Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
conciencious objections in the workplace, what to do?
Options
-
04-05-2010 1:59pm#1This question is borne out of the 'Christian privilages' thread. Basically the questions arise as follows.
I am a Christian who has been a registrar for 16 years. The law has now redefined my job to entail conducting same sex services. What do you think the Christian should do?
Is there an issue conducting such services?0
Comments
-
This question is borne out of the 'Christian privilages' thread. Basically the questions arise as follows.
I am a Christian who has been a registrar for 16 years. The law has now redefined my job to entail conducting same sex services. What do you think the Christian should do?
Is there an issue conducting such services?
I think it would depend on the setting of your registrar-ship (should we address you as ' your Registrarshipful'?).
If you're a civil registrar and are presiding over a ceremony entitled 'marriage' then that must somehow fall under the civil definition of marriage. Such definitions aren't absolute and unchanging and so aren't from God as such. If the civil authorities decide to define marriage so then I don't see the problem.
If, on the other hand, you were a pastor of a godly church and were asked to perform a same sex ceremony entitled 'marriage' then the definition of marriage by which you would be guided would be God's definition (as you understand it). If there was conflict between his definition (as you understood it) and the qualifying circumstances of the couple involved then I don't see how you could preside over such a ceremony.
Which are you? A civil or 'religious' registrar?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »I think it would depend on the setting of your registrar-ship (should we address you as ' your Registrarshipful'?).
I think that antiskeptic brings out very well the difference between marriage (and civil partnership) as a civil "contract" whereby two individuals are granted various privileges by society in exchange for taking on various obligations, and marriage as a religious sacrament. In the UK, a civil marriage conducted by a registrar cannot, by law, have any religious element to it, so you can't sing hymns, have religious readings or sacred music. I've read stories of officious registrars vetting poems that couples want to have as readings and banning them because they happen to mention God.
So it is possible to make a case, I think, that a civil marriage isn't really a marriage in the sense meant by the Church. Hence, a Christian civil registrar can't logically have a conscientious objection to performing civil partnerships, unless that registrar has a conscientious objection to performing civil marriages (because a civil marriage isn't a marriage in the sight of God, so to conduct a civil marriage would essentially be to condone promiscuity and fornication). But then the registrar couldn't conduct any marriage/partnership, and hence couldn't undertake the job.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »I think it would depend on the setting of your registrar-ship (should we address you as ' your Registrarshipful'?).
If you're a civil registrar and are presiding over a ceremony entitled 'marriage' then that must somehow fall under the civil definition of marriage. Such definitions aren't absolute and unchanging and so aren't from God as such. If the civil authorities decide to define marriage so then I don't see the problem.
If, on the other hand, you were a pastor of a godly church and were asked to perform a same sex ceremony entitled 'marriage' then the definition of marriage by which you would be guided would be God's definition (as you understand it). If there was conflict between his definition (as you understood it) and the qualifying circumstances of the couple involved then I don't see how you could preside over such a ceremony.
Which are you? A civil or 'religious' registrar?
I'm talking about a civil registrar, and I'm sure that 16 years ago, everyone was pretty clear on what a marriage was. Do you think its fair that a registrar who has now had her job redefined can be sacked for saying, 'well it was pretty clear what marriage was when I took the job, and this new role you've added doing civil unions, I cannot do. However, I can continue in my role doing the marriages I've done until now'?0 -
So it is possible to make a case, I think, that a civil marriage isn't really a marriage in the sense meant by the Church.
I agree tbh. A true Christian marriage doesn't even need a ceremony.(Thats not to say I am advocating not entering into the legal marriage) The ceremony is really a public declaration. A Christian marriage is in the heart of a man and woman. The two becoming one flesh, and as God see's the things of the heart, he doesn't need any ceremony to know who is and who isn't married.Hence, a Christian civil registrar can't logically have a conscientious objection to performing civil partnerships, unless that registrar has a conscientious objection to performing civil marriages (because a civil marriage isn't a marriage in the sight of God, so to conduct a civil marriage would essentially be to condone promiscuity and fornication).
I think you need to re-ask yourself what a Christian marriage is.But then the registrar couldn't conduct any marriage/partnership, and hence couldn't undertake the job.
