conciencious objections in the workplace, what to do?

Gurgle

santing wrote: »

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.

There is no mention of sexual activity in the ceremony of civil marriage.

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.

Good, do your job.

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.

But that wouldn't be treating people with love and respect, that would be discriminating against them for their sexual orientation.

Its like any job, you can do it or you can quit. If you have religious beliefs dictating that you must discriminate based on sexual orientation, then you must choose between your job and your conscience.

Yes its a handy number, but surely your beliefs are more important?

If you want an apt analogy, consider Jews who were work in McDonalds.
Can they refuse to put bacon on the burger and expect to keep their jobs?

johnfás

This really is a complete red herring.

There is a letter to the same effect in today's Irish Times from a group of Evangelical church leaders. Interesting to note that their position is entirely at odds with that of the Evangelical Alliance.

This arises from a warped notion of what a conscientious objector is, and what it is in fact a registrar might be objecting to. Rather than providing a protection for Christians, the rhetoric coming off this group of people allows space for a confounding of discrimination against Christians. Applying their logic, it would be perfectly reasonable for a registrar to refuse to register two Christians who decide to get married at a registry office on the basis of their dislike of the Christian faith.

Let us turn to what Civil Partnership is not and what a registrar does not do. First, civil partnership has nothing to do with sexual activitity. The State does not endorse, or indeed condemn, any form of sexual activity inside or outside of a relationship. The issue is entirely moot as the State is neutral. Secondly, the registrar to a civil marriage or a civil partnership, does not bless or in any other way endorse those two people who are entering into such a partnership.

The reality is that the simple role of the registrar is as follow. You attest that on a particular date, in a given place, two persons to whom there is no legal impediment presented before the registrar, a person acting on behalf of the State, and that the registrar, knowing of no legal impediment, registered the fact that these two persons entered into a particular contract as set out in law. That is it. Nothing else. You provide no more a blessing of their relationship than the Garda who stamps your passport does of what activity you will get up to on holidays. The role is synonymous. The Garda attests that on a certain day, one fulfilled the legal criteria for a passport. He has no interest in what purposes you will put that passport to.

Ickle Magoo

What next, JW doctors refusing to give blood transfusions? Racist teachers refusing to teach black students because 16 yrs ago when they first joined the school there were no black students?

It's a ridiculous expectation. Much as I feel for anyone who's beliefs are at odds with some aspect in their life forcing them to make a life-changing decision, trying to force a public service job to be moulded around personal prejudice is completely unreasonable.

If someone wants to marry people and pick and choose who those people are based on any other criterion than the law specifies, then they should become a pastor of some sort. Public sector jobs, paid from state coffers, is no place for minority prejudice of any discription.

johnfás

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Public sector jobs, paid from state coffers, is no place for minority prejudice of any discription.

Having just broadly agreed with your point, and your agreeing with mine above, it may come as a surprise that I disagree with you on this point. There is plenty of space in a society of plurality for minorities to be given protection by the State, including with funding by the State. Upholding the constitutional choices by parents being an obvious example. However, the situation outlined above is not synonymous with these sort of situations. Therefore it must be distinguished. The State provides that marriages can be registered in a religious context, all clergy are entitled to act in the role of civil registrar in their own church. However, that is not what happens at a civil registry office. At a civil registry office the State provides an open door to any person who fulfils the criteria set out in law, to have a few forms stamps and to benefit from the protections and tax advantages given in recognition of that relationship. There is no blessing. I think it is unwise to conflate the idea of general funding which might go to minority specific groups (who are also taxpayers) with what we expect from services which are purely public in nature. You may of course be against both instances, but they are quite separate.

What I say in this post is clearly more suited to another thread. However, lest my position be unclear I thought it wise to place it on the record.

Ickle Magoo

johnfás wrote: »

I think it is unwise to conflate the idea of general funding which might go to minority specific groups (who are also taxpayers) with what we expect from services which are purely public in nature. You may of course be against both instances, but they are quite separate.

I wasn't trying to conflate the two in this post...my point was that the civil service shouldn't be bending over backwards to accommodate personal prejudice of an individual in the same way that is acceptable for a private sector marriage officiate - they are employed by the state to provide a specific service according to the law, nothing else.

