Well I just saw this article on the news in the Uk and I was wondering what everyone thinks?? http://www.24dash.com/news/Communit...ith-Islington-Council-over-civil-partnerships
I don't know if I agree with this or disagree with this. It's not life-threatening. Somebody else could easily do her job if its against her religion or whatever. However, if somebody refused medical services to a glbt person because of religious beliefs, I'd have serious problems with that. So where do we draw the line?
I'm more concerned about my Mum's view. She's generally very pro-gay rights and she's always been supportive of me, but she today said she doesn't agree with gay marriage. She says she thinks marriage is a special recognition of a straight couple's part in the relationship between men and women, and that gay people should make do with civil partnerships. :S This saddens me. I didn't think she believed so strongly in the male/female roles in a marriage, but clearly she thinks they're something special. Maybe, if gay marriage becomes legal and I ever want to get married, she'll change her view.
A civil partnership is pretty much identical to marriage in all but name. Regarding the article, I hope they appeal. The decision seems wrong to me. Her job now involves civil partnerships and she should do something else if she doesn't like it. This isn't like abortion, where it's right that people should be able to refuse to do certain things as part of their employment.
I saw this too. I'm confused though - I thought recent legislation meant that you couldn't discriminate in terms of goods and services based upon sexual orientation? Like how hotel owners or whatever can't not let gay people share a double room due to religious reasons. Or maybe because people could still have civil partnerships, they weren't being discriminated against? Maybe I'm missing something. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case though, what I do know is this: if I ever have a civil partnership, I do not want someone like her performing my ceremony. Maybe it works both ways. But what is interesting is that the ruling still presupposes that LGBT rights are something extra, something more than normal human rights. As in, absolutely no one would be able to argue, if such a religious belief existed, that they could not marry two people because they were both of a different race: that would be seen as racist (quite rightly). But homophobia seems to be in a different category than racism, as in what this tribunal is saying is that (in my eyes at least): "We accept that religious belief is a valid excuse for homophobia". But there is (and obviously quite rightly) no valid excuse for, say, slavery, which religion has in the past been used to defend. Anti-slavery would no longer be seen as a valid religious belief, if that makes sense, and racism would never be accepted as a religious belief that could be institutionally upheld. I don't know if I'm making sense here, but I don't know if any of you know what I mean? I'm going in circles here...
I'm really sorry to hear this. I know your mum's been very supportive, and it must really have been like a kick in the stomach to hear her say that (*hug*).
This seemed to be the rationale of the tribunal but I don't agree with it. What if there's a situation where this kind of thing prevents a couple from entering into a partnership? I don't think the rule of this case can be applied consistently.
While I agree that people should have religious freedom I don't agree that because of her beliefs she should be exempt from preforming certain duties of her job. One quote from the article that she said that upsets me is this: "Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs." If that is the argument then it should go both ways. While the issue of gay rights shouldn't be reason to harass people over their religious beliefs then religious beliefs definately shouldn't be a reason to harass people because they are gay. As we know religion is often, althought not always, the source cited when people do harass others over being gay and gay rights.
What? I don't get it, they weren't even bullying religious beliefs, they were trying to stop the funny lady person from not allowing the civil partnership that so many people deserve. It's the other way around.
When we passed our anti-discrimination laws in Oregon we had to include a clause saying that religious institutions and organizations associated with religions would be allowed to "discriminate" but it doesn't make sense for an employee in the government to get away with that. Maybe she should quit and be the church secretary.
She's a civil servant, which means she serves the local government. If the local government says people in her post need to be able to perform a certain service, then I think it's more than reasonable to make her do so. Go do what Becky said, and have a position in the church if you're going to behave poorly like that.
it was a goverment job from the sounds of it. regardless of it being a goverment job or not, you are required to do your job, and if this is in your job description, you either do it, or you ask to be transfered to a different department. it was like a ex friend who worked in a bookstore nearby who was a christian fundementalist *something i learned first hand when i was invited to his church* and he was asked to restock the religous section, and he refused to handle books that were not about chirstanity saying they were posessed by satan and would contaminate his pure soul. there was no one else to do it, they asked him again, pointing out that it would only take him 5 minutes and everyone else were working in other parts of the store, and he quit right there. they never threatened his job, and he tried to sue borders for 1.5 million dollors for emotional distress, and discrimination. it was in his job description to restock and keep shelves organized for buyers to find the books they wanted easily. people have to understand that your religon is suposed to be made seporate when you accept your job... it is the same for how many companys have a policy that your sexuality, no matter what it is, is left at the door when you enter. weither you are gay or straight, you are not to impose yourself on others while you are on the job. some might find that harsh, but you dont go to work to practice your faith or your sexuality. you go to work to do the job you were hired for.
its a part of her job. if she cant handle all the aspects of her job, then she should get a new one. to me its like a GLBT person in a store being told, i dont want to serve you, ask another person.
SO I am just goign to throw this out there, lets say I get married in Canada, then I move to the states, a state where gay marriage is not legalized, does that mean that they won't consider us a married couple? If a gay couple got married in California, could they move back home without losing the title?
I don't see where it says that granting a "Civil Union" to a couple, on the basis of providing tax benefits to a pair of people who love each other, in any way conflicts with her religious views. I can see where priests may deny their services to actually marry a gay couple, under god, that is acceptable to me, but what she did is not. She is not a nice woman, and you would think that with age comes wisdom. She openly discriminated against gays and won, this is something I do not like to see. I hope this decision is appealed. I'm not saying she should be fired, but she should be warned that this is her job, and by not doing it, she is not effectively serving the people, she is not doing what she is supposed to do. I think she will realize her error and hopefully correct herself. If not, and she were to pull this again, then yes I think she should get sacked.
If you lived in any state besides California, Massachusetts, or New York, your marriage would not be recognized. And in New York the gay marriage would have to be done out of the state because New York doesn't allow gays to get married, it only recognizes their relationship if done somewhere else.
