If he's refusing to do his job, he should get disciplined and then sacked.
He's a representative of the government performing a legal ceremony. He doesn't get to choose unless it's illegal.

As far as the relationship councillor goes, if they're self-employed they get to choose their clients. They also get to be sued if they refused clients on discriminatory grounds.
( Kroney, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 13:53, 1 reply, 13 years ago)

Grow up.
You can't just discipline on a point of religious difference. It's one of those (few) things where an employer has to be careful.

The relationship councillor is unlikley to be sued, whoever referred un-councilled couples to him/her will be the one that gets sued.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 13:56, Reply)

I like how you can't mount an argument so you just say the othe person is being immature.
The whole point of this is that the employer was ruled to be totally correct for sacking the registrar for refusing to do his job simply because of his own bigoted views.
(Bazongaloid, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 14:02, Reply)

I'm suggesting that the best of dealing with it
is NOT the handwringing "sack him" level of PC that goes into these decisions. The thing with the registrar was easy to solve - he doesn't do same sex marriages, another registrar does. Nobody won here.

I have to say that I don't have a problem with people holding any of these views, they are not my views and I feel are misguided but that's the thing with views and opinions: they are easy to ignore.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 14:10, Reply)

But why should a government employee put all the other staff at a disadvantage because of their personal bigotted views?
What if all the staff at that council decided that they personally would like to refuse to help anyone called Steve, for no justifiable reason at all, just an arbitrary decision? That's exactly what's happened here.

You can't have a point of principle that says this council will not discriminate against people based on race or sexuality and then allow members of staff to do just that.
(Bazongaloid, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 14:16, Reply)

If it's anything like most public sector jobs,
a main part of the job description is to be able to work with and for people of different race/religion/sexuality and not to descriminate based on that.
He'd have applied for a job while knowing that he couldn't do that.
(PsychoChomp, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 14:18, Reply)

This is a standard nhs clause.
The jobholder must comply with all policies and procedures designed to ensure equality of employment. No person whether they are staff, patient or visitor should receive less favourable treatment because of their gender, ethnic origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, religion etc.
(PsychoChomp, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 14:20, Reply)

I'm not hand-wringing. As far as I'm concerned his job is to marry people.
He refused to marry certain people because he doesn't like their sexual orientation. If I refused to do my job because I didn't like somebody's sexual orientation, I would be disciplined and, if I did it again, sacked.

I don't see how the two things are different.
( Kroney, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 14:17, Reply)

They aren't.
It's quite simple.
(Bazongaloid, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 14:18, Reply)

OK good, just making sure.
Stunned doesn't seem to agree.
( Kroney, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 14:20, Reply)

That's hardly surprising.
He's not the smartest cookie in the crumble.
(Bazongaloid, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 14:21, Reply)

completely agreeing with Al yet again here.
I'm starting to get worried about myself.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 14:26, Reply)

You'll be frothing at the left wing clopper of indignation in no time

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 14:28, Reply)

Just as long as no-one starts reverse dutch steamboating swipe.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 14:30, Reply)

It's not a point of religious difference.
They are refusing to do something that is specifically part of their job. You aren't discriminating against them. They are repeatedly and deliberately failing to fulfil the terms of their contract. Their reasons for doing so are almost entirely irrlevant.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 15 Jan 2013, 14:23, Reply)