On a related note…

[syniqal]

…I point you to two very well written articles on the subject of Lillian Ladele (apparently the single mother of a bastard child) and the Tribunal which came to the monumentally stupid conclusion that she had been discriminated against for being homophobic and refusing to do her job.

Ministry of Truth: Ladele v Islington - was there a conflict of

Comments

[morti]

Once again, it's not homophobic. The reason that she's having trouble is because people throw around the word "homophobic" and cause a stir without actually knowing what it means. She's not being discriminatory against anyone but instead believes that the actions are wrong and shouldn't be encouraged. She also wouldn't sign a paper approving of unmarried sex between a man and a woman, that again isn't discrimination, it's objecting to an action and it's actions she objects to rather than people. Rather than getting on her high horse and judging people she's saying "I'm not happy being involved with this because it conflicts with my faith" (once again, reason for living and all that jazz

[syniqal]

The child is a bastard. It's a legal term.

Also, I want to see the woman get what she should have gotten in the first place, i.e: sacked. If she wasn't such a hypocrite I might have given her some sympathy, but she is being homophobic and she is applying standards to everyone but herself. For these reasons, I'm looking very forward to seeing her crash and burn. :)

[morti]

Yeah, but you know full well that pointing it out is irrelevant and an attempt on your part to make her look bad.

Three questions.

Where's the evidence to say she's a hypocrite?
What is homophobic about it?
In what way is she applying standards to others?

[syniqal]

Read the linked articles and the articles they link to. The evidence is there.

The legal status of her child is very relevant. It is part of the plethora of evidence that earmarks the woman as a Grade I Hypocrite.

[sethur]

Well said, Illarane. Morti's pathetic distinction between hating the act rather than the person is irrelevant. She is refusing to provide a service that is paid for by the people she is refusing to provide it for - Islington Council Charge payers - on the grounds of how she feels about her sexuality. As for her being a hypocrite, followeing those parts of the Bible that agree with your prejudices and ignoring the rest is hypocrisy.

[peppapig]

she may be homophobic - but asking not to be forced into doing something new at work that she doesn't believe in, is not in itself make her a homophobe.

Do you not think you've got a little too angry over this?

[syniqal]

See Zoe's comment below. Also, someone else pointed out (can't remember if it was here or on one of those links) that the wording in her original job description never actually ruled out civil unions, so she hasn't a leg to stand on.

[morti]

They didn't exist, surely...?

My job description doesn't rule out glaknars.

[syniqal]

Tell that to a lawyer when it becomes the law to pray to glaknars five times a day. :)

[zoecb]

I'm with you Illarane. I do think that she is a homophobe, but that is actually beside the point here, the point being:

She has a job: to register people in marriages and civil unions. She's refusing to do some of it, well then she should quit if she has a problem with it.

This case is like an abattoir worker asking not to slaughter any animals on the grounds of vegetarianism.
Ridiculous carry on.

[skeldof]

Except [original] karma is a religious system designed to control and oppress people into the same fates of their parents :)

Instant karma is a broken modern western concept.

Would say it was justice, but this whole rant is based on how broken the system is ;)

[syniqal]

Quiet, you.