No more special privileges for Christians!

cyberhog

Lord Justice Laws writes:

"...the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion.
This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.

'The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic."

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/04/we-have-never-said-antigay-christians-are-bigots.html

Finally some common sense!

PDN

Wrong country? Seems to be some kerfuffle to do with Britain and the Church of England.

hivizman

PDN wrote: »

Wrong country? Seems to be some kerfuffle to do with Britain and the Church of England.

Maybe, but still of interest on the basis that what happens in Britain today is likely to happen in Ireland a few years later.

cyberhog

PDN wrote: »

Wrong country? Seems to be some kerfuffle to do with Britain and the Church of England.

Have you read the charter?

The charter (rules) of the Christianity forum
1. The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general

The "kerfuffle" is over Christians thinking they deserve special treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs.Therefore, your comment is irrelevant.

antiskeptic

cyberhog wrote: »

Lord Justice Laws writes:



http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2010/04/we-have-never-said-antigay-christians-are-bigots.html

Finally some common sense!

Pretty typical of the philosophical knots one tends to tie oneself in when attempting a one-size fits all approach. The piece decries subjectivism at a number of junctures but never gets around to mentioning how it's own philosophical moorings are made concrete.

Common sense indeed. With all the objectivity of same.

But by all means proceed...

Manach

If they are seeking to dispense with Christian morality, then out goes the basis of equity and the concept of Natural Law?

JimiTime

cyberhog wrote: »

Finally some common sense!

In your subjective opinion of course.

philologos

OP: In terms of Christians not getting legal privileges, I don't see why this is a big deal. I would much much prefer grassroots activity by people who truly love Jesus and His example, than a top down arrangement imposing Christianity on a largely uncaring population.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

OP: In terms of Christians not getting legal privileges, I don't see why this is a big deal. I would much much prefer grassroots activity by people who truly love Jesus and His example, than a top down arrangement imposing Christianity on a largely uncaring population.

Thats not the basis of the case in question though. Its about peoples Christianity not mattering in terms of what is considered 'human rights'. Like the case of the Christian registrar who could not carry out services for same sex couples. The 'special privilages' that have been removed, is that in such cases the law will back the employer if they decide to sack people who can't carry out such things.

philologos

The judges ruling is made considering the Gary McFarlane case. A counsellor who then trained as a psychosexual therapist and declined his services to homosexuals. His role as psychosexual therapist required him to give intimate sexual advice to couples. He raised concerns about how this role might clash with his faith.

From the judges point of view, this could very much be seen as looking for special privileges, in that he was looking for an exemption in his role that other people wouldn't normally seek. From the other point of view, this could be seen as one person using a conscience clause to exempt themselves from one area of work they find difficult.

Working in that field, it was inevitable that eventually he was going to be asked to work with cases relevant to homosexuality. I have a niggling doubt as to whether or not it is a good thing to fight Christianity through the courts.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

The judges ruling is made considering the Gary McFarlane case. A counsellor who then trained as a psychosexual therapist and declined his services to homosexuals. His role as psychosexual therapist required him to give intimate sexual advice to couples. He raised concerns about how this role might clash with his faith.

From the judges point of view, this could very much be seen as looking for special privileges, in that he was looking for an exemption in his role that other people wouldn't normally seek. From the other point of view, this could be seen as one person using a conscience clause to exempt themselves from one area of work they find difficult.

Working in that field, it was inevitable that eventually he was going to be asked to work with cases relevant to homosexuality. .

But look at the precedent. A registrar conducting same sex services. A B&B owner who won't accept unmarried or same sex couples into double rooms etc etc.

As a Christian, this law would rule me out of doing the above jobs. Opponents of Christianity will be happy with this of course, but such a legal stand stands in the face of Christians.

philologos

In terms of the B&B case, you kind of have to ask yourself, where does this end? Should hotels ban homosexuals and unmarried couples from staying there for example? - When you are offering a service to the public, it becomes very difficult to say one group cannot do this. For example, if I said that Muslims or Jews couldn't stay at my hotel, that would also be quite difficult to justify.

Being a Christian will inevitably put us at odds with others in larger society, some areas of work are flashpoints for this.

