Another registrar is in trouble in her job after refusing to marry a gay couple she has been demoted to a receptionist by her employer. Now she claims she is facing dismissal over her religious objections to same-sex civil partnerships.
The case parallels that of the registrar who won a similar battle last year against the same employer, Islington Council. Both registrars worked in the same department. She is complaining of a ‘militant political-sexual libertarian lobby’ at the council. She says “If Islington Council believes in dignity for all, why can’t my beliefs be accommodated and why is my dignity not being respected? She is now launching a grievance procedure against the council, arguing that she has been the victim of discrimination on the grounds of her religious beliefs.
This sort of case is somewhat different to being allowed to wear a religious symbol at work as performing civil marriages is an integral part of a registrars job.
Should personal beliefs be allowed to interfere with ones work? Should all personal beliefs, whatever they happen to be, be left at the door of your place of work?
Doctors are allowed to opt out of abortions on religious grounds, is that in the same ball park as this? Where is the line drawn? Should any line be drawn?
It’s an interesting debate; take it further. Should bishops be sitting the House of Lords? Where do state and religion part.
I would say the best solution would be not to take a post where there could be a conflict in the duties that you have to perform. However in this case the changes came about while this woman was in post and had been for a number of years. Is it right that her prejudice is allowable and someone else does all the same sex marriages?
My own opinion is that it’s a civil ceremony and so any religion/religious views should not come into the equation. The wider debate on when equality is equality and where civil crosses faith is a major debate that I think is underlying a number of issues in society today.
Simon Dyda 12:35 pm on 5 July, 2009 Permalink
If your personal beliefs prevent you from performing the job you’re being paid to do, then you should get another job, full stop.
As for State and religion, the Church was disestablished in Wales at the beginning of the last century. It’s about time the Church was disestablished in Westminster too..
valleysmam 2:12 pm on 5 July, 2009 Permalink
Nice new look, bit stark but may be that’s the new style.
wooo biggie to kick off with .For me the two should be kept miles apart.In history there has been far too many meddling Bishops.And we have it again with another Bishop wading into the gay debate this week.They don’t seem to be as vocal when it comes to poverty
If your job means duties that you cannot stomach then find another one.My adage is that you shouldn’t be a thorn in your employers back ,just for yourself.If you have a general grievance then fight for your rights collectively.That’s what Unions are for. This I guess is in terms and conditions at work. Again religious foibles shouldnt be a priority.
This registrar is there to conduct a civil event,she isn’t marrying them in a religious setting, so for me she should just get on with it. However if it was me I wouldn’t want her being part of my happy day.
The thought of Bush and Blair praying for divine intervention and guidance gave me the shivers. No problem if they feel the need to do that , but I prefer decisions that could effect the world to be based on more than intercession.
south ural mountains » Angela Seneviratne Pictures of Sri Lankan famous Actress 9:32 pm on 5 July, 2009 Permalink
[...] How far should religion be allowed to impinge on the secular … [...]
marcus warner 9:45 pm on 5 July, 2009 Permalink
“If your personal beliefs prevent you from performing the job you’re being paid to do, then you should get another job, full stop.”
I have to agree with Simon. As an atheist, I think ultimately we need a complete separation of church (of any creed) and state. This will, in fact, be the only way to treat all religions fairly.
MH 2:00 pm on 6 July, 2009 Permalink
I gave this a little thought at the time when Catholic adoption agencies and prospective gay parents were in the news. The conclusion I came to was that the principle that should be applied is to maintain a clear separation between the obligations of individuals and those of organizations.
To use the long-standing example of abortion: Yes, it is right that a woman can get an abortion on the NHS, but that it is also right that an individual within the NHS should be allowed to opt out of taking part in an abortion. The organization can use its other staff to perform the procedure.
In this case of this registrar the Council is obliged to offer a civil partnership ceremony (sadly it is not yet possible for gay couples to marry in the UK) but if a registrar believes that such partnerships are wrong, s/he should have the right to decline to perform such a ceremony if the organization has other registrars willing and able to perform it instead.
In the case of an adoption agency: Yes, it is right that all couples, including gay couples, should have the right to use a publicly regulated service. But if an individual does not believe in gay adoption, it is right that they should be able to opt out of dealing with those particular cases, provided that the organization is still able to offer the service.
This brings up the question of scale. The Catholic agency, as an organization, should not be allowed to opt out of providing a service to gay couples. That’s clear enough. But even if, as an organization, it changed it’s rules the large majority of its staff would be likely to opt out, to the extent that the gay couple would in fact be disadvantaged. That would be wrong. So the best option seemed to be for the Catholic agency to merge with a larger organization so that case workers who had no such objections would be readily available to gay couples.
