Supreme Court delivers rebuff to Christian registrar over religious beliefs appeal
The Supreme Court has refused a registrar permission to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling that the London Borough of Islington was entitled to compel her to register civil partnerships.
Lillian Ladele, who objected to officiating at such ceremonies on the grounds of her religious beliefs, said she was now considering taking her case to the European Court of Human Rights.
At the Court of Appeal, Ms Ladele had sought to restore the decision of the Employment Tribunal, which had concluded that the London Borough of Islington had been guilty of direct and indirect discrimination, and harassment.
The appeal court judges dismissed her case in December 2009. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, said: “It appears to me that, however much sympathy one may have with someone such as Ms Ladele, who is faced with choosing between giving up a post she plainly appreciates or officiating at events which she considers to be contrary to her religious beliefs, the legislature has decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy, such as the United Kingdom, include outlawing discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on grounds of sexual orientation, subject only to very limited exceptions.”
The Appeal Court ruled that there were “no grounds to support” the Employment Tribunal’s conclusion that Islington was guilty of indirect discrimination.
It pointed out that, amongst other things, Ms Ladele was employed in a public job and was working for a public authority, and she was being required to perform a purely secular task, which was being treated as part of her job.
- Details
The Supreme Court has refused a registrar permission to challenge a Court of Appeal ruling that the London Borough of Islington was entitled to compel her to register civil partnerships.
Lillian Ladele, who objected to officiating at such ceremonies on the grounds of her religious beliefs, said she was now considering taking her case to the European Court of Human Rights.
At the Court of Appeal, Ms Ladele had sought to restore the decision of the Employment Tribunal, which had concluded that the London Borough of Islington had been guilty of direct and indirect discrimination, and harassment.
The appeal court judges dismissed her case in December 2009. The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, said: “It appears to me that, however much sympathy one may have with someone such as Ms Ladele, who is faced with choosing between giving up a post she plainly appreciates or officiating at events which she considers to be contrary to her religious beliefs, the legislature has decided that the requirements of a modern liberal democracy, such as the United Kingdom, include outlawing discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on grounds of sexual orientation, subject only to very limited exceptions.”
The Appeal Court ruled that there were “no grounds to support” the Employment Tribunal’s conclusion that Islington was guilty of indirect discrimination.
It pointed out that, amongst other things, Ms Ladele was employed in a public job and was working for a public authority, and she was being required to perform a purely secular task, which was being treated as part of her job.
Police Misconduct & Vetting Solicitor
Locums
Poll
Events
Directory
