| |
Religious liberty? More like a victory for bigotry
I WAS appalled to read of Lillian Ladele’s victory at her employment tribunal. It is a shocking decision in so many ways. Should employers really be expected to accommodate the prejudices of their staff just because they claim they are abiding by their religious beliefs?
If Ms Ladele’s beliefs had taught her to view interracial marriages as “sinful” I somehow doubt the tribunal would have decided in her favour. Bigotry cannot be excused because of “genuinely held religious beliefs”. We should not give religion a privileged position above normal rules and decency.
Even heterosexuals such as myself recognise that homophobia still pollutes our society. Legal decisions such as this will only encourage some simple-minded people to think that discriminating against their fellow citizens who happen to be gay is legitimate.
I hope the council listens to the advice of Labour group leader Councillor Catherine West and appeals against the ruling.
Jack Graves
Noel Road, N1
MAY I suggest that heterosexual couples who support equality and human rights, who are planning weddings in Islington and who do not wish to take part in an apartheid system specify that they not be married by Lillian Ladele, the registrar who refuses to perform civil partnership ceremonies?
My partner and I would show equivalent solidarity and disgust should a white supremacist reject ‘mixed’ marriages, or against any other manifestation of the belief that some people – and their relationships – are less valid than others.
Frankie Green
(previously an Islington resident)
Whitstable, Kent
I COMPLETELY support the stance the council recently took over registrar Lillian Ladele, regarding her refusal to undertake civil partnership ceremonies, due to her religious belief that homosexuality is “sinful”.
I am in a same sex partnership and on March 4 Ms Ladele registered the births of our twins. I feel quite sickened that a person who holds such beliefs has signed our babies’ birth certificates and will be reminded of this each time we have to use them.
I feel extremely anxious about the outcome of the tribunal and feel it has far-reaching implications. I find it incredulous that in today’s society a message has been given that homophobia is acceptable when set in a religious context. Religion has for many years been used to justify totally unacceptable behaviour, including murder, racism, slavery and sexism.
There are many children who are now being raised in same-sex partnerships. There are also many young and vulnerable people struggling to cope with their sexuality.
We need to protect people from this particular brand of hatred and bigotry dressed up as religious conscience and not give a message that it is an individual’s right to be publicly homophobic. To publicly call members of the homosexual community “sinful” is in my mind slanderous, dangerous and completely wrong.
Homosexuals do not choose their sexual orientation and have a human right not to be judged or to have such provocative and upsetting charges levied at them.
I cannot see where a judgment like this will end. Will it open the floodgates for social workers working in fostering and adoption to refuse to place children in gay families or for medical staff to treat gay patients wishing fertility treatment or antenatal care?
Rachel Stephen
Ashmount Road, N19
TO allow genuine conflict of consciences, registrars used to be able to swap with another registrar if their conscience didn’t allow them to officiate at a same-sex ‘marriage’. The other registrar would perform the ceremony, a process which allowed complete satisfaction on both sides – the gay/lesbian couple got their ‘marriage’ with a sympathetic registrar, and the religious beliefs of the original registrar were respected also.
However, Islington Council decided to remove this flexibility, thus forcing this lady of genuine religious belief and conviction into a situation her religion told her she could not do. This shows complete contempt for, and discrimination against, a person with genuine Christian beliefs.
The council decided to try to force the lady to do things which her religious beliefs meant she could not. This is, in effect, an attempt to criminalise Christianity.
Surely, the council has a duty to support diversity in all areas. It is not as if Christianity is some sort of obscure sect hiding in the darkness, working against the good of the people of Britain. The Queen is the head of the Church of England, and the majority of Britons state their religion as Christian.
The tribunal was completely correct in stating that the lady was “discriminated against on grounds of religious beliefs”.
Those who worked so hard for “gay rights” should be the first to agree that discrimination against someone for their way of life is wrong – or does that sort of attitude work only one way?
Matt Graham
N1
THREE cheers for Lillian Ladele! Many congratulations on her victory over the ‘guardianistas’ of Islington Town Hall.
Thank God there are still people like Lillian around, who are prepared to stand up for their convictions. Homosexuals are not “born that way” – and no wonder homosexuality is condemned in the holy scriptures.
The medical consequences are well documented, indeed the UK’s National Blood Service refuses blood donations from anyone who has ever engaged in it.
There is also an extraordinarily high incidence of suicides and other violent deaths among homosexuals. According to the Population Research Institute, as many as 65 per cent are either dead or HIV-positive by the time they are 30.
As for Islington Council, to promote and encourage such a disordered, dangerous and destructive lifestyle is criminally insane.
Patrick McKay
Goswell Road, EC1
|
 |
|
| |
| Your Comments : |
Such hostility and contempt for Ms Ladele who has clearly been discriminated against by her employers. Mr. Graham's comments above are reasonable and fair, which is what true equality is all about.
Eileen Wojciechowska
|
| |
| |