Whether state coffers should be used to fund bodies who are prejudiced against minorities, ie, irish education, is an argument for another day. :cool:

sbsquarepants

At the risk of sounding overly blunt, i think you just need to drag yourself into the real world. 16 years ago things were different, just as they will be 16 years from now. Society evolves and laws inevitably change to suit it. Simple fact is you don't have the right to decide which ceremonies you'll take and which you wont, anymore than a bus driver for example can decide not to let gays on his bus, or a waiter refuse to serve blacks in a restaurant.
The analogy of the jew working at mcdonalds summed it up perfectly, this is your job, if you refuse to do it, you will be sacked and in my opinion rightly so.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, all objections are not equally valid, and should be dealt with on merit.

What is the "merit" of this objection? That it is religious in nature?

Zombrex

johnfás wrote: »

Applying their logic, it would be perfectly reasonable for a registrar to refuse to register two Christians who decide to get married at a registry office on the basis of their dislike of the Christian faith.

Not only that but it gives precedence for any registrar to refuse to marry anyone for any reason they like and the registry office has to accommodate such behavior by finding a different registrar to perform the job.

What the State can't do, unlike some around here, is decide that a religious reason is a better reason to object to this than any other reason. If they accommodate one personal reason they have to accommodate all of them.

This sort of nonsense, this lets just make an exception for religion, is exactly why secularization is important.

johnfás

Wicknight wrote: »

This sort of nonsense, this lets just make an exception for religion, is exactly why secularization is important.

Not really. It is an argument for why those engaged in the provision of purely public services should not be allowed to discriminate between the recipients of such services.

It is quite separate to the 'secularist agenda' which is a rather ill defined agenda, mainly based simply on a discriminatory dislike of people who are diffierent. It is generally not reflective of what happens in most secular countries.

Such people pay taxes. Such people have rights. The issue of education has been raised above in the context of this secularlist agenda. Well, the European Convention on Human Rights upholds the rights of parents to have their children educated in religious schools. This is a right which is upheld in every European country by way of public funding. Even secular France pays the salaries of teachers in religious schools. The same is true in Germany.

You are conflating separate issues, which has not got a huge amount to do with the modern secularist agenda.

Zombrex

johnfás wrote: »

Not really. It is an argument for why those engaged in the provision of purely public services should not be allowed to discriminate between the recipients of such services.

Which is secularization

johnfás wrote: »

It is quite separate to the 'secularist agenda' which is a rather inept and ill defined agenda, mainly based simply on a discriminatory dislike of people who are diffierent. It is generally not reflective of what happens in most secular countries.

I've no idea what the "secularist agenda" is, other than the obvious, wanting secular laws, which is pretty much exactly what you said above.

Ickle Magoo

johnfás wrote: »

The issue of education has been raised above in the context of this secularlist agenda.

Only in terms of nationwide state education, part funding for minority private institutions I have less issue with. It's the state funded, public servant wishing to be allowed to discriminate that is wrong in both instances.

hivizman

I liked the comparison with serving bacon at McDonald's suggested by Gurgle and sbsquarepants. This reminded me of something that happened a few years ago when I was living in Melbourne. One of the northern suburbs of Melbourne (Broadmeadow) has a very high proportion of Muslims in its population. Some of these worked at McDonald's and others were regular customers. They were concerned that McDonald's was serving non-halal meat (in particular bacon but also their beef in general). Because the Muslim customers represented a significant part of the business, the local manager arranged for meat to be obtained from halal sources, and replaced pork bacon with beef bacon in the various burgers. This apparently increased turnover at the local McDonald's quite a bit. Customers who insisted on pig meat were advised to go to the McDonald's a couple of kilometres away.

This is, I suggest, a good case of compromise. It could have turned out very differently, with the McDonald's manager refusing to make any changes and as a consequence driving away some business. Perhaps a cynic would say that the changes were economics-driven rather than an attempt to balance rights and expectations of people of different religions, and perhaps it is less relevant when discussing the right of someone in a public office to refuse to undertake redefined duties imposed by changes in legislation.

