Forum Topic

Sacked for 'same sex' marriage beliefs.

I was disturbed and worried at the sacking of a wedding registrar for refusing to officiate at 'one sex' weddings, because of her sincere religious beliefs. The registrar was re-instated after an enquiry found that she had been unfairly treated, but she has since left her secure local authority employment. I'm disturbed that she was fired and worried that this is still happening today. What are the views and opinions re 'same sex' marriages?

Gerry Tan ● 4230d86 Comments

A trestle table is set up with free literature available, manned by members of the church. Sometimes to be seen outside West Ealing Sainsbury's.

Graham Weeks ● 4215d

"... Our church has for some time done a book table witness..."What is book table witness please?

Gerry Tan ● 4215d

I have rarely preached in the open air believing it is not the most acceptable approach of public Christian testimony. Our church has for some time done a book table witness, quieter and more constructive IMO.

Graham Weeks ● 4215d

You sure that was not just a cunning way of some wily old atheist trying to get a preacher "closed down" rather than the real reason?Anyway, joking aside, it is a shame that you feel intimidated into not expressing your views in public (even though I probably don't agree with them!) but I can also understand why you feel this way and it represents a very slippery slope which touches increasingly many aspects of life and which I am concerned there will be no turning back the tide of during my lifetime.It'll be the Thought Police next.Oh, my mistake, they're already here.  :-(

Tony Colliver ● 4216d

Alex, good to hear from you here, but this forum is not confined to local issues. I am now catching up on threads since my return from three weeks in that beautiful land north of the border. En route we stayed with my brother in Yorkshire where they say, or used to say, 'they're all queer save thee and me and thou's a bit peculiar'. But I would not dare use the word pejoratively in public . I have read of many cases where open air preachers have faced police investigation because someone has complained about their message when it touched on homosexuality. In most cases their was no prosecution or prosecution failed to produce conviction. However if I were to ever again to engage in open air preaching I would not address this topic nor would I answer questions on it in public.

Graham Weeks ● 4217d

Thank you Nigel. They quote 'Marriage in this country is the union of two people, voluntarily entered into for life, to the exclusion of all others.' I Googled this but could not find its origin. I have only ever been to one civil wedding and I was impressed by this in the ceremony.

Graham Weeks ● 4218d

In my experience the police will do everything they can to wriggle out of having to do anything at all, so I wouldn't bank on their cooperation in that regard.

Tony Colliver ● 4220d

And thus the chilling hand of self-censorship was invoked to do BB's job for him.I would insist on my day in court, as, based on the quote from The Act it seems almost unimaginable that one would be convicted.

Tony Colliver ● 4220d

First of all - speaking as a gay guy - I have no issues with people not officiating at a same sex wedding due to their religious beliefs. If that was not in her job description when she first took on the position (which it would not have been) I cannot see why she should be compelled. Quite frankly gay weddings make up a tiny proportion of total weddings and there are plenty of others who would officiate in her place anyway. That aside, what a ridiculous thread for Ealing Today. Surely there are far more important things to be discussing that are happening in Ealing than this. Like hospital A&E closures, shop closures or even road closures.

Alex Nieora ● 4220d

Whether it's outdated or not is totally irrelevant.It's how society and individuals deal with it.

George Knox ● 4221d

It doesn't and my views have developed knowing some friends who are an idyllic same sex relationship after well over twenty years together.

Nigel Brooks ● 4221d

Can`t say I was offended by this as such. Just found it sad that some people hold those outdated views, that somehow people in homosexual relationships are second class citizens... I really don`t get it. For me life is about finding a soul mate, whether that be same or opposite sex - why should it make a difference?

Tom Clifford ● 4221d

As I have said no one has a right not to be offended. Too many people nowadays are offended by the slightest thing instead of looking at things contextually, making their point back and moving on. They quite often make a mountain from a molehill and give far more import to an off the cuff remark. Words are not always received in the vein in which they are transmitted and quite often some people are just waiting to be 'offended' when the rest of us would just shrug off what was said and more often than not laugh or pity the 'offender'. It also queers the pitch for real cases of malicious intent.

