Lilian Ladele a Christian registrar who lost her job after she refused to carry out civil partnership ceremonies has been refused permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Previous posts here, here, here and here.
Lilian Ladele’s situation does not raise legal points of “general public importance”, according to the highest court in the land.
She is now considering whether to try to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights, as she believes it shows that the right to religious conscience has been “trampled” by the rights of homosexuals.
It comes just days after senior bishops and peers warned that clergy could be sued if they refuse to perform civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples in church, as an amendment approved by the House of Lords now permits.
There were already fears that Christians enjoy less legal protection than minority groups after the Appeal Court ruled last month that British Airways had not discriminated against an employee by banning her from wearing a cross.
Miss Ladele, speaking via her lawyer, said: “I am naturally disappointed by the Supreme Court’s rejection of my application for appeal. I am actively discussing with my lawyers the possibility of an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
“When the rights of different groups clash, as they have in my case, surely there must be a proportionate attempt to balance those competing rights. In my case, one set of rights was trampled by another set of rights. That cannot be right in a free and democratic society. I believe my case raises important issues of liberty that deserve further consideration by the courts.”
I’m sure there will be a fair amount of activity online as a result of this decision, and if there’s anything interesting I’ll post the link here.
Update: First out of the blocks is the Christian Institute, which is unsurprising as they are backing Ladele.
Next out of the blocks is PinkNews.
And now the British Humanist Association, who are rather pleased with the result as you can imagine.
Tags: Christian Life, News
March 9th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Yet another case where interested parties are trying to demonstrate – against the evidence – that Christians are being persecuted. I’m glad the court didn’t fall for it.
The Times quotes Ms Ladele telling the employment tribunal: “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.”
If these beliefs excuse her from civil partnerships, they also excuse her from performing marriages where either partner has been divorced. That’s very clear. Her faith will only allow her to marry people who’ve never married before and who share her religious views. With most couples who marry doing so from the same address, I wonder how many marriages would qualify.
Lilian Ladele is a civil servant, performing a civil function on behalf of the state, not the church, and as such must comply with legislation that allows civil partnerships. Being a registrar isn’t a religious role. For some couples this is why they choose a register office wedding.
This self-righteous p in the a is no more justified in her stance – or persecuted for her faith – than a Muslim checkout worker who refuses to sell beer or a Catholic one who won’t scan condoms. No one’s asking her to engage in a gay relationship, for the Muslim to drink alcohol or the Catholic to use condoms.
May 7th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
In relation to the issue above, please could someone enlighten me on the following …
What is the difference between expecting a Christian registrar to conduct civil partnerships, even though it offends his or her Christian conscience, and, for example, expecting a doct0r to perform an abortion, even though they have a similar objection on the grounds of Christian conscience?
Is it ok to give doctors an opt-out but not registrars? There seems to be a basic inconsistency here – if doctors are permitted to abstain then why not registrars? In both cases it is only a small part of their job (as civil partnerships are doubtless dwarfed numberically by hetrosexual marriages, and of course doctors do a lot more than just abortions).
Please could someone explain to me what, if any, the difference is, in principle…
May 7th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
@ Stuart: I expect many others could put this better, but here goes:
Bluntly it’s a bit like the difference between being obliged to take hotel bookings from a gay couple and being expected to occupy the bed with them. Doctors are excused from abortions if their religious beliefs mean that performing such an operation contravenes their conscience. They are involved in a sense that a registrar is not.
Registrars only officiate. They aren’t obliged to participate in civil partnerships themselves. She’s not performing a religious ceremony, she’s performing a civil service function. Her religion is therefore irrelevant. Her position is analogous to a Jewish checkout worker who refuses to put bacon through the till. If she were being forced to eat the bacon, then her refusal would be reasonable.
May 7th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
I didn’t know doctors were allowed to opt out of performing abortions. Is this in all cases – even when not performing the operation would almost certainly lead to the death of the mother? Surely not.
May 7th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
@ Jim: If the woman’s life was at risk then any surgeon would be expected to perform such an operation. Catholic surgeons, even Catholic priests, make exceptions in exceptional circs. A surgeon who refused when there was no one else qualified (which would be highly unlikely) would face the GMC, probably the courts. But it’s a bit hypothetical.
In a case I know of well, very sadly, the foetus was not viable. The father felt the pregnancy should go to term but the mother was so distressed at the thought of this appallingly disabled foetus continuing inside her for months only to be stillborn that she was cracking up. It was her Catholic priest who persuaded the father that abortion was acceptable under these circumstances.
It’s worth noting that a number of catastrophic birth defects cannot yet be identified until after 20 weeks of gestation. It’s cases like this poor couple’s that account for nearly all late abortions, something campaigners never seem to properly absorb.
May 7th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
Hi Sophie
Sorry, but that seems a pretty thin distinction to me. Doctors “perform” but registars “only officiate”? The registrar is facilitating the civil partnership, and a doctor is facilitating an abortion. The registrar authorises the partnership, and the doctor authorises the abortion. If you really want to push that distinction, then we could simply instead talk about nurses who assist the doctors, rather than the doctors themselves, but I really don’t see the difference.
