[Mary-Jane]

What I find even more galling is that as a Registrar, she, and all the couples being married, or civil partnershipped by her, are not allowed to have any reference to religion in the ceremony!

[JB]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4312447.ece

[JB]

So she had held the position before the law and so, at least presumably in her view, the position was fundamentally changed.

(I still think she's wrong though)

[cab]

So if you take a job that fits in with your religion, and that job is changed without your consent, you've got no right to feel hard done by?

Suppose you had a job that you were happy at, as an atheist. Then the company became a not-for-profit Christian collective (of which there is one selling fab wholefoods 300 yards from my home) and staff members were expected to participate and lead prayers... Would you feel hard done by or not?

[Silas]

So if you take a job that fits in with your religion, and that job is changed without your consent, you've got no right to feel hard done by?

Suppose you had a job that you were happy at, as an atheist. Then the company became a not-for-profit Christian collective (of which there is one selling fab wholefoods 300 yards from my home) and staff members were expected to participate and lead prayers... Would you feel hard done by or not?

[Silas]

Hi.

Just a one off.

[cab]

And when she took the job she would never be asked to be the registrar over a same sex relationship. The job changed when the law changed, and her employer closed off the means she had used to keep her job without going against her conscience.

Make no mistake, I think that to discriminate against people based on sexuality is wrong, its bang out of line. But she has her conscience to live with too, and if her religius position is to be in opposition to that, and if her job description is changed without her consent to one that contravenes her pre-existing religion... Well, she has a point, thats plain unfair on her.

[cab]

It is really.

She was working as a registrar. She's Christian, and she believed that homosexual relationships should not be made 'official'. Thats her view, she's entitled to it. I think she's wrong.

Her job did not require that she did anything against her conscience.

Her job was changed such that she had to, but she tried to work within the system to swap out of those duties she had a moral problem with. She made an effort to continue within the new laws, trying to fit her morality in with those laws.

Her employer stopped her doing that, effectively making her choose between her conscience and keeping her job.

Note, she didn't change, her job did; you can't see any reason for her to feel hard done to?

[Silas]

And when she took the job she would never be asked to be the registrar over a same sex relationship. The job changed when the law changed, and her employer closed off the means she had used to keep her job without going against her conscience.

Make no mistake, I think that to discriminate against people based on sexuality is wrong, its bang out of line. But she has her conscience to live with too, and if her religius position is to be in opposition to that, and if her job description is changed without her consent to one that contravenes her pre-existing religion... Well, she has a point, thats plain unfair on her.

[Rob R]

Yep, trouble is that you'd probably get the sack because your moral framework isn't written down.

[cab]

She tried to stay with it; according to the news sites posted, she found a way to swap out of duties that were imposed on her after gaining employment there, which were not part of the original deal, and which were contrary to her conscience. Her employer closed that opportunity off to her.

She's a right to her religious view, however antiquated and bigoted such homophobic tendencies appear to us, thats her right. She found a job where that wasn't a problem, the job changed, and while I don't agree with the courts decision here (I need to think about that to form a firm opinion), I can quite see why she'd feel hard done to.

[Behemoth]

Yep, trouble is that you'd probably get the sack because your moral framework isn't written down.

[cab]

Yep, and thats why I said 'the registrar is wrong'. But at the same time, imagine what would happen if your duties at work were changed such that you had to do something you found not only immoral, but contrary to your religion; you'd be happy with that?

[cab]

I can't speak for her or her conscience. I don't agree with the principle she stood up for here, so I won't even try to get into her shoes.

[JB]

But a problem that only arises because someone else has changed the nature of her job.

If a strict muslim works as a janitor in a school, which is then taken over by the local catholic school as a faith school would it be fair to sack them if they refuse to maintain a newly installed chapel, complete with all the iconography that strict Islam would hold to be blasphemous?

I think she should have been offered redundancy or the same job on the new terms.

[cab]

And marriage as defined when she took the job was between two people of different genders. If you change what marriage is or broaden that out to include civil partnerships between members of the same gender, then the jon description isn't really the same any more.

In her position, as an atheist, I'd have no problem (except for the blatantly stupid distinction between 'civil partnership' and 'marriage'). But I'm not her, I'm not a Christian. Put yourself in the position of someone with such a faith; are you seriously saying you'd be happy with that?

