I beg to differ with Brian - as I feel that a public job such as a registrar by nature involves contact with those one might not otherwise choose to be in contact with. Her skills as a registrar could have just as easily been applied in another area, say something involving filing documents in the private sector. That is, no one was forcing her to be in contact with anyone, she chose the position and is free to do other jobs to make her living.

I agree with you brian, to an extent. I agree that the whole protecting the rights of everyone for the future is more important than ruling against a christian BUT i have to say that if she is working a job that is in the public like that she shouldn't have won for that due to the fact that most people only like about 1/5 of the people they see in public whereas if in a private sector you have a less likely chance to deal with the public...

She shouldn't have won.  I, too, will diverge from Brian.  I sure don't want the government to be taking over anyone's autonomy, but what she signed on to do, what she swore and oath of office and allegiance to the queen to do, was to be a civil servant.  She shirked her responsibilities by refusing and eventually a patern was caught and she was called out.  Her very job is to marry people and her religious beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with it in the eyes of the state.  If she was reluctant to fullfill her civic duties, the description of her job, she should have been fired and not merely threatened with it.  There is no reason for her not to be performing marriages for gay people; her religious convictions just don't matter.  Imagine if she was refusing to perform marriages for black people or for Muslims or for Atheists or for anyone else.  Is there a particular reason why she should have won this case, would she have won had she not married anyone else for any other reason?  It is, of course, her right to refuse work, but I can't imagine she would have expected any other reaction.  Did she think people would simply respect her religious beliefs and let her off her responsibilities because it offended her sensibilities?  Apparenty, the tribunal did.  Is there something wrong with that picture?

I  must have missunderstood the story. IF she is acting in a government office, then she should not have won the case. If however, she is acting in a private capacity, then she should win the suit.

"Discrimination should be illegal".

That is a loaded statement. WHO gets to decide what discrimination is? If we as atheists have a convention, and a preacher files a suit because we didn't allow them to be a speaker at the convention, is that discrimination? Should a Church be forced to allow an atheist to be a preacher?

Get my point?

When it comes to common law, I agree, the government is NOT allowed to discriminate. BUT you cannot lose freedom of concious in the protection of the freedom of every individual, even unpopular opinion must be protected.

I hate PC laws, not because the people who want them are well intended, they are. It is the WAY they want to go about changing society. If we want to criticise and blaspheme religion here, we must allow theists the same.

I dont think PC Christians or PC atheist understand how dangerous legislation of thought via use of censorship, can be in backfiring.

"Discrimination should be illegal"

What if a Christian group files a suit against this site because they believe we are "discriminating" against them?

Since atheists are the minority in most of the world, I would find it extreemly unwise to give government the power to decide what thoughts we can or cannot express.

There IS  a difference between private sector and public sector.

In your own home you are boss, be it a busness or private home. Just because the public is invited does not strip you of your autonomy.

You play to the emotions of your own idealism, just as they do. In between is common law which is what WE, both they and I have to overlap. They want their thoughts and ideas, and we want ours. You make this a matter of right and wrong when it is a matter of practicality. It is impractical to WANT your own thoughts and to deny those who dissagree with you. Winning is done in common law, not popular bias. Winning is done with more freedom, not less.

You dont win by sqaushing dissent via government. You win with your own voice.

I am saying that it's not discriminatory to say that if she can't do the job, she should go find a job she can do.

I'm also saying that it would be inappropriate discrimination to have fired her if the management had another job she was capable of doing but refused to give that job to her on the basis of her religious belief. I'm willing to accommodate idiots like her if it's possible to.

I'm not for squashing dissent. I have no idea how it would be squashing dissent to admit that it wasn't inappropriate to dismiss the religious nut for being unwilling to do her job.

I would never advocate censorship of thought or any such Orwellian notions. There is no law in the UK about having prejudices. It is only when these are expressed publicly that it becomes discrimination. The problem with excessive libertarianism is that it too is extremely dangerous. We have the freedom to do mostly what we please, but we can't commit homicide. We have the freedom to go where we want, but breaking into someone's house is against the law. Freedom's should always carry responsibilities.

Human acitons can be regarded as either self-regarding or other-regarding. Most probably fall into the latter category, as most actions will affect other human beings in some form. Other-regarding actions can be separated into those that are benign and those that are harmful (to both other individuals and to society). Now what constitutes harm is probably up for debate. Freedom of speech is a right we probably should be granted, but we should at the same time not be able to bully. Indeed in schools bullying is a punishable offence, why then should discrimination be any different? It is almost exactly the same offence.

Like most media this really only tells part of the story.

The woman (a public employee) did NOT win the right to not perform civil services for gay people, the judge did NOT agree that she had this right. What she did win was an unfair dismissal.

Islington council did not follow the proper dismissal procedures, they announced before she was sacked that they were employing a homophobe to a gay paper and internally before she was even suspended this in the judges (and my) opinion was unacceptable. About the only time in the UK you can be sacked on the spot is for gross misconduct. This didnt happen and while you could argue it was gross misconduct most employers would probably get legal advice in what could possibly be a complex matter.

Its unlikely any precedent has been set (Catholic adoption agencies are shutting down next year as they would be required to allow gay parents to adopt).

Islington council is appealing this ruling on some of the follow grounds

The women involved in a single mother (sinner, whore, witch)

She was quite happily marrying divorced people (sinners in the eyes of the lord booo)

All civil services are not recognised as legal in the eyes of any church (they have no religious content, god dont get a mention)

Through this is a public sector organisation are some people reallying saying that private sector companies should legally be allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion(or lack of it), sexuality unless it actually prevents someone doing the job?

More of the moronic worship of freedom, you refuse to employ someone because they are black for example and enough people do the same that person tends to get hungry and then rob/shoot/stab you and society tends to fall apart. Want to live a life where you can do whatever you want, find an uninhabitated island and live there (oh there arent any tough shit)

Again, if she is a public employee then the dismissal was correct and the reversal by the higher court was wrong. It would be like a doctor at a public hospital refusing to operate on someone because they were Muslim or atheist.

BUT, the private sector is not bound by the same laws in the same way|(at least in America). Hiring laws for private businesses are not as black and white. Should a strip club that caters to men be forced to hire male strippers or 400 lb women? Should this website be forced by government to allow a priest to have their own show on this website? Should a private church be forced to allow an atheist to speak every Sunday to the congregation?

Sites like this can become targets of overzealous politicians if WE give them the power to make "Politically correct" laws. We as atheists are the minority. I am not going to shoot myself in the foot by demanding that my government silence that which I might find offensive. I am certainly sure Christians can and do find things we say here as "offensive" I am not going to give my government that kind of power being in the minority.

Do not confuse issues here. There is a pragmatic side to this. You can agree that govenrment cannot play favorites to any group and as such no government employee can do what she did.

BUT, the ballance in free western societies is that you also cannot prevent people from associating or obstaining from associating with each other. You cant make people a clone of you. You can use your own voice to appeal to them and possibly change their minds. But, if you don't want to be dictated to, you cannot dictate to others.

As mrjonno cleared up for us, the woman that was the subject of the story was discriminated against. It was terribly inappropriate (flat out wrong really) to set her up like that, and then can her.

However, they had every appropriate reason to fire her. It's not that her ideas are offensive, in the end her ideas are irrelevant. It is that she refused to do the job she was hired to do. Which means that she's as vulnerable to getting canned in the private sector as she was in the public sector. Perhaps more so, as you point out.