Christian rights cases go before Strasbourg court - a case of double standards?

[Pabmusic]

I'm a little saddened that, while we try to minimise (even eradicate) discrimination on any particular ground, we also have people who argue that they, nevertheless, should still be allowed to discriminate on precisely those grounds because of "deeply held beliefs". "I believe XYZ, therefore I should be able to discriminate against people on the grounds of their ethnicity". "I believe ABC, therefore I should be able to discriminate against people on the grounds of their gender".

Plenty of people have deeply held beliefs, but where those deeply held beliefs have been enshrined in law there has been the oportunity for abuse of anyone who doesn't share those deeply held beliefs - opportunity that, more often than not throughout history, has been accepted.

[MrGongGong]

Life is full of surprises, RM

indeed that's the gig i'm afraid !
Stuff happens get over it and do something else (which is what many us have to do !)

[Ferretfancy]

Well, of course, a registrar now knows exactly what the job entails so there is no debate about that.

However, it cannot be denied that not so long ago civil partnerships did not exist and gender was the most important aspect of marriage.

A death is a death and happens to everyone and gender is totally irrelevant in such work.

The Government proposals regarding marriage are of a wholly different order.

I certainly have a lot of sympathy with those who don't like it and will be stuck with it daily, simply because they are unable to find alternative, more suitable employment.

Don't you, ferret ... ?

If their feelings are that intense, perhaps they should consider more congenial employment. I know that some might see that as a fascist attitude-- " If you don't like us you can leave ' But nevertheless there are choices.
Let me tell you about a gay colleague of mine who was in a long lasting relationship. His partner died suddenly, and his family from Bristol rushed up to London. His partner was not allowed to register the death, the family made all the arrangements, and he was banned from the funeral. This was before the legal standing that civil partnerships bring, and please don't see this as history, it still happens to the unwary.

[Barbirollians]

Since when were conscientious objectors separated on the grounds of faith or lack of it?

Whether one is religious or not is irrelevant when it comes to conscience or belief.

Would you force the owner of a vegetarian restaurant to provide meat-dishes for customers as not doing so would be deemed offensive and unlawfully discriminating against meat-eaters?

Your point is that they should be allowed to refuse to conduct civil partnerships because she believes gay relationships to be wrong on the grounds of her Christian beliefs.

Yet if it is fine for her to discriminate why would it not be fine for another person to refuse simply because they were a bigot and hated gay people ?

The fallacy at the heart of your arguments is that you believe discrimination to be acceptable if you have a " good " i.e religious reason for discriminating . The law and the ECtHR do not accept that distinction . The reasons you wish to discriminate or your motive are irrelevant .

[Serial_Apologist]

Would you force the owner of a vegetarian restaurant to provide meat-dishes for customers as not doing so would be deemed offensive and unlawfully discriminating against meat-eaters?

I don't recall the Cornish B&B owners advertising their business as "A Christian Law-Observing B&B", scotty

[scottycelt]

I'm a little saddened that, while we try to minimise (even eradicate) discrimination on any particular ground, we also have people who argue that they, nevertheless, should still be allowed to discriminate on precisely those grounds because of "deeply held beliefs". "I believe XYZ, therefore I should be able to discriminate against people on the grounds of their ethnicity". "I believe ABC, therefore I should be able to discriminate against people on the grounds of their gender".

Plenty of people have deeply held beliefs, but where those deeply held beliefs have been enshrined in law there has been the oportunity for abuse of anyone who doesn't share those deeply held beliefs - opportunity that, more often than not throughout history, has been accepted.

We all 'discriminate'. We can't choose our parents and siblings but for just about everything else we all go through life 'discriminating'. We choose our friends by 'discriminating', employers choose employees by 'discriminating' and vice-versa if lucky enough. If we join a political party or particular club we 'discriminate'. Members of this forum 'discriminate' by sending PMs to some and not others. We choose our partners through 'discrimination'. Even gays do that and therefore 'discriminate' against other gays. Shocking, but true.

The cry of 'discrimination' and 'inequality' against those who simply wish to retain a centuries-old dictionary definition of a word is wholly bogus. There is nothing to stop those in same-sex relationships from creating a new word for their relationships and have it enshrined in law. Civil Partnerships already exist in which there is blatant 'discrimination' as heterosexuals are excluded by law. I have absolutely no objection to such 'discrimination' as it seems like a very good and sensible idea to have separate words for different forms of relationships! Of course it's 'discrimination' but it works and seems a fair and reasonable compromise. Sadly, there are those who are simply not agreeable to reaching an adult compromise, they simply strive to enforce their ideas on others who find these same ideas unacceptable.

Any supposed 'bigotry' and 'intolerance' in such matters is certainly not confined to one side of the debate ...

[scottycelt]

Your point is that they should be allowed to refuse to conduct civil partnerships because she believes gay relationships to be wrong on the grounds of her Christian beliefs.

