Terry Sanderson: The decision in favour of a registrar who refused to deal with gay couples sets a dangerous precedent

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. neil.a.coyle says:

    Surely the registration of gay couples was instituted on the basis of inclusivity and diversity.If such laudable principles are to survive then they have to apply to everybody alike.

    If this ruling had gone the other way then it would have contravened the very process it was trying to uphold.Furthermore if we do have a truly diverse society then there will be no problem finding a suitable person to carry out a said duty without imposing on anybody’s conscience.
    This is what happened here.

    The precedent would have been dangerous if this lady had been sacked as then it would have opened the way for all sorts of people to be forced against their ethical will.One example that springs to mind is surgeons who refuse to carry out abortions in certain circumstances.
    True, they may not be refusing on religious grounds ,but why should that make such a material difference?

    Where i work all sorts of allowances are made for people to let the job they do fit in with personal preferences.
    Neil

    • Margaret Nelson says:

      Sorry Neil, but this decision legitimised the woman’s homophobia. She’s a public servant, employed to conduct wedding ceremonies for whoever satisfies the legal criteria. If she isn’t happy conducting ceremonies for gay couples, she’s in the wrong job and should find another one.

      • neil.a.coyle says:

        I know what you’re saying,Margaret, but i would have thought that in a modern, liberal, diverse society there would have been room for individual beliefs as long as it did not harm anybody.Even if we disagree with them,which i do in this case.
        Otherwise we are only going to steamroll everyone into uniformity.
        Would you make the same judgement about surgeons employed by the NHS who refuse to carry out (some)abortions?
        Neil

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: