This is *exactly* the problem with the current legislation.
Related
11 Comments on “No Commentary Necessary”
Yes, the effect of the legislation will be to re-classify even tacit refusal to follow the propagandist support for gay marriage as disordered and professionally incapacitating
It will exist, and its not your place as a professional to do anything other than work with it. You can hold your own views, but you are expected to behave professionally. Is this really so hard for Christian conservatives? If so, then perhaps they were not suited for these roles in the first place.
If you are in a job where the central focus of it is to provide legally-available services, such as this one, then yes, its a simple case of doing your job.
If it offends your conscience, leave and find work in an area which doesn’t require you to do something you feel to be morally wrong.
I would not work in the defence industry. I wouldn’t expect to get a job with British Aerospace and then claim conscience every time a weapon was mentioned.
Gay people are equal in society. If your job is one which requires the provision of legally-available and important services, no, I don’t think you should be able to disobey the law and expect to keep your job.
Let’s see what a typical register office standard of service, says:
1. Marriage/civil partnership appointments within five working days. Hint: An evangelical will describe your life-event as an appointment to you and all your guests.
2. We will see all customers for birth, death and marriage appointments within ten minutes of their appointment if they arrive on time. Hint: don’t be a minute late for your appointment with an evangelical Christian registrar. It could delay everything.
3. Our staff will deal with priority applications for birth, death and marriage certificates within 30 minutes provided that accurate information is given. – Hint: one typo and you’ll have to re-submit the application all over again. Just being super-professional.
4. The statutory declaratory or contracting words must be a part of the clvil marriage ceremony. Those words are yours to say, depending on the form used, rather than the registrars to augment.
5. For the rest of the appointment, the registrar’s face will be a picture of professional distance, some might say, vacant disinterest. But please, please don’t think to judge my appearance (olive drab attire) as a basis for instituting an internal disciplinary proceeding That’s not part of the standards of service.
6. On account of the above, the council should ensure that evangelical registrars are not excluded from the duty roster. That would constitute religious discrimination and the lawyers will have a field day,
There! A professional appointment conducted at your gay life-event. It’scalled legal non-cooperation. Tell all your friends about us and…have a nice day!
Only that’s not professional, is it? Neither is it a very good witness to your faith.
But, then, I think the number of people who this affects will be very small indeed.
It’s perfectly professional to follow the explicit standards of service. It’s quite strange to hear an avowed left-wing commenter decrying legal non-conformance. I presume that ‘work-to-rule’ is also contrary to your code of ethics.
John the Baptist’s witness was not compromised by denouncing Herodias’ marriage to Herod Antipas. After his execution, Christ referred to him as a ‘shining light’.
She’ll just have to leave her job, then. I’m afraid that conservative Christians are going to have to start realising that their views are no longer acceptable in this area, just as racists had to do the same with their views about black people.
Once again, we have an undiscerning attempt to find political resonance by parallels with racism.
Yet, you would happily deny polygamous faiths the right to extend marriage. Why should marriage be binary? English tradition? Christian morality?
And if it became law, other faiths could insist that any registrar having scruples about polygamy was little more than thinly-veiled racism.
Oh, sorry. I just realised that when it comes to a policy based on embracing the privileged victimhood extended to gays, other special pleadings don’t count.
As if the conscience of genuine Christians will ever be cowered by means of legalised secular coercion.
In the case of Hall and Preddy vs, the Bulls, the judge accepted the Oxford English Dictionary definition of a boarding house and stated: ‘Accordingly applying the dictionary definition of “a private house which people pay to stay in for a short time” it seems to me that a bedâ€andâ€breakfast establishment is capable of falling within the meaning of the term “boarding house” in the regulation’.
Now the OED is superseded by a legislative innovation. Judges must not refer to the dictionary. If that’s the case, the presumption of paternity can accorded to a woman.