In that situation, however, is the Christian registrar who refuses to perform civil partnerships trying to have things too easy? This debate reminded me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's notion of "costly discipleship", the idea that obedience to the teachings of Jesus, particularly in modern, secular societies, is not going to be painless, and that Christians will have to expect to make sacrifices to uphold their beliefs.

santing

johnfás wrote: »

This really is a complete red herring.
...
Let us turn to what Civil Partnership is not and what a registrar does not do. First, civil partnership has nothing to do with sexual activitity. The State does not endorse, or indeed condemn, any form of sexual activity inside or outside of a relationship. The issue is entirely moot as the State is neutral.

The civil partnership bill has restrictions on who you could enter a partnership with. These are similar to the restrictions for marriages and do indicate that a sexual nature of the partnership is the underlying reason for the partnership

johnfás wrote: »

Secondly, the registrar to a civil marriage or a civil partnership, does not bless or in any other way endorse those two people who are entering into such a partnership.

The registrar in a civil marriage creates a new entity: a married couple. The ceremony connected with this implies the "state blessing" and "endorsement" of this entity.

If the civil partnership registration is just that - a registration of an existing partnership - than I would agree that it can be performed by Christians who object to the nature of the partnership. However, as the civil partnership registration seems to include a ceremony, I don't think it can be expected to be performed by the same people who currently perform civil marriages. It is a completely new ceremony, and needs to be added separately in the job spec of these people.

johnfás wrote: »

The reality is that the simple role of the registrar is as follow. You attest that on a particular date, in a given place, two persons to whom there is no legal impediment presented before the registrar, a person acting on behalf of the State, and that the registrar, knowing of no legal impediment, registered the fact that these two persons entered into a particular contract as set out in law. That is it. Nothing else.

OR

JimiTime wrote: »

AFAIK, It is for all intents and purposes a civic wedding ceremony.

Which form does it take? It makes a lot difference.

johnfás

santing wrote: »

The registrar in a civil marriage creates a new entity: a married couple. The ceremony connected with this implies the "state blessing" and "endorsement" of this entity.

Inaccurate. The operative legislation is what gives rise to the new contractual relationship. This relationship arises from the particulars of the law being complied with. Namely, that in the presence of a body designated by the State (the Registrar) two parties without legal impediment, witnessed by at least two other parties, entered into this legally established civil contract. The role of the registrar is merely to attest that the formalities provided for in law have been complied with. It is quite apart from the role of a clergyman who in addition to attesting to the legal formalities (during the signing of the register) also provides a blessing to that relationship. The State provides no such blessing.

However, as the civil partnership registration seems to include a ceremony, I don't think it can be expected to be performed by the same people who currently perform civil marriages. It is a completely new ceremony, and needs to be added separately in the job spec of these people.

The word ceremony, as you seek to define it, is fundamentally misguided. The legal formalities for entering into a Civil Partnership will be such that it must be attested to publicly, in order that any legal impediments might be raised by a bystander. The public compliance with these legal formalities is the ceremony. It is not a religious ceremony and does not confer any blessing upon those entering into the civil contract either of marriage or of civil partnership. The Bill permits that the parties may engage in a broader ceremony at the time of registration. However, that does not imply that the registrar is the master of ceremonies or providing any particular blessing. It simply means that the parties can stand up and read a poem, or other such thing, if they so desire. The role of the registrar is, once again for the sake of clarity, simply to attest that the legal formalities have been complied with. That is the only role which a registrar has ever played. Those who wish their relationship to be blessed, endorsed or otherwise, may do so at a Church or other body.

If you are so convinced that it falls outside the job specification of civil registrars, they are welcome to take legal action on that basis. I think you will however find that you are erroneous in your assumption.

hivizman

In the UK, there is no requirement for a ceremony to register a civil partnership - it can simply be an administrative procedure where the two partners first of all give the required notice to the local Register Office and then attend the local Register Office, make certain declarations before witnesses, and sign the necessary documentation. However, the signing can be embedded in a more structured ceremony if desired. See UK Government's website.