Keith Iddon ● 4222d

"The defendant must intend to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation; recklessness is not enough; and the behaviour must be threatening. So using abusive or insulting behaviour intended to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation does not constitute an offence, nor does using threatening words likely to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.I had to think about this because prima facie it seemed to contradict itself.My feeling now is that to comprise a crime there must be two and not one elements in existence. 1) Men's rea i.e. intent re hatred and 2) behaviour which is threatening.The CPS seemingly is not the country's leading exponent of unambiguous English.So if I used what is nowadays non U or non p.c. words about homosexuals in general then that might suggest that that there is intent to stir hatred. But I can hardly see in such words any intent to be threatening because I would not be asking for someone to be put in fear.I am not entirely clear about the posters reference to the word pejorative. In one sense it amounts to (or can) being contemptuous. That might satisfy the charge of inciting hatred. However it also means disapproving. Well it seems many are disapproving of homosexuality but they don't feel or intend to dispense contempt or hatred or threats.This debate to me suggests the law continues to be an ass and needs tidying up so as to reduce the (many??) cases of where a caution is issued by police who struggle with understanding the law. From memory I don't believe for a moment that intent to threaten was included in the deleted post. That is reinforced by the observation that"As I said, I have no problem if they live together". So it was rather silly to have removed the post.

George Knox ● 4222d

It is, as you say, a 'relevant piece of legislation'."He presumably was wise enough to ask to have it removed"Presumptions are dangerous things, what leads you to think this? I see no indication of this being the case in his subsequent post.Suggest you read the CPS guidelines on the Malicious Communications Act and also, inter-alia the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Both 'hinge' on intent. When you have read these do feel free to comment further when better informed.

Nigel Brooks ● 4222d

It isn't really a question of what suits me. You are misleading people in suggesting that just because the bar is set high for one relevant piece of legislation people can use offensive language about minorities with impunity. There are other laws which come into play such as the Malicious Communications Act 1988 which has been used extensively by the authorities against deemed to have posted 'hate speech' online.I repeat for the nth time that I am making a general comment and not specifically referring to the post made by Leslie Bailey. Your description of it as offensive and the inclusion of the word 'queer' in it would seem to me to make it highly risky from a legal point of view but I can't say anything about it for sure not having read the full text.  He presumably was wise enough to ask to have it removed and has apologised. I doubt he is thanking you for making him a cause celebre.

Andy Jones ● 4222d

"The CPS guidance published by Nigel Brooks is misleading in this instance".So clear legal guidance doesn't suit you now. Moving on.

Nigel Brooks ● 4222d

Apology graciously accepted."That you might have a reasonable case in law to avoid a prosecution is not a good reason to use offensive language in a public forum whilst being critical of particular ethnic groups or sexual orientations"Absolutely correct. What is germane to this particular case though intent. I honestly feel from the content of the (sadly deleted) post is that the poster used the terms as a 'matter of course' and that they reflected his 'belief', While ignorance is no defence it is an explanation.

Nigel Brooks ● 4222d

Keith, can you explain how I am 'queering the pitch of freedom of expression'? Did I not make it clear that I was not endorsing the way the law operates just trying to explain how it does. The CPS guidance published by Nigel Brooks is misleading in this instance because very few of these cases get to court. My understanding based on conversations with people who work in the law enforcement area is that the police are under a great deal of pressure to be tough on homophobia from organisation like Stonewall. They will therefore follow up nearly all complaints. By getting people to accept a caution they get a high clear up rate.  What would you do in a situation in which you were sitting in a police station having had a 'hate speech' complaint made against you and your solicitor was telling you you would probably get off it when to court but you had been offered a caution.Bottom line is that making offensive posts on a public forum in your own name is not a good idea. Feel free to ignore this advice if you wish.

