Posted on 07/11/2008 7:18:18 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
A Christian registrar who was harassed and discriminated against after she refused to carry out same-sex civil partnership ceremonies has won a key legal battle.
Lillian Ladele, 47, said that she was treated like a pariah by colleagues at Islington council in North London after she said that she could not carry out the ceremonies as a matter of religious conscience.
An employment tribunal found that the council showed no respect for Ms Ladele’s rights “by virtue of her orthodox Christian beliefs”.
Employment lawyers said that while the case set no binding legal precedent, it would make councils much more likely to give weight to the religious views of employees.
The decision outraged gay rights campaigners, who said that it “sanctions the right of religious people to discriminate”.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Poor widdle pervert bedwetters. They want the religious to be discriminated against. Where's their outrage over that?
Well now, first the lads who refused to recite the Haddah in class, even under Sanctions, now this fine woman who is willing to risk her job to stand up for our Faith.
The Uk may not be as dead as first thought, I sincerely hope she sticks to her beliefs...
The more the gays try to keep us down the more we press on.
Followed by the Gay Divorcee’
Not true, english law is based on precedent, American law is based on the Constitution.
IMHO marriage is a sacred religious covenant . I think it was a big mistake for the government to have ever gotten into the Holy Matrimony business .
Now let’s see what happens in California to those who refuse to marry gays on account of conscience. . . .
There's hope yet for our British cousins.
Lillian Ladele made a stand. Good for her.
But the formation of a family is a public act, with social ramifications. And what happens when people have a dispute. If the State is totally uninvolved, what are the parties supposed to do—just shoot it out?
And if the State is not involved—then what would stand in the way of Sha’ria Law???
“Gay marriage” is not, of course, about marriage. It’s about the total subversion of marriage.
Leftism wants there to be only TWO social “beings”: the individual, and the omnipotent State. And the State wants the power to kill the individual at will.
So the Left (i.e., Satan) has been waging war on fatherhood, first of all. Women’s Suffrage was a huge step in that direction. Women’s Suffrage implies that families do not exist—the only political reality is the State and the individual. Denying women the vote is a recognition that the family is a reality PRIOR to the State, and that the father has the function of speaking for his family in the public square.
Only married men with children should be allowed to vote. The explosion of Socialism has been concurrent with the dissolution of the idea of the family, followed by the dissolution of actual families. Women who do not have a reliable husband “marry the government.”
Federal spending relative to GNP was steady, in peacetime, until 1920. And the earlier the several states granted women the vote, the earlier their government spending began to grow.
Wow! Well said!
I stole it all from an article I read recently. Wall Street Journal, I think.
This might be the only institution , the existence of which , is defended because government must cure the chaos caused by the failure of the institution .
Note that the “gay rights” advocates whined that her victory means that people will be able to use religion as a reason to “discriminate” against homosexuals. It never occurred to these idiots that if she had lost, it would mean people of faith would be discriminated against in order to promote a deviant sex fetish.
Homosexuals are among the most self-centered people on earth. This goes with the territory because rather than desiring the opposite sex, they desire their own (i.e., they desire themselves). Unless forced by society to keep their deviancy closeted, these oddities will demand that everyone bow to them and celebrate their behavior. They don't even care that it would violate someone's deepest religious faith.
Black church-goers are virulently against gay marriage-—and have even voted Repub because of it.
Also why you hear Obama say marriage is between a man and a woman.
Emillie Lettela? Is that you?
I wouldn't call this a "victory." The woman has merely staved off but one attack by the homo-nazis. They will still be allowed to be as vicious and aggressively offensive as before and will find another way to destroy this Christian woman who dares to live her faith - an unforgivable sin to the leftists.
Sorry, no. I googled the name to see if you were alluding to somebody famous, and found nothing? Did you spell it right?
I’m a female and a conservative... but I cannot agree with your view that ‘only married men should have the right to vote.’
I’m not a married man. But I would gladly give up my vote if the vote were going to be restricted to married men with children. We would be governed with inexpressibly greater wisdom, prudence, thrift, and foresight than we are now.
What’s all this I hear—people objecting to violins on television?!?!? We need MORE violins on television! Those Leonard Bernstein concerts for children were wonderful!
She was really great.
Never mind.
Remember:
What’s all this I hear about Soviet jewelry?!?!?
Why is everyone so upset over violins on TV?
Try, Emily Litella.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.