It’s a matter of ‘religious conscience’
And while we’re on the subject…more religious interference.
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…[S]he 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.”
It doesn’t matter how ‘orthodox’ the view is, it doesn’t matter how ‘sincerely’ she believes something is ‘contrary to God’s law.’ If she chooses to see harmless things as ‘sinful’ because somebody told her that God said it was sinful, that should be her problem, not her employer’s.
“There was no respect whatsoever for my religious beliefs,” she said.
Good, I’m glad to hear it. There shouldn’t be. Even religious people ought to be able to sort genuinely wrong, harmful, cruel actions from morally neutral ones that are not a problem unless one decides to make them a problem. Mere settled prejudices adorned with the name of the local god don’t deserve respect, so I’m glad Ladele’s didn’t get any. (I’m not glad she was shunned, if it’s true that she was, because that’s painful, but respect for beliefs is a different kind of thing.)
‘ Even religious people ought to be able to sort genuinely wrong, harmful, cruel actions from morally neutral ones…’
Really, OB, just because an action produces no observable harm that doesn’t mean it won’t enrage Mr Smitey. Who are you to pit your puny mortal values against the Creator of the Universe? Doesn’t have to make sense, it’s in The Book.
The registrar probably believes that these gay couples will burn in hell and she doesn’t want to join them.
However, since a registry wedding is a civil, non-religious service she will just have to find another job.
A small price to pay to avoid eternal torment.
Mr Smitey. Hahahahaha. I like that.
Mrs. Ladele’s befuddlement at being shunned strikes me as nothing more than the staggering blindness of privilege. I’ve actually encountered this in real life, the “Why are you looking at me like that?” response from someone who has just said something spectacularly racist or sexist or homophobic: Many bigots operate under the assumption that everyone around them agrees with their bigotry, and act all shocked and hurt when someone calls them on it, as if it is they who have been wronged – but it isn’t.
Frankly, I don’t think Mrs. Ladele deserves any sympathy for the pain she felt over being treated like a pariah: Bigots deserve to be turned out of decent company, and bigotry in the name of God doesn’t deserve a free pass. Maybe she ought to have taken it as a frickin’ hint when her perfectly nice, fair, decent co-workers who liked her well enough before began to treat her as persona non grata when she exposed her bigotry for all to see. If she had refused to issue marriage licenses to mixed race couples based on her religious principles, I’d wager she wouldn’t be getting any sympathy for her emotional suffering – and I fail to see any real distinction between the flavors of bigotry except how widespread they are at the moment.
It makes a change I agree with every word of that G.
If you can’t do the job, then you need to find another one. It’s a pretty simple concept, yet appears to be a great point of confusion for religious bigots the world over. Apparently, they think they get a free pass to be paid for not doing their jobs. Which is, I am told, not the way this employment business usually works.
What truly beggars belief is that this woman was employed to perform CIVIL MARRIAGES, a thoroughly modern concept designed explicitly to be non-religious [you aren’t allowed, for example, to use any wording from religious services in your self-penned vows, not even ‘for richer for poorer…’]
The woman was being a rank hypocrite, performing a service which allows [quite rightly, I add] people to gain the civil and legal benefits of marriage without a religious commitment, and now suddenly discovers her conscience when TEH GAYZ are involved. I would use what I shall call the ‘GT-word’, but then OB would get cross.
Never really understood why people want to do jobs that conflict with their beliefs. Like being a vegetarian at an abattoir and complaining about having to kill animals.
““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 have to wonder how many people Ms Ladele has married in the past who had had premarital sexual relations or who had had previous marriages that ended in divorce. Did she complain then? Or deny their marriage?
Absolute bigotry, to be sure.
Okay, okay. I know. But I have kind of a thing about shunning, I guess, even deserved shunning. I was stating a fact – I am glad her beliefs got no respect, but I can’t really rejoice in actual shunning. But I included the reservation about whether it was true that she was shunned – I think it’s more likely that people were simply alienated from her, and she chose to consider that ‘shunning.’ That would be a different matter, and I agree that she should have taken it as a hint. Indeed, if that is the case it’s just more of the same attitude – the same sense of entitlement: if people are repelled by her nasty ‘beliefs’ then that has to be illegitimate rather than a considered reaction to bad beliefs leading to bad actions. In fact if that is the case she’s disrespecting her colleagues’ beliefs. Tut tut.
Note the reactions of those who disagree with the woman’s conscience and religious conviction. Count how many times she is called a bigot. Emphatically and repeatedly saying she is one doesn’t mean she is one. Just because you strongly disagree with her doesn’t instantly make her a bigot (and, of course, it doesn’t make you one, either). Name calling never proved or settled anything. It is frequently used to end conversation. Intelligent conversation starts with respecting another person’s view regardless of how you feel about it. Only then can people move to more meaningful dialogue and begin understanding one another. Name calling has never changed anyone’s mind. Have a great day!
Wilbur,
That is magnificently well crafted bait.
A beautiful Blue Dun Parachute
I’m obliging, I’ll take the bait.
No, of course it doesn’t, Wilbur, but the bigotry has already been 1) revealed in her own comments, which are unargued assertions, and 2) (however briefly) argued for in my post. The later comments take off from what had already been said. Saying an activity that harms no one is “sinful” because God said so and therefore should be forbidden is a pretty good example of bigotry.