Christian registrar demoted in same-sex ceremonies dispute

I strongly believe that religion of any kind must be kept private and especially away from the work place. If people's beliefs mean that they cannot perform their job, then they should look for something else. It's utterly disgraceful that religion can in any way can allow carve out certain aspects of a job.

Semantics are fine but what happened to being professional and/or keeping a professional distance at work ?

Lawyers & in particular Barrasters don't have a choice if their diary is free then they have to represent the individual regardless of whether or not they 'personally' find that difficult ...

Quie reasonably, if unable to perform increased duties required for fear of descrimination then another post has been found - reasonable solution.

Nevertheless, I still don't understand the problem as a 'registry' is just that and a 'civil partnership' is not a religious 'mariage' but a legal contract !

Sooo, still not quit sure where 'faith' comes into it and discrimination does not ?

There are lots of people i would rather not deal with but I am not a judge and in terms of faith prefer to leave judgement to ultimate judge God who I actually think loves sinners and has always been able to 'separate the sins of the sinner from the person' a lot easier than intolerant mortals.

Very difficult this one as I don't agree with her stance but the terms and conditions of employment for registrars has changed. Same sex marriages can now be performed but couldn't previously and it could be argued that this is a change in conditions that due to her religious beliefs is unacceptable to her. Whether or not we agree we must be respectful of her beliefs or we're no better

Unfortunately for this registrar it clearly demonstrate her prejudice toward homosexual couples, but if she is prepared to live with that label that is her own choice and we must respect that in a democracy.

It is unfortunate that some elements of christianity are so inflexible and apparently so intolerant. We should celebrate life and love everywhere and if two same sex people wish to commit themselves to each other for life who has the right to deny them?

God help any couple getting married is what I say!

Well said Jake. You put the point very well.
The only thing I would add is that it is not all Christians who object to homosexuality but certain Christian sects, which does not affect Jake's analogy but does emphasise how marginalised these religious beliefs are.
I am CofE, Julian, and homosexuality is not against my religion. But then, CofE itself covers a wide range of different viewpoints.

The analogy with doctors and abortion is not a good one on several counts:

- Carrying out abortions is not essential to most doctors’ activity, whereas marrying people is an essential part of what a registrar does.

- A doctor may refuse to carry out abortions full stop, but a doctor cannot refuse to give the same treatment or care to homosexuals as he or she does to heterosexuals.

- Doctors are permitted to refrain from carrying abortions because they may believe it to be an act of killing. For the analogy to hold, a registrar would have to believe that by marrying people of the same sex they were actually participating in a homosexual act. But no-one is asking a Christian registrar to go to bed with another person.

What becomes apparent from the above is that some doctors believe that terminating a pregnancy is wrong and some may even equate it with murder. Partly for historical reasons, but mainly because doctors holding these views can still be excellent doctors, they are allowed to refrain from performing one particular act which in itself is morally repugnant to them. Furthermore, the act in question is peripheral to the professional activity of the vast majority of doctors.

But at the heart of this question is what the registrar is really opposed to. Deep down it is not the act of performing the marriage ceremony, but the act of sex between two people of the same gender which is morally repugnant to our registrar. By refusing to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony he or she is showing disapproval of homosexuality. Refusing to perform a service for people because one disapproves of their sexual orientation or way of life is discrimination, and discrimination cannot be tolerated in a public servant. A Christian registrar who refuses to marry homosexuals on the grounds that his or her religion condemns homosexuality has no more business being a registrar than a Hindu registrar who refuses to wed people who eat beef. If they are so set on performing marriage ceremonies which comply with their religious beliefs they should join their respective priesthoods.

Lynne Featherstone said that 'In the delivery of public services – you have to do the job and if there are elements of the job that you cannot do in all conscience – then it isn't the job for you'. This is clearly wrong - doctors have the right not to carry out abortions.

Just goes to show how difficult it actually is to be "non-judgmental" regardless of whether you are able to maintain a 'professional distance' in work as required in many vocational occupations involving people oriented services.

Of course, one should be able to separate the 'sin from the sinner' whether dealing with broken offending children or adults, different cultures or ethnic origins who may not have the same 'perceived' generic values and/or beliefs or behaviours as you yet in order to offer a truly 'pro-social' services being 'non-judgmental' is a necessary prerequisit of the professional role being played.

If you are unable to separate your 'personal ideologies' from your 'professional ideologies' you should not follow a career in public service especially in the law as you will be required to act for those who you may find abhorent yet are still entitled to be treated equally with equity and justice regardless of your own distinctions or prejudices.

Whateveer faith you may be or phylosophical sectarian or otherwise path you choose to follow if there is a God I'm sure he or she can do any judgement and perhaps it should best be left until then and in the mean time "may your God be with you".

My hubby raised a point about this the other night. I believe the rules regarding Same Sex marriages has only recently come about. I suppose it's possible when she chose her career it didn't impact on her own beliefs. Now it does.

However I agree with the point that if she's unwilling to do it now, she's in the wrong job.

I personally don't eat meat or fish, but will prepare it for others!

Lisa

A person should not be in a position that goes against their own beliefs or values, and as far as i'm concerned where there is no factual proof, just because you dont think its right, doesn't make it so.

It is what is lawful and legally binding that matters. If you are a Registrar and it is legal to marry people from the same sex then must just get on with it because its the law. Otherwise perhaps they should become a vicar for the CofE or whatever religion they are so then they can perform their duties and have some sort of backing according to beliefs.

Surely she is discriminating against somebody's sexual orientation. She should consider other people's feelings and genuinely held convictions and show some respect and compassion? Her Christian values are somewhat questionable.

Even allowing for the requirement to perform her public duty, surely as a Christian if the act offends she should turn the other cheek?