Clause de conscience pour les fonctionnaires?

[Taranne]

Un tribunal anglais a donné raison à une fonctionnaire anglaise qui refusait d'enregistrer les partenariats civils entre homosexuels. L'Observer n'est pas content du tout:

Civil rights must trump faith

Did Lillian Ladele, the devout Islington registrar whose refusal to conduct gay marriages has, astonishingly, been endorsed by an employment tribunal, ever wonder if she was in the right job? She could hardly have picked a career more likely to lead to spiritual conflict. The point of civil ceremonies always was to end religious control of marriage.

Guided by Christian beliefs so powerful they will not countenance, even outside the church, the union of two women or of two men, Ms Ladele must have had cause to wonder, throughout her career, about the fitness of all the other unchaste sinners over whose civil unions she has presided. Yet not until partnerships for gay people were added to the town hall's repertoire did she decide that these ceremonies were incompatible with holy writ.

In certain circles, Miss Ladele now finds herself a heroine. The tribunal decided, in effect, that British anti-discrimination law is trumped by Miss Ladele's faith. While Islington Council was correct to consider the rights of the gay community, it 'took no notice of the rights of Miss Ladele by virtue of her orthodox Christian beliefs'.

If this judgment is upheld, the implications are serious and troubling. Employees flourishing their religious convictions will be able to challenge almost any job description, whether these involve an aversion to pork, to certain clothes, to abortion pills, to gay people or to working on holy days.

There is an exception. Any pious gay man or woman, convinced that God has ordained for them a career in a church or mosque, will find that in the world of faith, worldly rights have no authority.

Où l'on voit une fois de plus qu'à Gaucheland, la désobéissance civique et la "clause de conscience" sont des droits réservés aux copains. En outre j'aimerais bien qu'on m'explique en quoi les droits civiques des homosexuels sont mis en danger par le refus d'une fonctionnaire de célébrer des unions civiles?

Registrar wins same-sex tribunal

Lillian Ladele said she felt delighted

A marriage registrar was harassed for refusing to conduct same-sex ceremonies, a tribunal has ruled.

Lillian Ladele, who said the civil partnership ceremonies went against her Christian faith, hailed the decision as a "victory for religious liberty".

The tribunal ruled that Miss Ladele was discriminated against on grounds of religious beliefs and was harassed.

Islington council said it was "disappointed" and was considering an appeal against the ruling.

'Wider implications'

Until December 2007 registrars in Islington effectively worked on a freelance basis and could swap with each other to avoid same-sex ceremonies14 But since then they have been under direct control of the local authority which, it is claimed, has led to far less flexibility about the registrars' responsibilities.

Miss Ladele said she was being effectively forced to choose between her religion and her £31,000-a-year job as a result.

Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs

Lillian Ladele

She said she was picked on, shunned and accused of being homophobic for refusing to carry out civil partnerships.

Miss Ladele said: "I am delighted at this decision.

"It is a victory for religious liberty, not just for myself but for others in a similar position to mine.

"Gay rights should not be used as an excuse to bully and harass people over their religious beliefs," she said.

Councillor John Gilbert, Islington Council's Executive Member for Human Resources, said: "We're clearly disappointed with the result, as we consider our approach was the right one.

"We are now considering the judgment carefully in order to decide whether we should appeal.

"The wider issue of whether councils should be able to expect employees to carry out civil partnerships doesn't seem to have been fully addressed."

He added the ruling could have "wider implications" for local authorities.

'Catastrophic judgement'

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the ruling was a "dangerous subversion" and a "violation of human rights".

"Lillian Ladele claims she has won a victory for religious liberty. No, she has not. She has won a victory for the right to discriminate," he said.

"Public servants like registrars have a duty to serve all members of the public without fear or favour. Once society lets some people opt out of upholding the law, where will it end?"

Condemning the "catastrophic judgement" the National Secular Society said: "This decision appears to show that religious rights trump gay rights and that should leave gay people quaking in their boots."

[LeSanton]

Cela semble avoir fait énormément de bruit dans la presse anglaise. Bien entendu, ce n'est pas elle la victime dans l'histoire, mais le couple "injustement discriminé", si l'on en croit les commentaires; couple qui peut s'adresser à quelqu'un d'autre, alors qu'elle perd son boulot. On se demande qui sont les persécuteurs.

Entre parenthèses, 31.000 livres l'année, ça semble être un bon job…

[Invité jabial]

Là pour le coup je ne suis pas d'accord. Elle est fonctionnaire, elle s'attendait à quoi? Son âme appartient à la bête. Qu'elle fasse son boulot ou qu'on la vire.

[Hidalgo]

Là pour le coup je ne suis pas d'accord. Elle est fonctionnaire, elle s'attendait à quoi? Son âme appartient à la bête. Qu'elle fasse son boulot ou qu'on la vire.

+1

[pankkake]

Là pour le coup je ne suis pas d'accord. Elle est fonctionnaire, elle s'attendait à quoi? Son âme appartient à la bête. Qu'elle fasse son boulot ou qu'on la vire.

A vrai dire, tout employé qui refuse de faire son travail doit démissionner ou être viré ; c'est bien normal.

[Bastiat]

Là pour le coup je ne suis pas d'accord. Elle est fonctionnaire, elle s'attendait à quoi? Son âme appartient à la bête. Qu'elle fasse son boulot ou qu'on la vire.

ouep mais bon la du coups, le service chargé chez son employeur de trancher ces cas en a décidé autrement.

Les futurs mariés devraient se faire rembourser pour défaut de prestation.

[Taranne]

Il n'y a pas qu'en France que la justice sait revenir sur ses décisions quand celles-ci suscitent la polémique:

http://www.24dash.com/news/Local_Governmen…il-partnerships