conciencious objections in the workplace, what to do?

JimiTime

This question is borne out of the 'Christian privilages' thread. Basically the questions arise as follows.

I am a Christian who has been a registrar for 16 years. The law has now redefined my job to entail conducting same sex services. What do you think the Christian should do?

Is there an issue conducting such services?

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

This question is borne out of the 'Christian privilages' thread. Basically the questions arise as follows.

I am a Christian who has been a registrar for 16 years. The law has now redefined my job to entail conducting same sex services. What do you think the Christian should do?

Is there an issue conducting such services?

I think it would depend on the setting of your registrar-ship (should we address you as ' your Registrarshipful'?).

If you're a civil registrar and are presiding over a ceremony entitled 'marriage' then that must somehow fall under the civil definition of marriage. Such definitions aren't absolute and unchanging and so aren't from God as such. If the civil authorities decide to define marriage so then I don't see the problem.


If, on the other hand, you were a pastor of a godly church and were asked to perform a same sex ceremony entitled 'marriage' then the definition of marriage by which you would be guided would be God's definition (as you understand it). If there was conflict between his definition (as you understood it) and the qualifying circumstances of the couple involved then I don't see how you could preside over such a ceremony.

Which are you? A civil or 'religious' registrar?

hivizman

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think it would depend on the setting of your registrar-ship (should we address you as ' your Registrarshipful'?).

I think that antiskeptic brings out very well the difference between marriage (and civil partnership) as a civil "contract" whereby two individuals are granted various privileges by society in exchange for taking on various obligations, and marriage as a religious sacrament. In the UK, a civil marriage conducted by a registrar cannot, by law, have any religious element to it, so you can't sing hymns, have religious readings or sacred music. I've read stories of officious registrars vetting poems that couples want to have as readings and banning them because they happen to mention God.

So it is possible to make a case, I think, that a civil marriage isn't really a marriage in the sense meant by the Church. Hence, a Christian civil registrar can't logically have a conscientious objection to performing civil partnerships, unless that registrar has a conscientious objection to performing civil marriages (because a civil marriage isn't a marriage in the sight of God, so to conduct a civil marriage would essentially be to condone promiscuity and fornication). But then the registrar couldn't conduct any marriage/partnership, and hence couldn't undertake the job.

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think it would depend on the setting of your registrar-ship (should we address you as ' your Registrarshipful'?).

If you're a civil registrar and are presiding over a ceremony entitled 'marriage' then that must somehow fall under the civil definition of marriage. Such definitions aren't absolute and unchanging and so aren't from God as such. If the civil authorities decide to define marriage so then I don't see the problem.


If, on the other hand, you were a pastor of a godly church and were asked to perform a same sex ceremony entitled 'marriage' then the definition of marriage by which you would be guided would be God's definition (as you understand it). If there was conflict between his definition (as you understood it) and the qualifying circumstances of the couple involved then I don't see how you could preside over such a ceremony.

Which are you? A civil or 'religious' registrar?

I'm talking about a civil registrar, and I'm sure that 16 years ago, everyone was pretty clear on what a marriage was. Do you think its fair that a registrar who has now had her job redefined can be sacked for saying, 'well it was pretty clear what marriage was when I took the job, and this new role you've added doing civil unions, I cannot do. However, I can continue in my role doing the marriages I've done until now'?

JimiTime

hivizman wrote: »

So it is possible to make a case, I think, that a civil marriage isn't really a marriage in the sense meant by the Church.

I agree tbh. A true Christian marriage doesn't even need a ceremony.(Thats not to say I am advocating not entering into the legal marriage) The ceremony is really a public declaration. A Christian marriage is in the heart of a man and woman. The two becoming one flesh, and as God see's the things of the heart, he doesn't need any ceremony to know who is and who isn't married.

Hence, a Christian civil registrar can't logically have a conscientious objection to performing civil partnerships, unless that registrar has a conscientious objection to performing civil marriages (because a civil marriage isn't a marriage in the sight of God, so to conduct a civil marriage would essentially be to condone promiscuity and fornication).

I think you need to re-ask yourself what a Christian marriage is.

But then the registrar couldn't conduct any marriage/partnership, and hence couldn't undertake the job.

We don't even need to introduce the God question to this scenario tbh. Marriage was clearly defined when the job was taken. All of a sudden, its been redefined, and only this one specific redefinition is causing a problem. I can continue to conduct marriage services, but civil unions, no. Do you think its fair to sack me?

iUseVi

I'm not sure if you want this strictly Christian only, please tell me to go away if you wish. :P

But this case interests me. When you took up the job was there any sort religious aspects to it whatsoever, such as an oath or similar? Or was there simply a contract to sign?

hivizman

Let's take the hypothetical argument away from marriage/civil partnership.

Registrars also register births and deaths. Some Christians object to the use of in vitro fertilisation, surrogate mothers and other interventions in the "natural" process of conception and birth. It may well be the case that some of these processes were unknown when the registrar was appointed. Should a registrar who has such views be able to refuse to register a birth involving some process to which he or she objects on religious grounds?

I think that the issue of civil marriages/partnerships is a particular problem in the UK, where until the 19th century it was impossible to be married except through a religious ceremony (so civil marriage is viewed as basically the same as religious marriage rather than as a socially endorsed contract between two people). In countries such as France and Germany, since the introduction of the Code Napoleon, the civil ceremony and the religious ceremony are seen as two separate activities. The civil ceremony creates the marriage in the eyes of the State, and the religious ceremony (if it takes place at all) sanctifies the marriage in the eyes of the Church.