Andy Jones ● 4222d

I stand corrected and apologise. This is not my field and am surprised by the guidance.This doesn't change the fact that at the ground level the police will often act on a complaint and threaten a person with prosecution even though the law remains unclear. They are faced with with the prospect of a court case in which they have to publicly defend themselves against a hate crime charge and therefore accept a caution.That you might have a reasonable case in law to avoid a prosecution is not a good reason to use offensive language in a public forum whilst being critical of particular ethnic groups or sexual orientations

Helena Cavanagh ● 4222d

Ah, it is Andy who is queering the pitch of freedom of expression, not the law afterall.

Keith Iddon ● 4222d

Just to help you and he other limiters of free speech Andy.To quote verbatim from the CPS (no typo) website."The defendant must intend to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation; recklessness is not enough; and the behaviour must be threatening. So using abusive or insulting behaviour intended to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation does not constitute an offence, nor does using threatening words likely to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.Conduct or material which only stirs up ridicule or dislike, or which simply causes offence, would not meet the requisite threshold required by the Act, i.e. hatred. So, for example, the offences do not, and are not intended to extend per se to childish name calling, or the telling of jokes, or the preaching of religious doctrine, unless those activities are threatening or intended to stir up hatred."

Nigel Brooks ● 4222d

See thishttp://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_orientation_/index.htmlSorry for the typo CPS not CPA - sorry if this caused you distress!!!!!I'll expect your fulsome apology in due course, not holding my breath.

Nigel Brooks ● 4222d

Sorry you are simply wrong.Go to this page (among others) of the CPS (sorry for the CPA typo)websitehttp://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_orientation_/index.htmlBut hey, what do I know, I'm not a trained lawyer!

Nigel Brooks ● 4222d

Sounds as if the law is queering the pitch of freedom of expression.

Keith Iddon ● 4222d

No one has a right not to be offended.

Keith Iddon ● 4222d

"as neither you nor Andy (Jones) saw the post and it's akin to the 'protesting grannies' in Father Ted waving placards saying 'Down with that sort of thing!' about a film they had never seen."It was you who described the post as offensive - I never did because I never saw it. I expressed the opinion that an offensive post about same-sex marriage which contained the word 'queer' could expose the author to the risk of police action.You may disagree, but making up imaginary legal guidance from imaginary organisations doesn't strengthen your arguments it just makes you appear a bit odd.

Andy Jones ● 4222d

I'm not sure what the CPA is - did you mean the CPS? If it was the CPS they have never given guidance that stated 'using abusive or insulting behaviour intended to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation does not constitute an offence.' This is dangerous, misleading nonsense.At no point did I express an opinion about the deleted post, deliberately so. What I did say was that Andy's post was a good summation of how the law works. The key point you are failing to grasp is that this is a complex and new area of law for which there are relatively few precedents. The number of complaints received by the police has exploded in recent years in part due to the expansion of social media. I can't tell you exactly what tests the CPS use to decide to take no further action but they would only do so if the complaint was clearly vexatious or unfounded. In other cases in which the law was unclear, the police would offer the person against whom the complaint was made the opportunity to accept a caution as this involves the least use of their time. It can have disastrous consequences for the person who has accepted the caution.

Helena Cavanagh ● 4222d

As the CPA guidelines to The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (2008) clearly state that the intent must be to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation; recklessness is not enough; and the behaviour must be threatening. So using abusive or insulting behaviour intended to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation does not constitute an offence, nor does using threatening words likely to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.Academic anyway as neither you nor Andy (Jones) saw the post and it's akin to the 'protesting grannies' in Father Ted waving placards saying 'Down with that sort of thing!' about a film they had never seen.

Nigel Brooks ● 4222d

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act (2008) is probably the relevant piece of legislation here. This tightened up the law with regard to hate speech against people of particular sexual orientations. As a trained lawyer I'd say Andy Jones gives a reasonably good summation of how the law works.

