Tribunal hearing over civil partnerships on forms
An employment tribunal has ruled that a Catholic couple from Scotland can pursue their claim of sexual and religious discrimination against Strathclyde Police over its definition of the term ‘marital status.’
Devout Catholics Lucille and Frank McQuade claim that Scotland’s largest police force is guilty of religious discrimination after altering its civilian employee records to change their status from “married” to “married/civil partnership.”
Mrs McQuade said at the original tribunal hearing in Glasgow last October:
“The concept of homosexuality is not compatible with our faith, we find it offensive that people don’t know if we are married or civil partners.”
The couple added that the change to their “true legal and religious status” amounted to sex discrimination and religious discrimination.
Mr McQuade, 49, a communications officer with the force, that no slur was intended on the gay community.
Strathclyde police claim that if they were to separate the ‘married’ and ‘civil partnership’ options on the employees records then they would be “outing an individual’s sexual orientation against their wishes or without their clear permission, which is inappropriate and a breach of privacy.”
The case will go before an employment tribunal at a later date.
Mrs McQuade, a former CID employee, now works with the Catholic Parliamentary Office.
More from PinkNews
Their website supports Catholics who refuse goods and services to homosexuals if they believe that those goods or services are intended for, “immoral acts.”
The Catholic Parliamentary Offices views on civil partnerships are very clear.
“Civil partnership is not in any way equivalent to marriage.
“It may be that the government has chosen to give special treatment to those who wish to register same-sex relationships but the nature of that relationship is incompatible with the role provided by marriage,” according to their website.
“Civil partnerships, by attempting to mimic marriage, in fact undermine society’s understanding of the role of marriage and of the meaning of human sexuality.
“It is therefore not supportable that society should be forced to recognise civil partnerships as marriage or to bestow the recognition given to married couples on those who have entered civil partnerships.”