As an irrelevant side point, I see that this is my 600th post on boards.ie.

iUseVi

hivizman wrote: »

Let's take the hypothetical argument away from marriage/civil partnership.

Registrars also register births and deaths. Some Christians object to the use of in vitro fertilisation, surrogate mothers and other interventions in the "natural" process of conception and birth. It may well be the case that some of these processes were unknown when the registrar was appointed. Should a registrar who has such views be able to refuse to register a birth involving some process to which he or she objects on religious grounds?

This situation is different. Whether or not someone agrees with in vitro fertilisation doesn't make much of a difference here. The baby is born, the registrar records it. The baby is already born, it's not a matter for debate!

However with the civil partnership, the registrar is involved in it during the process if that make sense.

hivizman

JimiTime wrote: »

Do you think it's fair to sack me?

If I'd been your manager, I'd probably have gone for a quiet life and tried to find some way of scheduling the work so that you were kept away from civil partnerships (after all, if you don't consider them to be a "good thing", then you'd probably not have a very positive attitude during the ceremony, and this could spoil the occasion for those entering into the partnership and their guests). But jobs change over time, even if the wording of the job description doesn't. For example, if you are employed to "undertake the duties of a civil registrar as specified in relevant legislation", then your job description hasn't changed, but your duties have as a result of changes in the law. If you refuse to undertake your duties, then in extremis I would sack you.

Wouldn't your position be like a police officer who refused to enforce any laws that had been passed after he or she had been appointed?

hivizman

iUseVi wrote: »

This situation is different. Whether or not someone agrees with in vitro fertilisation doesn't make much of a difference here. The baby is born, the registrar records it. The baby is already born, it's not a matter for debate!

However with the civil partnership, the registrar is involved in it during the process if that make sense.

Takes me back to studying philosophy - this is something that the English philosopher J. L. Austin pointed out. Language can be "performative" as well as "propositional". Austin actually uses the example of a marriage celebrant saying "I now pronounce you husband and wife", and hence creating the marriage (now one would include civil partnerships) by uttering particular words (and of course having the authority to utter those words - hence if I say the words, this doesn't mean that I've joined two people in marriage).

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

I'm talking about a civil registrar, and I'm sure that 16 years ago, everyone was pretty clear on what a marriage was. Do you think its fair that a registrar who has now had her job redefined can be sacked for saying, 'well it was pretty clear what marriage was when I took the job, and this new role you've added doing civil unions, I cannot do. However, I can continue in my role doing the marriages I've done until now'?

I wouldn't say it would be fair to sack you but that's in all likelyhood what would happen. It's not unusual that a solution to one problem causes another one to emerge and this one is a case in point.

I don't think the World would have a problem with the basis for your objection. Nor do I think the World would find it fair that you be sacked given that you didn't sign up for gay civil unions when you took the job.

What would happen in practice though would be that some or other loophole would be found (or created) to force your hand (because the momentum is with the gay lobby) and you would be out.

Unless of course a equally powerful Christian lobby group got involved.

__________

What is your actual objection though, if you don't mind me asking.

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

This situation is different. Whether or not someone agrees with in vitro fertilisation doesn't make much of a difference here. The baby is born, the registrar records it. The baby is already born, it's not a matter for debate!

However with the civil partnership, the registrar is involved in it during the process if that make sense.

Not really that different. The civil registrar is not deciding if this couple will or will not be married. The laws of the state does this. The registrar is simply checking that the couple meet the criteria set by the state and recording that they are now married, or in a civil union, or what ever.

That is not "up for debate" with the registrar, nor is it dependent on his or her personal approval in order for the marriage to take place.

iUseVi

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really that different. The civil registrar is not deciding if this couple will or will not be married. The laws of the state does this. The registrar is simply checking that the couple meet the criteria set by the state and recording that they are now married, or in a civil union, or what ever.

That is not "up for debate" with the registrar, nor is it dependent on his or her personal approval in order for the marriage to take place.

I realise it's not "up for debate", at least not at this level. But there is still more personal involvement. As an example take an animal rights activist; there's a subtle difference between selling meat products from a cosy office and being the person cutting them up and packaging them. Whilst neither person made the choice to kill the animal, one is more "in your face".

Zombrex

iUseVi wrote: »

I realise it's not "up for debate", at least not at this level. But there is still more personal involvement. As an example take an animal rights activist; there's a subtle difference between selling meat products from a cosy office and being the person cutting them up and packaging them. Whilst neither person made the choice to kill the animal, one is more "in your face".

True, my point was simply that it is a pretty good comparison.

A registrar could refuse to register that a baby had been born if the baby was born out of wedlock because they feel that doing so would be condoning the behavior of the mother.

But this, as you point out, would be a bit silly because this baby has been born out of wedlock. That is a fact. The register is simply being asked to record this fact, whether she approves or not is some what irrelevant to whether it happens or not. If she doesn't the baby doesn't disappear.

Equally gay people can have civil unions. That is a fact, the register is simply being asked to record this not approve of it. Disapproving of it is irrelevant to it actually happening. The gay couple don't disappear, nor does the law allowing them to have this union.

I have no problem with this woman refusing to do this, but that is her decision and she takes responsibility for it. Refusing to do it but expecting that there be no repercussions from your employer is silly.

hivizman

Wicknight wrote: »

True, my point was simply that it is a pretty good comparison.

A registrar could refuse to register that a baby had been born if the baby was born out of wedlock because they feel that doing so would be condoning the behavior of the mother.

