´óÏó´«Ã½

It seems to me there is no basis in law for such a refusal. So long as the applicants met the legal requirements, I don't see how a public official could refuse to execute the law without being fired for it.

no point in having anti discrimination law that protects access to goods and services if public servants are allowed to be so bigoted....

it may be relatively easy to make allowances for one member of staff who has particular objections most of the time, but what if a second registrar in the same building also chose to demand the same exception?

every day most of us in public facing roles have to deal with people we do not like or disapprove of, but we have to smile and put up with it.

this is a terrible legal decision, i do hope the local authority appeals

There is little to debate here. Of course it is ridiculous that a civil servant can choose not to provide a service to people based on his/her view of these people.

This judgement is indefensible. The local authority should appeal. If a public servant is unable to meet the terms of their contract for religious reasons, they should not do the job. Pacifists should not apply to became captains of nuclear submarines.

I think the court has made a very sensible decision in this judgment. We already have another example of this kind of protection. Nurses and doctors in the health service are permitted to refuse to participate in any procedure involving abortion if they object to abortion on religious or moral grounds. The court is simply granting the same protection to this registrar. Will the court's decision make it more difficult for homosexual couples to have a civil partnership in that local authority? The court already answered that question: the authority has been able to meet every request for a civil partnership from every homosexual couple applying. What's the dilemma?

"The court already answered that question: the authority has been able to meet every request for a civil partnership from every homosexual couple applying. What's the dilemma?"

the dilemma is what if another and then another and then another Registrar decide this? then the Local authority could find itself with no-one to provide the service..

if the registrar wants to avoid civil partnerships perhaps she should get a job in accounts, or council tax department..

SJR ... the court was deciding on this single case, that's how it works. the judge was not looking at the overall council's situation.

This is a free country. A woman with strong christian beliefs should not be banned from working as a marriage registrar. That is ridiculous. The judge is absolutely right.

Does it make a difference what she was originally employed to do?

To use Augustine's example, if a pacifist took a job as a captain of a fishing boat, and subsequently the owners mounted nuclear missiles on it - would he then have a case for refusing to sail? Because in his mind the job he took on is morally different from the job he's being asked to do.

So, if she was originally employed to marry only different-sex couples, and then the rules changed, does she have the right to say - I'll do the job you employed me to do, I'll fulfil the terms of my original contract - but I can't take on these new, additional responsibilities because of my faith?

Different if she was employed knowing registrars marry same-sex couples.

Execute the orders of the office or be fired, when you can go to work on a job which doesn't require you to do things you disagree with. It's as simple as that.

Jen Erik asks-

"So, if she was originally employed to marry only different-sex couples, and then the rules changed, does she have the right to say - I'll do the job you employed me to do, I'll fulfil the terms of my original contract - but I can't take on these new, additional responsibilities because of my faith?"

Yes, but she should expect to be 'let go' in favour of someone who WILL do the job thereafter.

Just as a matter of interest, would a registrar, officiating at a civil marriage, be in possession of the details of the religious affiliations of the happy couple?

"Yes, but she should expect to be 'let go' in favour of someone who WILL do the job thereafter."

Can you clarify the 'should'?

I can't tell whether you're saying this is what will normally happen, or whether you're using 'should' to indicate you think it's a desirable outcome.

Does it make any difference that it's a moral issue? Say her employer had changed some other terms of her employment - perhaps she'd been hired to work on a flexi-time basis which suited her responsibilties as a carer, and was now required to work certain definite hours that didn't suit her personal circumstances - if she objected to that change, should she expect to be 'let go'?

"Should a public official be free to refuse a public service to a member of the public because he or she disagrees with that person's moral or religious choices?"

I have raised this issue a couple of times in different contexts. What is the roll of church to state and individual (christian in this case) to state? The ´óÏó´«Ã½ link reports the lady as saying, "she was being effectively forced to choose between her religion and her £31,000-a-year job as a result."

Yep, that pretty much sums it up, and yes, maybe sooner or later and maybe more frequently than before, christians are going to have to be a bit more choosy. Can't have it every way.

However given the confusion that the church has about it's own identity, and the confusion the state is in about rights and counter rights, I'm not surprised that one person's victory is seen as another person's loss.

In my employment I have the protection of "GRANDFATHER RIGHTS" why shouldn't this registrar have the same protection as her terms and conditions changed contrary to her original contract which didn’t cater for civil partnerships, if it had have been the case she most likely would not have applied for her present position. Why should she not have the protection of the law because the government forced changes to her original terms and conditions.

Guys, I don't know what alternate reality you wish to occupy, but the reason someone is employed at all is because they're doing a job that some entity (be it a public office, a private corporation, a nonprofit organisation) needs them to do. Now, if the employee is unwilling or unable to do the job, no matter when the requirements started, changed, or anything else, then the entity which needs the job done has every right to look elsewhere for someone who will do it. No-one should be compelled to employ someone against their will; that's ridiculous. Of course there are ethical ways to handle this, particularly for allowing maternity (and possibly paternity) leave and sick leave, but it is also in the employing entity's best interest to allow such leave for good workers who will come back (no need to retrain someone else, encouraging dedication, rewarding commitment).

But in the case of an employee who simply won't do part of the job's requirements? (Irrelevant when or how those requirements came about...) I'd say try to find her a spot somewhere else in the organisation and give her a month's notice regardless.

By the way, Puritan and others, you appear to lack confidence in the jobs market. In the old days, particularly in NI, I can understand how people came to believe jobs were scarce and needed the protection of unions and worker's rights and this and that; in today's rich jobs market, nobody should need to worry that by being fired from one job they're "out of work"; there are plenty of options within these kinds of entities (like not objecting to executing the orders of the office for which you work, and the thought that having to explain to a future employer the reason that you left the previous job might be an incentive not to haggle over them in the first place?) and indeed leaving to take your skills somewhere else.

I am amazed that the tribunal found for the employee. Their verdict accepts at face value the assertion that homophobic prejudice is a core Christian belief. Why did they accept that? Because of Leviticus? So a 21st century organisation is to be subject to the laws of 2000 BCE? Other employment tribunals could be faced with some weird claims after this decision.

Furthermore, there seems to be an assumption that an organisation cannot change any of its practices once an employee has joined it. The employee in the case under dispute was hired to perform marriage ceremonies. Those ceremonies are now taken to include civil partnerships. Why should the employee expect to be shielded from all change?

Up until a few years ago, few people had much skill in operating computers. Now most jobs require employees to use computers in some way or other. It looks like this tribunal would have defended the employee's right not to use a computer on the grounds that it was not part of the job initially. Now that's what I call conservatism run mad!