We don't even need to introduce the God question to this scenario tbh. Marriage was clearly defined when the job was taken. All of a sudden, its been redefined, and only this one specific redefinition is causing a problem. I can continue to conduct marriage services, but civil unions, no. Do you think its fair to sack me?0 -
I'm not sure if you want this strictly Christian only, please tell me to go away if you wish. :P
But this case interests me. When you took up the job was there any sort religious aspects to it whatsoever, such as an oath or similar? Or was there simply a contract to sign?0 -
Advertisement
-
Let's take the hypothetical argument away from marriage/civil partnership.
Registrars also register births and deaths. Some Christians object to the use of in vitro fertilisation, surrogate mothers and other interventions in the "natural" process of conception and birth. It may well be the case that some of these processes were unknown when the registrar was appointed. Should a registrar who has such views be able to refuse to register a birth involving some process to which he or she objects on religious grounds?
I think that the issue of civil marriages/partnerships is a particular problem in the UK, where until the 19th century it was impossible to be married except through a religious ceremony (so civil marriage is viewed as basically the same as religious marriage rather than as a socially endorsed contract between two people). In countries such as France and Germany, since the introduction of the Code Napoleon, the civil ceremony and the religious ceremony are seen as two separate activities. The civil ceremony creates the marriage in the eyes of the State, and the religious ceremony (if it takes place at all) sanctifies the marriage in the eyes of the Church.
As an irrelevant side point, I see that this is my 600th post on boards.ie.0 -
Let's take the hypothetical argument away from marriage/civil partnership.
Registrars also register births and deaths. Some Christians object to the use of in vitro fertilisation, surrogate mothers and other interventions in the "natural" process of conception and birth. It may well be the case that some of these processes were unknown when the registrar was appointed. Should a registrar who has such views be able to refuse to register a birth involving some process to which he or she objects on religious grounds?
This situation is different. Whether or not someone agrees with in vitro fertilisation doesn't make much of a difference here. The baby is born, the registrar records it. The baby is already born, it's not a matter for debate!
However with the civil partnership, the registrar is involved in it during the process if that make sense.0 -
If I'd been your manager, I'd probably have gone for a quiet life and tried to find some way of scheduling the work so that you were kept away from civil partnerships (after all, if you don't consider them to be a "good thing", then you'd probably not have a very positive attitude during the ceremony, and this could spoil the occasion for those entering into the partnership and their guests). But jobs change over time, even if the wording of the job description doesn't. For example, if you are employed to "undertake the duties of a civil registrar as specified in relevant legislation", then your job description hasn't changed, but your duties have as a result of changes in the law. If you refuse to undertake your duties, then in extremis I would sack you.Do you think it's fair to sack me?
Wouldn't your position be like a police officer who refused to enforce any laws that had been passed after he or she had been appointed?0 -
This situation is different. Whether or not someone agrees with in vitro fertilisation doesn't make much of a difference here. The baby is born, the registrar records it. The baby is already born, it's not a matter for debate!
However with the civil partnership, the registrar is involved in it during the process if that make sense.
Takes me back to studying philosophy - this is something that the English philosopher J. L. Austin pointed out. Language can be "performative" as well as "propositional". Austin actually uses the example of a marriage celebrant saying "I now pronounce you husband and wife", and hence creating the marriage (now one would include civil partnerships) by uttering particular words (and of course having the authority to utter those words - hence if I say the words, this doesn't mean that I've joined two people in marriage).0 -
I'm talking about a civil registrar, and I'm sure that 16 years ago, everyone was pretty clear on what a marriage was. Do you think its fair that a registrar who has now had her job redefined can be sacked for saying, 'well it was pretty clear what marriage was when I took the job, and this new role you've added doing civil unions, I cannot do. However, I can continue in my role doing the marriages I've done until now'?
I wouldn't say it would be fair to sack you but that's in all likelyhood what would happen. It's not unusual that a solution to one problem causes another one to emerge and this one is a case in point.
I don't think the World would have a problem with the basis for your objection. Nor do I think the World would find it fair that you be sacked given that you didn't sign up for gay civil unions when you took the job.
What would happen in practice though would be that some or other loophole would be found (or created) to force your hand (because the momentum is with the gay lobby) and you would be out.
Unless of course a equally powerful Christian lobby group got involved.
__________
What is your actual objection though, if you don't mind me asking.0 -
Advertisement
-
This situation is different. Whether or not someone agrees with in vitro fertilisation doesn't make much of a difference here. The baby is born, the registrar records it. The baby is already born, it's not a matter for debate!
However with the civil partnership, the registrar is involved in it during the process if that make sense.
Not really that different. The civil registrar is not deciding if this couple will or will not be married. The laws of the state does this. The registrar is simply checking that the couple meet the criteria set by the state and recording that they are now married, or in a civil union, or what ever.