Yet if it is fine for her to discriminate why would it not be fine for another person to refuse simply because they were a bigot and hated gay people ?

The fallacy at the heart of your arguments is that you believe discrimination to be acceptable if you have a " good " i.e religious reason for discriminating . The law and the ECtHR do not accept that distinction . The reasons you wish to discriminate or your motive are irrelevant .

No, you miss the point at the heart of my argument.

I agree entirely that anyone now applying for the job as registrar should be prepared to carry out their duties which now includes officiating at Civil Partnerships. Those who don't approve of the employment terms need not apply. I don't think anyone is really arguing with that!

The problem is with those employees who have been in the job for some time and feel morally unable to carry out these new duties. Surely a fair and humane accommodation can be found to exempt them from these duties until they leave or retire? This happens all the time in employment. New recruits are often hired on different terms and duties than their current counterparts, as we all know!

To simply turn round to moral objectors (many of whom may have had a long and exemplary work record) and say in effect 'stuff your morals, if you don't like it you can sod off' seems to me, and I'm sure many others, grossly unfair and, yes, even a wee bit 'intolerant'!

[amateur51]

ams, surely I don't have to explain to you the difference between a deeply held religious belief and membership of a political party ?

My guess is that both sets of people would believe that they've thought through the implications of their beliefs and regard them as valid and important, maybe even something that defines them.

Many people of course have their parents' religion thrust upon them at a very young age. Some decide to tag along, others get upset & decide to stop, and some just spend the rest of their lives feeling confused. People also tell the same sort of story about political beliefs of course "Father was a Liberal and so am I".

So no, I don't see any meaningful distinction between the two except that religion has acquired a mystical association which for many people, religious & otherwise, means that religion is non-negotiable and should not be criticised as any other faith position might be criticised.

I just wish that some religious people would understand that we all live in a secular democratic society moderated by laws passed by a democratic parliament. And as such, the laws of the land hold sway over religious beliefs etc.

However it is always open to people who disagree with a law to try to get that law changed - that's what a democracy means.

PS: I did find you opening "surely" rather patronising, RM.

But perhaps that's what you intended?

[MrGongGong]

The problem is with those employees who have been in the job for some time and feel morally unable to carry out these new duties. Surely a fair and humane accommodation can be found to exempt them from these duties until they leave or retire? !

So how about a musician who refuses to play music by Britten as it offends his "morals" ?

[amateur51]

No, you miss the point at the heart of my argument.

I agree entirely that anyone now applying for the job as registrar should be prepared to carry out their duties which now includes officiating at Civil Partnerships. Those who don't approve of the employment terms need not apply. I don't think anyone is really arguing with that!

The problem is with those employees who have been in the job for some time and feel morally unable to carry out these new duties. Surely a fair and humane accommodation can be found to exempt them from these duties until they leave or retire? This happens all the time in employment. New recruits are often hired on different terms and duties than their current counterparts, as we all know!

To simply turn round to moral objectors (many of whom may have had a long and exemplary work record) and say in effect 'stuff your morals, if you don't like it you can sod off' seems to me, and I'm sure many others, grossly unfair and, yes, even a wee bit 'intolerant'!

Well the new hard-headed business-orientated boss of Barclays seems to disagree with you, scotty

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21064590

[amateur51]

If their feelings are that intense, perhaps they should consider more congenial employment. I know that some might see that as a fascist attitude-- " If you don't like us you can leave ' But nevertheless there are choices.
Let me tell you about a gay colleague of mine who was in a long lasting relationship. His partner died suddenly, and his family from Bristol rushed up to London. His partner was not allowed to register the death, the family made all the arrangements, and he was banned from the funeral. This was before the legal standing that civil partnerships bring, and please don't see this as history, it still happens to the unwary.

This was an all too common occurrence in days of yore, as you say Ferret. Thanks for raising it

[MrGongGong]

This was an all too common occurrence in days of yore, as you say Ferret. Thanks for raising it

And , of course, it's important to remember that many countries don't recognise civil partnerships so that if your partner was taken ill or died while abroad you would have NO rights at all. Which IMV is another good reason to have equal marriage ! (though had we been able my wife and I would probably had a civil partnership ...)

[Beef Oven]

So how about a musician who refuses to play music by Britten as it offends his "morals" ?

Mimes and lets the others carry him (larger works) - Throws a sickie & solo & chamber works).

[amateur51]

And , of course, it's important to remember that many countries don't recognise civil partnerships so that if your partner was taken ill or died while abroad you would have NO rights at all. Which IMV is another good reason to have equal marriage ! (though had we been able my wife and I would probably had a civil partnership ...)

Scotty will be totally bamboozled to find that Peter Tachell is campaigning for heterosexual civil partnerships now

[MrGongGong]

Mimes and lets the others carry him (larger works) - Throws a sickie & solo & chamber works).

My "faith" demands that I play Metal Machine Music @ 120db three times a day,
do you think they should sack me from the British Library Reading Room ?