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

[Flosshilde]

You would have been hopefully summarily dismissed for gross bigotry, and you would have got absolutely no sympathy from me!

A rather more accurate analogy would be if the definition of 'books' was suddenly changed to include and promote publicly-funded Papal Decrees on the grounds of 'equality' and 'non-discrimination' regarding the lending of Papal Decrees.

I can see your cheerfully willing and enthusiastic adoption of these new 'services' even now, Flossie ...

All the libraries I worked in had copies of the Bible (& other religious books), although I always felt that they should be shelved with the folk & fairy tales.

My analogy was perfectly accurate - the registrar was dismissed because she refused to provide a service that she was required to provide, under legislation and her employment contract, because she had moral objections to the people she was supposed to be providing that service to. Just as I would have been if I'd refused to issue books to a Christian, or indeed a member of the BNP. If you think the registrar shouldn't have been dismissed, then neither should I.

[Flosshilde]

Ms Ladele presumably complied with the law under her original legal terms and condition of employment. If the law changes it is the state that is breaking the legal terms of conditions, not Ms Ladele.

No, her terms of employment would have been, in essence, to carry out the duties as required by her employer, which should be consistent with the law - which can and does change.

Would it be reasonable for a Health and Safety inspector to decide that they were only going to conduct inspections based on the law as it stood when they were appointed?

[scottycelt]

All the libraries I worked in had copies of the Bible (& other religious books), although I always felt that they should be shelved with the folk & fairy tales.

So the law of the land should now be determined by Flossie-types ... ?

I bet your libraries had plenty of other stuff too which you conveniently omit to mention.

I'm perfectly happy for all sorts of books to be included in public libraries (in the adult section).

Are you ... ?

[Barbirollians]

Ms Ladele presumably complied with the law under her original legal terms and condition of employment. If the law changes it is the state that is breaking the legal terms of conditions, not Ms Ladele.

If she is now considered unfit for employment because of that change, is she not entitled to some form of redress?

I find it it revealing that here we have a clear case of discrimination against workers (female at that) and yet our forum 'equality' members are now apparently marching arm-in-arm with Tory 'toffs' like David Cameron.

You honestly couldn't make this nonsense up ...

I am afraid your posting simply shows you do not know how the law works . A contract is an agreement between two parties . Many contracts and in particular employment contracts are regulated by the law but it has always been the case that a person cannot seek to rely upon a term in their contract if that has become unlawful .

Your suggestion that the " state is breaking the terms and conditions " is absurd . The state is not a party to the contract but statute law reflects the will of Parliament and overrides the common law . Taken logically , when the state stopped women and children being sent down mines in your eyes it was breaking the contract between the employer and employee, when the Factories Acts began rudimentary controls on working conditions they were breaking the contracts etc etc

You simply display your ignorance by your postings I am afraid . Your posts amount to saying one thing - Christians should be allowed to discriminate against gay people but not vice versa .

[scottycelt]

No, her terms of employment would have been, in essence, to carry out the duties as required by her employer, which should be consistent with the law - which can and does change.

Would it be reasonable for a Health and Safety inspector to decide that they were only going to conduct inspections based on the law as it stood when they were appointed?

Long live Flossie ... the new born-again capitalist socialist ...

[Lateralthinking1]

Just as I would have been if I'd refused to issue books to a Christian, or indeed a member of the BNP. If you think the registrar shouldn't have been dismissed, then neither should I.

I am not sure that this is a direct analogy. Let's take the BNP out of this equation and say you are vehemently against the Communists. There is a distinction between helping a known Communist to find a book on knitting and being required to order a book about Communism or helping her to find a particular Communist text. Only in the latter cases do you have a facilitating role.

Regrettably, I don't think that someone with a religious, discriminatory, viewpoint is going to be changed easily. The most you can hope for realistically is that a sense of fairness is brought to the majority of the population through systemic change. On that basis, I think that a more reasonable employer might have discussed a range of options for her and at the same time required her to attend a diversity course every six months. This is not to say that considerable resources should have been devoted to her. There is only so much time that should be given to, shall we say, unhelpful idiosyncrasy. In the real world, though, it does exist.

I wonder how these four cases were brought together? For all I know, she could be the Chief Executive of a militant Christian organisation but it is probably more likely that her case was taken up by one. She has hardly done herself any favours in terms of obtaining a new job. Stupid and even hateful from some people's perspectives, she was possibly yet another pawn in the big game.