But this, as you point out, would be a bit silly because this baby has been born out of wedlock. That is a fact. The register is simply being asked to record this fact, whether she approves or not is some what irrelevant to whether it happens or not. If she doesn't the baby doesn't disappear.

Equally gay people can have civil unions. That is a fact, the register is simply being asked to record this not approve of it. Disapproving of it is irrelevant to it actually happening. The gay couple don't disappear, nor does the law allowing them to have this union.

I have no problem with this woman refusing to do this, but that is her decision and she takes responsibility for it. Refusing to do it but expecting that there be no repercussions from your employer is silly.

I think that the issue is a bit more complicated, because the registrar isn't simply recording a union, he or she actually creates the union as a "civil fact" by performing the ceremony.

There is a parallel in the case of registering births. A recent report from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees discusses the problem that can arise for members of certain ethnic and religious minorities in parts of the world where the authorities will refuse to register births of children whose parents are members of such minorities. Although the physical fact of birth is not affected by the registrar's actions, the "social fact" of the existence of a new citizen needs to be created through the act of registering the birth, and if the state refuses to register the birth, then the child doesn't "exist" as a citizen.

JimiTime

hivizman wrote: »

Let's take the hypothetical argument away from marriage/civil partnership.

Registrars also register births and deaths. Some Christians object to the use of in vitro fertilisation, surrogate mothers and other interventions in the "natural" process of conception and birth. It may well be the case that some of these processes were unknown when the registrar was appointed. Should a registrar who has such views be able to refuse to register a birth involving some process to which he or she objects on religious grounds?

Thats not analagous at all. What would be an analagous above would be say, a doctors assistant specialising in fertility. She is complicit in the act. Simply recording fact, is not being complicit in something. I doubt there would be an objection if the person simply had to write down that mr and mr murphy are now in a civil union. Conducting that ceremony though, that is different.

BTW, I don't like this reasoning that if its done in one instance, it has to be done everywhere. Just because one may see reason in the conciencious objection in this case, doesn't mean an objection from a vegan at the bride wearing leather is equally valid. I think it should be taken on its merits.

As an irrelevant side point, I see that this is my 600th post on boards.ie.

Congratulations, reach a thousand, and it becomes official that you have no life. Join the club:)

hivizman

JimiTime wrote: »

Thats not analagous at all. What would be an analagous above would be say, a doctors assistant specialising in fertility. She is complicit in the act. Simply recording fact, is not being complicit in something. I doubt there would be an objection if the person simply had to write down that mr and mr murphy are now in a civil union. Conducting that ceremony though, that is different.

Yes, I'm not so convinced that the birth analogy works except in narrowly defined cases (see my previous post on failure to register births leading to statelessness).

JimiTime wrote: »

BTW, I don't like this reasoning that if its done in one instance, it has to be done everywhere. Just because one may see reason in the conciencious objection in this case, doesn't mean an objection from a vegan at the bride wearing leather is equally valid. I think it should be taken on its merits.

Presumably a registrar who was allergic to a particular flower could reasonably ask the happy couple not to use that flower in bouquets etc? But then, what about the vegan who has a psychosomatic reaction to leather and has an unfortunate tendency to throw up when faced with leather garments? As I've noted already, situations like this are partly about where to draw lines, and I don't think we can ever anticipate all the potential situations and clearly locate them on one side of a line or on the other.

iUseVi

hivizman wrote: »

Presumably a registrar who was allergic to a particular flower could reasonably ask the happy couple not to use that flower in bouquets etc? But then, what about the vegan who has a psychosomatic reaction to leather and has an unfortunate tendency to throw up when faced with leather garments? As I've noted already, situations like this are partly about where to draw lines, and I don't think we can ever anticipate all the potential situations and clearly locate them on one side of a line or on the other.

Your examples are compulsive though, the vegan throws up when seeing leather (unlikely but ok), a reaction to flowers. I doubt Jimi throws up when he sees same sex couples.

It would be more analogous to the vegan performing the ceremony when the parties concerned are wearing all leather/fur etc even though he/she had moral qualms. Would this vegan have a right to not perform such ceremonies? Legally I don't know, seems doubtful, but if the vegan talked to his/her boss I'm sure they would understand and reassign them.

Not sure people are always so understanding of Christian moral qualms though, hence the issue.

hivizman

iUseVi wrote: »

Your examples are compulsive though, the vegan throws up when seeing leather (unlikely but ok), a reaction to flowers. I doubt Jimi throws up when he sees same sex couples.

It would be more analogous to the vegan performing the ceremony when the parties concerned are wearing all leather/fur etc even though he/she had moral qualms. Would this vegan have a right to not perform such ceremonies? Legally I don't know, seems doubtful, but if the vegan talked to his/her boss I'm sure they would understand and reassign them.

Not sure people are always so understanding of Christian moral qualms though, hence the issue.

I don't think that the vegan has the right not to perform the ceremony where everyone is wearing leather or furs, but I hope that the manager would be prepared to be flexible and assign someone else. But this is likely to be a one-off rather than a recurring situation. On the other hand, refusing to perform civil partnerships isn't likely to be a one-off, so would be more difficult to fudge with a bit of flexibility.

My recollection is that, in the UK, the term "civil partnership" was deliberately chosen to differentiate a same-sex union from a marriage (and hence avoid the term "gay marriage" as a legal concept). A registrar who believes that marriage must by definition be between a woman and a man could therefore rationalise performing civil partnerships by saying "they are not really marriages."

santing

What is involved in registering a civil partnership? Is there a ceremony? Or is it just signing a legal document?
If registering a civil partnership is like registering a birth, I don't think I would object to it. However, if it is anything like the current civil mariage, I think I couldn't do it.