[Silas]

Yep, and thats why I said 'the registrar is wrong'. But at the same time, imagine what would happen if your duties at work were changed such that you had to do something you found not only immoral, but contrary to your religion; you'd be happy with that?

[cab]

Would appear reasonable to me.

[Rob R]

But then had she resigned she would have forced an interview process that would have cost the public more money.

[Blue Peter]

It is really.

[Behemoth]

Hi.

Just a one off.

[Stacey]

Hurrah!!! I've been trying for weeks but you never bit

[Silas]

Would appear reasonable to me.

[cab]

It was. I used it as an example of a model an organisation could move to, rather than one that made such a transition. Partly I just wanted to mention the place again 'cos its a truly excellent place

[Rob R]

Even when the thread goes horribly off-topic? as it inevitably will.

[cab]

Hi.

Just a one off.

[Blue Peter]

While it doesn't deal with the general point (well it might with a bit of meta-analysis), this isn't really what Christianity should be about. Just as with the discussion earlier in the week about women Bishops and the Anglican church, the leadership in the church need to begin educating their flock,


Peter.

[Behemoth]

But then had she resigned she would have forced an interview process that would have cost the public more money.

[JB]

But if the business changes so that it's unreasonable to ask someone to perform those changed tasks then they should be offered redundancy.

[Frewen]

Hi.

Just a one off.

[Silas]

But if the business changes so that it's unreasonable to ask someone to perform those changed tasks then they should be offered redundancy.

[Rob R]

Very good point

[cab]

(cut)

Me neither, hence why I think that the registrar is wrong. Even so, this only happened because the law changed around her and her job. I can't help but feel a little sympathy for her in that situation.

[Behemoth]

As the employee my personal moral code/religion/belief system don't matter a nats chuff when it comes to carrying out the duties I'm employed to do, as long as they're legal.

[cab]

As the employee my personal moral code/religion/belief system don't matter a nats chuff when it comes to carrying out the duties I'm employed to do, as long as they're legal.

[Rob R]

As the employee my personal moral code/religion/belief system don't matter a nats chuff when it comes to carrying out the duties I'm employed to do, as long as they're legal.

[Silas]

Agree.

[Chez]

Exactly. As it would be unethical to be paid for a job and then decline to do bits of it because one didn't want to for personal reasons. Which is what ethics are.

*explodes, in ethical frenzy*

[JB]

But if the business changes so that it's unreasonable to ask someone to perform those changed tasks then they should be offered redundancy.

[Silas]

But if the business changes so that it's unreasonable to ask someone to perform those changed tasks then they should be offered redundancy.

[JB]

Equally she was not in the wrong job when she accepted the job sixteen years ago? The nature of the job has changed so yes she does have an arguable case. You might not agree with her, I don't agree with her, but I do accept she had reasonable basis for a claim.

[Jonnyboy]

[Silas]

Equally she was not in the wrong job when she accepted the job sixteen years ago? The nature of the job has changed so yes she does have an arguable case. You might not agree with her, I don't agree with her, but I do accept she had reasonable basis for a claim.

[Silas]

[JB]

Equally she was not in the wrong job when she accepted the job sixteen years ago? The nature of the job has changed so yes she does have an arguable case. You might not agree with her, I don't agree with her, but I do accept she had reasonable basis for a claim.

[Jonnyboy]

Was she? the facts don't show that she was being rude or insulting or derogatory towards homosexuals, but that she couldn't reconcile a change in her working conditions that was imposed upon her with her religious beliefs.

Changes in working conditions cannot be simply imposed upon an individual, there is a process that must be followed. If at the end of a proper process she decides that she cannot carry out her duties then it can be dealt with properly. But on the face of it it seems that this employees rights were violated by the employer.

[JB]

Was she? the facts don't show that she was being rude or insulting or derogatory towards homosexuals, but that she couldn't reconcile a change in her working conditions that was imposed upon her with her religious beliefs.

Changes in working conditions cannot be simply imposed upon an individual, there is a process that must be followed. If at the end of a proper process she decides that she cannot carry out her duties then it can be dealt with properly. But on the face of it it seems that this employees rights were violated by the employer.