As johnfás notes, a civil marriage or civil partnership is fundamentally society's way of conferring certain rights, and imposing certain obligations, on two people - it is only in a very loose sense "society's blessing" of the arrangement.

Fanny Cradock

hivizman wrote: »

I liked the comparison with serving bacon at McDonald's suggested by Gurgle and sbsquarepants. This reminded me of something that happened a few years ago when I was living in Melbourne. One of the northern suburbs of Melbourne (Broadmeadow) has a very high proportion of Muslims in its population. Some of these worked at McDonald's and others were regular customers. They were concerned that McDonald's was serving non-halal meat (in particular bacon but also their beef in general). Because the Muslim customers represented a significant part of the business, the local manager arranged for meat to be obtained from halal sources, and replaced pork bacon with beef bacon in the various burgers. This apparently increased turnover at the local McDonald's quite a bit. Customers who insisted on pig meat were advised to go to the McDonald's a couple of kilometres away.

This is, I suggest, a good case of compromise. It could have turned out very differently, with the McDonald's manager refusing to make any changes and as a consequence driving away some business. Perhaps a cynic would say that the changes were economics-driven rather than an attempt to balance rights and expectations of people of different religions, and perhaps it is less relevant when discussing the right of someone in a public office to refuse to undertake redefined duties imposed by changes in legislation.

In that situation, however, is the Christian registrar who refuses to perform civil partnerships trying to have things too easy? This debate reminded me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's notion of "costly discipleship", the idea that obedience to the teachings of Jesus, particularly in modern, secular societies, is not going to be painless, and that Christians will have to expect to make sacrifices to uphold their beliefs.

*tangent alert*

Have you any reading suggestions from Bonhoeffer's work?

*tangent alert*

hivizman

hivizman wrote: »

See UK Government's website.

An example of how the UK's General Register Office accommodates, up to a point, certain "minorities" appears on the website referred to above:

If you are giving notice in Wales, you may give this in English, or in English and Welsh. If notice is to be given bilingually, both the couple giving notice and the officer must be able to understand the Welsh language. All local authorities in Wales have at least one Welsh speaking officer or deputy.

It's interesting (a) that Welsh speakers are allowed to give notice in Welsh, but must still give notice in English as well, and (b) that those wanting to give notice in Welsh may be sure of a Welsh-speaking official. By implication, someone who has a conscientious objection to the use of Welsh in public dealings in Wales would be able to avoid having to deal with Welsh speakers.

johnfás

hivizman wrote: »

It's interesting (a) that Welsh speakers are allowed to give notice in Welsh, but must still give notice in English as well, and (b) that those wanting to give notice in Welsh may be sure of a Welsh-speaking official. By implication, someone who has a conscientious objection to the use of Welsh in public dealings in Wales would be able to avoid having to deal with Welsh speakers.

What a load of nonsense. More like, it is the policy of the Welsh Assembly that all public services be available in Welsh. However, that it is not a requirement of employment that all public servants be competent in speaking Welsh. To equate this to conscientious objection is fundamentally dishonest. You should know better, really. Making your argument out of things like that simply does a disservice, as the two are not related in the slightest. One relates to a competence, the other to a decision to refuse to provide a public service to another based on that other's particular characteristics.

hivizman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

*tangent alert*

Have you any reading suggestions from Bonhoeffer's work?

*tangent alert*

The book I was referring to is The Cost of Discipleship, which Bonhoeffer wrote in the 1930s.

I made some Bonhoeffer recommendations on the Favourite Christian Books thread - see here. Rather shocked to note that this was back in September 2008.

As the thread was degenerating into a discussion of the minutiae of register office practice (I agree, mea culpa! ), I thought it would be good to throw in a Christian reference.

Ickle Magoo

hivizman wrote: »

I liked the comparison with serving bacon at McDonald's suggested by Gurgle and sbsquarepants. This reminded me of something that happened a few years ago when I was living in Melbourne. One of the northern suburbs of Melbourne (Broadmeadow) has a very high proportion of Muslims in its population.