--amadeus--

I think the best analogy is the policeman one.

A traffic cop recruited in the 80s cannot now issue tickets in mph since the law now measures speed in kph. Even if a traffic cop thinks that a particular section of road could have a higher speed limit he is duty bound to apply the law, no matter what his personal opinion. And even if that law has changed since they took up th ejob.

A registrars job is not to decide who can or cannot marry or to pass judgement - it is to conduct the ceremony according to the laws of the land. What a registrar does (the actual job description) has not changed.

Another analogy - lets assume a man has spent years working in a department store selling mens underpants. He only ever deals with men (or women buying for men) but suddenly it becomes fashionable for teenage girls to wear mens undies. Our salesman might think this is stupid and wrong but can he refuse to sell the girls the pants? After all his job is teh same, his product is teh same its just the consumer that has changed.

JimiTime

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I think the best analogy is the policeman one.

A traffic cop recruited in the 80s cannot now issue tickets in mph since the law now measures speed in kph. Even if a traffic cop thinks that a particular section of road could have a higher speed limit he is duty bound to apply the law, no matter what his personal opinion. And even if that law has changed since they took up th ejob.

A registrars job is not to decide who can or cannot marry or to pass judgement - it is to conduct the ceremony according to the laws of the land. What a registrar does (the actual job description) has not changed.

Another analogy - lets assume a man has spent years working in a department store selling mens underpants. He only ever deals with men (or women buying for men) but suddenly it becomes fashionable for teenage girls to wear mens undies. Our salesman might think this is stupid and wrong but can he refuse to sell the girls the pants? After all his job is teh same, his product is teh same its just the consumer that has changed.

Again, all objections are not equally valid, and should be dealt with on merit. Just because one objection by someone in one field may be deemed unreasonable, does not mean an objection by someone to something else in another field is unreasonable too.

JimiTime

santing wrote: »

What is involved in registering a civil partnership? Is there a ceremony? Or is it just signing a legal document?
If registering a civil partnership is like registering a birth, I don't think I would object to it. However, if it is anything like the current civil mariage, I think I couldn't do it.

AFAIK, It is for all intents and purposes a civic wedding ceremony. You say if this is the case you don't think you could do it. So the question is, how do you think the employer should deal with you?

rainbow kirby

JimiTime wrote: »

AFAIK, It is for all intents and purposes a civic wedding ceremony. You say if this is the case you don't think you could do it. So the question is, how do you think the employer should deal with you?

If you work as a civil registrar, then performing civil partnerships will form part of your job. Religion is mentioned nowhere there. If you're unwilling to perform part of your job due to religious beliefs, your bosses should fire you and find somebody who will perform all the work expected of someone in that role.

JimiTime

rainbow kirby wrote: »

If you work as a civil registrar, then performing civil partnerships will form part of your job. Religion is mentioned nowhere there. If you're unwilling to perform part of your job due to religious beliefs, your bosses should fire you and find somebody who will perform all the work expected of someone in that role.

Well I doubt many people who became registrars a few years back expected they'd be doing homosexual weddings. How could they have forseen that the law would abandon a position its held since the birth of the nation? As I said to others, I find the above position extremely cold. If someone takes a job knowing that this is part of the job, then fair enough. However, someone who has been a registrar for 16 years, IMO, should be accomodated if the redefinition of their role clashes with their Christianity. That assumes that the registrar is not 'protesting', but rather wants to carry on the other multitudes of tasks a registrar would do, but simply wishes to avoid the one role they cannot do. I personally think that is the most reasonable thing to do.

rainbow kirby

JimiTime wrote: »

Well I doubt many people who became registrars a few years back expected they'd be doing homosexual weddings. How could they have forseen that the law would abandon a position its held since the birth of the nation?

The social landscape in this country has changed a lot since you became a registrar - for the better.

JimiTime wrote: »

As I said to others, I find the above position extremely cold. If someone takes a job knowing that this is part of the job, then fair enough. However, someone who has been a registrar for 16 years, IMO, should be accomodated if the redefinition of their role clashes with their Christianity.

There is no religion involved in performing civil ceremonies. You are employed to carry out the law of the land - which will include civil partnership (which still doesn't provide full equality with straight couples, but that's a whole other thread). If you place the law of your religion over the law of the land, and you want the right to discriminate enshrined, go work for a church. It doesn't matter how long you've been working there, if you cannot perform your full role then your employers should find somebody who will.

JimiTime wrote: »

That assumes that the registrar is not 'protesting', but rather wants to carry on the other multitudes of tasks a registrar would do, but simply wishes to avoid the one role they cannot do. I personally think that is the most reasonable thing to do.

Civil institutions are for ALL people, not just straight people. They should not accomodate discrimination.

JimiTime

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The social landscape in this country has changed a lot since you became a registrar - for the better.

I'm not a registrar. Its hypothetical. There was a registrar in England that was sacked after 16 years of service because of this, again though, I'm not sure how she handled the scenario. I'm just wondering on principal how people find it.

There is no religion involved in performing civil ceremonies.

I know, I was married in Marlybone registry office.

You are employed to carry out the law of the land - which will include civil partnership (which still doesn't provide full equality with straight couples, but that's a whole other thread). If you place the law of your religion over the law of the land, and you want the right to discriminate enshrined, go work for a church. It doesn't matter how long you've been working there, if you cannot perform your full role then your employers should find somebody who will.


Civil institutions are for ALL people, not just straight people. They should not accomodate discrimination.

I find the above very cold and uncaring. If the law can't see the impact such changes can have, or can, but handle it so coldly, then I would not support such a change. Its all well and good dealing with homosexuals concerns and lobbies, but accomodations should be made for those who may be exposed by the changes. That to me, would be the fair solution. If this is not something people like yourself would do, but rather be cold in the execution of change then I suppose I will speak out against civil union. If it comes to voteing, I will exercise a vote against it. Not much more I can do.

By the way, they do discrimate. A person who wishes to marry three women, can't. A person who wishes to marry their brother, can't. Thats discrimination, but its discrimination that most of us accept. Up until recently, homosexuality was against societies concience too and such discrimination was also acceptable. Of course, if I had no issue with homosexuality but I did with incest and became a registrar i would be fine. Of course, 20 years up the road, if I am told I must do weding ceremonies for incestuous couples due to more redefining I'll have an issue. In such a circumstance, again I would not advocate the cold approach that you promote. It is quite easy to empathise and work out an arrangement that suits all parties. Thats my opinion anyway.

krudler

I'm not a registrar. Its hypothetical. There was a registrar in England that was sacked after 16 years of service because of this, again though, I'm not sure how she handled the scenario. I'm just wondering on principal how people find it.

er, you could have mentioned that in the original post, you said "Im a registrar" not "I read a story about a registrar and want peoples opinions" I'm pretty sure everyone who posted on here thought you meant this was about affecting you personally.

not wanting people to be happy in spite of their sexual orientation? not very christian at all tbh.

JimiTime

krudler wrote: »

er, you could have mentioned that in the original post, you said "Im a registrar" not "I read a story about a registrar and want peoples opinions" I'm pretty sure everyone who posted on here thought you meant this was about affecting you personally.

Well it doesn't actually matter now does it?

not very christian at all tbh.

Krudler wrote:

its not whether I'm worthy to be loved by god, its whether god is worthy to be accepted by me, and he isnt, being that to his most ardent followers hes a masochistic bastard.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64873125&postcount=1

Krudler wrote:

Thanks for proving exactly why religious types are crackpots
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64880428&postcount=24

Krudler wrote:

look just believe in.... the stupidly petty deity who gets annoyed when people flirt with other gods like a drunk jealous girlfriend in a pub.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64929818&postcount=177

Thanks for the advice Krudler, but I don't think I'll pay much attention to your view on what a Christian should do.

santing

Madam, – As the Civil Partnership Bill passes through the Dáil, many of us within evangelical churches in Ireland are profoundly concerned.
We believe from God’s word that the sole context for all sexual activity is to be within a marriage union between one man and one woman. The Bible is clear that all sexual activity outside of this state is sinful, including homosexual practice. We also believe that one can hold these beliefs and still treat all people lovingly and with respect, while at the same time not endorsing their lifestyle choices.
Because the proposed legislation imposes a €2,000 fine and up to six months imprisonment on a registrar who refuses to facilitate a civil partnership we believe that this is a direct attack upon freedom of conscience and religion. Proprietors of guest houses and BB establishments may similarly be subject to penalty.
Our concerns are based on sincerely held religious convictions and we believe that, in accordance with normal good practice, in the framing of the Bill the Government should respect freedom of conscience and religion.
We therefore call upon Dermot Ahern TD, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to move to protect freedom of conscience and religion for Christians employed in the registry service and hospitality sector. – Yours, etc.
Pastor PAUDGE MULVIHILL, Calvary Church Westport;
ANDREW COMPTON,Midleton Evangelical Church;
Rev MICHAEL J WALSH,Grace Community Church, Roscommon;
Pastor MERVYN SCOTT, Youghal Baptist Church;
WILLIAM O’MAHONEY, Cove St Christian Fellowship, Cork;
JONATHAN McCRACKEN, Tramore Bible Church;
Pastor MATTHEW BRENNAN, Clonmel, Co Tipperary;
KEITH CHIPPERFIELD, South Hill Evangelical Church, Dublin;
BEN SANTING, Corner Church Tuam;
STUART CHIPPERFIELD, South Hill Evangelical Church, Dublin;
BILLY HAMILTON, Covenant Fellowship, Galway;
Pastor DAVE MARTIN, Immanuel Church, Dublin;
Pastor BRIAN DUFFIELD, Newbridge Bible Church;
Pastor TONY SIMPSON, The Upper Room Church, Cork;
KEN COWPAR,
JOHN STANFIELD,
DAVID STEVENS, Mallow St Christian Fellowship, Limerick;
Pastor MICHAEL D TARDIVE, Laois Bible Church, Portlaoise
Pastor VINCENT GANNON, Christian Fellowship Church, Dublin,
C/o Rowan Drive,
Castlebar, Co Mayo.

santing

JimiTime wrote: »

AFAIK, It is for all intents and purposes a civic wedding ceremony. You say if this is the case you don't think you could do it. So the question is, how do you think the employer should deal with you?

I would either come to an agreement with my employer (there are multiple registrars, so I might be excempt from doing Civil Partnerships) or be searching for another job.

Gurgle

santing wrote: »

We believe from God’s word that the sole context for all sexual activity is to be within a marriage union between one man and one woman.

There is no mention of sexual activity in the ceremony of civil marriage.

We also believe that one can hold these beliefs and still treat all people lovingly and with respect, while at the same time not endorsing their lifestyle choices.