Helena Cavanagh ● 4222d

'With respect Andy, you admitted to not seeing the original post so it is you who isn't really sure what you're talking about.'Nigel Brooks described it to me as being offensive and offensive language was certainly used and it was on that basis that I offered my opinions.'The deleted post did not incite hatred against homosexuals.  It was just someone expressing their opinion about same-sex marriages and at the same time using a rather inappropriate term for those that way inclined.'From what you say it sounds like there is a great deal of complacency at work here about the potential risks. If you express a negative opinion about any ethnic or gender group and use words which they collectively would find offensive then you open yourself up to complaint under the current hate crime legislation. It is perfectly legal to express negative views about homosexuality or same-sex marriage but if you combine those views with a vocabulary that would generally be recognised to be pejorative you have crossed a line as far as the law is concerned. I'm not endorsing the way the law works - just telling you how it works. If you don't believe me please check with someone with some basic knowledge of the law before posting any contentious views that you might have online.

Andy Jones ● 4222d

With respect Andy, you admitted to not seeing the original post so it is you who isn't really sure what you're talking about.The deleted post did not incite hatred against homosexuals.  It was just someone expressing their opinion about same-sex marriages and at the same time using a rather inappropriate term for those that way inclined.

Andy Vaughan ● 4222d

As you did not see the post I can only assure you that it did 'not promote hatred'.The fundamentalist posts to which you refer were far more divisive and if you believe that 'rise up' (qv) does not promote hatred then you really need to get out more.

Nigel Brooks ● 4222d

Sorry but you simply have no idea what you are talking about. If, as you say, the original post was offensive and used offensive language there is no question that a complaint to the police about it would have led to further action. The law was changed in 2010 and it became an offense to incite hatred online against homosexuals. As the law is relatively new we are still at a stage where what constitutes an offence has not been clearly defined so the police are obliged to pursue nearly all complaints. There have been hundreds, if not thousands of cases already in which people have accepted a caution because of something they have written online. Very few people would not accept the caution because their solicitor would advise them that they would lose if they went to court. I'll say again for absolute clarity that while I dislike homophobes and racists I do not think this is a good law but you are deluding yourself to pretend it doesn't exist.I don't understand the link you are making between this post and the posts on this forum by an Islamic Fundamentalist. It is not against the law to express fundamentalist views and you not liking what somebody says is not grounds for the suppression of those views. Much as I disagreed with the views of Iftikhar Ahmad, I don't believe he ever promoted violence or racial hatred. If you disagree then the same laws that could have been used against Leslie Bailey would apply and you should report him to the police.

Andy Jones ● 4222d

A post does not need to be 'favourable' to any community.The original post was, contextually, more offensive but not something worthy of further investigation by any stretch of the imagination.I think that the 'free speech warriors' are equally, if not more, concerned that this post was removed when those which attracted far far more complaints and which related to fundamentalist Islamic beliefs were left unchecked and extant. I now choose to ignore that particular poster who refused to defend his position or engage in debate.

Nigel Brooks ● 4222d

I didn't see the post but it sounds to me as if you put yourself at risk of prosecution. I don't agree with the law as it stands but you need to be sensitive to the context in which you use a word like 'queer'. Yes, it is true that this word is sometimes used within the gay community but that does not mean it is non-toxic in legal terms. If the views you expressed at the same time were not totally favourable to homosexuals then a complaint to the police would have to be investigated. They might regard it as a total waste of time but they could not simply dismiss the incident as trivial and would be forced to pursue it. Chances are you would be asked to accept a caution.I'd repeat that this is not something I believe to be right and proper but it is how the law operates at the moment. Don't be goaded on by the free-speech warriors on here who are really just mischief making.

Andy Jones ● 4222d

Don't waste your time and emotions over it. all I did was use the word "queers" instead of gays, and the post was removed. As I said, I have no problem if they live together.If the word "queers" offends then I apologise (it is a word the gay community use themselves).There is far more important things that have happened in our corner of Greater London right now that deserve your attention than this episode.

Leslie Bailey ● 4222d

I don't think anyone's being "precious" John.  Posters believe posts shouldn't be removed - I too feel everyone has a right to express their opinions, provided they are decent and non hurtful - its a free world after all - let's have open debate.

Gerry Tan ● 4222d

I don't see anyone getting 'precious' at all John. Do you think the right to disagree publicly isn't 'precious' btw? What you rather see instead, 1984?

Keith Iddon ● 4222d

I think you may be out on your own John. I am not in favour of thread 'censorship' simply because the 'sensitive' among us are offended by a post.The post should have remained extant if only to allow all reading this thread to see the polarisation of opinions and to form their own judgment as to whether Leslie had a valid viewpoint. We are all denied that opportunity when a post is simply deleted.

Nigel Brooks ● 4223d

Surely I can't be the only one to see the irony in people accusing others of being 'precious' and then being 'precious' themselves simply because a post was removed?

John Bodman ● 4223d

Yep me too - didnt agree but dosn`t mean it should be removed!

Tom Clifford ● 4223d

So send an e-mail!

Nigel Brooks ● 4223d

I get an uneasy feeling when a post is removed.  As I recall, the post wasn't nasty or damning - I didn't agree with the choice of expressions, but it was a different opinion from my own and that makes for healthy debate imo.

Gerry Tan ● 4223d

I have now sent an e-mail requesting reinstatement (info@neighbournet.com), I suggest others do the same.

Nigel Brooks ● 4223d

I too am sorry the post has been deleted. I didn`t agree with what he said, but then isn`t that the point of the forum? Discussion? Debate? I like reading about different opinions and viewpoints, helps me to make a decision on what I belive and challenges what I think I know. I think thats healthy.Do you think if we all called on the mods to get the post reinstated they`d do it? Interesting to see what they would do if they got more people calling for it than the original number of complaints...?I wonder who complained..?

Tom Clifford ● 4223d

Of course they won't.Never in favour of 'censorship' save where it incites others to harm or racist rants.

Nigel Brooks ● 4225d

Quite.the appropriate response is to debate with the holders of views that one doesn't agree with.Will the spineless, but no doubt smugly morally superior, one amongst us who chooses to be a self-appointed censor on the part of everybody else now step forward and 'fess up to what they have done?No, I thought not.

Tony Colliver ● 4225d

I am also disappointed that the post has been removed. This forum surely has to reflect as much as it can the views of all of us, 'controversial' or not. Like George I read what was posted didn't get that worked up about it.

Keith Iddon ● 4225d

I am sorry it's gone as well for I like to engage in debate with (and occasionally 'bait) the narrow-minded and bigoted.

Nigel Brooks ● 4225d

I can' t now remember the detail of the post, but it wasn't so totally outrageous that I felt violently about it. We have seen some really disgraceful encounters in the past. They apparently are history now. So pity that this entry was censored.So while it's OK to express some very strong views including supporting your religious beliefs, where do you draw boundaries?

George Knox ● 4225d

Thank you Nigel.Which clearly means that somebody (possibly / probably more than one) self-righteous tw*t has gone for special pleading on the grounds that they are "better" than anybody else.What's worse - the mods fell for it.  :-( I don't understand what they expect to gain from such behaviour.Is it just the smug sensation of having "got one over" on the other guy with their over-inflated and entirely misplaced sense of moral superiority to be enjoyed strictly in the privacy of their own home as they are too chicken to come out and declare what they have done so that they may be judged by others in turn just as they judge others?Because it certainly doesn't assist others to read and understand for themselves / draw their own conclusions about the content of such messages to have them deleted.Is it that, like the film censors of old (and the Lord Chamberlain before them) that they have convinced themselves (quite wrongly!) that only they should have the power of life or death over the views of others and that the rest of us are far too immature to be allowed to make up our own minds so we have to be "protected" by them?Pah!  I hate them all.

Tony Colliver ● 4225d

I'm very sorry to see that Leslie's post has been deleted.

Susan Kelly ● 4225d

Well, as one cannot delete one's own posts it would have been the moderators.

Nigel Brooks ● 4226d

Narrow minded bigot he may be, but it is still a shame that his post has now been deleted.Whether by him or the mods I don't know, but it is still gone and so it becomes difficult for others newly encountering this thread (or any other that has been censored in this way) to understand what all the fuss is about.I detest censorship even more than I detest bigotry.After all, is censorship not simply a manifestation of the imposition of the will of one over another - and generally in a highly arbitrary manner as well?Luckily for me, I was able to read the post before it was deleted.  If indeed it was deleted as a result of complaints to the powers that be around here (as implied by the text put in its place instead) then I regard that kind of narrow-minded holy than thou "we are better than you and therefore feel righteous in suppressing your speech" behaviour in much higher contempt than the original post in the first place.Why is it that a certain group of tiny-minded people feel it is there automatic right to have others suppressed in this way?

