Comments on: Christian registrar who won 'gay marriage' case had child out of wedlock

By: James

James — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:49:01 +0000

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

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Christian-Institute/78436661801?ref=mf

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Len

Len — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:10:03 +0000

She must be without sin. She threw the first stone!! Perhaps she thinks she is sinless…

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Frank Tamplin

Frank Tamplin — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:26:49 +0000

Perhaps this person should go back to the bits of teh bible that decree that homosexuality is ab abomination, she will also find that women who commit adultery (sex outside wedlock) should be taken outside the walls of the city and stoned to death

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Iheardavoice

Iheardavoice — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:26:22 +0000

God has told me that paying tax is an abomination, it's immoral and tax collectors will burn in hell. He has told me to form a new Christian lobby organisation, 'The Taxian Institute'. We will fund the legal cases of people who refuse to pay tax because it is against our religious belief. We will of course be registering as a charity. If anyone sees anything wrong with this, perhaps you should ask the Charities Commissioner why WE can't be a charity when The Christian Institute can.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Andrew Horne

Andrew Horne — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:24:24 +0000

If she is a committed Christian then surely she must believe that ANY civil marriage outside a Christian church is a sham, unsanctioned by God. Therefore her whole job as a civil registrar is against her religion and actually promotes adultery (in the Biblical sense). She ignores that fact because she is either too stupid to realise this is the case, or simply because it does not suit her – apparently she earns over £30K a year. She is a bigot and a hypocrite and her case shows the stupidity of the law that seems to be protecting her.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: AussieDingo1983

AussieDingo1983 — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:08:21 +0000

Yes she is a hypocrit, but not because she had a child out of wedlock which can be acceptable under Christian rules if she "repented" for her "sin" of daring to have sex outside of marriage. She is a hypocrit in the way that all pseudo-christians are. They claim that the bible is the word of their god and must be obeyed, yet they don't stone their children to death for talking back, they don't abstain from pig-flesh or shellfish-flesh, they judge others, they wear clothes made of more than one type of cloth, and don't follow many of the other 1000s of rules in the bible. And nor do they claim to try. Yet they grab onto a few phrases that may or may not forbid same-sex relationships. Real Christians ignore stupid biblical rules that contradict the overall teachings of Jesus CHRIST, you know, that guy they named their religion after. If pseudo-christians like her want to be real Christians, they should probably spend a little more time in the new testament getting to know Jesus of Nazareth a little better.

If I was in her job and I declared that I was from The Church of Holy White Saints, could I be excluded from marrying black people like her? No?!? Why not, if my deep seated religious beliefs are that black people are not human, and it is immoral to marry them, why shouldn't I be able to exclude myself? … Oh yeah, 'cause that would be WRONG!!! Shame on that court/tribunal/whatever for finding in her favour, on this issue. If she was in fact harrassed, then find in her favour on that (because if she were genuinely harrassed that is not acceptable, no matter what you think of her), but not on this stupid "I'm A Christian, Get Me Out Of Here" issue. If she can't do her job, she should find a new one, simple as that. I sat next to an old guy at a bus stop once who for some reason started a rant about all these pesky women doing things like anchoring the news and stuff! He reckoned they belonged in the kitchen. He had a mate who was a school teacher (oh, his poor students) who decided to retire when he found out that the new school principal/headteacher was going to be a woman and there was aparently no way he was going to take orders from a woman. Good riddence I say. If people can't do their job because of their bigotries, they should get out. People working in the public service (or private business for that matter) should not be able to discriminate based on gender (inc. the gender of one's partner), skin colour, religion, etc.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Sister Mary Clarence

Sister Mary Clarence — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:37:46 +0000

Petr Capek, I think you're missing the fact that it is the tip of the iceberb. What if a fireman refused to put out a fire at the home of a gay person, because he or she as a firmly held belief that gay people should burn in hell?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Tim Roll-Pickering

Tim Roll-Pickering — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:12:03 +0000

Your second fact is potentially wrong. One of the points of contention in the tribunal is that Ladele was designated a registrar for Civil Partnerships (explicit designation for each of the registration tasks is required) without her consent and in spite of her having already raised her concerns in advance. She had already raised her religious objections to performing civil partnerships, and was far from the only registrar in the country to do so, but the office management were unwilling to accommodate this. And reading between the lines it appears the unwillingness was rooted in personality clashes that predated the introduction of civil partnerships, and the tribunal found there was unreasonable bullying in the office.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Laurence Ling

Laurence Ling — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:12:40 +0000

So gay people are being intolerant?? I don't think so – it is a simple case made complicated by fundamentalist christians, I tend to agree this lady is merely a foolish and indoctrinated pawn in the game.

Fact. Civil Partnerships are legal
Fact. This person is a registrar employed to conduct Civil Partnerships
Fact. She refuses to adhere to her contract of employment.
Result. Should be a disciplinary process leading to termination of employment.