Good, do your job.

Because the proposed legislation imposes a €2,000 fine and up to six months imprisonment on a registrar who refuses to facilitate a civil partnership we believe that this is a direct attack upon freedom of conscience and religion.

But that wouldn't be treating people with love and respect, that would be discriminating against them for their sexual orientation.

Its like any job, you can do it or you can quit. If you have religious beliefs dictating that you must discriminate based on sexual orientation, then you must choose between your job and your conscience.

Yes its a handy number, but surely your beliefs are more important?

If you want an apt analogy, consider Jews who were work in McDonalds.
Can they refuse to put bacon on the burger and expect to keep their jobs?

johnfás

This really is a complete red herring.

There is a letter to the same effect in today's Irish Times from a group of Evangelical church leaders. Interesting to note that their position is entirely at odds with that of the Evangelical Alliance.

This arises from a warped notion of what a conscientious objector is, and what it is in fact a registrar might be objecting to. Rather than providing a protection for Christians, the rhetoric coming off this group of people allows space for a confounding of discrimination against Christians. Applying their logic, it would be perfectly reasonable for a registrar to refuse to register two Christians who decide to get married at a registry office on the basis of their dislike of the Christian faith.

Let us turn to what Civil Partnership is not and what a registrar does not do. First, civil partnership has nothing to do with sexual activitity. The State does not endorse, or indeed condemn, any form of sexual activity inside or outside of a relationship. The issue is entirely moot as the State is neutral. Secondly, the registrar to a civil marriage or a civil partnership, does not bless or in any other way endorse those two people who are entering into such a partnership.

The reality is that the simple role of the registrar is as follow. You attest that on a particular date, in a given place, two persons to whom there is no legal impediment presented before the registrar, a person acting on behalf of the State, and that the registrar, knowing of no legal impediment, registered the fact that these two persons entered into a particular contract as set out in law. That is it. Nothing else. You provide no more a blessing of their relationship than the Garda who stamps your passport does of what activity you will get up to on holidays. The role is synonymous. The Garda attests that on a certain day, one fulfilled the legal criteria for a passport. He has no interest in what purposes you will put that passport to.

Ickle Magoo

What next, JW doctors refusing to give blood transfusions? Racist teachers refusing to teach black students because 16 yrs ago when they first joined the school there were no black students?

It's a ridiculous expectation. Much as I feel for anyone who's beliefs are at odds with some aspect in their life forcing them to make a life-changing decision, trying to force a public service job to be moulded around personal prejudice is completely unreasonable.

If someone wants to marry people and pick and choose who those people are based on any other criterion than the law specifies, then they should become a pastor of some sort. Public sector jobs, paid from state coffers, is no place for minority prejudice of any discription.

johnfás

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Public sector jobs, paid from state coffers, is no place for minority prejudice of any discription.

Having just broadly agreed with your point, and your agreeing with mine above, it may come as a surprise that I disagree with you on this point. There is plenty of space in a society of plurality for minorities to be given protection by the State, including with funding by the State. Upholding the constitutional choices by parents being an obvious example. However, the situation outlined above is not synonymous with these sort of situations. Therefore it must be distinguished. The State provides that marriages can be registered in a religious context, all clergy are entitled to act in the role of civil registrar in their own church. However, that is not what happens at a civil registry office. At a civil registry office the State provides an open door to any person who fulfils the criteria set out in law, to have a few forms stamps and to benefit from the protections and tax advantages given in recognition of that relationship. There is no blessing. I think it is unwise to conflate the idea of general funding which might go to minority specific groups (who are also taxpayers) with what we expect from services which are purely public in nature. You may of course be against both instances, but they are quite separate.

What I say in this post is clearly more suited to another thread. However, lest my position be unclear I thought it wise to place it on the record.

Ickle Magoo

johnfás wrote: »

I think it is unwise to conflate the idea of general funding which might go to minority specific groups (who are also taxpayers) with what we expect from services which are purely public in nature. You may of course be against both instances, but they are quite separate.

I wasn't trying to conflate the two in this post...my point was that the civil service shouldn't be bending over backwards to accommodate personal prejudice of an individual in the same way that is acceptable for a private sector marriage officiate - they are employed by the state to provide a specific service according to the law, nothing else.

Whether state coffers should be used to fund bodies who are prejudiced against minorities, ie, irish education, is an argument for another day. :cool:

sbsquarepants

At the risk of sounding overly blunt, i think you just need to drag yourself into the real world. 16 years ago things were different, just as they will be 16 years from now. Society evolves and laws inevitably change to suit it. Simple fact is you don't have the right to decide which ceremonies you'll take and which you wont, anymore than a bus driver for example can decide not to let gays on his bus, or a waiter refuse to serve blacks in a restaurant.
The analogy of the jew working at mcdonalds summed it up perfectly, this is your job, if you refuse to do it, you will be sacked and in my opinion rightly so.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, all objections are not equally valid, and should be dealt with on merit.

What is the "merit" of this objection? That it is religious in nature?

Zombrex

johnfás wrote: »

Applying their logic, it would be perfectly reasonable for a registrar to refuse to register two Christians who decide to get married at a registry office on the basis of their dislike of the Christian faith.

Not only that but it gives precedence for any registrar to refuse to marry anyone for any reason they like and the registry office has to accommodate such behavior by finding a different registrar to perform the job.

What the State can't do, unlike some around here, is decide that a religious reason is a better reason to object to this than any other reason. If they accommodate one personal reason they have to accommodate all of them.

