According to this story at BBC News:

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".

I can't find the the official judgement and reasons (I suspect I won't unless it goes to Employment Appeal Tribunal) so I'm relying on the news reports which state that Ladele has refused to officiate at civil partnerships, swapping with colleagues if necessary. Colleagues have been "shunned her" because of this stance and called her "homophobic" (which she seems surprised at), complaints have been raised about this practice and the council gave an ultimatum - do your job or be sacked for gross misconduct. The council have to comply with multiple pieces of legislation - protection from discrimination on grounds of sexuality and religion and protection from discrimination in goods and services with regard to sexual orientation.

The one that seems to be relevant here is The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Section 3 describes discrimination on the grounds of religion as:

(1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person ( “A”) discriminates against another person ( “B”) if—
(a)on grounds of religion or belief, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; or
(b)A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same religion or belief as B, but—
(i)which puts or would put persons of the same religion or belief as B at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons,
(ii)which puts B at that disadvantage, and
(iii)which A cannot show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2) The reference in paragraph (1)(a) to religion or belief does not include A’s religion or belief.

(3) A comparison of B’s case with that of another person under paragraph (1) must be such that the relevant circumstances in the one case are the same, or not materially different, in the other.

As the order to officiate at civil partnerships applied to all staff, not just christians, paragraph (b) is the relevant one. "The sack" is a pretty big disadvantage if you accept that this order would necessarily put christians at a disadvantage (i) and it certainly applied to Ladele (ii). It does fall down a little on (iii) though. How did the tribunal come to accept that there was "legitimate aim" to be reached when the council has to provide civil partnerships and has to comply with The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 which gives a similar definition of discrimination but applies it to sexual orientation (Section 3) and explicitly applies to Public Authorities and their interaction with the public (Section 8). That leaves the argument of "proportional". Apparently the Tribunal has noted that other registrars were available for civil partnership registrations. Does this mean that the council can therefore fulfill its roles without forcing her to do these jobs? Simply, no. A lack of this belief causes you to do more work, keep on top of more rules and regulations but doesn't offer additional reparation - Discrimination on grounds of (lack of) religious belief? Should public officers be able to pick and choose which sections of the community they serve? No - it means that members of minority groups have to wait for an appropriate person to be available to deal with their needs which is discrimination through The Equality Act.

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

She's right, but they are not being used for that purpose. They're being used to stop people like her bullying and harassing people like me. This case shows the way that religion is treated with greater respect than sexuality. I did not choose to be gay. I did not choose to be an atheist - but I have chosen how those beliefs are interpreted by myself. I can choose the interpretation of my faith. Just as people of other faiths can. Choice is being protected over things of non-choice.

EDIT: See also Peter Tatchell's comments.

Alex
x x