Why?
Excuse me while I gibber in bafflement for a moment. A homophobe doesn’t want to perform civil partnerships for gay couples on religious grounds - and an employment tribunal says that’s okay. Why? The whole point of civil partnerships is that they’re secular; religion doesn’t come into it.
But, apparently, it does now. The tribunal sets a dangerous precedent with their decision. It’s okay for the religious to discriminate against gays on the grounds of their sexuality, it says - even in secular situations. And it’s not okay to ensure secular functions are carried out if the religious functionary due to carry them out isn’t comfortable. Note that sexuality isn’t often considered a conscious choice. Religion very definitely is.
And, guess what? That’s how the fundies read it too. Quoth Lillian Ladele, the bigot concerned:
“I am delighted at this decision.
“It is a victory for religious liberty, not just for myself but for others in a similar position to mine.
“Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs.”
And, of course, selective, homophobic readings of an ancient text should be used as an excuse to bully and harrass people over their sexuality. Ladele claims to have won a victory for liberty; she hasn’t. She’s set a precedent where public servants - who exist to serve the whole public equally, on the basis of need - may discriminate against that public on the grounds of their own irrational prejudices. A victory, in short, for discrimination.
Hadn’t we got past all this?
Posted in: Bad Policy, Domestic Politics, Extremism, Religion, Sexuality
It is rather a case of someone being in the wrong job. I seem to recall a Muslim who tried to sue a supermarket because of the tricky situation of selling alcohol. If you have these conflicts of conscience, you are in the wrong job. It is not the employer’s fault - that’s the job description.