You also said in your post “Her faith will only allow her to marry people who’ve never married before and who share her religious views. ”
You seem to be muddying the waters here, by making assumptions regarding Ms Ladele’s beliefs (and saying “that’s very clear” doesn’t make it so!!!). Many Christians and denominations permit or condone divorce and remarriage, under a variety of circumstances. And I’m wracking my brains, but I can’t think of any reason why you would think that a Christian would only be prepared to marry fellow Christians – there is no theological reason that I could think of why anyone would restrict marriage to people from their own faith. Likewise, your comment about “marrying from the same address” seems completely irrelevant – on the contrary, I’d be delighted to see a co-habiting couple decide to marry, rather than continue the way they were.
So, these seem like red herrings to me, whereas the issue of civil partnerships would seem a lot more clear-cut to a large number of Christians and churches – hence the outcry. There seems to be nothing arbitrary about taking a position like Ms Ladele’s, whether you agree with her beliefs or not.
You mentioned an apparently alanogous distinction of Muslims selling beer – but again, this doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny. In Ms Ladele’s case, her job was changed after she’d been performing it for a while, and doubtless after having done a lot of training and embarking on a career. Does this really seem analogous to a check-out worker to you? I daresay that some muslims would decide not to perform such a role, for religious reasons, though perhaps some employers would be more understanding in such a situation. In any case, the danger is that this could be the thin end of the wedge, and ultimately to various doors closing to christians in a variety of professions. For example, if sex education went the way some political parties would like it, it is not difficult to imagine that the teaching profession would be off-limits to many christians too. Perhaps you don’t see that as a loss to the teaching profession, but again we seem to be heading in a dangerous direction, for a supposedly “free” society.
In summary, it seems to me that freedom of religious conscience in this area is all in the eye of the beholder. People seem to want to draw the lines in arbitrary places, depending on their personal views. If you dislike her view, then you are much less likely to protect her freedom, which is precisely why the law should be protecting her.
I note that you described her as a “self-righteous p in the a” – have you met her? If not, do you feel it’s appropriate to judge her in this way? Again, it sounds like me that you are making assumptions about her, simply because you don’t hold her views. Such pre-conceptions do nothing to advance intelligent debate, particularly on a website like this one.
Regards
Stuart
May 7th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
@ Stuart: When an abortion is performed the patient consents to the operation but she doesn’t perform the operation. The people who physically end the pregnancy are the medical team. That’s the difference. If you can’t see that, then I suggest you ask someone else.
Nurses are also allowed to refuse to participate in abortion. In the case of any medical staff this refusal would, naturally, depend on the precise terms of their contract of employment.
I say she’s a p in the a because like so many who claim their conscience as an excuse, it’s clear it’s only gay couples that give her a problem. This is prejudice cloaked in religion.
Were she to apply the faith she claims with any consistency I can’t imagine she’d be a Registrar at all. Too many grey areas, too many divorcees remarrying. Being a Registrar is a bog standard civil service job. What next? Christian conscience won’t allow housing officers to work with gay couples?
If this lady wants to marry only people she approves of then let her become a vicar.
Incidentally, please forgive me for taking your question seriously. As you already know the answer you prefer it seems a bit of waste of time asking the question.
May 8th, 2010 at 9:47 am
Sophie
You seem to want to debate this issue by raising a succession of “straw men” and then just rubbishing them. It’s clear we are getting nowhere, so I’ll let you have the last word, and leave it at that.
God bless
Stuart
May 8th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
The sin in homosexuality (if you believe it’s sin which I don’t) is not in the love, the loyalty, the partnership or the shared home. These could describe a relationship between friends or siblings. It lies specifically in the desires and their physical expression. This expression is wholly unrelated to civil partnership which is just a legal contract.
If without a civil partnership gay couples could or would not have sex Lilian Ladele might have a case for claiming her actions were causing sin. However her role has no relation to the couple’s physical relationship. Indeed she has no way of knowing whether any couple even has a physical relationship. Some don’t, particularly older ones, just as with heterosexuals. Celibate marriages are surprisingly common.
I suspect Ms Ladele may have slight delusions of grandeur, seeing her role as quasi-religious. Clergy are excused from performing civil partnership ceremonies and it seems she feels she should be exempt on the same grounds. This would explain why she can’t see why the civil service is not a suitable arena for faith-based discrimination.
The sin in abortion (if you believe it’s a sin, which I don’t) lies partly in intent and consent but centrally in performing the operation itself. The surgical team are therefore the principal offenders.
So in the one example the gay couple are the sinners and in the second it’s the surgical team. That’s why the registrar is not excused and the surgical team can be.
Is that clear enough for you? I doubt it because, despite your accusations about my arguments, I think anyone reading this exchange would see that you’ve been less than honest, asking questions to which you don’t want an answer.
BTW, being rude and then saying “God bless” doesn’t play well. It’s either forbearance or insult. Doing both convinces no one.
May 9th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
I dont think that the comparison of a medic and a civic servant is a viable one.
For starters if a nurse or a doctor are against abortion on religious grounds, you then don’t chose to practice in the specialism of O&G.
This is not the same as a civil servant. As Sophie has already pointed out, the registrar is performing a civic cermony, she is not presiding over the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.