This sort of nonsense, this lets just make an exception for religion, is exactly why secularization is important.

johnfás

Wicknight wrote: »

This sort of nonsense, this lets just make an exception for religion, is exactly why secularization is important.

Not really. It is an argument for why those engaged in the provision of purely public services should not be allowed to discriminate between the recipients of such services.

It is quite separate to the 'secularist agenda' which is a rather ill defined agenda, mainly based simply on a discriminatory dislike of people who are diffierent. It is generally not reflective of what happens in most secular countries.

Such people pay taxes. Such people have rights. The issue of education has been raised above in the context of this secularlist agenda. Well, the European Convention on Human Rights upholds the rights of parents to have their children educated in religious schools. This is a right which is upheld in every European country by way of public funding. Even secular France pays the salaries of teachers in religious schools. The same is true in Germany.

You are conflating separate issues, which has not got a huge amount to do with the modern secularist agenda.

Zombrex

johnfás wrote: »

Not really. It is an argument for why those engaged in the provision of purely public services should not be allowed to discriminate between the recipients of such services.

Which is secularization

johnfás wrote: »

It is quite separate to the 'secularist agenda' which is a rather inept and ill defined agenda, mainly based simply on a discriminatory dislike of people who are diffierent. It is generally not reflective of what happens in most secular countries.

I've no idea what the "secularist agenda" is, other than the obvious, wanting secular laws, which is pretty much exactly what you said above.

Ickle Magoo

johnfás wrote: »

The issue of education has been raised above in the context of this secularlist agenda.

Only in terms of nationwide state education, part funding for minority private institutions I have less issue with. It's the state funded, public servant wishing to be allowed to discriminate that is wrong in both instances.

hivizman

I liked the comparison with serving bacon at McDonald's suggested by Gurgle and sbsquarepants. This reminded me of something that happened a few years ago when I was living in Melbourne. One of the northern suburbs of Melbourne (Broadmeadow) has a very high proportion of Muslims in its population. Some of these worked at McDonald's and others were regular customers. They were concerned that McDonald's was serving non-halal meat (in particular bacon but also their beef in general). Because the Muslim customers represented a significant part of the business, the local manager arranged for meat to be obtained from halal sources, and replaced pork bacon with beef bacon in the various burgers. This apparently increased turnover at the local McDonald's quite a bit. Customers who insisted on pig meat were advised to go to the McDonald's a couple of kilometres away.

This is, I suggest, a good case of compromise. It could have turned out very differently, with the McDonald's manager refusing to make any changes and as a consequence driving away some business. Perhaps a cynic would say that the changes were economics-driven rather than an attempt to balance rights and expectations of people of different religions, and perhaps it is less relevant when discussing the right of someone in a public office to refuse to undertake redefined duties imposed by changes in legislation.

In that situation, however, is the Christian registrar who refuses to perform civil partnerships trying to have things too easy? This debate reminded me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's notion of "costly discipleship", the idea that obedience to the teachings of Jesus, particularly in modern, secular societies, is not going to be painless, and that Christians will have to expect to make sacrifices to uphold their beliefs.

santing

johnfás wrote: »

This really is a complete red herring.
...
Let us turn to what Civil Partnership is not and what a registrar does not do. First, civil partnership has nothing to do with sexual activitity. The State does not endorse, or indeed condemn, any form of sexual activity inside or outside of a relationship. The issue is entirely moot as the State is neutral.

The civil partnership bill has restrictions on who you could enter a partnership with. These are similar to the restrictions for marriages and do indicate that a sexual nature of the partnership is the underlying reason for the partnership

johnfás wrote: »

Secondly, the registrar to a civil marriage or a civil partnership, does not bless or in any other way endorse those two people who are entering into such a partnership.

The registrar in a civil marriage creates a new entity: a married couple. The ceremony connected with this implies the "state blessing" and "endorsement" of this entity.

If the civil partnership registration is just that - a registration of an existing partnership - than I would agree that it can be performed by Christians who object to the nature of the partnership. However, as the civil partnership registration seems to include a ceremony, I don't think it can be expected to be performed by the same people who currently perform civil marriages. It is a completely new ceremony, and needs to be added separately in the job spec of these people.

johnfás wrote: »

The reality is that the simple role of the registrar is as follow. You attest that on a particular date, in a given place, two persons to whom there is no legal impediment presented before the registrar, a person acting on behalf of the State, and that the registrar, knowing of no legal impediment, registered the fact that these two persons entered into a particular contract as set out in law. That is it. Nothing else.

OR

JimiTime wrote: »

AFAIK, It is for all intents and purposes a civic wedding ceremony.

Which form does it take? It makes a lot difference.

johnfás

santing wrote: »

The registrar in a civil marriage creates a new entity: a married couple. The ceremony connected with this implies the "state blessing" and "endorsement" of this entity.

Inaccurate. The operative legislation is what gives rise to the new contractual relationship. This relationship arises from the particulars of the law being complied with. Namely, that in the presence of a body designated by the State (the Registrar) two parties without legal impediment, witnessed by at least two other parties, entered into this legally established civil contract. The role of the registrar is merely to attest that the formalities provided for in law have been complied with. It is quite apart from the role of a clergyman who in addition to attesting to the legal formalities (during the signing of the register) also provides a blessing to that relationship. The State provides no such blessing.

However, as the civil partnership registration seems to include a ceremony, I don't think it can be expected to be performed by the same people who currently perform civil marriages. It is a completely new ceremony, and needs to be added separately in the job spec of these people.

