Christian registrar Lillian Ladele has lost her appeal against a ruling that she had not been discriminated against by being disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnerships in north London.
The victory was shortlived – 17 months, to be precise.
Christian registrar Lillian Ladele has lost her appeal against a ruling that she had not been discriminated against by being disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnerships in north London.
She became a registrar in 2002, when state-authorised unions were an exclusively heterosexual affair. When the law changed, she felt she could not carry out such ceremonies ‘as a matter of religious conscience’.
She claimed she suffered ridicule and bullying as a result of her stance and said she had been harassed and discriminated against by Islington Council.
An employment tribunal found that the council had unlawfully discriminated against her, but this was overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which said there was no basis for concluding that any discrimination had occurred.
Last month, Ms Ladele’s counsel, James Dingemans QC, told the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, Lord Justice Dyson and Lady Justice Smith at the Court of Appeal that she had never wanted to undermine the human rights or respect due to members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender communities. But he pointed out that human rights laws must also be there to protect people with committed views about marriage.
It appears not.
Or at least for Christians.
Perhaps if Ms Ladele had been a Muslim, her appeal might have been successful. For it is an odd country indeed in which a Christian registrar can lose her job for upholding the orthodox teaching on marriage while Muslims may win massive payouts for being obliged to handle bottles of alcohol, cook sausage and bacon or dispense the ‘morning after’ pill , or sell an ‘unclean’ Bible in the normal course of their jobs.
Dismissing her case, Lord Neuberger said: “It appears to me that, however much sympathy one may have with someone such as Ms Ladele, who is faced with choosing between giving up a post she plainly appreciates or officiating at events which she considers to be contrary to her religious beliefs, the legislature has decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy, such as the United Kingdom, include outlawing discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on grounds of sexual orientation, subject only to very limited exceptions.”
But Mr Dingemans told the appeal judges that Ms Ladele believed marriage should be “between one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others”. He added: “Modern human rights jurisprudence was not intended to obliterate religious beliefs held for millennia.”
But the EAT found that the council was not taking disciplinary action against Ms Ladele for holding her religious beliefs, but because her refusal to carry out civil partnership ceremonies involved discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.
They said: “The council were entitled to take the view that they were not willing to connive in that practice by relieving Ms Ladele of the duties, notwithstanding that her refusal was the result of her strong and genuinely-held Christian beliefs.”
Cllr Ruth Polling, Islington Council’s Executive Member for Equalities, said: “This is very welcome news. The judgement is the right one as it confirms all public sector employees must carry out their duties without discrimination and Islington was right to insist this of all our staff. We are delighted it provides much-needed clarity for employers across the country.”
Since the legislature has also decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy include the right of a woman to terminate the baby within her womb (which is a ‘facility’ or a ‘service’ provided by the NHS), Cranmer awaits the day when Christian doctors and nurses will have their exemption on the grounds of religious conscience removed
Tags: Christian Life, Law Moral Ethical
December 15th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
You weaken your case by inveighing against Muslims. This article would carry more weight if the examples quoted were true. A few minutes easy research would have demonstrated that there were no “multi-million pound payouts”. In both the alcohol and sausage cases the tribunal ruled against the claimant.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Perhaps the greatest irony, perhaps even tragedy, is that Ms. Ladele could have had considerable support for her position from the gay community itself. When the government passed the Civil Partnership Act it contained wording that placed an absolute barrier between Civil Partnerships and the religious aspects of marriage, and in the eyes of many gay people that barrier nullified Ms. Ladele’s complaint. As a purely secular institution, entirely alienated from religious significance, any religious arguments against Civil Partnerships were seen to have been made irrelevant. Had the government legalised gay marriage the reverse would have been true: the religious arguments would be entirely relevant to the situation. As a rule, gay people are more sensitive than most about the denial of human rights, and many would have perceived Islington Council’s actions as precisely that: a denial of Ms. Ladele’s human right to freedom of belief. As it is, that was not the case.
The Civil Partnership Act was intended as a compromise, giving gay couples the civil benefits of marriage without the spiritual significance, but as can be seen here this has actually caused more problems than it resolved.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Excellent point Tim.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
These secular situations have come about because we are no longer requested to ‘pray for the church militant here on earth’. Neither must we sing – according to the latest Anglican hymnal – ‘Onward Christian soldiers’! Things need to be watered down so as not to offend minority groups; otherwise we will not be Politically Correct. We need to reject the morality of Jesus as it could ruffle feathers. Indeed, we must flow with the majority down stream and, at all costs, see that we never rock the boat or become like One of whom it was said: ‘He stirreth up the people!’ Alternatively, become a waffler in the pulpit like a particular English prelate: use high jargon language that baffles pseudo intellectuals, and human vanity will stop you from either saying you agree or disagree. It all helps to make the masses quiet while moral laxity spreads its contagion and what was viewed as Sodomy and Buggery will not only be words one must seriously avoid at all costs – such as bastards! – but, just give it time, and paedophilia – and those who practice it – will also, no doubt, be asking for equal rights along with transexuals.
Well, if the above awakens us from spiritual sloth, lethargy, and a desire to speak out and fight for the santity of sex, marriage and family life; and to say: ‘Repent and get right with God’ then this sppedily typed out letter MIGHT awaken us to moral action. Either we as churches will either evangelise or else we will perish. Enough said!
December 16th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
If she had won the case, given that her beliefs do not recognise divorce, would she not then be able to refuse to marry divorced couples? It would make a nonesense of the fact that these are civil proceedings. As she hadn’t previously refused to marry divorcees, it suggests tom that this was more a case of personal prejudice than of religious conviction.