British Court Rules Christian Registrar Must Conduct Homosexual ‘Wedding’

imagesbannerscp_120x1201Reprinted by permission of the Christian Post

By Ethan Cole|Christian Post Reporter

A London court of appeals ruled Tuesday against a Christian registrar who refused to conduct a same-sex civil union ceremony because it violated her religious beliefs.

Lillian Ladele claimed she suffered discrimination, including being ridiculed and bullied, while working for the Islington City Council. Ladele had worked for the council for nearly 16 years, but did not experience discrimination until after she refused to perform the gay civil union.

Ladele’s attorney said she never wanted to undermine the rights of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender community. But human rights laws don’t only protect members of the LGBT community, but also people’s right to hold views about marriage.

Ladele said she was essentially forced to choose between her religious faith and her $50,000-a-year job.

j0446449“The decision of the Court of Appeal is another setback for Bible-believing Christians,” said Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of U.K.-based Christian Concern for our Nation, in a statement. “If this kind of legal precedent is followed it will prove increasingly difficult for Christians to participate fully in public life without contravening their conscience.”

Initially, the Employment Tribunal had ruled in favor of Ladele after the first court hearing in July 2008. The tribunal found that the council failed to respect its employee’s rights to her Christian beliefs. Moreover, the tribunal said the council could have other registrars who don’t hold the same beliefs to provide “first-class” service to same-sex couples without Ladele’s involvement.

The council “placed a greater value on the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual community than it placed on the rights of Ms. Ladele as one holding an orthodox Christian belief,” the tribunal said.

But a December 2008 ruling by the Employment Appeal Tribunal overturned the initial decision, stating that the council had the right to require all its registrars to conduct all the services. On Tuesday, the court of appeals affirmed the appeal tribunal’s decision.

“Our public services are increasingly using equality and diversity policies to leave Christians sidelined and punished,” Williams said. “In effect this amounts to a religious bar to office.”

U.K. Christians have recently voiced alarm over the encroachment of their religious liberty in the name of equality.

In November, a court ruled against a Christian marriage counselor who refused to give sex therapy to a gay couple. Counselor Gary McFarlane said he believes the Bible teaches same-sex sexual practice is immoral and could not personally endorse homosexual relationships. He did not object to other counselors giving such couples advice.

However, his employer eventually fired him in early 2008 because of his religious views on homosexuality and his refusal to provide services to same-sex couples.

This week, the Christian Institute released a new report that asserts that Christians are being marginalized by equality and diversity laws “which leave them the first to be punished and the last to be protected.” The report noted the “growing sense of intolerance” felt by Christians in the United Kingdom.

“Christians wonder why they are not being treated equally and why diversity does not include them,” said Mike Judge, the head of communications at the Christian Institute. “This has led to a growing feeling that ‘equality and diversity’ is code for marginalizing Christian beliefs.”

Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, has accused U.K. lawmakers of treating Christians like “oddballs.”

The Anglican leader also accused the government of treating religious groups as “slightly fishy interest groups” and said he would be “very glad” if they spoke up for faith this Christmas.

Williams made the comments in a recent interview with The Telegraph.

Copyright 2009 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark
  • brian rutledge
    Whether it is a religious belief or a deeply held personal belief doesn't matter. It is up to the person applying for a job or if the job description changes, to let the employer know they can't adhere to the job description. The employer then must decide whether to hire or not and find a 'fill in' if needed or let the employee know if they can't follow the job descrption, then they must look elsewhere for employment.
  • dcm
    Sure, going forward, that could make sense -- if you don't want to "marry" same-sex couples, don't get into the business in the first place. But here we have people who already have the job being forced out (and people who might get into to the job being forced away from it) due to the governmental imposition of a false belief (that same-sex couplings merit government recognition).

    People protest against the appearance of "religious beliefs" being imposed on them. But they never have a problem with their *own* beliefs being imposed on others.
  • dcm
    This is an oh-so-predictable trend. The more gay-identified people get, the more they'll want, because the road they're on will never satisfy them no matter how far they go down it. It's not enough that some people will "marry" them -- they insist that nobody who marries anyone be allowed *not* to "marry" them.

    It is extremely arrogant and selfish for any group of people to demand that no one be allowed to oppose or disagree with them on any level. It is even worse when coming from those whose behavior is demonstrably both unhealthy and correctible. Their insistence on not being opposed betrays a deep insecurity about their own position; they cannot prove they're right (because they're not), so they have to use force to get their way, and they'll hurt whoever they have to.

    No one better ever ask me to do anything to support such people. They deserve all opposition they can possibly get.
blog comments powered by Disqus