One could campaign for a conscience clause for everything, or no conscience clause for anything. This might effectively be unworkable.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

In terms of the B&B case, you kind of have to ask yourself, where does this end? Should hotels ban homosexuals and unmarried couples from staying there for example? - When you are offering a service to the public, it becomes very difficult to say one group cannot do this. For example, if I said that Muslims or Jews couldn't stay at my hotel, that would also be quite difficult to justify.

Well how does it work for a church? Does a church have the right to refuse to perform certain services? If I recall correctly it gets exemption under some kind of 'private club' loophole. Is the answer for B&B owners to be some kind of 'club' B&B or something? So like in your above example, why isn't the 'jew, muslim' thing brought up as a 'where will it stop' issue when a church says no to such accomodations?

I suppose it raises the question of what is the right thing to do as a Christian? Is it simply that if we cannot conciously accomodate immorality, be it through conducting a union as a registrar or whatever, that we simply must leave that career now? Or do you think that there is definately no issue for the Christian who accomodates such services?

Being a Christian will inevitably put us at odds with others in larger society, some areas of work are flashpoints for this.

So what in your opinion, is the right thing for the Christian to do?

One could campaign for a conscience clause for everything, or no conscience clause for anything. This might effectively be unworkable.

What about a state recognition of what the state was founded on and promoted? At the end of the day, this state has been in bed with the RCC, and Britain has been entwined with the COE. All of a sudden, the state says, 'yeah, see all that stuff we've encouraged since the birth of our nations, well if you actually put it into practice we'll prosecute you for it.' Its somewhat a skwerered scenario. Even if it completely removes it now, it is still guilty of promoting it for generations. Can Christians then sue the state for helping entrench this discrimination in them?

If the state now has a law which makes someone who is Christian, a law breaker for following their faith, doesn't it make the state complicit in entrenching such lawlessness into its population?

MrPudding

JimiTime wrote: »

If the state now has a law which makes someone who is Christian, a law breaker for following their faith, doesn't it make the state complicit in entrenching such lawlessness into its population?

But society and law change, all the time. Whilst technically it might be correct, I don't think lawlessness is perhaps the right term. It is true that behaviour that was once acceptable often become no longer acceptable to society. Sometimes the government needs to legislate to prevent the behaviour. But that makes a kind of artificial lawlessness.

I can see the difficulty here for someone that holds strong beliefs. I am really not sure what can be done about it. In general I think that people should show professionalism in their work, and when faced with a situation that does not sit right with their beliefs they should suck it up, but this goes beyond professionalism, I suppose in some cases it goes right to the heart of the persons identity.

Perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly I would not be supportive of allowing someone to refuse to provide services to someone because they did not agree with their lifestyle, but at the same time, I am not sure I am comfortable people being barred from jobs because they may encounter a situation which clashes with their beliefs...

It will be interesting to see how the case law goes. I will try to find the court report for this McFarlane case later to see what was said in a bit more detail.

MrP

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

In terms of the B&B case, you kind of have to ask yourself, where does this end? Should hotels ban homosexuals and unmarried couples from staying there for example?

If it was say a monastary and they didn't approve of it then why not?
The thing is that in the UK in particular there ARE religious laws. The monarch cant marry a Catholic or be a Catholic for example. WE have similar in Ireland. The Provost of Trinity college is under law Church of Ireland. The Archbishop of Dublin has to believe in God.

When you are offering a service to the public,

would that be a financial ore religious service?

it becomes very difficult to say one group cannot do this. For example, if I said that Muslims or Jews couldn't stay at my hotel, that would also be quite difficult to justify.

good point. it would be illegal but you could say whether they could say Mass or hear confession.
Being a Jew isn't immoral. Jesus was one wasn't he? Many B&B s also have rules against consuming food and drink and that isn't against the law is it?

philologos

ISAW wrote: »

If it was say a monastary and they didn't approve of it then why not?
The thing is that in the UK in particular there ARE religious laws. The monarch cant marry a Catholic or be a Catholic for example. WE have similar in Ireland. The Provost of Trinity college is under law Church of Ireland. The Archbishop of Dublin has to believe in God.

