A civil registrar who refuses to officiate at partnerships between same-sex couples, claiming that it is “sinful” and against her religion, has brought a legal case that could have implications for ceremonies conducted throughout the country.

Lillian Ladele, 47, a Christian, said yesterday that “as a matter of religious conscience” she could not perform civil partnerships for gay couples.

She has accused Islington council, in North London, of religious discrimination and victimisation because it asked her to perform the ceremonies as part of her £31,000-a-year job.

Employment lawyers said that the case, which has angered gay rights groups, could affect councils throughout the country. It is expected to lead to a landmark ruling over whether employees can be required to act against their consciences

More than 18,000 same-sex ceremonies are performed each year under the Civil Partnership Act, which came into force in December 2005.

Clare Murray, of the employment specialists CM Murray LLP, told The Times that Ms Ladele’s case could affect the way that councils throughout Britain organise their civil ceremonies. “They are all governed by the same legislation,” she said. Even if Islington did lose, other councils might be able to argue that they were justified in requiring registrars to officiate for same-sex couples.

Ms Ladele said that Islington council was forcing her to choose between her beliefs and keeping her job by requiring her to undertake civil partnership duties. Giving evidence yesterday, she told the employment tribunal in Central London: “I hold the orthodox Christian view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others and that this is the God-ordained place for sexual relations. It creates a problem for any Christian if they are expected to do or condone something that they see as sinful. I feel unable to facilitate directly the formation of a union that I sincerely believe is contrary to God’s law.”

More than 600 gay couples have had civil partnership ceremonies in Islington, making it Britain’s third-most popular borough for the service.

Ms Ladele, who has worked for the council for 16 years, alleged that she was accused of being homophobic by gay colleagues at Islington town hall and was shunned by staff after refusing to carry out civil partnerships.

She claimed that she was “ridiculed” by her boss, the superintendent registrar Helen Mendez-Childs, when she raised her concerns about the new ceremonies in August 2004.

Ms Ladele said that her superior had told her that her stance was akin to a registrar refusing to marry a black person.

For 15 months she swapped with colleagues to avoid the ceremonies. Formal complaints were made about her in 2006. Ms Ladele, who said that she was surprised that colleagues were offended, said that the council gave her an ultimatum to carry out the ceremonies or face being dismissed for gross misconduct.

She said that, to “punish” her for a principled stance, she was denied the chance to preside over lucrative weddings staged at special premises. “There was no respect whatsoever for my religious beliefs,” she said.

n 2006, Ms Ladele and another female registrar, who shared similar beliefs, were formally accused by two colleagues of “discriminating against the homosexual community”. An internal disciplinary investigation as to whether she was guilty of misconduct began in May 2007.

Ms Ladele said that staff started to act in a “different, hostile way towards me”. “I continued to be civil towards everyone. People would just blank me. It hurt so badly,” she said. She claimed that before the furore she had been conducting about fifty marriages a year but was then allocated as few eight per year.

Britain’s 1,700 registrars were effectively freelance and could opt out of ceremonies until last December, when they were brought under the control of town halls.

Ben Summerskill, of the gay rights group Stonewall, said that public servants were paid to “uphold the law of the land” and could not discriminate. “Doubtless there were those 40 years ago who claimed a moral objection to mixed marriages between those of different ethnic origin,” he said.

Mike Judge, a spokesman for the Christian Institute, said that the matter was “an important case for religious liberty”. He said: “Other occupations allow conscientious objections. No homosexual couple is being denied their right to marriage, because other registrars are performing them.”

Islington council denies religious discrimination or victimisation, and claims that Ms Ladele’s stance breaches both its dignity-for-all policy and its code of conduct for employees.

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3972735.ece

EDIT
Lillian Ladele Has Won The Case

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

She won her case today.

Good stuff!

Sagamite:

She won her case today.

Good stuff!

Yes she did

Im Glad

Shame to dem AND ALL THESE useless Gay people,

they are animals, with no Brain and conscience,

shame to dem

I am not against Gay community but I believe she did good to stand her ground. Hooray for freedom of speech and expression ( or whichever one this would fall under) !!!

revenge:



Shame to them AND ALL THESE useless Gay people,

they are animals, with no Brain and conscience,

shame to them

cheii, no need to insult them o, i believe what they are doing is wrong also but i don't regard them as animals, brainless etc

Sagamite:

She won her case today.

Good stuff!

Where's the link pls? Didn't know about this.

Geniall:

Where's the link please? Didn't know about this.

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

Thanks Ib. I'm chewing on this now. I'm wondering what the next step would be, and the possible legal implications of Ladele's choice.

Geniall:

Thanks Ib. I'm chewing on this now. I'm wondering what the next step would be, and the possible legal implications of Ladele's choice.

No problem

abi o

i'm guessing the next set of job posts will have as part of description - ". . . must be cool with officiating gay weddings. . .".amazing stuff.

Did you notice the spin being put on this by the gay camp?

“Doubtless there were those 40 years ago who claimed a moral objection to mixed marriages between those of different ethnic origin,” he said

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3972735.ece

And he has a valid point. Interesting.

Also this:

Condemning the "catastrophic judgement" the National Secular Society said: "This decision appears to show that religious rights trump gay rights and that should leave gay people quaking in their boots."

There's got to be a line somewhere between, on the one hand: preserving the rights of gay people as human beings; which rights are inalienable to every other human being, such as freedom of choice and the right to conduct livelihood without fear of discrimmination and, on the other hand: preserving any conflicting rights under the given circumstances to other types of freedom and civility.

We will proabably see this line being drawn as a consequence of this case, especially if there is an appeal, or some other judgements are made based on this precedence.

And think beyond gay activism and religious rights. Based on this ruling, is it not possible that, say, a person can "legally" terminate another's life; or perhaps decline to provide succour when such would have certainly saved a life, as a result of choice?

Just thinking aloud. . .

Condemning the "catastrophic judgement" the National Secular Society said: "This decision appears to show that religious rights trump gay rights and that should leave gay people quaking in their boots."

Religious rights trump Gay rights?? Are these people sane? That is such a ridiculous statement to make.

Kobojunkie:

Religious rights trump Gay rights?? Are these people sane? That is such a ridiculous statement to make.

What makes it so ridiculous?

Any one who claims to be rational, comparing the two, in that manner, is what I believe to be ridiculous.

I understand your sentiment quite clearly, but I still don't get your point. You don't think it's rational to compare "religious" and "gay" rights, especially within the context of this case?

Maybe you don't see the meaning of the statement.
Ladele's action, or lack of it, which was ultimately excused by the tribunal, was based on her religious conviction. When you juxtapose that with the fact that the rights in question are the rights of two gay people to not be discrimminated against, perhaps you will see its meaning.

Kobojunkie:

Any one who claims to be rational, comparing the two, in that manner, is what I believe to be ridiculous.

Not really

Not everyone is religious, but everyone is a human and should enjoy human rights.
If in the UK it is legal for homosexual couples to associate and form relationships as part of the right to associate (a fundamental human right), then where's the issue?

texazzpete:

Not really

Not everyone is religious, but everyone is a human and should enjoy human rights.
If in the UK it is legal for homosexual couples to associate and form relationships as part of the right to associate (a fundamental human right), then where's the issue?

How very convenient. This was your post no. 2008.

texazzpete:

Not really

Not everyone is religious, but everyone is a human and should enjoy human rights.
If in the UK it is legal for homosexual couples to associate and form relationships as part of the right to associate (a fundamental human right), then where's the issue?

In the same UK it is also legal for religious people to freely practise their faith as they choose as long as they do not cross the legal lines. We all enjoy basic civil rights but if not all are homosexual, and not all are religious, it is an irrational comparison to make.

@Geniall, we all have a right to discriminate. The argument that we do not is ridiculously flawed.

Geniall:

Did you notice the spin being put on this by the gay camp?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3972735.ece

And he has a valid point. Interesting.

Sorry, how is it a valid point?

How does civil/race rights correlate with gay rights?

Would you also so correlate transvestite rights to race rights?

Or compare the rights of paedophiles to the rights of black people?

Thumbs up I'm proud of your courage, If you don't stand for something you fall for everything.

Sagamite:

Sorry, how is it a valid point?

How does civil/race rights correlate with gay rights?

In common law jurisdiction, the term civil right is distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights". Civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their territorial boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim that individuals have by nature of being born. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) social movements share related goals of social acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgenderism.  A commonly stated goal is social equality for LGBT people.**If a particular goverment has declared homosexuality legal and conferred those that practise it with certain rights, such as social equality, then it becomes their civil right.

The Magna Carta or "Great Charter" was one of England's first documents containing commitments by a sovereign to his people to respect certain legal rights.“ All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


** ref, wikipedia.

Would you also so correlate transvestite rights to race rights?

Insofar as human rights are the issue, yes.

Or compare the rights of paedophiles to the rights of black people?

See above

I am strongly against this Gay thing, i couldn't imagine people coming out to publicly declare

it's an eye sore, i prefer knowing an asewo to knowing a gay, if i knew one; maybe he will be dead by now

Geniall:

In common law jurisdiction, the term civil right is distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights". Civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their territorial boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim that individuals have by nature of being born. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) social movements share related goals of social acceptance of homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgenderism.   A commonly stated goal is social equality for LGBT people.**If a particular goverment has declared homosexuality legal and conferred those that practise it with certain rights, such as social equality, then it becomes their civil right.

The Magna Carta or "Great Charter" was one of England's first documents containing commitments by a sovereign to his people to respect certain legal rights.“ All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


** ref, wikipedia.
Insofar as human rights are the issue, yes.
See above

Agreed.

But there issues have no similarity with the issues of black people.

Their consistent attemts to link or relate their claims with that of race or black people is just cheap attempt of gaining credibility. Hence, his point was not valid, rather it was cheap and off-point.

i particularly dont blame dat guy.he,s living up the conservative life of the rooted nigerian in a largely liberal world.let him resign that post for conscience sake.

already the general public mostly whites have started to blame her for standing her ground,they said if she refuses to perform her duties on religious grounds then doctors,nurses and other arms of the government might start to make similar demands, such hypocrites one one hand they fight for gay rights and on the other they r blaming her for fighting for her religious rights.
there is a right to practice your religion without any hindrance,and there is a right to practice your sexual preference,none is higher than the other in the eyes of the british law
@genial,the only implication on her job now is that they will be determining the amount of compensation due her

well, she has to obey and respect instituted laws of the land.nobody forced her to the job.she'd be a hero-model if she resigns bhefore she's told to do so.besides she's reducing the clientele of her company

olrotimi:

well, she has to obey and respect instituted laws of the land.nobody forced her to the job.she'd be a hero-model if she resigns bhefore she's told to do so.besides she's reducing the clientele of her company

She is in respect of the instituted law and she won her case. She is not being forced, she is just standing up to her right according to the law to practice her faith even in this.

thank god she didnt have the bad luck of having my type as her boss

olrotimi:

thank god she didnt have the bad luck of having my type as her boss

Actually, unless you specifically state in the contract that is required, you can not do anything about it.

well, you're there, so i'd respect ur views.am argueing based on what is obtainable here

olrotimi:

well, you're there, so i'd respect your views.am argueing based on what is obtainable here

Abegi!!!! Well, that is why we seriously need to work overtime on human rights down there. I still can not get past the idea that your gender, age and even tribe are big issues when it comes to getting employed down there. I bet some people even get fired if they marry from the wrong tribe.LMAO!!!