Showing posts with label LGBT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LGBT. Show all posts

Tuesday, 15 January 2013

The Four Legal Cases - The Update

The European Court of Human Rights laid down the judgement on the case of the four Christians who had alleged religious discrimination.

The ECHR laid down the sensible and logical decisions under the circumstances.

That Nadia Eweida was discriminated against. There is no logical reason why she should have been barred from wearing an item of jewellry in the first place.

That the other three were not discriminated against. And this is important because it balances the religious beliefs against the reasonable expectations of the public meeting them in the workplace. The private beliefs of Lillian Ladele in particular are all and well. In private.

As a Registrar, she has a job to do which includes performing Civil Partnership ceremonies. If she wants a job where there is no conflict between her beliefs and her duties, then she certainly was in the wrong job.

The wrong job in the same way that a vegetarian taking a job in a butchers would also be in the wrong job. 

Sunday, 6 May 2012

Zombie Politics

The papers are full of the usual "tensions in the coalition" again.

These days, are par for the course. Normally, just rolling my eyes and moving on, I was very struck this time by the focus of the right-wards lurching demonstrated by the likes of Nadine Dorris and Bernard Jenkins focusing on gay marriage legislation and House of Lords Reform.

Both of these are the right thing to do.

To remove patronage in the make-up of the legislature; and lets be honest, it is patronage. Stephen Byers, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt secretly recorded suggesting they could be lobbied by the highest bidders and then using their positions within parliament to take forward lobbyist's concerns and being promptly told by Labour they would never get a peerage.

And gay marriage is nothing more and nothing less than full equality under the law for whoever you might fall in love with. The 1947 Marriage Act is a state definition of marriage. Religions can carry out their own variations within their ideology. The Catholics prohibits divorcees from marrying within the Church. Thats fine, thats up to them. But that is not the same as saying that that marriage is only for a man and a woman, which state is well within its right to legislate.

The New Statesman reports a Gallup poll showing 43% in favour of gay marriage.

PCS voted to take strike action over public sector pensions on a 61% majority on a 32.4% turnout.

The Conservatives polled 31% in the local elections on 3 May 2012 on a turnout of 32%.

Who here has the bigger mandate?

Lynne Featherstone is right when she says its not an either/or; that the coalition are more than capable of multitasking.

Thats the nature of coalition, it requires compromise. The Tories have yet to grasp this basic concept.

Compromises in a Coalition is the grown up version of "Show me yours and I'll show you mine."