That is not "up for debate" with the registrar, nor is it dependent on his or her personal approval in order for the marriage to take place.0 -
Not really that different. The civil registrar is not deciding if this couple will or will not be married. The laws of the state does this. The registrar is simply checking that the couple meet the criteria set by the state and recording that they are now married, or in a civil union, or what ever.
That is not "up for debate" with the registrar, nor is it dependent on his or her personal approval in order for the marriage to take place.
I realise it's not "up for debate", at least not at this level. But there is still more personal involvement. As an example take an animal rights activist; there's a subtle difference between selling meat products from a cosy office and being the person cutting them up and packaging them. Whilst neither person made the choice to kill the animal, one is more "in your face".0 -
I realise it's not "up for debate", at least not at this level. But there is still more personal involvement. As an example take an animal rights activist; there's a subtle difference between selling meat products from a cosy office and being the person cutting them up and packaging them. Whilst neither person made the choice to kill the animal, one is more "in your face".
True, my point was simply that it is a pretty good comparison.
A registrar could refuse to register that a baby had been born if the baby was born out of wedlock because they feel that doing so would be condoning the behavior of the mother.
But this, as you point out, would be a bit silly because this baby has been born out of wedlock. That is a fact. The register is simply being asked to record this fact, whether she approves or not is some what irrelevant to whether it happens or not. If she doesn't the baby doesn't disappear.
Equally gay people can have civil unions. That is a fact, the register is simply being asked to record this not approve of it. Disapproving of it is irrelevant to it actually happening. The gay couple don't disappear, nor does the law allowing them to have this union.
I have no problem with this woman refusing to do this, but that is her decision and she takes responsibility for it. Refusing to do it but expecting that there be no repercussions from your employer is silly.0 -
I think that the issue is a bit more complicated, because the registrar isn't simply recording a union, he or she actually creates the union as a "civil fact" by performing the ceremony.True, my point was simply that it is a pretty good comparison.
A registrar could refuse to register that a baby had been born if the baby was born out of wedlock because they feel that doing so would be condoning the behavior of the mother.
But this, as you point out, would be a bit silly because this baby has been born out of wedlock. That is a fact. The register is simply being asked to record this fact, whether she approves or not is some what irrelevant to whether it happens or not. If she doesn't the baby doesn't disappear.
Equally gay people can have civil unions. That is a fact, the register is simply being asked to record this not approve of it. Disapproving of it is irrelevant to it actually happening. The gay couple don't disappear, nor does the law allowing them to have this union.
I have no problem with this woman refusing to do this, but that is her decision and she takes responsibility for it. Refusing to do it but expecting that there be no repercussions from your employer is silly.
There is a parallel in the case of registering births. A recent report from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees discusses the problem that can arise for members of certain ethnic and religious minorities in parts of the world where the authorities will refuse to register births of children whose parents are members of such minorities. Although the physical fact of birth is not affected by the registrar's actions, the "social fact" of the existence of a new citizen needs to be created through the act of registering the birth, and if the state refuses to register the birth, then the child doesn't "exist" as a citizen.0 -
Let's take the hypothetical argument away from marriage/civil partnership.
Registrars also register births and deaths. Some Christians object to the use of in vitro fertilisation, surrogate mothers and other interventions in the "natural" process of conception and birth. It may well be the case that some of these processes were unknown when the registrar was appointed. Should a registrar who has such views be able to refuse to register a birth involving some process to which he or she objects on religious grounds?
Thats not analagous at all. What would be an analagous above would be say, a doctors assistant specialising in fertility. She is complicit in the act. Simply recording fact, is not being complicit in something. I doubt there would be an objection if the person simply had to write down that mr and mr murphy are now in a civil union. Conducting that ceremony though, that is different.
BTW, I don't like this reasoning that if its done in one instance, it has to be done everywhere. Just because one may see reason in the conciencious objection in this case, doesn't mean an objection from a vegan at the bride wearing leather is equally valid. I think it should be taken on its merits.As an irrelevant side point, I see that this is my 600th post on boards.ie.
Congratulations, reach a thousand, and it becomes official that you have no life. Join the club:)0 -
Thats not analagous at all. What would be an analagous above would be say, a doctors assistant specialising in fertility. She is complicit in the act. Simply recording fact, is not being complicit in something. I doubt there would be an objection if the person simply had to write down that mr and mr murphy are now in a civil union. Conducting that ceremony though, that is different.
