Is This Right!

[alchemi2]

I don't know if anyone else will have followed or even heard this story outside the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7409537.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7499248.stm

Whilst I'm not particularly against Gay rights, although I dislike the term and I agree that people should be allowed religious freedom (within reason).

I find it ridiculous that someone can refuse to uphold the law as a public servant and yet be reinstated in their post.

This ruling could have far reaching consequences not only for Gays but for everyone.

[Egeides]

I don't know, but I suppose that her job is probably constituted of more tasks than just that one. I guess they'll exchange that specific task to someone around. I'm not sure why or how it made all its way to the court :P

[Anathema]

There's been a discussion about this in the Netherlands, though I don't know what came out of it. It's not a problem in larger towns, but suppose there are only 1-3 for the job in the same town and they all have a problem with it. What if they all refuse?

Personally I consider state-licenced marriage and the church ceremony two different things, and civil servants shouldn't whine about being unwilling to perform the former. It wouldn't hurt if legally speaking all such relationships were "civil unions" and the label "marriage" is done away with entirely.

I have no problem with religious organisations refusing to carry out ceremonies for gay couples, though.

[Caid Ivik]

You mean that an organisation has the right to refuse, but an individual hasn't? A "civil servant" is not a slave, he has his private reason.

[Andrew]

So is this like when pharmacists can refuse to give out the plan b drug to prevent pregnancy because of religious reasons? Even though with plan b there is no baby or anything and only works within 24-48(?) hours after sex?

Refusing to provide service based upon sex, religion, sexual orientation, age etc is not allowed in Canada. Charter of Rights and Freedoms biatch.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

[Anathema]

You mean that an organisation has the right to refuse, but an individual hasn't? A "civil servant" is not a slave, he has his private reason.

There have been muslims who work as cashiers in grocery stores who refuse to scan pork or alcohol, and let their collegues handle it. Private employers shouldn't refuse religious people for trivial reasons, and if they're considerate enough to forgive inconveniences that do impair their job performance that's the prerogative of the employer.

The state on the other hand is obligated to treat and serve all citizens equally; and if a civil servant thinks that this is incompatible with his own beliefs and it's to much trouble to accomodate them they should find other work.

For religious organisations though there's the freedom of congregation to consider; they shouldn't be forced to serve people who don't meet the standards or rules set for the members.

[Caid Ivik]

I can't see a difference between a muslim refusing to sell you alcohol and a christian bureaucrat refusing to marry gays. There are certain rules they have to obey to retain their job; and there are criteria for limits like disciplinary comissions or courts which set them - like the judge in this case. It seems that gays' demands were found unmatching (or exceeding) the offers of the institution.

[nemafakei]

It is not reasonable to apply for a job in the full knowledge that an intrinsic part of the job is something you have a religious objection to. The question is what constitutes an intrinsic part of the job.

On the other hand, the worker in question was subjected to a change in the type of employment. On those grounds, she is entitled to severance pay if the employer wished to terminate her employment. Yet, this was not the case being heard - the case was for compensation for harassment.

"She said she was picked on, shunned and accused of being homophobic for refusing to carry out civil partnerships". It would be interesting to see the evidence for "picked on", as that seems to be the only one worth looking at. Accused of being homophobic is, er, a true accusation, and as for "shunned", does that mean her co-workers, some of whom may be gay themselves, are supposed to smile and pretend they're best of friends and that her prejudice isn't harming anyone?

Ultimately, though, there is a problem that the media and the law are trying to view all this as if things like cultural homophobia didn't exist as a force in society and that the only possible problems can be narrowed down to individuals. Bullying is part and parcel of a complex interrelationship between different power structures - religious, cultural, economic, political, and so on.

[Khan]

I can't see a difference between a muslim refusing to sell you alcohol and a christian bureaucrat refusing to marry gays. There are certain rules they have to obey to retain their job; and there are criteria for limits like disciplinary comissions or courts which set them - like the judge in this case. It seems that gays' demands were found unmatching (or exceeding) the offers of the institution.

The seperation of church and state is what is important. She is supposed to represent the state, not her church. The state says that homosexuals should marry so it is her job to marry them. If she wanted to carry out solely christian marriages she should have become a minister.

[Anathema]

I can't see a difference between a muslim refusing to sell you alcohol and a christian bureaucrat refusing to marry gays. There are certain rules they have to obey to retain their job; and there are criteria for limits like disciplinary comissions or courts which set them - like the judge in this case. It seems that gays' demands were found unmatching (or exceeding) the offers of the institution.

There is a difference, Caid. If a private employer decides to put up with an employee who whines about this or that being against his religion, the employer feels the damage in his own wallet. Depening on the difficulty of dealing with it, the employer could be justified in sacking it but he's free not to.

If a civil servant on the local level doesn't want to marry gay couples and an additional one must be hired for two or three gay couples each year, the state is pissing away taxpayers' money.

[Caid Ivik]

In how far does marrying a gay couple benefit the financial politics? If this practice would be financially so problematic, then I wouldn't "piss away" a coin on it any more. Like the state doesn't usually provide free toys. I personally think the state is more than just a flow of taxes, but that seems to me to be the judge's point.

[alchemi2]

Civil servants or public servants as they are often referred too now, are supposed to enact their role without favour or prejudice, to all equally under the law.

Their own personal views are not supposed to impact on their positions, so whilst the woman in question should not have been harassed, bullied or shunned at work as her colleagues are bound by the same principles.

She should have faced disciplinary action for failure to comply with those principles and failure to carry out her duties.

The ruling allowing her to refuses to perform civil partnerships, opens the doors for other fundamentalist issues to rear their ugly heads and be imposed within the civil services.

[Edric O]

The job of a civil servant is to uphold the law. If your religion conflicts with upholding the law, don't become a civil servant.

Any civil servant who refuses to uphold the law for any reason - religious or otherwise - is a person who refuses to do his job. As such, he should be sanctioned, and if he keeps refusing he should be fired.

You mean that an organisation has the right to refuse, but an individual hasn't? A "civil servant" is not a slave, he has his private reason.

No, you do NOT have the right to refuse to do your job and still keep that job. Sure, a civil servant has private reason like everyone else. But if your private reason conflicts with the law, don't take a job where your role is to uphold the law. Nobody forces you to be a civil servant, after all.

What would you say about a policeman who refused to arrest a person who did something illegal because his "private reason" doesn't agree with the law? This is exactly the same thing.

[Caid Ivik]

The question was here: is that her job to marry them? And judge said no.

[Anathema]

Another article With a little more information.

Well, good for her I suppose. I agree with Nema that people who had been civil servants before gay marriage became a fact in the UK would find themselves confronted with ethical dillemas that they couldn't have foreseen. I think older employees should be granted some latitude, but new ones shouldn't and should be told in no uncertain terms what they're signing up for.

[Edric O]

The question was here: is that her job to marry them? And judge said no.

That's not what the judge said. This woman had a job as a marriage registrar. Of course it was her job to marry people.

Well, good for her I suppose. I agree with Nema that people who had been civil servants before gay marriage became a fact in the UK would find themselves confronted with ethical dillemas that they couldn't have foreseen. I think older employees should be granted some latitude, but new ones shouldn't and should be told in no uncertain terms what they're signing up for.

I'm not sure I can agree with that. Certainly not as a general rule. The state passes new laws all the time, and there is always a chance that one of those laws might go against the personal beliefs of some civil servants. If we applied your logic consistently, no civil servant should be required to uphold any law that was not yet in place when he first took his job. That would be unworkable.

[Anathema]

I suppose, but I think that the introduction of gay marriage stands out in this regard. It's certainly of another order than say, introducing new prerequisites for construction permits.

Assuming that there's the possibility of appeal agains this "Central London Employment Tribunal", I don't think that we've heard the last of this yet.

[Caid Ivik]

That's not what the judge said. This woman had a job as a marriage registrar. Of course it was her job to marry people.

Then they both agreed that it was not a "marriage"...

[Anathema]

I find it pretty hard to believe that the judge would be so arrogant as to place himself above Parliament, who approved of the whole gay marriage business. More likely the judge thought that the local government should ensure that the registrar only needed to conduct straight marriages, though it would be helpful to see the text of the ruling.