I think it's great that they had the foresight to alter their menu to suit the majority of their customers and employees but I think you must see that's a world away from altering a civil servants job specs to suit particular employees with a prejudice against a minority group that the law has been specifically altered to include so as not to discriminate against. :eek:

JimiTime

hivizman wrote: »

In that situation, however, is the Christian registrar who refuses to perform civil partnerships trying to have things too easy?

I certainly think it reasonable if the registrar simply requests that she can't do these homosexual ceremonies but can do the multidude of other tasks that she's been doing for the last 16 years. If the employer has people who 'can' do these ceremonies, its simply a matter of rostering. I think its anything but easy for a Christian who is in this position.

This debate reminded me of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's notion of costly discipleship, the idea that obedience to the teachings of Jesus, particularly in modern, secular societies, is not going to be painless, and that Christians will have to expect to make sacrifices to uphold their beliefs.

Doesn't mean they have to lie down and take it on the chin though. At the end of the day, if Christians become ostracised due to the secularisation of these once 'Christian' nations, then we have to deal with it. We don't have to lie down or just suck it up though. I think our nations are indebted to Christianity. They have also been active in encouraging it and helping it flourish. To now cast it aside like an old rag, and say its as valid as every other religion lacks hindsight and forsight. Now, I don't hold out any hope for forsight, I think mankind too easily forgets how and why we have the level of liberty we do. However in hindsight, I think the states encouragement of Christianity, and the fact that it permeates from the foundations of the nation right throughout it means that it IS special here. It IS more special than paganism. It IS more special than Islam etc. the states complicity in encouraging Christianity for centuries, means that they have a responsibility to Christians. To now simply pull the rug from under them and say, 'Yeah, I know we encouraged it, but now we're saying if you follow it, we'll sack you', is quite an injustice IMO. By all means be inclusive of those who aren't Christian, in fact I would see that as a Christian position. However, when the state puts people from an ideology they encouraged and supported for centuries on the spot and says, 'your compliance or your job', when there is a very, very simple compromise, I call shenanigans.

Ickle Magoo

JimiTime wrote: »

the states complicity in encouraging Christianity for centuries, means that they have a responsibility to Christians.

Over the centuries various states have also been complicit in war, genocide, apartheid, etc. Times change, responsibilities change.

crotalus667

there have been alot of long responces what it boild down to is do your beliefs interfer with your job ??? if you answer no then do your job if you answer yes then get a different job

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Now, I don't hold out any hope for forsight, I think mankind too easily forgets how and why we have the level of liberty we do.

It is nonsensical to argue that we owe Christianity for the current level of liberty we have so we should turn back that liberty in order to place Christianity a level above everyone else.

If that is the sort of thing that Christianity brings us how is it responsible for our current level of liberty?

It is like men saying to women that feminism achieved equality for woman largely with the help of men, and as such women are indebted to men and it is only fair that men be given more rights than women because of this.

Christianity either promotes proper secularization and equality, in which case we certainly can be thankful for Christian tradition that lead to it but Christians should be happy we have proper secularization and equality and not try and promote Christianity to a special privileged position.

Or it doesn't promote proper secularization and equality of beliefs and you can continue to say Christianity should hold a special place in society but if that is the case we certainly don't have to thank Christianity for our current notions of liberty and equality since they obvious are incompatable.

Christianity can't both promote modern liberty and equality while at the same time promoting privilege for Christians, since that is the opposite of modern liberty and equality.

JimiTime

crotalus667 wrote: »

there have been alot of long responces what it boild down to is do your beliefs interfer with your job ??? if you answer no then do your job if you answer yes then get a different job

I really must laugh at this attitude. Like its as simple as, 'oh I'll just get another job now that they wont let me do this one anymore'.

16 years of Job security in the civil service. Where else can a civil registrar get work except from the state? Mortgage, children etc. Yet its so simple, Suck it up or F^*k off. I detest this heartless attitude passionately!

Faced with a choice of being able to compromise so that all parties are happy, most would rather soap box and say, 'thats the new rule now p!ss off if you don't like it.' Can't wait for this secular humanist utopia:rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

Seriously Jimi, how many employers would facilitate someone who wanted to discriminate against a minority based on personal prejudice?