Yes, I'm not so convinced that the birth analogy works except in narrowly defined cases (see my previous post on failure to register births leading to statelessness).BTW, I don't like this reasoning that if its done in one instance, it has to be done everywhere. Just because one may see reason in the conciencious objection in this case, doesn't mean an objection from a vegan at the bride wearing leather is equally valid. I think it should be taken on its merits.
Presumably a registrar who was allergic to a particular flower could reasonably ask the happy couple not to use that flower in bouquets etc? But then, what about the vegan who has a psychosomatic reaction to leather and has an unfortunate tendency to throw up when faced with leather garments? As I've noted already, situations like this are partly about where to draw lines, and I don't think we can ever anticipate all the potential situations and clearly locate them on one side of a line or on the other.0 -
Presumably a registrar who was allergic to a particular flower could reasonably ask the happy couple not to use that flower in bouquets etc? But then, what about the vegan who has a psychosomatic reaction to leather and has an unfortunate tendency to throw up when faced with leather garments? As I've noted already, situations like this are partly about where to draw lines, and I don't think we can ever anticipate all the potential situations and clearly locate them on one side of a line or on the other.
Your examples are compulsive though, the vegan throws up when seeing leather (unlikely but ok), a reaction to flowers. I doubt Jimi throws up when he sees same sex couples.
It would be more analogous to the vegan performing the ceremony when the parties concerned are wearing all leather/fur etc even though he/she had moral qualms. Would this vegan have a right to not perform such ceremonies? Legally I don't know, seems doubtful, but if the vegan talked to his/her boss I'm sure they would understand and reassign them.
Not sure people are always so understanding of Christian moral qualms though, hence the issue.0 -
Your examples are compulsive though, the vegan throws up when seeing leather (unlikely but ok), a reaction to flowers. I doubt Jimi throws up when he sees same sex couples.
It would be more analogous to the vegan performing the ceremony when the parties concerned are wearing all leather/fur etc even though he/she had moral qualms. Would this vegan have a right to not perform such ceremonies? Legally I don't know, seems doubtful, but if the vegan talked to his/her boss I'm sure they would understand and reassign them.
Not sure people are always so understanding of Christian moral qualms though, hence the issue.
I don't think that the vegan has the right not to perform the ceremony where everyone is wearing leather or furs, but I hope that the manager would be prepared to be flexible and assign someone else. But this is likely to be a one-off rather than a recurring situation. On the other hand, refusing to perform civil partnerships isn't likely to be a one-off, so would be more difficult to fudge with a bit of flexibility.
My recollection is that, in the UK, the term "civil partnership" was deliberately chosen to differentiate a same-sex union from a marriage (and hence avoid the term "gay marriage" as a legal concept). A registrar who believes that marriage must by definition be between a woman and a man could therefore rationalise performing civil partnerships by saying "they are not really marriages."0 -
What is involved in registering a civil partnership? Is there a ceremony? Or is it just signing a legal document?
If registering a civil partnership is like registering a birth, I don't think I would object to it. However, if it is anything like the current civil mariage, I think I couldn't do it.0 -
I think the best analogy is the policeman one.
A traffic cop recruited in the 80s cannot now issue tickets in mph since the law now measures speed in kph. Even if a traffic cop thinks that a particular section of road could have a higher speed limit he is duty bound to apply the law, no matter what his personal opinion. And even if that law has changed since they took up th ejob.
A registrars job is not to decide who can or cannot marry or to pass judgement - it is to conduct the ceremony according to the laws of the land. What a registrar does (the actual job description) has not changed.
Another analogy - lets assume a man has spent years working in a department store selling mens underpants. He only ever deals with men (or women buying for men) but suddenly it becomes fashionable for teenage girls to wear mens undies. Our salesman might think this is stupid and wrong but can he refuse to sell the girls the pants? After all his job is teh same, his product is teh same its just the consumer that has changed.0 -
Advertisement
-
--amadeus-- wrote: »I think the best analogy is the policeman one.
A traffic cop recruited in the 80s cannot now issue tickets in mph since the law now measures speed in kph. Even if a traffic cop thinks that a particular section of road could have a higher speed limit he is duty bound to apply the law, no matter what his personal opinion. And even if that law has changed since they took up th ejob.
A registrars job is not to decide who can or cannot marry or to pass judgement - it is to conduct the ceremony according to the laws of the land. What a registrar does (the actual job description) has not changed.