All of these are job descriptions. You are right there are religious laws for matters that either pertain to belief, or were thought to pertain to belief.

What I am talking about is offering a financial service, and then saying that it isn't as open as it originally was. That does count officially as discrimination in the UK, and was decreed as being illegal in 2007 under their own law.

ISAW wrote: »

good point. it would be illegal but you could say whether they could say Mass or hear confession.
Being a Jew isn't immoral. Jesus was one wasn't he? Many B&B s also have rules against consuming food and drink and that isn't against the law is it?

As for a law of consuming food or drink, this is a blanket rule. It doesn't pertain to one particular minority in particular.

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

All of these are job descriptions. You are right there are religious laws for matters that either pertain to belief, or were thought to pertain to belief.

What I am talking about is offering a financial service, and then saying that it isn't as open as it originally was. That does count officially as discrimination in the UK, and was decreed as being illegal in 2007 under their own law.

As far as i know many christian services such as Family councilling or pregnancy advice are run by professional qualified people but they don't charge fees. You may donate money if you wish.

philologos

In this case, however, he was working professionally (salaried, and to the secular public). One could imagine how a psychosexual therapist could be asked to deal with something like homosexuality.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Well how does it work for a church? Does a church have the right to refuse to perform certain services? If I recall correctly it gets exemption under some kind of 'private club' loophole.

That isn't really a loophole, it is a private club and can pretty much do what it likes. Like the golf club that refuses to admit women, or a private gentlemans club that turns non-members away at the door. Private clubs are just one step up from your own home, where you have the right to refuse anyone you want for any reason.

The issue with the B&B is that it is providing (or at least advertising) a service to the public and as such falls into a contract so to speak with the general public (you can provide services to us and we will ensure you do this to our standards so we don't get tricked or harmed)

Personally I think the B&B should be allowed to refuse people so long as they advertise this clearly, "No homosexual couples accepted" or something like that.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Personally I think the B&B should be allowed to refuse people so long as they advertise this clearly, "No homosexual couples accepted" or something like that.

That isn't what they were told though, they were told, No homosexual couples, or unmarried couples in the same bed. You kind of have to ask yourself, even if they did have separate beds, or separate rooms, would that really prevent them doing what they will?

Its not as if this prohibition will actually cause them to change their behaviour.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

That isn't what they were told though, they were told, No homosexual couples, or unmarried couples in the same bed. You kind of have to ask yourself, even if they did have separate beds, or separate rooms, would that really prevent them doing what they will?

Its not as if this prohibition will actually cause them to change their behaviour.

Yeah seems rather silly.

I wonder were they just trying to make a point to them that they didn't approve? You have to wonder what they expected to achieve.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

You have to wonder what they expected to achieve.

This is a good question and ties into the question I asked earlier, obviously to Christians. What do you think the right thing for a Christian to do in this circumstance is? Thats a genuine question btw, I'm undecided.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

What I am talking about is offering a financial service, and then saying that it isn't as open as it originally was. That does count officially as discrimination in the UK, and was decreed as being illegal in 2007 under their own law.

What about a registrar who all of a sudden is required to conduct services for same sex couples? Is such a person simply told, 'Do it or your fired.'? Thats what seems to be happening. Also, as far as I'm aware (open to correction) the McFarlane case involved him being a marriage counsellor, so you could understand if his speciality was Psychosexual whatever, that in the guise of being part of a marriage counselling service that he didn't think he'd have to deal with homosexuality. All of a sudden, people like registrars are being met with some very unfair choices IMO. Follow your concience, or give up a job you may have held for years.

Will Christians now have to start trying to predict if their chosen field may become untenable in the future? I.E. Try plot what possible law changes may occur etc? Or do you simply think that there should be no issue with a Christians conducting such services?

philologos

It appears that he is in a situation where he is damned if he does, and if he doesn't. I could very easily imagine the reaction if he gave advice informed by his Christian beliefs to homosexuals.

This counsellor, was hired by the group Relate who advertise their services to LGBT couples. They offer advice to single people, those in relationships (straight or gay) or those who are married. I could imagine that this must have been in his contract.