Tony Colliver ● 4226d

The world is full of people of all stripes that have "unjustly" lost their job because the role changed underneath them.It's called redundancy.Believers in sky fairies are not immune from this.Indeed, as another poster elsewhere on the thread has intimated, I regard special pleading on the part of someone's religion as really rather offensive.Taken to it's natural extreme I genuinely believe that special treatment on the grounds of religion has led directly to the tensions that western society now experiences with regard to Islam.

Tony Colliver ● 4226d

I don't much care.Do you know what Gerry?Neither do I, save for putting narrow-minded bigots like Leslie in their place.

Nigel Brooks ● 4227d

I remember very clearly the instruction about having each other 'as long as you both shall live..." said to us at Chelsea Register Office some 50+ years ago. Words of the civil weddings now may have changed - I wouldn't know and quite frankly, I don't much care.

Gerry Tan ● 4227d

Here you gohttp://www.haringey.gov.uk/wedding_scripts.pdfhttp://www.haringey.gov.uk/civil_partnership_scripts-2.pdfhttp://www.haringey.gov.uk/index/community_and_leisure/bdm/marriages-civil-partnerships/personalising_your_ceremony/ceremony_scripts.htm#wordsthatmustbeincludedinaceremony

Nigel Brooks ● 4227d

There are three forms of legal vows listed for marriage but it is the preamble I could not find. I know that any civil marriage must have no religious element.

Graham Weeks ● 4227d

The vows and the legal preamble are totally different.Like any church wedding the vows can be in almost any form.IIRC the preamble must have no religious connotation when conducted outside of a place of worship.

Nigel Brooks ● 4227d

I tried to Google for the civil wedding vows but failed to find them. Can anyone find the vows for civil marriage (I assume they are the same for all with 'equal marriage) and for civil partnership? I found the statutory vows that all must legally make but I could not find what preamble would come from the registrar as to the nature of marriage/partnership.

Graham Weeks ● 4227d

Henry VIII's marriages were annulled, which is different, even if popular history likes to use the term divorced.Attitudes as well as law have changed. Anyone marrying now knows as a matter of simple fact that the marriage is not 'indissoluble', even if they are sure that theirs will last till death do them part.

Susan Kelly ● 4228d

If 60% of marriages do not fail then there is still something of the "indissoluble" in some marriages.Now that same sex people can get married it could well be that they wish at the outset that their union is just as "indissoluble" as two people of the opposite gender might wish for when they marry.Archaic does not seem to be the right word IMO. People divorced even before one Henry viii.

George Knox ● 4228d

Yes my definition is archaic - like Judaism and Christianity.

Graham Weeks ● 4228d

'As to the registrar who lost her job for declining to officiate at civil partnerships, this duty was not part of a registrar's work when she took the job.'I made the same point myself, George, and do not think she should have been sacked. I have not called anyone a bigot on this thread and think that tolerance needs to work both ways. The woman in question is not trying to stop same-sex couples from marrying, merely saying that she does not wish the conduct the service herself, which can be easily arranged.However, to define marriage as an indissoluble union when we have divorce on demand and a 40% failure rate for marriages is to take a humpty-dumpty attitude that words mean what you want them to mean. Your definition is archaic.

Susan Kelly ● 4228d

Graham, sorry, not George.

Susan Kelly ● 4228d

It appears I referred to an earlier case. This new one has had a different outcome. http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=bed173cc9adfcad1e0e442a35&id=63369db91c&e=206891ac73

Graham Weeks ● 4228d

Susan, I gave a definition of marriage. I did not comment on divorce. As to the registrar who lost her job for declining to officiate at civil partnerships, this duty was not part of a registrar's work when she took the job.

Graham Weeks ● 4228d

Erm, is one allowed to have an unpopular opinion but always be called a bigot?

