Nov 2009, 5:14pm

    John (Derbyshire)…..civil marriage ceremonies do not connote religious marriage. Have you attended one lately? I didn’t hear one reference to a deity, procreation or anything else during the ceremony. If the state issues secular marriage licences, I fail to see why the marriage could be perceived as religious. Various forms of marriage existed long before the Abrahamic cults came along and changed it into a patriarchal institution favouring men and subjugating women who until recent times, were considered property, chattel if you will. Civil marriage is an entirely different vehicle and it does not mandate procreation, one of the underlying reasons why we see so much fierce opposition from the major cults to full marriage equality.

    In France, which in my opinion has the best marriage law, the civil ceremony is the legally recognised one by the state, while the religious solemnisation that usually takes place immediately after the civil ceremony, remains a personal choice, take it or leave it.

    Religious cults should issue their own licences and stay out of the same-sex civil marriage debate altogether. What gives them the right to impose their religious beliefs on others and be above the law in the first place? They don’t try to ban atheists from civil marriage now do they?

  64. Barry, you have put your finger on it. I don’t honestly blame people here for their negative feelings about religion, though. But i do ask, time and again, for them to remember that not all christians do behave this way. Any christian I am friends with certaily wouldn’t. I wouldn’t be friends with them for long if they were.

  65. Not her again! She’s performing UNreligious civil ceremonies that are NOT ‘marriage under God’ according to her religion, so what’s her problem? If she can stomach that then she can cope with performing CPs. We can’t pander to people’s prejudices – the Law’s the Law.

    How would she feel if someone refused to marry her because she was black? I’m sure racists hold just as firm views as hers. Except, of course, they actually own up to their prejudice being their own instead of trying to pretend some god sanctions it…

    If she wants to only perform ‘proper marriages’ she should become a vicar and do that in her own church. She’s not being victimised any more than those prosecuted for racism.

  66. Iris – too many people who say they are black never get why homophobia is wrong yet they understand why racism is wrong
    it’s hypocrisy plus they ignore history and would soon moan if they experiences similar hatred

  67. What’s happening about this case? There have been reports for 2 days now that this case was going to be heard, and it was listed on the courts website for this morning.

    Does anyone know?

  68. LesBeReal 3 Nov 2009, 7:24pm

    I’m gay and Christian, but I think that it is sad to see so many people throwing harsh judgmental and accusing words around. I think she is simply one of many Christians who are spoon fed a believe system, and stick to it, regardless of the fact that it makes no sense in a biblical context. I completely agree that if she is not prepared to perform civil unions, then she should not be working for the registrar office. Either she must do her job, or she must not do it at all. No sense in trying to fight for headlines!

  69. Religious beliefs are merely a belief and should not be a right in terms of conduct at work. People should conduct themselves in accordance with the needs of thier customers under the guidelines of thier directorate if in public service. The wormen concerned in this case failed to undertake her duities due to her out of touch religious beliefs so therfore failed to follow her contract of Employment. It is high time we routed out these fundamental christians from public services becasue they are a danger interms of inciting homophobic reactionaries.

  70. any chance the court might decide she’s wasting their time and find her in contempt?

  71. I find it odd that whilst the Christian Institute assert that someone cannot be a practicing Christian and a practicing homosexual they are bankrolling a self confessed adulteress. Whilst Jesus was silent on homosexuality he specifically condemned divorce and adultery as grave mortal sins. Jesus would have regarded her conservative Christian son as a bastard as the church and law did until recently. Adulteresses and bastards should take take care not to cast stones at glasshouses, lest they become hurt.

  72. Lets all join the christian institute on facebook and comment on their bigoted news stories!

  73. Jean-Paul Bentham 4 Nov 2009, 3:43am

    The boot…give ‘er the boot!

    What a maroon. Only in the UK.

  74. Mihangel apYrs 4 Nov 2009, 9:12am

    A proposal:
    1. make marriage exclusively religious and heterosexual, but not attracting any secular benefits
    2. make CP the secualr alternative for hetero and homosexual couple, and allow this all the secular benefits
    3. make them mutually exclusive.

    Watch to see which alternative becomes more popular.

    Quite simple

  75. James . . . thanks for the link to the “Christian Institute” on face book.

    I think it would be a good idea to monitor the messages on thier site, and contribute from time to time

  76. 21stCenturySpirituality 4 Nov 2009, 12:37pm

    I have joined the Christian Institute on facebook, as suggested by James, and have responded to this statement made by Isobel Yvonne Mckibben:

    “Origen, who do you pray to ? it can’t be the God of the bible otherwise you would understand that Lillian is not a bigot. God condems Homosexual activity, the bible condems it. We all fall short of God’s Glory, that’s why Jesus had to go to the Cross and shed His blood as an atonement for our sins. Love the sinner but not the sin. It is not right to expect Lillian to condone homosexual behaviour because it goes against her God and His word.”