Another analogy - lets assume a man has spent years working in a department store selling mens underpants. He only ever deals with men (or women buying for men) but suddenly it becomes fashionable for teenage girls to wear mens undies. Our salesman might think this is stupid and wrong but can he refuse to sell the girls the pants? After all his job is teh same, his product is teh same its just the consumer that has changed.
Again, all objections are not equally valid, and should be dealt with on merit. Just because one objection by someone in one field may be deemed unreasonable, does not mean an objection by someone to something else in another field is unreasonable too.0 -
What is involved in registering a civil partnership? Is there a ceremony? Or is it just signing a legal document?
If registering a civil partnership is like registering a birth, I don't think I would object to it. However, if it is anything like the current civil mariage, I think I couldn't do it.
AFAIK, It is for all intents and purposes a civic wedding ceremony. You say if this is the case you don't think you could do it. So the question is, how do you think the employer should deal with you?0 -
AFAIK, It is for all intents and purposes a civic wedding ceremony. You say if this is the case you don't think you could do it. So the question is, how do you think the employer should deal with you?
If you work as a civil registrar, then performing civil partnerships will form part of your job. Religion is mentioned nowhere there. If you're unwilling to perform part of your job due to religious beliefs, your bosses should fire you and find somebody who will perform all the work expected of someone in that role.0 -
rainbow kirby wrote: »If you work as a civil registrar, then performing civil partnerships will form part of your job. Religion is mentioned nowhere there. If you're unwilling to perform part of your job due to religious beliefs, your bosses should fire you and find somebody who will perform all the work expected of someone in that role.
Well I doubt many people who became registrars a few years back expected they'd be doing homosexual weddings. How could they have forseen that the law would abandon a position its held since the birth of the nation? As I said to others, I find the above position extremely cold. If someone takes a job knowing that this is part of the job, then fair enough. However, someone who has been a registrar for 16 years, IMO, should be accomodated if the redefinition of their role clashes with their Christianity. That assumes that the registrar is not 'protesting', but rather wants to carry on the other multitudes of tasks a registrar would do, but simply wishes to avoid the one role they cannot do. I personally think that is the most reasonable thing to do.0 -
The social landscape in this country has changed a lot since you became a registrar - for the better.Well I doubt many people who became registrars a few years back expected they'd be doing homosexual weddings. How could they have forseen that the law would abandon a position its held since the birth of the nation?
There is no religion involved in performing civil ceremonies. You are employed to carry out the law of the land - which will include civil partnership (which still doesn't provide full equality with straight couples, but that's a whole other thread). If you place the law of your religion over the law of the land, and you want the right to discriminate enshrined, go work for a church. It doesn't matter how long you've been working there, if you cannot perform your full role then your employers should find somebody who will.As I said to others, I find the above position extremely cold. If someone takes a job knowing that this is part of the job, then fair enough. However, someone who has been a registrar for 16 years, IMO, should be accomodated if the redefinition of their role clashes with their Christianity.
Civil institutions are for ALL people, not just straight people. They should not accomodate discrimination.That assumes that the registrar is not 'protesting', but rather wants to carry on the other multitudes of tasks a registrar would do, but simply wishes to avoid the one role they cannot do. I personally think that is the most reasonable thing to do.0 -
rainbow kirby wrote: »The social landscape in this country has changed a lot since you became a registrar - for the better.
I'm not a registrar. Its hypothetical. There was a registrar in England that was sacked after 16 years of service because of this, again though, I'm not sure how she handled the scenario. I'm just wondering on principal how people find it.There is no religion involved in performing civil ceremonies.
I know, I was married in Marlybone registry office.You are employed to carry out the law of the land - which will include civil partnership (which still doesn't provide full equality with straight couples, but that's a whole other thread). If you place the law of your religion over the law of the land, and you want the right to discriminate enshrined, go work for a church. It doesn't matter how long you've been working there, if you cannot perform your full role then your employers should find somebody who will.
Civil institutions are for ALL people, not just straight people. They should not accomodate discrimination.
I find the above very cold and uncaring. If the law can't see the impact such changes can have, or can, but handle it so coldly, then I would not support such a change. Its all well and good dealing with homosexuals concerns and lobbies, but accomodations should be made for those who may be exposed by the changes. That to me, would be the fair solution. If this is not something people like yourself would do, but rather be cold in the execution of change then I suppose I will speak out against civil union. If it comes to voteing, I will exercise a vote against it. Not much more I can do.
