How We Are Made or What We Believe

[Katja]

I got back from holiday last night and this morning while trying to catch up with the world I found this;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/13/equality-human-rights-commission-religion-gay
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/jul/13/equality-human-rights-commission-religious

It appears how we are and how we are made is considered inferior to our choice of belief in the view of United Kigdom Equality and Human Rights Commission. It appears that a belief in a God takes precedence in their view over those of us who are merely made bisexual or gay. Made one presupposes by the very God in whom we are supposed to believe in the first instance and belief in whom they are so determined to uphold.

I make no detailed comment at this stage, but it is an interesting if somewhat discouraging view, especially as it seems to go against both the spirit and the letter of the Act of Parliament which created the Commission and put these people in place to begin with.

[12voltman59]

It will be interesting to see how this gets played out.

This change in policy and emphasis of this commission does bring to mind the debates we have here in the US about religious freedom and such.

I do find it something that those who I find hold a more "extremist" religious view--argue that if they are not free to discriminate against gays, minorities they find to be less than worthy, etc--then their rights are being denied and they themselves are victims of "discrimination" for holding and acting on their religious beliefs.

I don't know what the answer to that is--because in a way they have a point--but I don't know how to resolve such things--especially now that everyone has gotten so entrenched in holding to their particular position and won't seek to find any common, middle ground.

It is such issues that make me concerned about how much longer "democracy" as we have known it can continue to exist.

Everyone is taking their absolutist positions and holding to them===come hell or high water---just like this situation with the US debt ceiling--everyone is seemingly prepared to let America default (maybe not at first but eventually if the debt ceiling is not raised soon) which will not only take down the US financial system--but the rest of the world's as well---I hope I am wrong---but get ready for a big time financial meltdown because people got stupid and could not come to some sort of workable compromise agreement.

I had recently watched the re-airing of the awesome Ken Burns documentary series on the Civil War. In one segment of one episode---the late historian, Shelby Foote said that as much as anything--that war was fought because the leaders at the time--on the issue of slavery and its expansion---forgot the art of compromise. I thought that a very astute and powerful observation and felt that it certainly applies to our times on so many issues facing us today.

We have such polarization that it seems that we can come to no compromise on any issue at all since every thing takes on political overtones.

When it comes to the divide between the rights of GLBT people and those of the religious and social right it is huge---one side merely wanting to be able to have all the same rights and privileges as everyone else--and the other side wanting to "wipe out the scourge of evil and immorality" posed by "gay" people and even society's acceptance of such "perversion" that homosexuality represents to them--I do wonder if that gap can be closed and some sort of accommodation can ever be reached. I would like to be optimistic--but I really am beginning to doubt it.

[Gearbox]

If your religion denies you certain actions that are part of job/career, then I think it's only fair that you are not made to perform those actions.
A simple "Fu*k off! Your sacked!", would be perfectly fair.;)

[Yoyome100]

Well said 12volt!

[Katja]

I agree with what what Voltman said. It was very well said indeed. The Human Rights Commission development does not surprise me. In this country we have a Conservative government. Forget that it is in coalition, the reality is that it is processing what are right wing typical Tory policies and the so called left of centre coalion partner, the Liberal Democrats are in cahoots and have shown their true colours.

Things will get worse before they get better. Progress to proper equality for the likes of gay and bisexual people has not quite stalled but is slowing as the right increasingly seek to reassert their traditional dominance over English political life. I say English because of how our country is governed. As yet in Scotland and Wales right wing political influence remains scant. Northern Ireland is a much different scenario and gay and bisexual issues have never played well over there even if some progress has also been made in the Province.

A major concern for us must be the possible removal of Cameron as Prime Minister other than by the ballot box. I may hate his economic and most of his social policy, but he is on the issue of gay and bisexual rights quite progressive. As are a number of other Tory cabinet ministers and of course the Lib Dem cabinet members. Cameron is under some threat because of the telephone hacking scandal, his links to the Murdochs, his friendship with Rebekah Brooks and his role in the the now defunct takover of BskyB.

Should Cameron be consumed by this scandal, there is a whole party waiting to put in place one who is more true to their history, and a large number of nasty unpleasant right wing candidates for his job. Right now, Cameron and a few less unpleasant ministers a rickety Lib/dem party and a weak Labour Party are all that stands between us and a move to reverse the progress we have made.

Those waiting for Cameron to fall would not be out of place in the Tea Party let me assure you. They may not have the religious hysteria of many Tea party members but they are every bit as nasty and dangerous should they be given their head.

[elian]

Hmm, this is sort of like the compromise that New York reached for recognizing gay marriage. Apparently the state officially recognizes them, but they do not legally compel clergy that would object to marrying a gay couple to perform a marriage ceremony. This is just fine, because there are plenty of liberal Christian and other faiths that would gladly marry LGBT folks.

I guess that they have had "reasonable accomodation" in the US for the disabled and special religious observances.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html

..so as I read it with the US law (not that I'm a lawyer) It would be "reasonable accommodation" to allow a certain employee to only grant heterosexual marriage licenses IF there was already another employee who could perform that function for LGBT couples.

If there is only one person that registers marriages then granting the employee's exemption request could create an undue hardship on the employer and therefore the employer is justified in denying the request for accommodation and asking the employee to perform their job in full. At that point I guess the employee would either perform their job or resign.

[tenni]

Elian
The New York state regulations regarding religious beliefs and same sex marriage are similar to how things have been done in Ontario where same sex marriage has been for maybe six years now.

I'm not sure if a human rights commission determined this or the legislature. No clergy may be forced to provide a same sex marriage if it is against their religious beliefs. Our constitution and charter (section 15) provide these rights of religous expression. There are other churches who will. I know that some churches where each individual church has the power to determine this went through congregations study and discussion to decide if they would provide same sex marriage.

However, the state must provide provisions for non religious same sex marriages just as it does for cross sex marriages. It is determined that marriage is not a religious ceremony but it is a state legal ceremony. Ministers must obtain a government controlled license to marry and the applicants must have a state government license to marry. Again, marriage is not a religious event but a legal event in Canada.

The individual government employee would have been given an exemption if hired prior to the law. That may have meant a transfer if they lived in a place where they would be the only justice of the peace etc. In some cases, that may mean moving and I guess they moved or quit on their own. There was little stir or protest once the government or human rights commission made its decision. If hired after the law was enacted, they are expected not to apply for such a job. There are lots of other jobs within the government that they may work...;)

Like what Katja stated, Canada has a conservative government that at one time strongly opposed same sex marriage. They don't dare try to overturn it, not only because it would be unconstitutional but the Canucks have accepted this now. You never know though...right religious extremists do not give up..it seems.