It is interesting how Relate Northern Ireland, don't have any such information on their page however.

I do think there is a fine line being drawn here. For example I don't think it is acceptable to arrest street preachers. I also don't think it is useful to sign a contract, and agree to work with a certain company, only to say that you actually can't do everything they want you to do unless there are clear legal grounds for expressing such an objection.

You also have to ask yourself, what area of work does God want you in:

Colossians 3:23 wrote:

Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men

I for one, find it unhelpful to drag Christianity through the courts all the time. There isn't a passing week when you don't hear of such a story in Britain. Tragic yes, but an alternative solution must be found to this impasse.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

What about a registrar who all of a sudden is required to conduct services for same sex couples? Is such a person simply told, 'Do it or your fired.'? Thats what seems to be happening.

Why not?

She was a civil register, that is her job, to marry people based on the law, not religion. If she refuses to do her job she will be let go.

That is the same for any job. I'm a computer programmer. If I refuse to program computers I'm fired.

JimiTime wrote: »

Also, as far as I'm aware (open to correction) the McFarlane case involved him being a marriage counsellor, so you could understand if his speciality was Psychosexual whatever, that in the guise of being part of a marriage counselling service that he didn't think he'd have to deal with homosexuality.

He worked for Relate, who are more of a general relationship counselling service, who have advertised that they offer courses for homosexual couples.

Again, it seems pretty clear cut, he was hired to do a job, he refused to do it, he was let go. How is this unusual?

JimiTime wrote: »

All of a sudden, people like registrars are being met with some very unfair choices IMO. Follow your concience, or give up a job you may have held for years.

That is a choice everyone faces if they work in a job that conflicts with their conscience. I have a friend who left Nestle a few years ago because she was unhappy with what they were doing in India. I have another friend who left Microsoft, and they aren't even a particular nasty company (he is very into open source).

What no one would expect these people to do is simply sit on their hands, refusing to do their job, yet still getting paid for a job they weren't doing, simply because they were unhappy about it.

You can't predict what your company will do in the future, but if you are unhappy about it it is up to you to take responsibility for this.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

This counsellor, was hired by the group Relate who advertise their services to LGBT couples. They offer advice to single people, those in relationships (straight or gay) or those who are married. I could imagine that this must have been in his contract.

'If' it was, then he hasn't got a leg to stand on really and responsibility lies in his lack of judgement. In such a circumstance you'd have to ask, 'Why the hell did you take the job??' However, if its like the Registrars predicament I.E. These services were offered some time after his employment started, then he has a case IMO.

I also don't think it is useful to sign a contract, and agree to work with a certain company, only to say that you actually can't do everything they want you to do unless there are clear legal grounds for expressing such an objection.

Well what about the registrar? It was clear what marriage was 16 years ago, when the registrar signed a contract to be a registrar. All of a sudden she's asked to conduct same sex services. Where do you think she stands?

You also have to ask yourself, what area of work does God want you in:

That scripture's relevance is that it tells us to work hard. Our honest working etc should glorify God. However, it does not account for people being asked to do things that they deem 'against' what God wishes. Is the crux of what you're saying, that the Registrar for example should just suck it up? Or do you think there is no problem for a christian to conduct a same sex union?

I for one, find it unhelpful to drag Christianity through the courts all the time. There isn't a passing week when you don't hear of such a story in Britain. Tragic yes, but an alternative solution must be found to this impasse.

Well unfortunately, if people are loosing their jobs due to their Christianity, its going to happen. What do you suggest they do?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I do think there is a fine line being drawn here. For example I don't think it is acceptable to arrest street preachers.

In case anyone thinks this is something a secularist like myself would support, I agree entirely with you that that person should not have been arrested.

There is a difference between expressing private opinions and working the capacity of an organisation.

This register should be free to shout from the roof tops that she does not think that homosexuals should be married. But her job requires her to marry people according to the law. If she doesn't like and refuses to do it she shouldn't expect that the registry office will continue to pay her for not doing her job.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Why not?

She was a civil register, that is her job, to marry people based on the law, not religion. If she refuses to do her job she will be let go.

