This story has been around for a little while, but it's one which caught my eye as soon as it appeared in the Islington Tribune. This woman was employed by Islington Council to officiate at Civil parntership ceremonies, but it seems that when the law was changed to open up this process for citizens of the same sex, she refused to fulfill her role, citing her Christian faith as her moral guidance. What's interesting about this case is the decision the tribunal took. Actually, what I mean is the decision they were faced with. At the tender age of twenty, I have already developed a bitter and cynical lens to quietly observe the beginnings of 21st Century Britian. So naturally, I expect such arbiters to cling to the most p.c. line they could, but here they must have been stumped! They either stand up for the rights of the homosexual minority (or not as the case may be-- the Civil partnership legislation was actually designed with such people as elderly co-habiting sisters in mind), or they enforce the (non-minority) religious beliefs of a black single mother.
This story's very interesting in that respect. For the PC brigade, prepared to ally themselves with the religious, the homosexual, the ethnic minority or even the anti-social (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7509968.stm) this must have been a genuine dilemma. For the relgious generally, this was a victory. For the Christian/traditional this is about the best they could have hoped for. For example, the Daily Mail saw it as a triumph of common sense and traditional values over 'political correctness gone mad'.(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1034566/Christian-registrar-refused-marry-gay-couples-reveals-bullying-ordeal-hands-politically-correct-colleagues.html). In the secular camp, and I would count myself among them, this is a failure of the system to protect hard-won rights against the moral agenda of the religious. This case then, was the nexus of a number of public opinion tribes thriving within the UK, who on various occasions will find themselves either head-to-head, or with a common enemy.
A case in point- try searching the word 'Muslim' on the Daily Mail website, and your search will yield a number of articles highly critical Muslim schools, claiming that they will lead to greater segregation. This is something that the secular would surely agree with, and yet the Daily Mail will refuse to subject Christian schools to the same level of criticism, probably because "Christianity is the backbone of the country and the basis of our morality" or sentiments to that effect.
My opinion on this matter is probably very obvious by now, but my real worry, as so often cited in judgments handed down by the House of Lords, is a 'flood-gates' one. If Lillian Ladele is to be allowed to actively discriminate in her provision of a public service, let alone a private one, then where exactly do we draw the line. Does this mean that Gay rights aren't as valuable as religious ones? If I took the post, would I be able to insist that all applicants for the ceremony were circumcised to avoid offending my belief system? These sound like crass points, but I think they're very relevant. With any luck, Islington Council will appeal this decision and restore some order to the tupsy-turvy world of political correctness.