[scottycelt]

I am afraid your posting simply shows you do not know how the law works . A contract is an agreement between two parties . Many contracts and in particular employment contracts are regulated by the law but it has always been the case that a person cannot seek to rely upon a term in their contract if that has become unlawful .

Your suggestion that the " state is breaking the terms and conditions " is absurd . The state is not a party to the contract but statute law reflects the will of Parliament and overrides the common law . Taken logically , when the state stopped women and children being sent down mines in your eyes it was breaking the contract between the employer and employee, when the Factories Acts began rudimentary controls on working conditions they were breaking the contracts etc etc

You simply display your ignorance by your postings I am afraid . Your posts amount to saying one thing - Christians should be allowed to discriminate against gay people but not vice versa .

Thanks for your kind words ... however, I'd respectfully urge you to try and read my posts more carefully in order to gain a more fruitful comprehension of the fears of many who simply do not share your views.

Mutual tolerance of viewpoint is the first great aid to mutual understanding?

[scottycelt]

I am afraid your posting simply shows you do not know how the law works . A contract is an agreement between two parties . Many contracts and in particular employment contracts are regulated by the law but it has always been the case that a person cannot seek to rely upon a term in their contract if that has become unlawful .

Your suggestion that the " state is breaking the terms and conditions " is absurd . The state is not a party to the contract but statute law reflects the will of Parliament and overrides the common law . Taken logically , when the state stopped women and children being sent down mines in your eyes it was breaking the contract between the employer and employee, when the Factories Acts began rudimentary controls on working conditions they were breaking the contracts etc etc

You simply display your ignorance by your postings I am afraid . Your posts amount to saying one thing - Christians should be allowed to discriminate against gay people but not vice versa .

And ignorance can sometimes be very educative even for the constantly aware ...

A contract is legally binding under the original law. If the law changes it cannot possibly still be legally binding as the old law no longer exists, It has to be re-negotiated under the new laws to be currently legally binding. Quite astonishing, I know ...

You're not a lawyer by any chance are you ... ?

[Pabmusic]

...The cry of 'discrimination' and 'inequality' against those who simply wish to retain a centuries-old dictionary definition of a word is wholly bogus...

The view that marriage as we know it is a centuries-old tradition (let alone a dictionary definition) is wholly bogus. In the UK it has been regulated by numerous laws, the best known of which may have been the Marriage Act of 1753, applying to England and Wales but not to Scotland. It required there to be parental consent for people under 21; because that was not the law in Scotland, the practice grew of couples from south of the border fleeing to Scotland to marry - Gretna Green still draws the tourists on this story.

Here are a few things about 'marriage' that have changed:

The lower limit for a legal marriage was 12 for a girl, 14 for a boy. This was changed to 16 in 1929. Before 1745, no parental consent was required for any marriage (it was later in Scotland). The upper age for parental consent was lowered to 18 in the late 1960s.

From 1745, the only legal marriages in England and Wales were those conducted by an ordained priest of the Church of England (this included the three exemptions from other parts of the Act - Jews, Quakers and Catholics) in a C of E building (this changed in 1836).

Until the 1890s (can't recall exactly) a wife was the legal property of her husband.

There's plenty of other examples. Marriage isn't a static thing that has a 'centuries-old dictionary definition'. It's definition depends on where and when you live.

[Lateralthinking1]

The view that marriage as we know it is a centuries-old tradition (let alone a dictionary definition) is wholly bogus. In the UK it has been regulated by numerous laws, the best known of which may have been the Marriage Act of 1753, applying to England and Wales but not to Scotland. It required there to be parental consent for people under 21; because that was not the law in Scotland, the practice grew of couples from south of the border fleeing to Scotland to marry - Gretna Green still draws the tourists on this story.

Here are a few things about 'marriage' that have changed:

The lower limit for a legal marriage was 12 for a girl, 14 for a boy. This was changed to 16 in 1929. Before 1745, no parental consent was required for any marriage (it was later in Scotland). The upper age for parental consent was lowered to 18 in the late 1960s.

From 1745, the only legal marriages in England and Wales were those conducted by an ordained priest of the Church of England (this included the three exemptions from other parts of the Act - Jews, Quakers and Catholics) in a C of E building (this changed in 1836).

Until the 1890s (can't recall exactly) a wife was the legal property of her husband.

There's plenty of other examples. Marriage isn't a static thing that has a 'centuries-old dictionary definition'. It's definition depends on where and when you live.

