Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Court of Appeal ruling on Lillian Ladele expected by Christmas

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Simon Murphy 13 Nov 2009, 12:13pm

    If this christian hypocrite (Ladele has a child out of wedlock, so in the eyes of her church she is the whore-mother of a bastard child and her bible says she should be stoned to death) wins her case, then I’d recommend that any gay registrar make a point of refusing to carry out their duties to 1 random christian couple stating that it is goes against their freedom of sexual orientation to perform tasks for christians. If Ladele is allowed to get away with not performing her job as specified in her contract of employment then it is imperative that this is opposed.

  2. The Christian Institute tries to make her case one of religious rights, but it’s not. Her case is one of bigotry and discrimination. Just like the case of anyone who don’t want to marry interracial couples is never about religion, but about racism.

  3. I can’t believe this is going on. The only way she’s been discriminated against is by not being allowed to discriminate on other people.

  4. Simon Murphy – Two wrongs do not make a right. Please grow up.

  5. Let’s hope the illogicality of her stance is seen. She won’t perform CPs because it’s against the Bible, according to her, yet I bet she marries divorcees. Anyway, the Bible says all marriages should be under God, so this ‘christian’ performing secular marriages suggests she’s a hypocrite and thus can hardly use her religion as an excuse because it only seems to apply when it suits her.

  6. Simon Murphy 13 Nov 2009, 4:05pm

    “Simon Murphy – Two wrongs do not make a right. Please grow up.”

    If the court rules that a christian or muslim or jew or whoever is exempt from carrying out their contract of employment as required; then it is absolutely not wrong to treat the christians in the same way as they want to treat others.

    If the court is to legitimise homophobic discrimination which is what Ladele is seeking; then it is imperative that gay people treat christians in the same way as the christians want to treat the gays.

    Religion is by and large unspeakably evil on the subject of homosexuality. These cults must be resisted in every way possible. They hate us. We should not simply ‘turn the other cheek’ as they would like us to.

  7. I quite agree, Simon. The best way to approach any religious person is to tell him or her that he or she is mentally ill. Simply state that religious faith is a mental illness. There is no rational answer to that statement.

  8. “If the court rules that a christian or muslim or jew or whoever is exempt from carrying out their contract of employment as required; then it is absolutely not wrong to treat the christians in the same way as they want to treat others.”

    You are tarring all religious people with the same brush. Many Christians do not want to treat us negatively and support us in our cause. You would not like it if the gay community was judged by the few, yet you insist on doing that to those of a religious background. How hypocritical of you.

    “If the court is to legitimise homophobic discrimination which is what Ladele is seeking; then it is imperative that gay people treat christians in the same way as the christians want to treat the gays.”

    Again, whilst I do no agree that she or any other religious person should be able to treat us a discriminating fashion, it is just as wrong for you to tar them all with the same brush. What a brilliant way to alienate people who may otherwise support us.
    The gay to helping people understand us and support our need for equality is education and calmness. Not attacking them as they attack us. That is simply childish and really gets nobody anywhere. It is people like you who are damaging to the cause, not helping it.

  9. That should have read “The key to helping people…”
    I apologise, I am ill and quite tired.

  10. I am with Simon Murphy. Religion is a mild form of mental illness. it is only a tiny number of religious faiths that are not homophobic (i.e. support full LGBT equality). The ones that most obviously immediately come to my mind are the Quakers and reform Jews, to whom all kudos (though I am sorry that they still suffer from an adherence to fairy tales as true). When the C of E, to take an example, stops practising homophobia in order to keep its less sophisticated adherents within the Communion I, no doubt with Simon’s backing, will treat its adherents with some respect. Until then they are the enemy in an increasingly serious fight.

  11. Black and ethnic minority people, of all people, should realise that discrimination to others based on any grounds for any reason is damaging and un called for.

    Guaranteed, had someone refused this lady a service for her being black, not only would that person have been sacked, but no doubt court proceedings would have been brought about. Thankfully, due to the law, this hardly ever happens any more.

    So tell me. Please. What is the difference between black, white, gay, straight, asian, bi, trans, blue green yellow…???

  12. The Christian Institute which is funding her case is pushing for a dangerous precedence.

    Join the protest against this organisation
    http://my.pinknews.co.uk/groups/profile/515

    The Christian Institute has already achieved a victory in the Hosue of Lords with the inclusion now excepted by the commons of the ammendemnt to the new gay hate laws.

    The Christain Institute which lobbyed for this ammendment, have now made a mockery of these new laws by allowing relgion to be used as a weapon for bigotry.

  13. I’ve never understood the traction to this case. Civil partnerships expressly deny participants any religious content to the ceremonies themselves. How her religious beliefs are therefore being compromised when there is simply no mention of anything related to faith would appear to render this a non starter. If she wants to focus on one component of the Old Testament related to same sex relations then she should honour that work in it’s entirety and not process divorce based on adultery for example. It’s selective bigotry and should have been shot down long ago…

  14. i am with simon

  15. Simon Murphy 14 Nov 2009, 3:29am

    No 8: “Many Christians do not want to treat us negatively and support us in our cause.”

    I’m not talking about people who identify as christians (many of whom are lovely.)

    I’m talking about christian (and muslim, and jewish, and hindu, and sikh, and buddhist – actually no, not the buddhists, they are too calm to be homophobic) RELIGIONS.

    Religions (with the occasional minor exception) hate us.

    I have nothing against Ladele on a personal level (despite her pitiful ignorance). But I totally loathe the movement which is behind her, and funding her. And the movement which is funding her is religious organisations.

  16. She is nothing but an attention seeker on the make for a compensation pay out. I bet she is off work on full pay at this very minute.

  17. Jean-Paul Bentham 15 Nov 2009, 2:04am

    Sammy (4,8,9):

    Blow it out your ear!

    Way to go, Simon Murphy, and it’s o’er the fields we go; ho,ho,ho!

  18. I’m with Sammy on this, just because a religious book says something doesn’t mean all agree. In fact the great thing about a democracy is that people Are entitled to their opinion. Some people think All gay men sleep with every man they see. While indeed some might like to think they do most don’t! Why would we say the same thing about Christians? Very unfair and lets face it if it was someone branding us all with the same distasteful comments you’d all be up in arms whinging. We seem to want to the right to be excepted yet clearly can’t except others. Hypocrites!

  19. The issue of Freedom of speech has been heated, and so it should be.

    However, why is it that those who argue the freedom of speech stance ignore the “Massive Anarchism and Anomaly” here?

    How can an unelected “House of Lords” ever represent or purport to represent freedom of speech.

    I rest my case; a chamber which has a right to include a representative figure head from all the major religions does not represent the predominantly secular UK society.
    Consequently, any proscribed amendment will automatically have a element which serves to protect, preserve and propagate religious sensibilities.

    I find it a little odd that the massive anarchism and anomaly is some what ignored by some.

    Does the archaic really have a place in 21st century UK.

  20. Jean-Paul Bentham 15 Nov 2009, 5:54pm

    JohnK does have a very good point, doesn’t he.

  21. Vo Dong Cung 17 Nov 2009, 7:56am

    “this is the first case of a clash between religious rights and gay rights”

    This is not a clash between religious rights and gay rights, but a clash between religious rights and human rights, and civil rights. Christian used to turn the words around.

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all