George Knox ● 4228d

Sorry the grammar there was appalling.I call my friends Stephen, Rob, Stuart, David etc. They happen to be homosexual.In the same way as I refer to a West Indian mate as Brian and an Indian mate as Peter (that was how he was Christened at two months)  rather then some other derogatory term.

Nigel Brooks ● 4228d

I call my homosexual friends Stephen, Rob, Stuart, David etc.In the same way as I refer to a West Indian mate as Brian and an Indian mate as Peter (that was how he was Christened at two months)  rather then some other derogatory term.

Nigel Brooks ● 4228d

Would it be acceptable if she had refused to marry a couple if they were mixed race?  50,  60, 70 years ago  prejudices and bigotry were rife. It always amazes me how people hide behind their religion to justify hatred and intolerance.

David P Archer ● 4229d

I think 'they' refer to themselves as people.

John Bodman ● 4229d

An antonym to straight is bent. Not very flattering at all.I do wish homosexuals would adopt a better word than gay or just simply say they are homosexual if they have to at all.

George Knox ● 4229d

'the accepted definition of marriage in our culture, the lifelong exclusive union of one man and one woman'.Have you not noticed that the ship of 'lifelong exclusive union' sailed a long time ago? Your definition failed with the divorce reforms of the late 60s.

Susan Kelly ● 4229d

''When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.''The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.''The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.''It seems Cameron is the master of marriage according to present law. Some of us will stick with what has been  the accepted definition of marriage in our culture, the lifelong exclusive union of one man and one woman. Politicians may change laws. Some of us will continue to hold that some laws are not mere human constructs but part of a created order.

Graham Weeks ● 4229d

And by the way it's called Equal Marriage now.

John Bodman ● 4229d

I guess we are currently in a state of transition between the old 'order' and a more modern thinking one. The staff member shouldn't be forced to do something when it isn't her fault that the legalities changed. Surely there must have been a compromise to be reached.I have always said that the best thing about the Church of England is it's diversity in terms of opinions, services and people. BUT those are also the reasons why the church struggles to move forwards more readily (how do you keep everyone happy?).However the church IS changing - the recent coming out of singer/theologist/broadcaster Vicky Beeching and the 'outing' on Channel Five News of Rev Sally Hitchener has certainly helped. There is also a fantastic group called Diverse Church who are made up of young (and not so young) gay people and straight allies who are also Christians. Times are changing and people need to change or be left behind. Using old fashioned and outdated terms to label someone doesn't help and quite frankly is offensive even to me as a straight bloke with many, many LGBT friends.

John Bodman ● 4229d

Using the word "queer" reveals you as a bigot, not surprising given the rest of your post. Marriage has nothing to do with nature

Simon Bell ● 4230d

I am sure that many of my homosexual friends are doubtless thankful to have his 'blessing' that they may continue to live together :-)Thankfully we no longer have statutes to persecute people because of their sexuality, although some archaic religions still do so.

Nigel Brooks ● 4230d

My thoughts entirely - the lady in question had her circumstances change around her. It could have been handled much better without the need for all the fuss. Unfortunately we`ll all encounter the type of view echoed by Leslie...

Tom Clifford ● 4230d

It was pointed out that, given that plenty of notice has to be given for weddings, it would have been easy to ensure that she was not on duty for same-sex weddings. Her colleagues were perfectly happy to stand in for her, if necessary. As Nigel says, she did not take the job knowing that she would be required to do something that was against her conscience. I think that her employers were being wilfully obtuse.

Susan Kelly ● 4230d

Oh well. each to their own.Someone else's sexuality is no concern of mine.While I agree with the sentiment of Simon's response however I would point out that this Registrar had been post when the conditions of service and her contract were materially changed without consultation hence the Employment Tribunal decision. Shame that her employer could not find a role which balanced their requirements and her beliefs.

Nigel Brooks ● 4230d

Message removed following complaints from other users

Leslie Bailey ● 4230d

If you are doing a job which includes duties which you feel you cannot do because of religious beliefs then you should not be in the job.

Simon Bell ● 4230d