Yes, thank you for clarifying the legal position. I have written before on this forum about the Church of England's requirement of banns of marriage from 1215 and the introduction of marriage licences in the following century. Before 1215 marriage was not sanctified. It was simply another form of procedural contract that could help to ensure that inheritance rights were indisputable.

Before 1215, I believe that the congregation of a very old church near here would have been both devout in faith and somewhat blase in their forms of private union, with the Church's blessing, unless they had particular concerns about who might run off with any money. Long-term commitments in all aspects of society are of underestimated value but I view all marriage as an adornment.

[Pabmusic]

...unless they had particular concerns about who might run off with any money. Long-term commitments in all aspects of society are of underestimated value but I view all marriage as an adornment.

I should have added that, in the UK, things changed considerably in 1836, when no marriage could be lawful unless it was in the presence of the civil authority - the newly created Registrar. The C of E was exempt as an established church (the vicars are licensed as Registrars in a sense) but all other marriages have to include the civil element, whether Catholic, Mormon, Hindu, Muslim or whatever.

[Resurrection Man]

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

I'd be very interested to know what would happen if the gay couple wanted to book into a B&B run by a Fundamental Islamic couple.

[scottycelt]

The view that marriage as we know it is a centuries-old tradition (let alone a dictionary definition) is wholly bogus. In the UK it has been regulated by numerous laws, the best known of which may have been the Marriage Act of 1753, applying to England and Wales but not to Scotland. It required there to be parental consent for people under 21; because that was not the law in Scotland, the practice grew of couples from south of the border fleeing to Scotland to marry - Gretna Green still draws the tourists on this story.

Here are a few things about 'marriage' that have changed:

The lower limit for a legal marriage was 12 for a girl, 14 for a boy. This was changed to 16 in 1929. Before 1745, no parental consent was required for any marriage (it was later in Scotland). The upper age for parental consent was lowered to 18 in the late 1960s.

From 1745, the only legal marriages in England and Wales were those conducted by an ordained priest of the Church of England (this included the three exemptions from other parts of the Act - Jews, Quakers and Catholics) in a C of E building (this changed in 1836).

Until the 1890s (can't recall exactly) a wife was the legal property of her husband.

There's plenty of other examples. Marriage isn't a static thing that has a 'centuries-old dictionary definition'. It's definition depends on where and when you live.

You appear to be confusing the centuries-old definition of the word with the accompanying legal terms and conditions throughout the ages and in various parts of the world. As far as I'm aware this applies to all official contracts.

However, pre-2000, before some 'liberal' Western countries adopted the new whizz idea of 'same-sex' marriage, it only meant one thing.

Outside of the human institution we often talk of 'marrying' two items like a screw and a nut when erecting a tricky flat-pack from Argos.

The idea of 'marrying' two screws (or two nuts) is hardly likely to make much sense when erecting the flat-pack, so why is it in any different in the human context?

I can see it now at a job interview ...

'Good Morning, Mr Smith, now firstly let me get some personal details ...'

'Single or Married?'

'Married'

'And your wife's name?'

'I don't have a wife, I have a husband'

'Aaahhh ... oops sorry ... and what's your husband's name?'

'Mary ... '

If we change the definition of 'marriage' we also have to do the same with 'wife' and 'husband' on the same grounds of equality. In other others words a 'wife' can be a male and a 'husband' female. There must be no sex discrimination!

Could possibly make previously simple things somewhat tricky, eh ... ?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Outside of the human institution we often talk of 'marrying' two items like a screw and a nut when erecting a tricky flat-pack from Argos.

Do we???

[Pabmusic]

You appear to be confusing the centuries-old definition of the word with the accompanying legal terms and conditions throughout the ages and in various parts of the world. As far as I'm aware this applies to all official contracts...

Come on, Scotty, I'm not 'confusing' one thing with another, but rather making the point that (in English and Scottish law at least) the definition of marriage - that is, what amounts to a lawful marriage - has changed many times over the years, following parliamentary and case-law decisions. You seem to be citing a universal, overriding definition of marriage that transcends the law, but since no such thing exists in any other context, I cannot accept it does in this.

I will concede that in the past in Britain, the sex of the partners was never in issue. But it is now. The same authority that decided the definition of marriage many times in the past is planning to amend that definition yet again. It's amendments will carry exactly the same authority as they did on each previous occasion. Some people have personal beliefs that will make it difficult to accept the law, but they are just that - personal beliefs - rather than anything else.

Any change in the law will have no effect on Ikea instructions (they will still be incomprehensible to most people), but it will be interesting to see if we ourselves give 'marrying' a new shade of meaning in such a context.