Christian registrar loses right to challenge ruling

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

ok - my last comment on this too. It's not about educating certain groups to "make sure that they put themselves forward for the “job” ", it's about encouraging people on the selection panelsto choose them preciesly because they are the right people for the job - encouraging selection panels to look beyond their own prejudices which is what stops them from looking at real capability and, in some cases, means that the wrong person is appointed or promoted because they fit a corporate style or expectation. The education is needed on both sides.

Of course it matters that there aren't enought female or Black judges. While we have an inately prejudiced and discriminatory legal system which allow men to get away with domestic violence because their wife was 'nagging' them but severely punishes women who fight back after years of systematic abuse, while we have a system that routinely and unashamedly picks on Black men in particular, we need to see them represented in the higher, decision taking levels of the judicial system. Extremes, I acknowledge, but not untrue.

W Allsop - some of your views are hilarious, many thanks! I appreciate I have grown up in a different generation with more progressive views but you appear in my opinion very much out of date. I only wish I had more time in the day to read your posts!

No need to draft essay responses as I won't post anything else, we are each entitled to our view and as long as the law falls on the right side as it has done in this case there's no need for me to spend time debating the issue.

Briefly, and hopefully for the last time; Why does it matter that there are not enough Black / Female Judges? Should it matter that someone is a different colour, or sex? Surely what we need is not more of any particular group - but more people who can do the job right.
It is not about being denied rights, but about being disproportionately disadvantaged in favour of someone else. No matter how you dress it up, purposefully discriminating in favour of someone (because they are female, black, gay or whatever) has to disadvantage someone else. And that is wrong. (same goes the other way round – Whites are not entitled to more help than Blacks, etc.)
If we went by statistics - demographically speaking - there would be less “black” personnel required - as there are less “black” people in the country compared to the majority being white (ONS 2001 survey 7.9% of pop being non-white domiciled in UK /www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=273). I do not care who gets the job, what bothers me is how.
As to the Gay registrar theory – “Gay’s” who have a theological objection to “straight” marriage have the right to say no. Black B&B owners can refuse White customers if they wish – I do not care, and nor should anyone else. This about complete civil liberty – the right to not be forced to do something against your will; being forced out of your job because you disagree with someone else’s political agenda is not the right way to go about this.
Tammy, you seem to have been bottle fed the social engineering party line that we need more women in power, that upper class twits are not fit to manage, that black is beautiful, etc. perhaps you could re-examine your motivation. I genuinely do not see the need to promote someone (e.g.) [woman] on the merit that they are that [woman] alone, we should be looking at the rounded person.
I agree that we need to make sure that women, ethnic minorities, sexual groupings, et-al. are educated to believe in themselves, and to make sure that they put themselves forward for the “job” I have no objection whatsoever to encouraging people on, what bothers me, and I do mean genuinely bothers me, is the promotion of “interest” groups. Cynically I may feel that Labour (example) only opened the door for women only “things” to buy more votes, rather than from conviction.
I would like to add that I object to being pigeon-holed into the “hate” group. My belief is that all men are indeed created equal and should be treated on how you find them. The hard part is making everyone else agree with me. That is where the education lies.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

I'm not sure you'd have the same sympathy for a gay man working as a registrar who did not want to particpate in heterosexual partnerships. Why is something right because it has been accepted for longer?

As I've said before, it's not perfect but a person's religious or personal beliefs do not belong in the workplace unless it is to refuse to carry out a job that would be deemed unlawful. Yes, that registrar should consider another profession if they cannot separate their personal beliefs from their professional practice. In fact, a civil ceremony is not even a religious ceremony so, one could argue it is not done 'in the eyes of God' but the 'eyes of the state'.

I don't believe it will heal itself - which is why Hitler and Stalin were so successful until the rest of the world stood up and yes, using violence, said no more! If we leave it to heal itself then the suffering will be so much greater.

Anecdotally, I was involved, a few years ago, in a scheme that introduces black and minority ethnic (BME) university students to mentors in senior management positions in large public and private sector organisations. This scheme was set up because evidence shows that BME graduates are disproportionately unsuccessful complared to their white counterparts, even when all other things are equal. It is not a job recruitment exercise but helps to boost the networking and interview skills of BME students who will, for the most part, have a tougher time getting a job. What touched me was one white, male, senior manager from a large (and still existing) bank in Canary Wharf, who said that, based on his experience as a mentor on the scheme, he knows that he will look at application forms differently and, only by being part of it did he recognise his own pre-existing prejudices. That, W, is the education part. If it hadn't been for equality legislation, we could not run the scheme - which is still in existence. And now, we have some senior BME managers as mentors, some of whom took part in similar schemes when they were students. If any black lawyer was helped through the door by this legislation that does not make them less capable, it recognises inbuilt, institutional prejudice that we sometimes don't even know we are displaying. There aren't yet enough black or female judges in the UK yet! The same goes for helping women through the 'glass ceiling'.