The word ceremony, as you seek to define it, is fundamentally misguided. The legal formalities for entering into a Civil Partnership will be such that it must be attested to publicly, in order that any legal impediments might be raised by a bystander. The public compliance with these legal formalities is the ceremony. It is not a religious ceremony and does not confer any blessing upon those entering into the civil contract either of marriage or of civil partnership. The Bill permits that the parties may engage in a broader ceremony at the time of registration. However, that does not imply that the registrar is the master of ceremonies or providing any particular blessing. It simply means that the parties can stand up and read a poem, or other such thing, if they so desire. The role of the registrar is, once again for the sake of clarity, simply to attest that the legal formalities have been complied with. That is the only role which a registrar has ever played. Those who wish their relationship to be blessed, endorsed or otherwise, may do so at a Church or other body.

If you are so convinced that it falls outside the job specification of civil registrars, they are welcome to take legal action on that basis. I think you will however find that you are erroneous in your assumption.

hivizman

In the UK, there is no requirement for a ceremony to register a civil partnership - it can simply be an administrative procedure where the two partners first of all give the required notice to the local Register Office and then attend the local Register Office, make certain declarations before witnesses, and sign the necessary documentation. However, the signing can be embedded in a more structured ceremony if desired. See UK Government's website.

As johnfás notes, a civil marriage or civil partnership is fundamentally society's way of conferring certain rights, and imposing certain obligations, on two people - it is only in a very loose sense "society's blessing" of the arrangement.

Fanny Cradock

hivizman wrote: »

I liked the comparison with serving bacon at McDonald's suggested by Gurgle and sbsquarepants. This reminded me of something that happened a few years ago when I was living in Melbourne. One of the northern suburbs of Melbourne (Broadmeadow) has a very high proportion of Muslims in its population. Some of these worked at McDonald's and others were regular customers. They were concerned that McDonald's was serving non-halal meat (in particular bacon but also their beef in general). Because the Muslim customers represented a significant part of the business, the local manager arranged for meat to be obtained from halal sources, and replaced pork bacon with beef bacon in the various burgers. This apparently increased turnover at the local McDonald's quite a bit. Customers who insisted on pig meat were advised to go to the McDonald's a couple of kilometres away.

This is, I suggest, a good case of compromise. It could have turned out very differently, with the McDonald's manager refusing to make any changes and as a consequence driving away some business. Perhaps a cynic would say that the changes were economics-driven rather than an attempt to balance rights and expectations of people of different religions, and perhaps it is less relevant when discussing the right of someone in a public office to refuse to undertake redefined duties imposed by changes in legislation.

In that situation, however, is the Christian registrar who refuses to perform civil partnerships trying to have things too easy? This debate reminded me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's notion of "costly discipleship", the idea that obedience to the teachings of Jesus, particularly in modern, secular societies, is not going to be painless, and that Christians will have to expect to make sacrifices to uphold their beliefs.

*tangent alert*

Have you any reading suggestions from Bonhoeffer's work?

*tangent alert*

hivizman

hivizman wrote: »

See UK Government's website.

An example of how the UK's General Register Office accommodates, up to a point, certain "minorities" appears on the website referred to above:

If you are giving notice in Wales, you may give this in English, or in English and Welsh. If notice is to be given bilingually, both the couple giving notice and the officer must be able to understand the Welsh language. All local authorities in Wales have at least one Welsh speaking officer or deputy.

It's interesting (a) that Welsh speakers are allowed to give notice in Welsh, but must still give notice in English as well, and (b) that those wanting to give notice in Welsh may be sure of a Welsh-speaking official. By implication, someone who has a conscientious objection to the use of Welsh in public dealings in Wales would be able to avoid having to deal with Welsh speakers.

johnfás

hivizman wrote: »

It's interesting (a) that Welsh speakers are allowed to give notice in Welsh, but must still give notice in English as well, and (b) that those wanting to give notice in Welsh may be sure of a Welsh-speaking official. By implication, someone who has a conscientious objection to the use of Welsh in public dealings in Wales would be able to avoid having to deal with Welsh speakers.

What a load of nonsense. More like, it is the policy of the Welsh Assembly that all public services be available in Welsh. However, that it is not a requirement of employment that all public servants be competent in speaking Welsh. To equate this to conscientious objection is fundamentally dishonest. You should know better, really. Making your argument out of things like that simply does a disservice, as the two are not related in the slightest. One relates to a competence, the other to a decision to refuse to provide a public service to another based on that other's particular characteristics.

hivizman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

*tangent alert*

Have you any reading suggestions from Bonhoeffer's work?

*tangent alert*

The book I was referring to is The Cost of Discipleship, which Bonhoeffer wrote in the 1930s.

I made some Bonhoeffer recommendations on the Favourite Christian Books thread - see here. Rather shocked to note that this was back in September 2008.

As the thread was degenerating into a discussion of the minutiae of register office practice (I agree, mea culpa! ), I thought it would be good to throw in a Christian reference.

Ickle Magoo

hivizman wrote: »

I liked the comparison with serving bacon at McDonald's suggested by Gurgle and sbsquarepants. This reminded me of something that happened a few years ago when I was living in Melbourne. One of the northern suburbs of Melbourne (Broadmeadow) has a very high proportion of Muslims in its population.

I think it's great that they had the foresight to alter their menu to suit the majority of their customers and employees but I think you must see that's a world away from altering a civil servants job specs to suit particular employees with a prejudice against a minority group that the law has been specifically altered to include so as not to discriminate against. :eek: