Gibberish
And then there’s Lillian Ladele’s solicitor.
Ms Ladele’s solicitor Mark Jones said she would now take her case to the Court of Appeal. He added: “She wants to make it clear that, whatever other commentators may have said, this case has never been an attempt to undermine the rights of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender communities. The evidence showed that Lillian performed all of her duties to the same high standard for the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender communities, as she did for everyone. This case has been about the shortfall between the principle of equal dignity and respect for different lifestyles and world views, and Islington Council’s treatment of Lillian Ladele…
Uh – what? What principle of equal dignity and respect for different lifestyles and world views? What principle is that? There is no such principle. What’s Mark Jones babbling about? If there were such a principle, that would mean we would all be expected to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ‘worldviews’ of Nazis, white supremacists, génocidaires, Panslavists, Islamists, Fred Phelps, and so on. We can’t. That would just be another contradiction – we would get the clang clang clang and the hook and the forfeit of our deposit again. We don’t have to respect all worldviews; we don’t have to and we can’t and we shouldn’t and we mustn’t. I don’t respect Rick Warren’s and Lilian Ladele’s (it’s the same one, so we can talk about them as one, which is efficient), and I’m not going to, and it is not a ‘principle’ that anyone ought to. Some world views are not worthy of respect and that’s that.
This is such ridiculously empty speech. She didn’t provide services for gay people. That’s what all this is about, so why does her solicitor go on like this, as though this wasn’t the issue in the first place?
This kind of thing has some much more serious ramifications, where sweeping new protections have been given – by President Bush – who else? – to health care ‘workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal beliefs.’ You can read it here.
I acknowledge the seriousness of Ms Ladele’s refusal to conduct gay marriages, even though she was acting in a secular, not a religious capacity, and the embarrassment and the loss of rights that this refusal cost.
But this new Bush – he really is a wingnut! – initiative is breathtakingly serious, since it means pharmacists don’t have to dispense bc pills, nurses won’t have to work at the bedside of someone who refuses treatment, and the list goes on a very long way. This is an outrageous intervention in the rights of Americans. There should be demonstrations about this, big ones. And while they’re at it, they should placard Obama’s foolish decision to include Rick Warren in the inauguration. Perhaps if he saw his name alongside Bush’s, he would reconsider.
Ugh ugh ugh. Absolutely typical, this is – framing it as a violation of rights to expect people to do their jobs.
Yes, but the council could still have handled it in a more sensible way.
Cases like this should not go to the courts. So long as same-sex couples had no problem arranging ceremonies with other registrars, it could have allowed for her peculiar views.