|
|
 |
| |
Lillian Ladele |
REGISTRAR 'FAILED TO DO HER JOB'
High Court appeal likely after top judge rules against Christian
A CHRISTIAN marriage registrar who refused to wed gay couples has vowed to take Islington Council to the High Court after the country’s leading employment appeal court judge ripped up a landmark ruling in her favour.
Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) president Mr Justice Elias said the original judgment in July had “erred in law,” categorically stating Lillian Ladele had not been discriminated against on account of her religious beliefs.
The 47-year-old from Skinner Street, Finsbury, was threatened with the sack after “opting out” of civil partnership ceremonies, claiming the Bible taught her gay couples were “sinful”.
Councillor John Gilbert, lead member for human resources, said: “This judgment provides clarity for employers across the country in requiring their employees to act in a non-discriminatory manner when discharging their public service duties.”
Lawyers acting for Miss Ladele said she was “shunned” by colleagues in the Town Hall who mounted a “witch-hunt” against her because of her Christian belief.
But the EAT, releasing its judgment on Friday, upheld the council’s argument that Ms Ladele was disciplined for gross misconduct because she had failed to do her job.
Her solicitor, Mark Jones, said: “Lillian Ladele intends to appeal the judgment given by the tribunal.”
A spokesman for the Christian Institute said they were confident of getting leave to appeal.
He added: “It has to be passed by the EAT first. Then our legal team can submit the papers to the Court of Appeal. A date will be set, probably in a few months’ time.”
Colin Hart, director of the Christian Institute, the Christian rights lobby group that bankrolled Ms Ladele’s case, added: “Gay rights are not the only rights. If this decision is allowed to stand it will help squeeze out Christians from the public sphere because of their religious beliefs on ethical issues.”
Neither side has been prepared to back down in what will eventually be a landmark ruling of fundamental importance to Christians and councils across the country.
Justice Elias’s ruling, released on Friday, stated: “In our judgment, the appeal succeeds. The council were not taking disciplinary action against Ms Ladele for holding her religious beliefs. They did so because she was refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies and this involved discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. The council were entitled to take the view that this would be inconsistent with their strong commitment to the principles of non-discrimination and would send the wrong message to staff and service users.
“The argument that this constitutes direct discrimination is quite unsustainable. The claimant’s complaint is not that she was treated differently from others; rather it was that she was not treated differently when she ought to have been. The council refused to make an exception of her because of her religious convictions. That is a complaint that she is being discriminated against because of that difference. The council has been blind to her religion, and she submits that they ought not to have been.”
“It cannot constitute direct discrimination to treat all employees in precisely the same way.
He added: “If I burn down my employer’s factory because of my philosophical anarchist beliefs, an employer who dismisses me thereafter for burning down the factory is not doing so because of my philosophical beliefs. Those beliefs may be the reason for my action, but they are not the reason for the employer’s response.”
Justice Elias said that if the original ruling was allowed to stand it would bring irrevocable damage to employers’ rights.
He said: “An employer could never justify any refusal to accede to an employee’s demands that he or she should be permitted to manifest his religious beliefs, however bizarre they may be. For example, a racist who objected to performing mixed marriages or Jewish marriages would have to be accommodated.”
He cited a series of legal judgments including one in which a judge, who converted to Islam, was dismissed from the bench because he was asking to pray five times a day.
Mr Elias said that in his opinion, the European Court, the highest court where the case could be taken, would find “no breach” of Ms Ladele’s religious rights.
Islington’s Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, Baroness Ludford, said new laws were going through the European Parliament that would better safeguard gay rights.
She said: “It could be very difficult for lesbian and gay teachers to find work in faith schools.
“At least the Ladele case is an encouraging sign that UK courts will uphold the principle that religion cannot trump the right to equal treatment.
“Religious freedoms must be respected, but not at the expense of upholding civil liberties for all.” |
 |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