The fact that a job description changes - something common place in most tiers of professional life - and now highlights a personal prejudice is no reason for any employer to have to be complicit in their employees prejudices.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I really must laugh at this attitude. Like its as simple as, 'oh I'll just get another job now that they wont let me do this one anymore'.

You go on and on about the dishonesty of other posters yet continue to misrepresent this issue.

No one is not letting this woman do her job.

This woman does not want to do her job because of ethical concerns over what the job entails.

I'm sure it is hard for her, but she isn't the first person to have to make a choice between her conscience and her job. If she wants to leave her job because of this I say fair play to her, standing behind your convictions is not easy.

But what is not acceptable is the idea her employer has to accommodate her objections simply because she has them.

You know this is unworkable, which is why the clause that its just for Christians is always very quickly introduced into these debates.

If everyone was accommodated for simply not wanting to do their job things would grind to a halt. The argument is always Oh go on lets just make a special case for this Christian because she is a Christian.

That is unfair and illegal.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

You go on and on about the dishonesty of other posters yet continue to misrepresent this issue.

:rolleyes:

No one is not letting this woman do her job.

This woman does not want to do her job because of ethical concerns over what the job entails.

No, she certainly DOES want to do her job. However, the employer has now said that her duties as a registrar include conducting civil union ceremonies. She WANTS to keep her job, but cannot do this part of it. Is it reasonable to tell a man confined to a wheelchair that his new duty is to climb stairs?

I'm sure it is hard for her, but she isn't the first person to have to make a choice between her conscience and her job. If she wants to leave her job because of this I say fair play to her, standing behind your convictions is not easy.

It certainly isn't, and the fact that there is a very simple compromise available its even sadder. IMO, fairness dictates that its not this black and white 'Rules are rules' scenario some are painting it. There is a person here. A person who can do her job, but has been asked to 'walk up the stairs'. When she says, 'but I can't, though I can continue the good work I've done for 16 years', is met with a, 'Cybermen' response of 'YOU MUST COMPLY'. Its an extremely cold way of doing things.

But what is not acceptable is the idea her employer has to accommodate her objections simply because she has them.

Christianity is part of her. The employer has done the equivalent of telling a cripple to walk or their fired. You think in terms of 'Its just a belief'. IT IS NOT though. It is part of the essence of ones very being. To ask someone to compromise it is like asking, 'could you just remove your leg please'.

You know this is unworkable, which is why the clause that its just for Christians is always very quickly introduced into these debates.

Its entered in, so that we don't have to deal with muppets and their hypothtical, 'What about me and my pink unicorn who get offended by chinese people'.

If everyone was accommodated for simply not wanting to do their job things would grind to a halt. The argument is always Oh go on lets just make a special case for this Christian because she is a Christian.

Well the state has encouraged and helped Christianity flourish, so whatever way you paint it, it IS different. It is engrained in our culture. It IS different to whatever other scenario you wish to raise.

crotalus667

JimiTime wrote: »

now that they wont let me do this one anymore'.:

no one is stoping any one from doing their job the op is the one that is choseing to do or not to do it , you get paid to do a jod you either do it or you dont if you dont you either leave or get fired

JimiTime wrote: »

Where else can a civil registrar get work except from the state? Mortgage, children etc.

thats for the op to figure out , although one must questen some one's belief that there enternal soul is a t risk if they even have to think about the choice

eternal damnation or a job as a civil servent

crotalus667

JimiTime wrote: »

. Is it reasonable to tell a man confined to a wheelchair that his new duty is to climb stairs?

Firstly an employer must provide wheechair acess , they do not have to provide a chapel nor do they have to allow for others bigotry , based on their beliefs relgious belief while can be cripeling is not a disability


'

JimiTime wrote: »

Its just a belief'. IT IS NOT though.

it is just a belief nothing more nothing less and the public should not have to put up with the results of it




'

JimiTime wrote: »

Well the state has encouraged and helped Christianity flourish, so whatever way you paint it, it IS different. It is engrained in our culture. It IS different to whatever other scenario you wish to raise.

Ireland is one of the fastest growing seculer states in the world "it's called change"