But she's not refusing to do her job. She wants to continue doing the job she started 16 years ago, but the law NOW says that she must do something she cannot do. A reasonable position would be to be understanding, get someone else to do it, or from now on stipulate in new contracts that same-sex services are part of the job.

That is the same for any job. I'm a computer programmer. If I refuse to program computers I'm fired.

Its more akin to, You are a computer programmer who is passionate about stopping the extinction of white rhino's, and now you are told you have to hunt white rhino's as that is part of the new definition of 'computer programmer'. All of a sudden, you have to make a choice about a career you've had for 16 years. Walk away with no redundancy and hope you can find somewhere that don't have this new definition of computer programming to hire you. Probably on a seriouly reduced wage. Or you must think about a new career. Or you decide you'll go hunting white rhino.

Now you may say, well thats life. I'm not so black and white. There is an element of fairness i like to maintain, and the above does not achieve this.

He worked for Relate, who are more of a general relationship counselling service, who have advertised that they offer courses for homosexual couples.

And if that was the case when he joined, then I agree, What did he expect??!!

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

In case anyone thinks this is something a secularist like myself would support, I agree entirely with you that that person should not have been arrested.

He shouldn't be arrested based on what he was saying, but possibly for public disorder if he's annoying the crap out of passers by all day.

Fanny Cradock

liamw wrote: »

He shouldn't be arrested based on what he was saying, but possibly for public disorder if he's annoying the crap out of passers by all day.

So the right to freedom of speech is now based upon a vox-pop of slack-jawed onlookers?

philologos

I would advise Christians in situations such as the civil registrar case, and in the case that has been described to express their views clearly in the application process, or as such developments start to become apparent in law rather than waiting until the point where they could become a serious issue.

I would particularly advise Christians who are currently registrars in Ireland, who disagree with Civil Partnership to make clear that they do to their employer and offer to find an alternative arrangement now, before it becomes difficult in the future.

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

I would advise Christians in situations such as the civil registrar case, and in the case that has been described to express their views clearly in the application process, or as such developments start to become apparent in law rather than waiting until the point where they could become a serious issue.

I would particularly advise Christians who are currently registrars in Ireland, who disagree with Civil Partnership to make clear that they do to their employer and offer to find an alternative arrangement now, before it becomes difficult in the future.

I gather by this then, that you think what happened to the registrar was entirely fair then?

philologos

JimiTime wrote: »

I gather by this then, that you think what happened to the registrar was entirely fair then?

No, I think in her case, she was employed before the Civil Partnership Bill came in. Therefore, it wasn't the same as if she was applying to become a registrar, knowing full well that she would have to formalise these relationships.

I do say, that people who have such objections should help their employers find alternative arrangements, before difficult situations have to arise in the first place. Pre-emption would be the word.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

But she's not refusing to do her job.

Her job is to marry people according to the law, not according to the law 16 years ago.

If I'm working on a software project and the CTO decides we are now going to use Microsoft instead of open source products I cannot refuse to do my job yet expect to continue to be paid, because I have objections to the way Microsoft ethically carry out their business.

I can quit. The job spec is the same, develop software under the management of the CTO. If I don't like what I'm doing I leave. The company is under no obligation to ensure that during my time with them each employee is entirely ethically happy with what the company is doing.

JimiTime wrote: »

She wants to continue doing the job she started 16 years ago, but the law NOW says that she must do something she cannot do. A reasonable position would be to be understanding, get someone else to do it, or from now on stipulate in new contracts that same-sex services are part of the job.

None of those seem particularly reasonable positions.

I appreciate that jobs people have change, and that someone, anyone, may end up down the line doing something they initially didn't consider they would be doing and do not like what they are doing at the moment for ethical reasons.

But think about what you are suggesting. The company should accommodate the ethical concerns of each and every employee and ensure they are not doing something, no matter how critical to the job, they have an ethical objection to.

If at any point in the future if I'm not doing exactly what I was doing when I was hired and have an ethical objection to what I'm doing now, I can refuse to do it, the company has to get someone else to do it and yet I still get paid.