Under this principle, the only potential conflict arises in very small organizations. In Northern Ireland a year or so ago, there was an issue over whether someone offering B&B accommodation could refuse a room to a gay couple. In this instance, it would be wrong for the B&B to refuse, because that would unfairly inconvenience the gay couple. The same would apply in a Council which had only one registrar. However most organizations are large enough for no conflict of interest to arise.
In all four examples, the principle is that the organization is obliged to provide the service, but an individual in an organization should be able to opt out.
-
If we believe in an inclusive and pluralistic society, this must surely mean that we accept that people have a right to their religious, ethical, political and personal beliefs; even if we disagree with them. As a society we should not seek to outlaw beliefs; even if a large majority of us might disagree with them. Such a society cannot claim to be inclusive.
So if we claim to respect the individuality of others, it would be wrong to exclude those with beliefs that differ those of the majority from various occupations where a potential conflict of interest arises only on some occasions. Do we ever want to say to a prospective doctor that s/he cannot be employed in the NHS unless they agree to carry out abortions?
In a tolerant society, our public organizations should respect the beliefs of others and offer the flexibility to work round people’s preferences whenever that is practically possible. Sometimes it won’t be possible … but not often.
Dyfed 12:37 pm on 7 July, 2009 Permalink
Those of us with faith (in my case Christian, but it is probably true of all faiths) see things a little differently
First, as a Christian my core belief informs me that the God I believe in is interested in all aspects of life. Therefore, there is no secular/sacred divide. Everything falls within the sphere of a God who creates and sustains life.
Second, Christians generally believe that there is such a thing as objective and knowable truth. The very title of this blog (and a great start to the work, by the way!) ‘This is my truth’, therefore, presents a problem
While there may be ‘truths’, we believe there is also ‘truth’. This ‘truth’ not only informs our ‘religious’ life, but also our lifestyle in general.
Third, before the Emperor Constantine was converted in 312 AD Christians did not have (or want to have) their hands on political power. Since then church and state have often gone hand in hand. Many of us today believe that to be wrong. Indeed we would say that political power has corrupted the church in many ways. We would want to see the disestablishment of the Church of England in England (as happened in Wales in 1920), which would lead to there being no bishops in the House of Lords (at least as bishops). (But then as someone who believes in having a fully elected H o L you could well have bishops there if they had been elected!) That does not mean that as Christians we belive we should stay out of the political realm or do not have anything worth saying to it.
4. Christian fundementalism has skewed many peoples’ view of the faith. But there is a growing reform movement seeking change. Fundementalism seeks to control politcal power in order to change society from above. Reformers seek to change from below through their values.
On the particulars of the post let me make this point:
Civil ceremonies are non-religious in their very nature. That’s the whole point of the system! So a registrar should not be bringing their own personal beliefs into the situation. Some Chrisrtains (and I’m not one of them) believe that divorcees should not remarry. Should a registrar with this view be allowed to refuse to marry them? Of course not.
David Phillips 8:46 pm on 8 July, 2009 Permalink
An interesting example of how the interaction of public and private spheres leads to the potential denial of one person’s rights. The registrar has a right not to be coerced into carrying out a public duty which infringes on her negative liberty, which is a particular religious belief. Equally, the gay couple look to positive liberty as a means fully to express their feelings to each other and to have the relationship legally recognised.
Neither the orientation nor the religious conviction should be prevented from expressing itself. The example of doctors refusing to carry out an abortion shows how a public body facilitates a woman’s right to abort her child as well as respecting the values of the medical professional who does not believe in the procedure.
The serious philosophical question would arise if the state said that in future do not plan on training to be a doctor unless you are prepared to carry out abortions or don’t be a registrar if you don’t agree with the idea of gay relationships.
Menora 11:28 am on 9 July, 2009 Permalink
This has focused very much on Christianity ,where do other faiths fit in relation to the state.
is it only the recognised state religion?
From where I sit I see other religions pushing into the arena too. Sharia Law is raising its head and some sects are encouraged to stand for public office to have an influence.Is this OK to do/
My own faith ,which is clear from my name is rather passive in this end focus more on civil society.
Interesting debate.
David Phillips 6:59 pm on 9 July, 2009 Permalink
There is no state religion as such only that one particular faith is practiced by more people than any other. The potential danger may arise if some religious groups make rights claims on the basis that the identity of adherents to that faith are being denied or stifled unless they can carry out certain activities.
Some such activities can cause problems in an open society when they run against the very strong thread of tolerance which values individual autonomy and equal treatment of women.
I agree that a vibrant civil society is essential and is the best way of obviating the tendency for religious groups to seek political platforms, which can lead to a polarisation of our communities.
The strongest safeguard for our liberty is that laws are general and not specific to a certain group and certainly we need to avoid situations where theological interpretations are used as a pretext for exclusions from our common law, where more often than not it is women who suffer the consequences.