I'm not sure the British were totally without blame in Israel, but that would be to stray too much from the subject.

Christians, men and heterosexuals are not denied any rights. This is not about individuals it is about trends and statistics and supporting - those we have proof are not successful for no other reason than their personal characteristics. That extends now to white males in lower socio-economic groups so work is being done to raise aspirations and success rates for this group. It will never be perfect and some of us may at times feel the system is working against us but there is a bigger picture.

I am sensitive to the difficulties experienced by minority groups, and I agree that many people are underrepresented from within these groups in so many forums. However, that is still no reason to make them “more equal” than anyone else. It can never be right to starve one family so that another can get rich.
What we need is education, not legislation. Forcing someone to accept “black” people can only make them hate “black” people more. Promoting women just because they are women can only ever make men feel that women are not capable on their own. That is precisely what this “equality” law is doing – and it is storing trouble.
There are many talented (for example) female, black, and black female, lawyers – did they need equality legislation so that they could progress? I imagine all would deny any such implication.
Back to the registrar (who is responsible for this train of thought), has she been forced out of her job? How can that be right – she now can not provide for herself and family, what equality law covers her. As a minority – a person with a strong belief – she had a right to stand down from that [same sex marriage] job; that her employer was so incapable of accepting her legitimate argument is their fault and not hers. This situation is the same as demanding that a committed vegan Rabbi (there must be one somewhere) officiates at a Kosher slaughter. A direct conflict of interest. Again I use the term social engineering – as that is what this is, it is effectively using the fear of losing your job if you stick to your belief. Hitler had a similar ethos, same goes for Stalin – follow the party line or it’s off to the concentration camp – would you prefer to go back to those exalted days of human glory?
Tammy is so right to remind us that a mere 50 years ago you could see “no blacks” placards in B&B windows. I like to believe we have all grown up a bit since then. If you remember those signs (in this very country) were hot on the heels of the Windrush – an influx of Caribbean immigrants, a new experience for this country. It takes time for new things to become accepted. And again I applaud Tammy for pointing out that it took extreme political struggle to create our (not yet perfect) tolerant society – similar situation re- Gay rights. If you remember the fledgling Israeli’s bombing of British high command in Jerusalem, the murderous terrorists that brought the state of Israel into existence – would you recommend that we all follow that plan of action to get what we want? Hurting people (in whatever way) to get your point across is counterproductive. Hurting that registrar by denying her the right to withdraw her labour on religious grounds is offending the wider population by saying that whatever their beliefs may be they are not right – unless they conform to the social engineering project.
I liken this [human right] problem to the traffic congestion difficulties – no matter how many roads you build, no matter what pricing structure you put in place, someone will be hurt. The only solution to that congestion is to do nothing – in time, those who can not suffer it any more will stop driving – and the problem will heal itself. By making targets of Christians, or Men, or Heterosexuals by denying them rights to allow their opposite number to have theirs all you are doing is shifting the problem into another area. The problem is still there just in another county.

If ethnic minorities, gay people and women, among others, had been treated fairly by those with the power to do so then this legislation would not need to exist. It is precisely because they are under represented in many areas of life, not because they are not as capable or talented but simply because of their personal characteristics, that society does need to offer different avenues for recognition and success. And before someone tells me how many Black musicians there are - yes, there are, but they are still disproportionately represented in the accolades bestowed by the 'establishment'. I think people fail to acknowledge the pain and hurt that can be the real experience of people belonging to certain equality groups when they are disregarded.

Concerning quotes such as, "Gay people (and unmarried couples) may “bonk” where-so-ever they wish as long as they do not offend any-one." As I have said before, 50 years ago that would have read "Black people may..." and we wouldn't have batted an eyelid. Role on the time when gay couples and unmarried couples are as equal as everyone else - although as we're sadly still campaigning for equality on the ground of race and gender, I can see it being a long time coming.