JimiTime wrote: »

Its more akin to, You are a computer programmer who is passionate about stopping the extinction of white rhino's, and now you are told you have to hunt white rhino's as that is part of the new definition of 'computer programmer'.

Nonsense, this woman was hired to perform State marriages and she is still performing State marriages. Saying she only wants to perform State marriages the way the State was 16 years ago is ridiculous.

If I worked for a software company that next year started producing software used to track white rhinos for hunting I would quit.

I wouldn't sit on my hands and protest that when I was hired we were making software to run household boilers and I'm refusing to do anything other than that.

I would be fired pretty sharpish.

JimiTime wrote: »

All of a sudden, you have to make a choice about a career you've had for 16 years.

Yes she does.

If she feels she cannot do her job, the job she was hired for, because of ethical reasons, she quits.

JimiTime wrote: »

Now you may say, well thats life. I'm not so black and white.

Perhaps not, but I suspect you wouldn't be so quick to defend someone if this wasn't over religious reasons.

If I started working some in IT when it was 99% men but a few years later found myself working with lots of women could I say I'm refusing to work with or under a woman because I have ethical objections to this and when I was hired the IT sector was all men and that is what I thought the job would entail and I never imagined it might be different?

Would the company continue to pay me for a job I wasn't doing, or bend over backwards to accommodate me by ensuring I was only paired with men, or working under a man?

Or would they say That is your problem not ours, do your job or leave

philologos

By the by, JimiTime, I have to make this clear. I'm not advocating that Christians should do things that are against their conscience, or that are indeed against God's will. Rather, I think that if people do not want to find themselves in such situations, they should either negotiate responsibly with their employer, or find another suitable area of work.

I don't think it is a good thing to have people use the courts as the first option, rather than the last option. That applies for all involved. People should be transparent about any issues they have in the workplace. I believe that is an moral responsibility as Christians as well as a pragmatic responsibility.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Her job is to marry people according to the law, not according to the law 16 years ago.

Well if you want to be heartlessly strict and legalistic about it, then she doesn't have to do civil unions according to your above definition, as its not a marriage is it.

Being compassionate and empathetic though:

A fair solution would simply be that someone who didn't have an issue with the redefinition of a registrars role could do these unions, and she could be left to do what she has done for the last 16 years. The council could also implement the new definition for any future applicants.

Nonsense, this woman was hired to perform State marriages

Which a civil union isn't.

If I worked for a software company that next year started producing software used to track white rhinos for hunting I would quit.

I wouldn't sit on my hands and protest that when I was hired we were making software to run household boilers and I'm refusing to do anything other than that.

I would be fired pretty sharpish.

'Software programming' would still be the same. Being a 'registrar' is now redefined. As I said, rather than your example above where you continue to be what has always been defined as a software programmer, this situation is more akin to having 'software programming' redefined so that it incorporates you having to hunt white rhino. Its alot more than just new software, it is a complete redefinition of your field of work.

liamw

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So the right to freedom of speech is now based upon a vox-pop of slack-jawed onlookers?

If I was shouting on Grafton St about ANYTHING that was causing a public disturbance, I would expect to be warned and arrested if I continued to do so. I'm not saying it was the same in this situation.

People have every right to freedom of speech and their opinion but don't shove it down my throat as I'm going about my daily business. Imagine I was homosexual and every day I walked down a street and someone shouted in my ear that I was committing a sin, I have no rights there to do anything?

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

By the by, JimiTime, I have to make this clear. I'm not advocating that Christians should do things that are against their conscience, or that are indeed against God's will. Rather, I think that if people do not want to find themselves in such situations, they should either negotiate responsibly with their employer, or find another suitable area of work.

I don't think it is a good thing to have people use the courts as the first option, rather than the last option. That applies for all involved. People should be transparent about any issues they have in the workplace. I believe that is an moral responsibility as Christians as well as a pragmatic responsibility.

Let me also state that I am working under the assumption that the courts are the last resort. I am an avid believer in personal responsibility, and speaking for oneself. I absolutle detest the whole 'Lets do this, so it wont offend this hypothetical person in my head' approach. People can and should speak for themselves, and in this case I would hope that there was a good line of communication, and that court was the last resort.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Which a civil union isn't.

