[Rant warning -- skip this post if you can't be arsed with all this political nonsense]
Religious nut Lillian Ladele, not content with losing her case at an Employment Appeal Tribunal, has now gone to the Court of Appeal over her "religious conviction" that, as a public servant, she is entitled to decide which members of the public can receive public services.
[Is it me, or has Lillian got really big knockers?]
The fragrant Lillian, you may recall, was a Registrar in Islington, north London, and, though happy to marry heterosexual couples, had a "conscientious objection" to performing civil partnerships with homosexuals. The Council insisted citizens could not be denied access to public services on bigoted grounds, and that she was a public servant whose job it was to uphold the law. She objected, and sued the Council for bullying and harassment.
This evil harpy is backed by some outfit called "Christian Voice". Dedicated to not turning the other cheek, and certainly not to rendering unto Caesar, a spokesperson for "Christian Voice" expressed the repellent view that: "She signed up for the honourable job of joining men and women in marriage. Now she is being asked to solemnise pretend unions of homosexuals. No wonder she feels aggrieved."
See, this is what happens when those cretins in Government decide to adopt the same position as the Apartheid regime of South Africa pre-President Mandela -- that of "separate but equal". All the time that queers get one sort of ceremony and straights get another we are going to face accusations that civil partnerships are "pretend unions".
For myself, I think it's none of the State's damn business what sort of relationships I choose to have, and without kids involved I am struggling to see why any sane human would go through one of these weird ceremonies. But if the State wants to create categories of sanctified relationships, they should be equally accessible to all irrespective of what the respective participants choose to do with their genitalia.
As a more sensible commentator put it: "Doubtless there were [registrars] 40 years ago who claimed a moral objection to mixed marriages between people of different ethnic origin. Discrimination on any basis is equally unacceptable."
Just goes to prove the fundamental point: you can't have a bit of equality. It really is one of those all or nothing situations.
3 comments:
Even though you are ranting largely to the converted here Mr LeDuc, rant away. Sad, insecure and fundamentally unhappy people, whether they be cardinals and archbishops in Sydney or registrars in Islington, seem to need to trample on other people and other people's rights in order to enhance their own miserable self-image. Yes. Discrimination on ANY grounds is evil.
Problems put in the way of inter-racial marriages forty years ago? It happened only last week in Mississippi did it not?
Love or loathe the CofE it's my suspicion that many of its adherents who deplore the ordination of women and are minded to move over to Rome would soon find its disciplinarian approach forcing them to give up their same-sex partners
Why is always the intolerant, narrow minded and 'unchristian' Christians which always get all the publicity? So many Christians, even Catholics(!) really aren't like this!
Post a Comment