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

[amateur51]

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 ?

[Lateralthinking1]

I agree with MEP Sarah Ludford:

"The court has struck exactly the right balance in judging that BA's corporate image policy should not override right of BA stewardess Nadia Eweida to wear a cross whereas genuine health and safety issues in a hospital could rule out nurse Shirley Chaplin's desire to wear one".

"The insistence by registrar Lilian Ladele and Relate counsellor Gary McFarlane that their Christian consciences made them refuse to perform certain duties was unacceptable because it could result in unacceptable discrimination against gay clients."

"Employees cannot allow their personal religious beliefs to interfere with the prescribed duties of their employment and the standards of service they provide to service-users. A religious conscience does not give you a free pass to discriminate in the workplace."

At the same time, I think that there are distinctions between the cases of Ladele and McFarlane. When Ladele was appointed, the law was different. It - and her employment terms and conditions - changed when she was in post. She also worked for the public sector. McFarlane chose to walk into a charity which had a consistent policy he opposed. He then undertook the one course that he knew would lead to the greatest conflict between his beliefs and his duties. As an experienced lawyer and therapist he might claim naivety but many wouldn't believe it. In fact, some might think, rightly or wrongly, that he had decided to play at being God.

I don't know who funded his course but had it been Relate, then that too raises questions, ie what would those who had donated money to the charity have thought? In any case, I sense that he makes money more easily than many. It appears that he had few scruples on whether costs might be awarded to him by a court as an indirect consequence of his "relationship" with people of a sexual orientation different from his own. That seems contradictory. Furthermore, if he didn't want to counsel on certain kinds of sexual behaviour, why did he attend a course which would have covered all such behaviour? I find his position very illogical.

Everyone in this day and age has to assess other people on the basis of whether they are users as use often seems to be everywhere. Unfortunately, it is a fundamental personality trait of the economic system itself. It takes a certain non-religious godliness not to seek out cash at every turn. One is reminded of the now infamous tele-evangelists in the United States.

And then there is the area of practical common sense. When that is lacking in senior management, it is that which provides the scope for people to go to court on a moral high horse. As always, it is the general public that pays. The Council admitted it could have done things differently. It might have found Ladele another post although I'm not entirely surprised that it didn't feel obliged to do so. Requirements in jobs do change and the law is the law. Relate could review its policy on sex education. Does it make sense for people to advise on things about which they know little from their own personal perspectives in whatever direction?

Finally, the limitations of many are shown in this case. If courts, charities, churches and pressure groups are all prepared to have an elaborate dialogue which makes huge distinctions between relationship counselling and sexual counselling, with an acute emphasis on sexual behaviour, then arguably none of them are best placed to make formal judgements on relationships per se.

[Flosshilde]

I thought the Guardian editorial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...=ILCNETTXT3487) gave a very reasonable summing up.

I wonder what Scotty's view would have been if I, as a librarian, had refused to provide a service to Christians?

[Lateralthinking1]

I thought the Guardian editorial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...=ILCNETTXT3487) gave a very reasonable summing up.

I wonder what Scotty's view would have been if I, as a librarian, had refused to provide a service to Christians?

Can I just add a few words about the nurse too. I feel some sympathy with her as she was probably in her mind a latter day Florence Nightingale as Nightingale is generally perceived. I can see how someone might feel that nursing is some sort of religious calling. The case could also be seen in the light of recent comments about the need for more empathy in parts of the NHS. But the practical realities of nursing are that anyone can walk through the hospital doors. For example, most on a Friday night are very drunk. If morality is to play any part in attending to them, it has to be a wholly giving thing. There isn't the time for questions. I feel that she would be better off working in a hospice and probably on tasks which don't require a uniform for safety reasons.

[scottycelt]

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

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

Methinks for gullible media consumption in order to publicly promote (for free) Barclays management's sudden new 'discovery' of the importance of something called business ethics, amsey ...

They've now turned into really decent chaps to try and make a heavenly profit, haven't they? ...

[scottycelt]

I thought the Guardian editorial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...=ILCNETTXT3487) gave a very reasonable summing up.

I wonder what Scotty's view would have been if I, as a librarian, had refused to provide a service to Christians?

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 ...

[amateur51]

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 ...

I think this an example of what is known as 'over-reaching', scotty

[scottycelt]

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

Funnily enough, though I find much of Tatchell's behaviour juvenile in the extreme, he is often one of the few 'liberals' who occasionally has logic on his side. Those who bang on about 'discrimination' should be consistent and logical and sadly many (the vast majority in my experience) are not ... in this case Tatchell has grasped the logical consequences of his own preaching.

Still, for the purposes of rectifying Scotty's total bamboozlement and general definitive clarity if nothing else, I much prefer 'marriage' to continue to mean man+woman and civil partnerships to indicate same-sex relationships. Then everybody knows what everybody else means.

Of course I agree that 'civil partnership' is a truly horrid term, but it kind of fits in with the very ethos of secularism, doesn't it?

If secularists are unhappy with it, let them, themselves, find a better word or phrase. That's hardly any concern of 'religionists' !

[MrGongGong]

Still, for the purposes of rectifying Scotty's total bamboozlement and general definitive clarity if nothing else, I much prefer 'marriage' to continue to mean man+woman and civil partnerships to indicate same-sex relationships. Then everybody knows what everybody else means.

Of course I agree that 'civil partnership' is a truly horrid term, but it kind of fits in with the very ethos of secularism, doesn't it?

If secularists are unhappy with it, let them, themselves, find a better word or phrase. That's hardly any concern of 'religionists' !

What utter rubbish
You sky fairy folk DO NOT own the word Marriage
why don't the churches make up another word for it if they don't like it ?

are Catholic so simple that they can't imagine that not everyone thinks it means what they think ?

[scottycelt]

What utter rubbish
You sky fairy folk DO NOT own the word Marriage
why don't the churches make up another word for it if they don't like it ?

are Catholic so simple that they can't imagine that not everyone thinks it means what they think ?

Yes, Mr GG, I know sky fairy folk (and Catholics in particular) can be truly tiresome, oh how I know, please do believe me ...

But 'the churches' don't want to make up another word for Marriage, ' the churches' are, I'm sure, perfectly happy with the current definition and have been for quite some time as indeed have millions of secularists as well ...

I'm sure you will agree that, as a rationalist, 1 + 2 cannot possibly equal 1 + 1, so therefore dummies like the sky fairy folk (and Catholics in particular) need proper scientific guidance as to how we can possibly give the two the same resultant term.

Simplicity is a truly awful affliction, and I just wish I could become more complicated.

[MrGongGong]

I'm sure you will agree that, as a rationalist, 1 + 2 cannot possibly equal 1 + 1, so therefore dummies like the sky fairy folk (and Catholics in particular) need proper scientific guidance as to how we can possibly give the two the same resultant term.

Now what was that about the Earth going round the Sun ?

I'm not a rationalist at all ........ I have an "irrational" love of "ugly noise"

[scottycelt]

Now what was that about the Earth going round the Sun ?

I'm not a rationalist at all ........ I have an "irrational" love of "ugly noise"

Well said, Mr GG ... I don't trust these so-called 'rationalists' either and like a bit of Richard Strauss myself!

[Barbirollians]

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'!

I understand your point entirely but it is a bad point . If discrimination is unlawful it is no excuse to say it used to be lawful and that was consonant with my personal beliefs but now it is unlawful I should be allowed to refuse to comply with the law .

Ms Ladele did not as I understand it seek to be redeployed for example or retraining but she sought to be allowed to discriminate .

[scottycelt]

I understand your point entirely but it is a bad point . If discrimination is unlawful it is no excuse to say it used to be lawful and that was consonant with my personal beliefs but now it is unlawful I should be allowed to refuse to comply with the law .

Ms Ladele did not as I understand it seek to be redeployed for example or retraining but she sought to be allowed to discriminate .

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 ...

[Lateralthinking1]

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 ...

Her case is not an ideal basis on which to consider important employment issues as she is by instinct discriminatory. However, the latter fact doesn't mean that it fails to highlight substantive issues. I understand that any employer can alter terms and conditions in many areas, particularly if this has been indicated in advance. There is a big question in my mind about whether that is right.

It isn't that an employer should be ordered around by employees but it is certainly about whether there should often be an obligation for alternative employment to be offered or on occasions compensation to be provided. That may be particularly true in regard to changes in the law, especially changes which do not address equality issues on which discriminatory arguments are used.

There is some responsibility on staff to make their own provisions based on their individual principles. I steered clear of policy areas over which I had problems but my work still took me quite close to those at times - major development with environmental impacts, nuclear power, the fringes of the military at one point. However, I made it very clear that I had an affinity with the environment.

Even in a junior capacity people accommodated it to some extent. I was put on to projects that minimised the environmental impacts of schemes and was never directly in war zones. Actually, I found MoD courteous in the extreme when they advised that twenty of us should leave the room. Sherry in the annexe. They were among the few who once or twice bought lunches too.