You are being some what pedantic now, something you often accuse atheists of being.

You know perfectly well that this woman has not been asked to doing something outside of her original job description.

What has changed is now the State recognize homosexuals in civil unions. The civil registrar is required to register and witness State business. This is now State business, thus it is not part of her job, the same job she has always done.

JimiTime wrote: »

'Software programming' would still be the same. Being a 'registrar' is now redefined.

No it isn't. A registrar is some who officially records State business, which includes births deaths, marriages, civil unions, re-naming etc etc.

This woman is still being asked to officially record State business. The only thing that has happened is she now objects to what the State is recording.

But that isn't her job. Her job is to record and witness State business, not decide what is or isn't what the State will recognize.

hivizman

The case raised by the OP is an interesting example of an increasing problem - the conflict of human rights. The right of someone to hold and follow religious beliefs comes into conflict with the rights of others not to be discriminated against in the provision of services. In the UK, although there have been various anti-discrimination laws around for decades (some of the earliest laws came after World War I when many of the practices that discriminated against women were legislated against), anti-discrimination laws relating to sexual orientation are relatively recent, and so case law is currently required to interpret where the line is drawn in situations where rights seem to come into conflict.

Another relatively recent set of anti-discrimination legislation in the UK relates to people with disabilities and how they should be treated by employers. It is now a requirement for employers to make "reasonable adjustments" in respect of employees with disabilities. For example, if a particular employee uses a wheelchair, then it would be considered unreasonable to require that employee to work in an office that is not wheelchair-accessible unless there is no practical alternative (in which case, the employer would be expected to consider whether it is possible to provide access). The anti-disability provisions apply in the case of mental as well as physical disabilities.

Mr Justice Laws implied that the belief of the counsellor that his Christian faith prevented him from offering guidance to same-sex couples was "irrational, arbitrary, capricious". If the employee had argued that his Christian belief was a mental disability, then would the employer have had to make "reasonable adjustments" to accommodate the disability, for example ensuring tha the counsellor was not required to advise same-sex couples (as this would make the "disability" worse)?

If it was claimed that religious belief was not a mental disability, then I'm sure that there are plenty of prominent atheists who could be quoted as stating, or suggesting, that people of faith are "mad".

MrPudding

hivizman wrote: »

The case raised by the OP is an interesting example of an increasing problem - the conflict of human rights. The right of someone to hold and follow religious beliefs comes into conflict with the rights of others not to be discriminated against in the provision of services. In the UK, although there have been various anti-discrimination laws around for decades (some of the earliest laws came after World War I when many of the practices that discriminated against women were legislated against), anti-discrimination laws relating to sexual orientation are relatively recent, and so case law is currently required to interpret where the line is drawn in situations where rights seem to come into conflict.

And we also need to consider the European Convention, which complicates things further.

MrP

Zombrex

As fun as that would be I don't think anyone is arguing that religious faith is a mental disability.

The issue with accommodating the disabled is the recognition that this is not something that is choose. Religious faith is.

Still disability is not accommodated when it does actually effect job performance, you don't get too many blind bus drivers or legless coast guards.

So even if their were similarities if the person could not perform the job they are supposed to be doing they won't get a free pass.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

You are being some what pedantic now, something you often accuse atheists of being.

Ye know what Wicknight. No, just no. I introduced that semantic due to YOUR pedantry of definition, and not having any empathy for the situation. You chose to be heartlessy legalistic, without appealing to the real human element in this. So I replied with the pedantry you exhibited to show that even with YOUR leagalistic view, and the definition YOU used, it was still unfair. YOU defined a registrar as carrying out 'marriages'. So sticking with your legalistic attitude, and YOUR definitions, I pointed out that civil unions are not recognised as 'marriages'.

I have NO interest in simply facing this from a legalistic way. I think there is a legalistic case, yes definately, however, there is much more to consider.

And another thing, I don't accuse 'atheists' of being pedantic. I accuse 'people' who I think are being pedantic of being pedantic!