Well said W it all makes perfect sense to me but unfortunately people’s interpretation of what is FAIR appears to be just as diverse as their views on common sense. Compound that with the agendas of some vested interest minority groups and those individuals crusading to free the downtrodden from the oppression of the mindless majority and, in some cases, you’re pushing against a firmly closed door.

Quote: "It's not a perfect world .... ..... it is about giving everybody a fair crack of the whip..." Exactly.
FAIR.
Being FAIR does not mean dismissing MEN from any chance of entering a race e.g. political seat, job interview, etc. It does not mean promoting the interests of Black musicians over those of White, and it does not mean Gay people are to be treated any differently than straight.
The registrar has a right not to participate in anything which offends her.
The B&B have a right not to allow Gay “bonking” in the next bedroom to theirs, or unmarried couples to share a bed either.
Men have a right to stand for election/promotion.
White musicians have a right to have their music promoted.
On the obverse –
Gay people have a right to get “married” (using a registrar, or church, which agrees).
Gay people (and unmarried couples) may “bonk” where-so-ever they wish as long as they do not offend any-one.
Women can equally compete for jobs, political seats, etc.
Black musicians can continue to mesmerise me with their fabulous performances.

What none of them can do, if we are indeed being FAIR, is have a better chance than the next bloke by using positively discriminatory social engineering to put them in the lead.

This post has been removed because it contravened our guidelines.

The reason the MOBO awards and female shortlists for MPs exist is precisely because there hasn't been fair and open competition. Men didn't choose women because they were women - nothing to do with competence. White people didn't vote for Black musicians. Look how long it took for a Black woman to win an Oscar for lead actress - Halle Berry in 2002, and any woman to win best director - Kathryn Bigelow in 2010. The establishment is still white, male and powerful.

It is only by supporting and encouraging women into senior positions that the playing field will begin to even out and women will be able to compete with men in the knowledge that their abilities will be considered fairly by a mixed panel.

As for B&Bs - yes, there are risks to allowing people into your house - anyone could be a thief, but a violent criminal who has served their time, is no longer a violent criminal and many paedophiles are out on licence which would prevent them from staying in a place where children live so there is likely to be protection in that instance. Noone can legislate for someone breaking the rules.

It's not a perfect world and I don't think we should ever be complacent about the legisaltion - it should be challenged - that is what will keep it effective and fresh, but it is about giving everybody a fair crack of the whip, not holding anyone back or restricting their freedom in their private life. It may, however, require moderation of behaviour in our working lives.

The case of a B&B is more difficult as they are not a business in the true sense of the word. They are peoples private homes which they chose to use to earn some money. If we try to treat them as as hotels, and allow the right of entry, it opens up a whole raft of issues. I've run a B&B. There have been a couple of occasions when I've declined to accept guests. I did this because I didn't want them in my house for my own reasons. When I admitted people, they had access to everything in my home. I do know of another B&B where things were taken by a guest. They were untracable afterwards and, because they were invited in, the insurance didn't pay out. Without the ability to refuse access, you could get the insane situation where a known peadophile HAS to be allowed to stay in a house with children or a violent criminal HAS to allowed into a victims home, just because they're B&Bs.
I suspect the law never thought about the small B&B's type of situation when the act was drafted. Hopefully, it will be ammended.
In the greater sense, anti discrimination laws are generally good but lead to inevitable conflicts where faiths and beliefs clash. Each belief should be equally otherwise one will feel vicimised. This is where legislation is a very blunt instrument and social acceptance is a far better solution.

John

I’m sorry, I don’t know what the answer is. However:
I do know it is wrong to force people to accept things they object to – e.g. same sex relationships under their [B&B] roof.
I do know it is wrong to allow some “pigs” to be more equal than others.
There is no justification for any law that allows one group to discriminate against another – even if that discrimination is passive – e.g. MOBO awards. All such legislation does is anger the people who are legally barred from joining in. Music of Black Origin that’s fine, but why do “they” have such special treatment – why can there not be a White folks music award?
The obvious conclusion is that Black people are allowed greater freedom than White people, which is discrimination.
Under 25’s are given special treatment in finding a way into work – which is fine, but older people need the same help.
Women must be given women only shortlists to be an MP, why? Are they incapable of fighting for their seat – if so, then they are not the people we want as MP’s.
Which ever way you cut it this is [positive] discrimination; it’s ok for gays, but not for straights, its fine for women but men are not so privileged, black police officers can have their own union but white officers could be jailed for suggesting they had theirs.
It is wrong to take the full pizza off one man to ensure another can be fed, the right answer is to give each an identical slice, they may remain hungry but will not starve to death.
This is social engineering, this is the government trying to homogenise the world, but in so doing those discriminated against (by the anti discrimination laws) are also left with: “They can feel isolated and unsupported by those [workers] who do not understand this need.” Men feel discriminated against when they can not enter a promotion exercise (because the Government wants more women in higher positions). Police feel under threat because a racist union is allowed to go unchecked. Christians fell undervalued when their faith is no longer a defence. Robbing Peter to pay Paul never works.