Yes, the effect of the legislation will be to re-classify even tacit refusal to follow the propagandist support for gay marriage as disordered and professionally incapacitating
It will exist, and its not your place as a professional to do anything other than work with it. You can hold your own views, but you are expected to behave professionally. Is this really so hard for Christian conservatives? If so, then perhaps they were not suited for these roles in the first place.
So your position is that you should obey the law simply because it is the law?
If you are in a job where the central focus of it is to provide legally-available services, such as this one, then yes, its a simple case of doing your job.
If it offends your conscience, leave and find work in an area which doesn’t require you to do something you feel to be morally wrong.
I would not work in the defence industry. I wouldn’t expect to get a job with British Aerospace and then claim conscience every time a weapon was mentioned.
Gay people are equal in society. If your job is one which requires the provision of legally-available and important services, no, I don’t think you should be able to disobey the law and expect to keep your job.
What if the legally-available service was suddenly to include infanticide? Should registrars have to provide that?
Let’s see what a typical register office standard of service, says:
1. Marriage/civil partnership appointments within five working days. Hint: An evangelical will describe your life-event as an appointment to you and all your guests.
2. We will see all customers for birth, death and marriage appointments within ten minutes of their appointment if they arrive on time. Hint: don’t be a minute late for your appointment with an evangelical Christian registrar. It could delay everything.
3. Our staff will deal with priority applications for birth, death and marriage certificates within 30 minutes provided that accurate information is given. – Hint: one typo and you’ll have to re-submit the application all over again. Just being super-professional.
4. The statutory declaratory or contracting words must be a part of the clvil marriage ceremony. Those words are yours to say, depending on the form used, rather than the registrars to augment.
5. For the rest of the appointment, the registrar’s face will be a picture of professional distance, some might say, vacant disinterest. But please, please don’t think to judge my appearance (olive drab attire) as a basis for instituting an internal disciplinary proceeding That’s not part of the standards of service.
6. On account of the above, the council should ensure that evangelical registrars are not excluded from the duty roster. That would constitute religious discrimination and the lawyers will have a field day,
There! A professional appointment conducted at your gay life-event. It’scalled legal non-cooperation. Tell all your friends about us and…have a nice day!
Only that’s not professional, is it? Neither is it a very good witness to your faith.
But, then, I think the number of people who this affects will be very small indeed.
It’s perfectly professional to follow the explicit standards of service. It’s quite strange to hear an avowed left-wing commenter decrying legal non-conformance. I presume that ‘work-to-rule’ is also contrary to your code of ethics.
John the Baptist’s witness was not compromised by denouncing Herodias’ marriage to Herod Antipas. After his execution, Christ referred to him as a ‘shining light’.
She’ll just have to leave her job, then. I’m afraid that conservative Christians are going to have to start realising that their views are no longer acceptable in this area, just as racists had to do the same with their views about black people.
Once again, we have an undiscerning attempt to find political resonance by parallels with racism.
Yet, you would happily deny polygamous faiths the right to extend marriage. Why should marriage be binary? English tradition? Christian morality?
And if it became law, other faiths could insist that any registrar having scruples about polygamy was little more than thinly-veiled racism.
Oh, sorry. I just realised that when it comes to a policy based on embracing the privileged victimhood extended to gays, other special pleadings don’t count.
As if the conscience of genuine Christians will ever be cowered by means of legalised secular coercion.
I pity the fool who thinks so.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10147246/Men-can-be-wives-and-women-husbands-as-Government-overrules-the-dictionary.html
In the case of Hall and Preddy vs, the Bulls, the judge accepted the Oxford English Dictionary definition of a boarding house and stated: ‘Accordingly applying the dictionary definition of “a private house which people pay to stay in for a short time” it seems to me that a bedâ€andâ€breakfast establishment is capable of falling within the meaning of the term “boarding house” in the regulation’.
Now the OED is superseded by a legislative innovation. Judges must not refer to the dictionary. If that’s the case, the presumption of paternity can accorded to a woman.
The bill is a legislative Trojan horse.