As a gay man, as part of my employment I am required to visit countries where homosexuality is illegal ( including her home country of Nigeria). If I refuse I am in breach of contract – those countries offend me deeply, indeed are potentially 'life threatening' – but that is my job – perhaps I should put this situation before a tribunal – but then I do not have an 'agenda' that is as hateful and divisive as that of christaian fundamentalists

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: apYrs

apYrs — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:09:42 +0000

@Petr Capek
because she's a public servant obliged (or should be) to serve ALL the community. An opt-out for gay CP may be OK with you, but what other services THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE PERFORMED BY ANOTHER PERSON would you allow a religious person to opt out of.

It's true the case is one of harrassment, but she is very lucky a counter-grievence wasn't raised against her.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Petr Capek

Petr Capek — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:04:20 +0000

It's typical of the pink lobby to swing into action to attack anyone who dares voice a contrary opinion. The vitriol which has been orchestrated against this poor woman who is merely trying to reconcile her personal beliefs with the way she leads her life is in sharp contrast to the quiet dignity she is displaying in the face of these attacks.

If you insist on undergoing a civil partnership, find someone who is happy to help you do so – that is your prerogative – but why do you insist on bringing the full force of the law down on someone in order to force them to do something they're clearly uncomfortable with?

Who's being intolerant now, eh?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Jesurgislac

Jesurgislac — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:27:25 +0000

If you read the tribunal's judgement, it's clear they primarily supported Ladele because she could show she had been bulled by her manager and her colleagues, and that her manager's hostility predated her refusal to perform civil partnership ceremonies.

The tribunal's judgement on whether she could refuse to perform civil partnership ceremonies was that her employer could have accommodated her bigoted beliefs without providing a lesser service, and since they were justified by what she claimed to be a religious stance, they should have done so.

That she could prove bullying definitely supported her claim for religious discrimination. Frankly, no one comes out well from this tribunal.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Darren

Darren — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:36:45 +0000

Priceless! Another case of hypocrisy! She clearly was thinking about her so called religious beliefs when she was ankles to Jesus – making a baby! Sack the bitch!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Tim Roll-Pickering

Tim Roll-Pickering — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:05:54 +0000

@apYrs I've not seen anything in the media that says which denomination she is, and as you feel the need to list more than one I suspect you haven't either. As for Biblican fundamentalism once more people are personally deciding what is and isn't "orthodox Christianity" rather than looking at what the teachings and traditions of the relevant denominations. There is no contradiction here except in the minds of the self-righteous who think they can impose their doctrines on others (and no, that's not what Ladele was doing).

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: William - Dublin

William - Dublin — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:18:10 +0000

What a load of hypocrisy. This woman clearly picks the bits of religion that suit her bigotry best, she is a disgrace.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: apYrs

apYrs — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 06:17:14 +0000

@Tim R-P: the bible I believe is clear about marriage being indissoluble. The RCC adheres to this, as did the CoE before Charles wanted his blessing. These people either belioeve the bible is infallible or it isn't. But of course they DO pick and choose.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: john wilfred sharp

john wilfred sharp — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:31:42 +0000

she must be the virgin Mary.
i am gay ,atheist,bastard and illegitamate child and the church disriminates of those that too , i suppose that is all they do in religions is dicriminate , how stupid peopel can be ,they sure wish i was in hell , well hell is on earth with all the so called good folks wishing we where dead .( hell and god do not exist by the way )

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Sister Mary Clarence

Sister Mary Clarence — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:02:37 +0000

Unmarried mother of one, Lillian, seems also to be a bit confused about her role as a registrar – we just need her to read a few f**king words out of a book to acknowledge the State’s recognition of a civil partnership, she’s not John-the-f**king-Baptist. I don’t think anyone is looking for her blessing or approval of their civil partnership. What she does or doesn’t think is really here now there.

I’d like to know if she has similarly pulled her religious trump card on any unsuspecting mother to be, keen to tie the knot before she drops. I suspect not.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Ken

Ken — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:53:00 +0000

Is anyone surprised? This is typical of how so-called "Christians" operate. Sign the on-line petition to ask Islington to appeal the case: http://gopetition.com/petitions/lillian-ladele.html

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Steve(2)

Steve(2) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:55:18 +0000

I trust that the local authority is going to appeal this decision in the light of new evidence. Clearly what will have to be identified is exactly when she did find got.

They will also have to delve into her private life and establish whether she has been living a celibate life in accordance with the teaching of the good book, or whether she’s been a complete Leg’s Up Lucy.

I’m sure it can’t be that difficult to establish whether she is a genuine religious nutcase, or whether she’s a bigoted, hypocritical slut who just doesn’t want to marry gay people.

(Report comment to the moderator)