By the way, they do discrimate. A person who wishes to marry three women, can't. A person who wishes to marry their brother, can't. Thats discrimination, but its discrimination that most of us accept. Up until recently, homosexuality was against societies concience too and such discrimination was also acceptable. Of course, if I had no issue with homosexuality but I did with incest and became a registrar i would be fine. Of course, 20 years up the road, if I am told I must do weding ceremonies for incestuous couples due to more redefining I'll have an issue. In such a circumstance, again I would not advocate the cold approach that you promote. It is quite easy to empathise and work out an arrangement that suits all parties. Thats my opinion anyway.0 -
I'm not a registrar. Its hypothetical. There was a registrar in England that was sacked after 16 years of service because of this, again though, I'm not sure how she handled the scenario. I'm just wondering on principal how people find it.
er, you could have mentioned that in the original post, you said "Im a registrar" not "I read a story about a registrar and want peoples opinions" I'm pretty sure everyone who posted on here thought you meant this was about affecting you personally.
not wanting people to be happy in spite of their sexual orientation? not very christian at all tbh.0 -
er, you could have mentioned that in the original post, you said "Im a registrar" not "I read a story about a registrar and want peoples opinions" I'm pretty sure everyone who posted on here thought you meant this was about affecting you personally.
Well it doesn't actually matter now does it?
not very christian at all tbh.Krudler wrote:its not whether I'm worthy to be loved by god, its whether god is worthy to be accepted by me, and he isnt, being that to his most ardent followers hes a masochistic bastard.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64873125&postcount=1Krudler wrote:Thanks for proving exactly why religious types are crackpots
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64880428&postcount=24Krudler wrote:look just believe in.... the stupidly petty deity who gets annoyed when people flirt with other gods like a drunk jealous girlfriend in a pub.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64929818&postcount=177
Thanks for the advice Krudler, but I don't think I'll pay much attention to your view on what a Christian should do.0 -
Madam, – As the Civil Partnership Bill passes through the Dáil, many of us within evangelical churches in Ireland are profoundly concerned.
We believe from God’s word that the sole context for all sexual activity is to be within a marriage union between one man and one woman. The Bible is clear that all sexual activity outside of this state is sinful, including homosexual practice. We also believe that one can hold these beliefs and still treat all people lovingly and with respect, while at the same time not endorsing their lifestyle choices.
Because the proposed legislation imposes a €2,000 fine and up to six months imprisonment on a registrar who refuses to facilitate a civil partnership we believe that this is a direct attack upon freedom of conscience and religion. Proprietors of guest houses and BB establishments may similarly be subject to penalty.
Our concerns are based on sincerely held religious convictions and we believe that, in accordance with normal good practice, in the framing of the Bill the Government should respect freedom of conscience and religion.
We therefore call upon Dermot Ahern TD, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to move to protect freedom of conscience and religion for Christians employed in the registry service and hospitality sector. – Yours, etc.
Pastor PAUDGE MULVIHILL, Calvary Church Westport;
ANDREW COMPTON,Midleton Evangelical Church;
Rev MICHAEL J WALSH,Grace Community Church, Roscommon;
Pastor MERVYN SCOTT, Youghal Baptist Church;
WILLIAM O’MAHONEY, Cove St Christian Fellowship, Cork;
JONATHAN McCRACKEN, Tramore Bible Church;
Pastor MATTHEW BRENNAN, Clonmel, Co Tipperary;
KEITH CHIPPERFIELD, South Hill Evangelical Church, Dublin;
BEN SANTING, Corner Church Tuam;
STUART CHIPPERFIELD, South Hill Evangelical Church, Dublin;
BILLY HAMILTON, Covenant Fellowship, Galway;
Pastor DAVE MARTIN, Immanuel Church, Dublin;
Pastor BRIAN DUFFIELD, Newbridge Bible Church;
Pastor TONY SIMPSON, The Upper Room Church, Cork;
KEN COWPAR,
JOHN STANFIELD,
DAVID STEVENS, Mallow St Christian Fellowship, Limerick;
Pastor MICHAEL D TARDIVE, Laois Bible Church, Portlaoise
Pastor VINCENT GANNON, Christian Fellowship Church, Dublin,
C/o Rowan Drive,
Castlebar, Co Mayo.0 -
Advertisement
-
I would either come to an agreement with my employer (there are multiple registrars, so I might be excempt from doing Civil Partnerships) or be searching for another job.AFAIK, It is for all intents and purposes a civic wedding ceremony. You say if this is the case you don't think you could do it. So the question is, how do you think the employer should deal with you?0
Advertisement