andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2010-04-30 12:00 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Entry tags:

Delicious LiveJournal Links for 4-30-2010

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] robhu.livejournal.com 2010-05-01 11:55 am (UTC)(link)
Given [Bad username or site: wildeabandon' / @ livejournal.com]'s comment I see now that there was no change during his term of employment, so I agree that the type of defence I argued for above can't be used in this case, but the argument itself is valid in cases where it applies.

Unfortunately, though, if (like me) a person does think that, your point does become completely irrelivent. For your argument to be valid we have to take it as a given that his job description changed. It didn't.
Aren't these two separate points? In this case if his job description didn't change then yes I agree, this argument doesn't apply here, but if someone does think that homosexual relationships are the same in all ways then that doesn't invalidate my argument because my argument has nothing to do with whether such relationships really are equivalent or not.

I don't think your analogy about fire alarms is equivalent, employment terms and moral principles are clearly a different sort of thing, and this is already accepted to be the case as it is illegal to change someone's terms of employment without their consent.

With respect to your example of interracial marriage, if the registrar honestly thought that marrying interracial couples was an immoral thing to do, and that registrar could be accommodated without any effect on any interracial couples that wanted to get married then yes I think they should have been accomodated. My argument is not based on whether I think the action in question (gay sex therapy, interracial marriage, etc) is moral or not, it's about trying to do achieve the overall aims (that the government has decided) while avoiding throwing people out of their jobs and causing them to act in what they consider to be immoral ways.
nameandnature: Giles from Buffy (Default)

[personal profile] nameandnature 2010-05-01 03:45 pm (UTC)(link)
Your biting of the bullet on interracial marriage seems pretty remarkable to me, especially given your earlier explosion at my attempt to make a similar comparison. In any case, you're out of luck as far as UK law is concerned. Such an argument was explicitly rejected by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (and the rejection was later upheld by the courts) in the other case you may be thinking of (Lillian Ladele, the registrar who refused to perform civil partnerships):

106. Moreover, it is submitted that if the claimant were right, it could lead to situations which almost everyone would find wholly unacceptable. For example, a racist who objected to performing mixed race marriages or Jewish marriages would have to be accommodated in similar circumstances. (Apparently there are some Christian churches in America which advocate white supremacism and anti-semitism).
and later
117. Fundamental changes in social attitudes, particularly with respect to sexual orientation, are happening very fast and for some - and not only those with religious objections - they are genuinely perplexing. In that context there seems to us to be some virtue in taking a pragmatic line if it is lawful. oweve,[sic.] However, whether the council may have been entitled to avoid bringing this matter to a head by not designating the claimant, in our view they were not obliged to do so. We think they were entitled not to agree to make an exception for the claimant. They were not required to connive in what they perceived to be unacceptable discriminatory behaviour by relieving the claimant of these duties. They were entitled to adopt as an objective an unambiguous commitment to the non-discriminatory provision of services by all staff who in the normal course of events, would be required to carry out those services. It would necessarily undermine that objective to make an exception for the claimant. Accordingly, their refusal to accommodate the religious belief of the claimant did not in our judgment involve unlawful indirect discrimination.
I think the "connive" here is well chosen: why should the council feel obliged to help either racists or those who discriminate against gays?
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only