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Ye know what Wicknight. No, just no. I introduced that semantic due to YOUR pedantry of definition, and not having any empathy for the situation. You chose to be heartlessy legalistic, without appealing to the real human element in this.

You are being pedantic because we both know a civil registrar's job is to record State business. When I say her job is to marry people according to State law it shouldn't be necessary for me to explain that what this means is represent the State at this event. Saying that marriage has changed is irrelevant since her job was never to actually marry people the way you are using that concept (ie decide if they are to be married or not) Her job is to recognize this on behalf of the state. The state decides if they are actual married, or in a civil union, or what ever.

She isn't marrying these people the way a priest does, she is simply representing the State in registering them as married, something the State decides, not her.

Also I've no issue with you claiming this is difficult for this woman. I'm sure it is

I get "heartlessy legalistic" when you start claiming the State should start making exceptions for her or bending over backwards to accommodate her.

There is no grounds to do this, nor can something like a state company make a once off exception for someone as this sets precedence for everyone else who works for them.

MrPudding

I hope no one minds, but here is the text of the judgement. I think seeing it all is more helpful small extracts of it.

Laws LJ wrote:

'In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law's protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law's protection of that belief's substance or content. The common law and ECHR Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian's right (and every other person's right) to hold and express his or her beliefs. And so they should. By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts. These are the twin conditions of a free society.
'The first of these conditions is largely uncontentious. I should say a little more, however, about the second. The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves. So it is with core provisions of the criminal law: the prohibition of violence and dishonesty. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy. And the liturgy and practice of the established Church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.
'The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.
'So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious belief; equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime.
'As I have shown Lord Carey's statement also contains a plea for a special court. I am sorry that he finds it possible to suggest a procedure that would, in my judgment, be deeply inimical to the public interest.'

Zombrex

"By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts."

That guy is my new hero.

Einhard

JimiTime wrote: »

What about a registrar who all of a sudden is required to conduct services for same sex couples? Is such a person simply told, 'Do it or your fired.'?

Yes. If you don't comply with the strictures decided upon by your employer, then you can expect to get fired.

hivizman

There's an interesting article "Conscientious objection in medicine" by Julian Savulescu in British Medical Journal (2006), which raises many of the issues being discussed in this thread. Savulescu takes the view that "A doctor's conscience has little place in the delivery of modern medical care. . . . If people are not prepared to offer legally permitted, efficient, and beneficial care to a patient because it conflicts with their values, they should not be doctors."

There will in some situations be a debate about what constitutes "beneficial care" (this issue comes up in situations where there are disagreements among doctors about the appropriateness of providing potentially painful and invasive treatment to extend the lives of people who would otherwise die in peace).

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

"By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts."

That guy is my new hero.

I have recently been reading quite a lot of judgements and speeches from high ranking judges and they are, for the most part, very impressive people.

MrP

Michael G

hivizman wrote: »

There's an interesting article "Conscientious objection in medicine" by Julian Savulescu in British Medical Journal (2006), which raises many of the issues being discussed in this thread. Savulescu takes the view that "A doctor's conscience has little place in the delivery of modern medical care. . . . If people are not prepared to offer legally permitted, efficient, and beneficial care to a patient because it conflicts with their values, they should not be doctors."

There will in some situations be a debate about what constitutes "beneficial care" (this issue comes up in situations where there are disagreements among doctors about the appropriateness of providing potentially painful and invasive treatment to extend the lives of people who would otherwise die in peace).

It comes up particularly in the case of abortion, which some have described as a therapeutic procedure. Where guest houses or civil partnerships are concerned, a Christian may have a conscientious objection to facilitating or appearing to approve of what he or she believes to be morally wrong, but it is others who are choosing to act in that way. For a Christian doctor or nurse the situation with abortion is much starker. He or she is being asked to take an active part in it. It has been argued in the UK and USA that doctors and nurses should not be allowed to opt out of abortions on the grounds of conscience.

liamw

MrPudding wrote: »

I have recently been reading quite a lot of judgements and speeches from high ranking judges and they are, for the most part, very impressive people.

MrP

Got to love this one:
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Ruling:

Judge Jones wrote:

Holding
Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."