Living in a free society does not mean we must allow people who incite racist or discriminatory behaviour against others to have a free voice. That is where we draw the line. We have all sorts of freedoms which are regulated by laws providing boundaries to those freedoms eg. the speed we drive or the amount of noise we make.

Of course there is a need for, for instance, Black workers, women or gay men and women to have a forums in which they can meet. If not, they can feel isolated and unsupported by those workers who do not understand this need. Generally an opinion held by those with the power.

It's not social engineering, it's protection.

The B&B owners cannot refuse a gay couple because their choice was to open up a business which has to adhere to legislation. If they choose not to run a B&B then they can refuse whoever they want.

I cannot see the logic in this. Nobody is suggesting that by either performing a same sex partnership ceremony or by allowing a gay couple to stay in a B&B the registrar or B&B owners are condoning or particpating in anything that goes against their beliefs. They can continue to believe whatever they want. But by taking the decision to refuse to perform the ceremony or allow the cuple to stay, what they are doing is tantamount to hanging a sign on the door similar to those seen in the 1950s saying "Whites only. No Blacks." No-one, other than followers of Nick Griffin, can honestly want us to return to that!!

This law is in itself discriminatory, by its very existence it forces everyone to follow it to its conclusion - that all men are created equal. And all men are so; but, in that inclusion are those who are different, which this law singles out. Thereby discriminating against them.
Many have faith (of whatever denomination) which lays a moral duty upon them, the case above has its roots in this - here a religion discriminated against because the law does not allow its adherent to follow their faith. As with the B&B owners. If the homosexual act is abhorrent to a person then we have no right to make them suffer it - by condoning its progression (incidentally for those who suspect my morals - I have been to a gay friend's wedding - a great night). We then go on to the question of colour (I have many other than white skinned friends), White's are not allowed to have colour barred groups - BNP (disgusting as they are) Unions, Church groups, etc. But there is a black police officers union, there is the M(usic) O(f) B(lack) O(rigin) awards.
Surely, whatever we feel about it, people with a conviction about something have a right to follow their heart. Whilst this may mean we have to tolerate people who do not like dark skin, or people who hate gays, or detest other religions - that is their right. No amount of legislation will alter their "faith."
We live in a FREE society - that means that we must allow anti gay speakers to speak, that we must allow (BNP) anti black speakers their platform, we must allow this woman not to join two men in marriage, we must accept that there are those whose beliefs are different to the majority. I would support the right of one person to say what they feel, even if that feeling made me sick to my stomach, against the power of the majority. Hitler was a great speaker, he made his followers believe his ideology, in doing so he silenced the better natured of his countrymen and we all know how that turned out. While I agree that there are some in our society who have been cruelly discriminated against in the past, that is no excuse for discriminating against those who perhaps follow from that discrimination - if someone does not like Pakistanis then that is their problem, if someone does not like Gays that is their life-choice - it makes them poorer people (in my view), but that is who they are.
What the Gov't are trying to do in social engineering, is making targets of the very people they are trying to help. BNP are a rising force - partly thanks to these nut-jobs in office who "force" us to "like" immigrants. We either like or dislike people. The law already allows for action against people who behave in a violent manner, and has power under "slander" rules. Adding another tier to make people afraid not to employ a coloured person can only breed hatred, making someone hide their religious symbols in case it offends some other group can only make for greater hatred of those other groups. Forcing someone to perform an act which upsets them can only upset them further. If the choice is “do it” or “quit your job” – constructive dismissal springs to mind – anyone for a long drawn out legal battle?

My daughter was married in a civil ceremony by a Registrar and the stipulation was that there could be NO religious references - either in the wording of the ceremony itself or any music. It was a very meaningful ceremony and just the legalities were covered. God or religion didn't come into it.