[Silas]

Equally she was not in the wrong job when she accepted the job sixteen years ago? The nature of the job has changed so yes she does have an arguable case. You might not agree with her, I don't agree with her, but I do accept she had reasonable basis for a claim.

[Jonnyboy]

Dunno.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for a permanent exemption, but that a proper process needs to be followed which takes into account the views of all individuals, not just rides roughshod over them.

[Silas]

Was she? the facts don't show that she was being rude or insulting or derogatory towards homosexuals, but that she couldn't reconcile a change in her working conditions that was imposed upon her with her religious beliefs.

Changes in working conditions cannot be simply imposed upon an individual, there is a process that must be followed. If at the end of a proper process she decides that she cannot carry out her duties then it can be dealt with properly. But on the face of it it seems that this employees rights were violated by the employer.

[Silas]

I think it is a fair summary really.

[cab]

She did seek a compromise though, according to those reports; she found a way to continue doing her job without contravening her ethics, until her employer closed that down.

A cynic could twist that into constructive dismissal.

Either way... For this to get to court, its been handled badly.

[JB]

Changes should normally be made after negotiation and agreement.

and

[Rob R]

I agree. The lady in question seems to be abusing her religion as a part of this which seems to detract from the case somewhat & confuses matters into a Christians v gays, rather than an individual v her employers issue.

[Silas]

She did seek a compromise though, according to those reports; she found a way to continue doing her job without contravening her ethics, until her employer closed that down.

A cynic could twist that into constructive dismissal.

Either way... For this to get to court, its been handled badly.

[cab]

But that isn't quite what happened here; while teachers do get given some baffling and sometimes even cotnradictory instructions, you're unlikely to get given a task that fundamentally contravenes your ethics or religion. This, for her, was not a trivial or even a major change in working conditions, it was an insurmountable one; when working conditions change thus excluding someone because of their religious conscience, I'm uneasy with saying 'put up or get out'.

[cab]

I agree. But being a bigot ain't a crime; its her right.

[vegplot]

If that's the case then it has nothing to do with religion why she won the tribunal. Her victory should be paraded as one against immoral employment practices not as one of religion and she appears to be abusing that.

[cab]

My reading is that she was 'effectively' freelance, whatever that means; implies that she was employed within a free-ish framework. Dunno what that really meant.

[Rob R]

If that's the case then it has nothing to do with religion why she won the tribunal. Her victory should be paraded as one against immoral employment practices not as one of religion and she appears to be abusing that.

[cab]

Extra? Probably. Although was she doing that or was she swapping for a more or less equivalent workload?

[cab]

A lot of people who are religious have, as part of their faith, a moral opposition towards this, that or the other. Thats just how things are; personally, I think that divorcing individual judgement in favour of doctrine is one of the major failings in the concept of religion, but that ain't going to make religion disappear any time soon. And, simply, people have a right to be religious.

[JB]

My reading is that she was 'effectively' freelance, whatever that means; implies that she was employed within a free-ish framework. Dunno what that really meant.

[Silas]

A lot of people who are religious have, as part of their faith, a moral opposition towards this, that or the other. Thats just how things are; personally, I think that divorcing individual judgement in favour of doctrine is one of the major failings in the concept of religion, but that ain't going to make religion disappear any time soon. And, simply, people have a right to be religious.

[Rob R]

Genuine question: Aren't you effectively living in sin if you don't get married in the eyes of God? Aren't all lawful but non-religious marriages thus sinful?

[bagpuss]

lifestyle choice or biology refusing someone the choice of what gender their sexual and romantic partners are is discrimination

[vegplot]

lifestyle choice or biology refusing someone the choice of what gender their sexual and romantic partners are is discrimination

[Brownbear]

You're right that it does not represent this case in its entirety, but I would think it creates a precedent that could be extended to, say, a Christian refusing to, for example, process the application for a liquor licence for a gay nightclub, on the grounds that immoral and godless acts would be committed there. And As I also suggested, what if a Jewish or Mulim health inspector refused to certificate as healthy the premises of a vendor of Carribbean-style spare ribs? Or any one of a thousand other permutations.

The person speaking against this on the wireless earlier, from the gay perspective, pointed out that there are interpretations of the bible that hold that black people are inferior to whites. What if a registrar refused to carry out 'sinful' mixed marriages?