“I hold the orthodox Christian view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and 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 cannot reconcile my faith with taking an active part in enabling same-sex unions to be formed. I believe this is contrary to God’s instruction that sexual relations belong exclusively between a man and a woman within marriage.”A CHRISTIAN registrar was bullied and threatened with the sack when she refused to carry out “sinful” homosexual marriages, a tribunal heard in London Tuesday May 20.
Lillian Ladele, 47, told the tribunal 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.
Miss Ladele wept as she told the employment tribunal she was being forced to choose between her Christian beliefs and her £31,000-a-year job at Islington Council in north London which she has held for nearly 16 years.“I felt harassed and victimised,” she said. “I was being picked on on a daily basis. There was no respect whatsoever for my religious beliefs. Miss Ladele accused gay colleagues of “stirring up religious hatred”, adding: “I felt like I was being thrown before the lions.“I hold the orthodox Christian view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life and 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 cannot reconcile my faith with taking an active part in enabling same-sex unions to be formed. I believe this is contrary to God’s instruction that sexual relations belong exclusively between a man and a woman within marriage.” Miss Ladele, who is claiming discrimination or victimisation on grounds of religion or belief, said 10 other registrars could conduct the ceremonies.
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.
In 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. From Reports By Nick Fagge (Christian Post) and Fiona Hamilton, (The Times)
2 comments:
Okay this is obviously an unpopular group. No she should absolutely be sacked (pay out or no pay out) for refusal to undertake her duties as per her job description. Employees can not select which tasks they wish to carry out. Gays are gay as determined by nature's design. She chose to believe in something which is becoming increasingly unlikely that it even exists. Law is law and law decrees that this despicable woman should perform civil partnerships for gay people. Law supersedes religion in the UK. If you don't like it simply leave the UK. What if a group of people claimed their beliefs did not allow them to serve or marry black or Asian people would that be acceptable? Based on this woman’s logic prejudice including racism and homophobia are fine as long as religion can be used to justify it. Does this mean atheists can refuse to serve Christians and Muslims, and that gays may refuse to serve straights etc. Whites used religious scripture to oppress black people for centuries, this is obviously that old cliché where the victim wants to become the bully by applying the same tact.
This despicable bigoted woman has no right to receive her salary from the taxpayer and then choose which of those taxpayers she will and will not serve based on her prejudice. She is required to follow U.K. law as a civil servant. She has the right to follow any religion and be as much of a bigot as she likes in private, but she does not have the right to circumvent the law. This is an absurd decision by the courts. It sets a dangerous precedent and if there is any common sense in our justice system, the decision will be reversed.
She discriminates and then claims that she is the victim, which is very typical of fundamentalists. If she believes that marriage is between a man and a woman and is god-ordained, then why is she performing secular "godless" ceremonies? Because she is a hypocrite. She is cherry-picking against whom she discriminates to suit her own prejudices. No doubt she has married many atheists for example.
A truly horrific woman. She should be thoroughly ashamed of herself.
Post a Comment