    “Isobel Yvonne Mckibben, on what basis do you propose that God condemns a loving and mutually supportive relationship between two persons of the same gender? Are you familiar with the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic languages in which the bible was originally written? Do you have a degree in theology or religious studies? Have you explored the history, … Read Moreorigins and evolution of Christianity and Christian ideas? Have you spent any time exploring Esoteric Christianity or the many texts and writings not included in the final canon that is presented as the bible we see today, to gain a clearer understanding of its context and the culture and history of those who wrote it? Have you read the work of those who discuss and explore biblical scholarship and theology in their books, such as John Shelby Spong, Richard Smoley, Alister Mcgrath, Daniel Helminiak, et al? What exactly is the reasoning behind your assertion that God condemns gay people and / or gay partnerships?”

    There is plenty more on the pray for Lillian Ladele thread to respond to. Come on people lets pray for Lillian.

  77. 21stCenturySpirituality 4 Nov 2009, 12:41pm

    Spot the error…Read More shouldnt be in there obviously

  78. 21stCenturySpirituality 4 Nov 2009, 12:49pm

    Lets all exercise our freedom of thought, conscience, and belief shall we

  79. Pray for Lilian? There is a man in hospital in Liverpool because teenagers following her kind of example think he deserved to have his head used as a football. My prayers will be for him, first!

  80. I have also joined the Christian Institute on facebook . . . Which is proving illuminating, amusing if not a disturbing experience as I work hard at hopefully becoming a “Big Thorn” in thier sides.

  81. It’s very simple.

    She was a public servant, paid from the public purse, contracted to do a job.

    She refused to carry out her duties, not because she was unable to, but because she disagreed with them.

    The fact she’s a (so called) Christian doesn’t entitle her to be treated differently, or given exemption from carry out the duties as defined in her employment contract.

    She didn’t do her job and she got the sack.

    Instead of holding her hands up to her own failure, she’s crying “discrimination” because she happens to be a Christian. To my mind that shows a real lack of moral fibre, moral integrity and personal honesty.

  82. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Being white or black is not a choice. The two have equal standing and should be accepted for what they are. Being religious is a choice. And being bigoted and prejudiced against a set of people is certainly a choice.

    And btw, when did a gay ever stop Rosa Parkes from sitting where she wanted on the bus?

  83. Eagle the militant American Indian-Jew 5 Nov 2009, 12:39am

    Everyone before they are born and while still in the womb has a choice rather they want to be born Black or white or Chinese or heterosexual or have Downs Syndrome or grow an extra arm or extra foot or insane or whatever they choose according to the Christians and the Muslims. They say everyone chooses their lifestyles on how they want to be born including the various species of animals. The reason I know this to be a fact is because they allege a gay person chooses to be born gay, therefore everyone has the same power of choice to be born anyway the choose, so who needs a god? Fire god as he is worthless as mankind has as much power as he does.

  84. Jean-Paul Bentham 5 Nov 2009, 3:57am

    Lilian should quit while she’s ahead.

    Right now, she will have her picture on the church’s bulletin board, and everyone in church will go up to her and say what a fine christian she is, blah, blah, blah…and free egg salad sandwiches.

    The following scene ain’t so pretty, so either do your job, sweetie, or let someone else do it.

    You are standing in front of a raging locomotive comimg staright at you.

    Don’t say I never told you!!!

  85. 21stCenturySpirituality 5 Nov 2009, 2:31pm

    Alright JohnK, me too, see you there. Im Rick George. Check out what Ive said on there.

  86. Ok . . . Rick George/21stCenturySpirituality.

    I have posted a few resonses on the site already, my id is the sames as on here, but slightly changed (JohnK Kay)

  87. Phil Gibbs 7 Nov 2009, 11:16am

    A Satanist registrar wears an inverted crucifix to the workplace,it’s hidden under her blouse so no problem there but she decides not to perform civil marriages for Christian couples. Does Lillian Ladele support the Satanist’s right to be exempted from this duty on grounds of deeply held religious conscience?
    Somehow I doubt it, no she wants special rights and privileged treatment just for herself and for other fundamentalist Christians just like her.

  88. Mihangel apYrs 8 Nov 2009, 1:23am


    does she take the 10% pay cut (off LGBT people) since she won’t offer the service to gays and lesbians?

    I thought not. If her appeal goes through, it will institutionalise homophobia – any gay hater can withdraw their servies

  89. Jean-Paul Bentham 8 Nov 2009, 7:47am

    C’mon now, you know what a fine reputation the “Empire” has of being diplomatic.

    Whatever you do, don’t roll up the holy babble and shove it up her ass, and string her up at Charing Cross, before dosing her corpse with gasoline and burning it to a crisp.

    That wouldn’t be British, pip, pip, and all that.

  90. Nobody should have the right to pick and choose what elements of their job they want to carry out. I’m not particularly fond of Christians but that doesn’t mean I would refuse to work with them

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.