A small victory for the common man
At long last someone has stood up against the PC mafia. Lillian Ladele is a Christian and a registrar who refused to officiate at same sex unions because they went against her religious beliefs.
The paramilitary wing of the left cannot have that of course, someone not agreeing with their alternative agenda, so she was hounded and threatened with the sack. We even had the bizarre suggestion from Islington council that her religious stance was akin to refusing to marry black people - didn't anyone notice Miss Ladele was actually black?
Now at last a tribunal has stood up to the PC stormtroopers and pointed out the more fundamental right that Islington had tried to steamroller out of the way. You can't have equality if the rights of one group trample on the rights of another.
Older/Newer
« All together now . . . | And can we have the next idea right along here please? »
8 Comments
Leave a comment
Profile
Roger Clarke - Birmingham’s very own Grumpy Old Man on what gets right up his nose.
i agree with you roger but we have a big problem with the trendy left wing mafia who behave like the politacaly correct thought police in this country who most of them work in local goverment and seem to be employed to get offended on behalf of people who are not offended by lillian ladele views but think on this and i think its a important point if lillian was from the muslim faith would the same politacaly correct mafia be jumping down her throat then hmm i think not so well done to lillian ladele for taking on the thought police and commen sense prevailed....peter
How is it that this woman is allowed to let her private religious beliefs affect her professional conduct at work? Her behaviour is totally discriminatory and she should not be allowed to bring her selective attitude into the workplace. Islington Council is entirely correct, how would she feel if someone refused to marry a black couple because of some private belief. Miss Ladele is a biggot and should be disciplined by her employer
Well thank you for that excellent example of bigotry, nice to see religious tolerance is alive and well. You can collect your bucket of stones on the way out but don’t cast them until the whistle blows.
When it comes to marriage the lady in question, as far as I know, has never refused to marry anyone but when it comes to treating a civil partnership as a marriage, which legally it is not, then that is against her Christian beliefs. We are not talking about some obscure sect here, she merely holds the orthodox Christian view of marriage
As the law was brought in long after she started working as a registrar then forcing her to carry out civil partnership ceremonies constituted religious discrimination. When the compensation bill comes in then we will see how entirely correct Islington Council actually was - or should that be entirely politically correct?
Islington could have reached an accommodation but that is not the way of the left whose idea of compromise is either you agree with us or you must be some sort sort of whatever-ist showing tendencies of something or other-ism.
"has never refused to marry anyone"
That is quite an interesting fact, if true... orthodox Christian belief is that marriage is "that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others" (these are her own words). Since nearly 40% of marriages involve at least one person who is divorced, then it seems very likely that at some stage she must have been willing to preside over civil marriage services of couples who were, in her orthodox Christian view, adulterers. It's not at all relevant to the case, but it does interest me that she is able to pick and choose what she views as intolerably sinful.
The real fact of the matter is that her (effective) new employer acted disgracefully in not following up her complaint: whether they thought it valid or not, they should have followed their own procedures. Two of her colleagues also put details of her case on an internet forum. Again, that was a deplorable act.
"has never refused to marry anyone"
That is quite an interesting fact, if true... orthodox Christian belief is that marriage is "that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others" (these are her own words). Since nearly 40% of marriages involve at least one person who is divorced, then it seems very likely that at some stage she must have been willing to preside over civil marriage services of couples who were, in her orthodox Christian view, adulterers. It's not at all relevant to the case, but it does interest me that she is able to pick and choose what she views as intolerably sinful.
The real fact of the matter is that her (effective) new employer acted disgracefully in not following up her complaint: whether they thought her complaint valid or not, they should have followed their own grievance procedures. Two of her colleagues also put details of her case on an internet forum. Again, that was a deplorable act.
Having never spoken to Lillian Ladele I have no idea what her view is on divorce but as no one has been shouting from the rooftops about it then it is probably safe to assume it is not a problem.
The issue comes down to the concept of marriage and the Christian view, and indeed the view of the vast majority of world religions, that it is between a man and a woman.
A civil partnership between couples of the same sex is a legal agreement but it is not a marriage, although it is commonly referred to as a gay wedding. And this has been the point in that Miss Ladele does not feel she is able to officiate at a ceremony which is being treated as a same sex wedding, effectively being asked to legitimise something which is against her beliefs.
She's black, so what? Did she notice there are gay people around before spouting her discriminatory views?
Missing the point a bit there, Bob. The fact she is black is only relevant when the council claim her stance is the same as refusing the marry black people.
That was a bit of a cheap shot in what is a very spurious argument as the relationship between same sex unions and marriage between black people is about as close as that between a piano and a trombone.
I don’t know Lillian Ladele but her view seems to be the same as that held, I am sure, by the majority of the population, that marriage is a term which relates exclusively to a relationship between a man and a woman. Nothing discriminatory about that. It is a word and a convention, or a moral obligation depending upon how religious you are, which everyone knows and understands.
If same sex partners wish to formalise their relationship fine, good luck to them. British legislation, like the vast majority of countries in the world who recognise same sex partnerships, falls short of calling such a partnership a marriage, presumably to avoid controversy, but tries to treat it as such which brings us back to pianos and trombones.
No matter how many times you call a piano a trombone it will still be a piano and no amount of PC posturing and legislation is going to change that - or the majorty view on marriage.
But to get back to Miss Ladele, the point at issue is her Christian belief and whether you agree with her or not her rights are just as important as those of a same sex couple.
Rights are like freedom of speech, if they are to mean anything then you have to defend all of them, not just the ones you agree with.