Islington Council did not discriminate against Christian registar

Islington Council did not discriminate against Christian registar December 19, 2008

ISLINGTON council in London has won its appeal against a ruling that it discriminated against a Christian registrar who refused to conduct same-sex civil partnerships.
Lillian Ladele said she could not carry out same-sex ceremonies “as a matter of religious conscience”.

Lillian Ladela, who refused to conduct same-sex civil unions
Lillian Ladela, who refused to conduct same-sex civil unions
An Employment Tribunal found in July that Islington Council, in north London, had unlawfully discriminated against her.
But, according to the BBC today, an Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has now upheld the authority’s appeal.
Ms Ladele claims she suffered ridicule and bullying as a result of her stance and said she had been harassed and discriminated against by the council.
The EAT ruled the earlier tribunal had “erred in law” and there was no basis for concluding that any “discrimination had been established”.
But it also said there were “unsatisfactory features” about the way the council had handled the matter.
It ruled:

The council were not taking disciplinary action against Ms Ladele for holding her religious beliefs. They did so because she was refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies and this involved discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

The council were entitled to take the view that they were not willing to connive in that practice by relieving Ms Ladele of the duties, notwithstanding that her refusal was the result of her strong and genuinely-held Christian beliefs.

However, the judgment added not all of the council management team treated Ms Ladele’s beliefs sensitively.
In a statement outside the court, Ms Ladele’s solicitor Mark Jones said she would now take her case to the Court of Appeal.
He added:

She wants to make it clear that, whatever other commentators may have said, this case has never been an attempt to undermine the rights of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender communities.

The evidence showed that Lillian performed all of her duties to the same high standard for the lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender communities, as she did for everyone.

This case has been about the shortfall between the principle of equal dignity and respect for different lifestyles and world views, and Islington Council’s treatment of Lillian Ladele – conduct which the tribunal felt moved to describe as extraordinary and unreasonable.

Islington councillor John Gilbert said:

The council is extremely pleased with this decision which it believes to be the right one.

"They have had 2,000 years working through their views. While still "working" they were torturing ..."

No gay marriage here: faith-based wedding ..."
"White as a symbol of sexual purity is a whole different kettle of rotten fish ..."

No gay marriage here: faith-based wedding ..."
"Some idiot shouted heil hitler and gave the Nazi salute at a performance at Fiddler ..."

UK man who gave a Nazi ..."
"Wonder if they would have shown photos of my parents at the time, an interracial ..."

No gay marriage here: faith-based wedding ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • valdemar

    Excellent! (Rubs evil, atheist hands, then strokes white cat.)
    What with forced marriage getting short shrift in the same week, I feel rather good about my country this Yuletide. I suppose she might win on appeal, though. Curses.

  • Angela K

    Good news indeed but how much public money has been wasted on this vexatious claim? I may have said this before, but if Ms Ladela does not like our fair laws perhaps she should go back to a country that shares her bigotry.

  • mn

    A black person and, more importantly, a woman, doesn’t get what’s wrong with discrimination ? She doesn’t know that her liberties came in spite of religion and not because of it ? sheesh ….

  • Dave W

    Ms Ladele’s solicitor Mark Jones is wrong when he says. “This case has been about the shortfall between the principle of equal dignity and respect for different lifestyles and world views”. It isn’t about that at all. Firstly, sexuality is not a lifestyle choice, it is an intrinsic part of being human. Unless, of course, Ms Ladele is willing to concede that her skin colour is simply another lifestyle choice? Secondly, Ms Ladele’s ‘worldview’
    is unsubstantiated by any evidence and based upon texts that are both static and very, very old. Whether they amount to anything of value or worth is entirely contestable. As has been stated recently at the UN, human rights and legal protections are for people, not beliefs, ideas, concepts, institutions or organisations. People trump all of these.

  • Paul Hackett

    What a wonderful piece of news – the triumph of reason and humanity over sheer ignorance. If Ms Ladela wins on appeal then it is time to leave the UK to the zealots.