Love your neighbour... ...unless of course he's gay

Public servants should not be allowed to discriminate on the grounds of their beliefs, Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP Diane Abbott said today.

She has tabled a motion in the Commons, urging a change in the law.

Last week Lillian Ladele, a marriage registrar, claimed that she was discriminated against because of her religion when she refused to conduct civil partnership ceremonies while employed by Islington council.

An employment tribunal agreed. Her victory could set a precedent that will allow people with strong religious convictions to opt out of the provision of services to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

Islington Council has decided it will appeal against the employment tribunal ruling.

It emerged earlier this week that Ms Ladele is an unmarried single mother. She told the Mail that she gave birth to an illegitimate son when she was 20. I would never claim to be perfect, she said.

The revelation has led to accusations that she was not properly cross-examined at the tribunal about the nature of her religious faith.

A Christian relationship counsellor claims he was fired after expressing concern about giving sex advice to same sex couples.

Gary McFarlane said the national counselling service Relate, would not accommodate his religious beliefs. He accused the Bristol branch of bigotry.

Now McFarlane is taking his case to an employment tribunal, alleging unfair dismissal on the grounds of religious discrimination.

McFarlane, a solicitor, specialised in resolving legal disputes through mediation, and even sits on a committee advising the Law Society. He is also a part-time tutor on relationships at Trinity Theological College in Bristol.

He said his problems began last year after he started to train as a psychosexual therapist, treating people's intimate sexual problems. He said that while he believed in 'each to their own' [...BUT...] he felt uncomfortable doing anything that would directly encourage gay sex, and raised the matter with his supervisor.

Fellow counsellors complained about McFarlane's views, alleging he was homophobic, and he was suspended last December by his manager. After three weeks, he was reinstated and had to promise to abide by Relate's equal opportunities policy, with the proviso, he claims, that he could raise issues in the future.

Following further complaints, however, he was told that he would face a disciplinary hearing because managers at Relate Avon no longer believed he intended to uphold the policy. He was dismissed and his appeal was rejected.

Workers who have devout religious beliefs could be forced out of their jobs following an ruling by an employment appeal tribunal. The warning comes after a Christian registrar who claimed she was treated like a "pariah" for refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies for homosexual couples lost her case on appeal.

A tribunal ruled that Islington Council had not discriminated against Lillian Ladele because of her faith, although it added that the town hall had not treated her sensitively.

Christian groups fear the decision will send a message to other employers that they can get rid of staff whose religious convictions prevent them from carrying out certain tasks.

Ladele, who worked in the register office of Islington town hall in north London for 16 years, believes homosexuality is contrary to God's law and so refused to officiate at civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples after they were made legal three years ago.

Earlier this year a tribunal found that the council had unlawfully discriminated against her on the grounds of her religious belief, after she told how she was picked on and bullied for her beliefs and was threatened with the sack.

But on Friday an Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld the council's appeal, ruling that the earlier hearing had erred in law and that there was no basis for concluding that any discrimination had been established.

It stated: The council were not taking disciplinary action against Ms Ladele for holding her religious beliefs; they did so because she was refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies and this involved discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

The council were entitled to take the view that they were not willing to connive in that practice by relieving Ms Ladele of the duties, notwithstanding that her refusal was the result of her strong and genuinely-held Christian beliefs.

Ladele now intends to appeal against the new judgement.

A Christian relationship counsellor who was sacked after he refused to give sex therapy to homosexual couples has lost his case for unlawful discrimination.

An employment tribunal ruled that the national counselling service Relate was entitled to dismiss Gary McFarlane after he said that encouraging gay sex went against his devout religious beliefs.

The decision prompted Christian groups to demand a rethink of religious discrimination laws, following a string of other high-profile cases in which courts have found against Christians who claim they have suffered as a result of standing up for their beliefs.

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which supported McFarlane in his claim, said the religious discrimination law was in danger of becoming a dead letter, while the Christian Institute said there was a growing feeling among churchgoers that religious discrimination laws only applied to Muslims and other minority faiths.

McFarlane brought his claim for unfair dismissal after he was sacked in March 2008. In 2006, after he qualified as a psychosexual therapist, he made it clear to his employers that his strong Christian beliefs meant he did not feel able to give sex therapy advice to homosexuals. Fellow counsellors objected to his stance and claimed his views were homophobic, and in March 2008 he was sacked.

An employment tribunal panel unanimously rejected his claim, though the panel decided McFarlane had been wrongfully dismissed as Relate had not followed the correct dismissal procedures. The panel said McFarlane's claim had failed because: The claimant was not treated as he was because of his Christian faith, but because (Relate) believed that he would not comply with its policies and that it would have treated anyone else of whom that was believed, regardless of religion, in the same way.

A blind man has hit out at two cabbies who refused to carry him and his guide dog.

Jon Prashar was turned away twice outside Rochdale railway station as he tried to travel to a conference with his dog, Amber.

A quick-thinking colleague took a note of the taxis' registration numbers and an investigation was launched by council officials. The drivers, Talib Hussain and Mohammed Idress, were tracked down and prosecuted in a landmark case for Rochdale council.

Jon, who has been blind since birth, said: When we approached the first taxi I could hear the driver say 'no dog'. He then said Amber could go in the boot. I asked if it was an estate car because that would have been fine but it wasn't. There's no way she was going in a closed boot - she'd have freaked out. He then went to speak to the driver behind him and the pair of them drove off. Fortunately my colleague got their registration numbers.

Jon, who works in marketing, said: To be fair to the drivers they were both very pleasant. When they knew I was taking action one drove to my house to apologise. I don't think they were being malicious and they do a very unpleasant job. But something needs to be done to stop this from happening again.

A number of Muslim drivers have expressed concern about carrying guide dogs in their cabs. Dogs are generally not allowed inside Islamic houses as they are considered unclean. However, the Muslim Council of Britain has issued guidance saying Islamic law DOES allow guide dogs to be carried in cabs. They have even been allowed into mosques in the past.

Hussain was fined £125 and Idress was fined £100. Both were ordered to pay £128 costs at Rochdale Magistrates Court.

Lillian Ladele, the Islington registrar who refused to conduct same-sex Civil Partnerships on religious grounds, has been refused leave to appeal against the decision of an Employment Tribunal that she did not suffer religious discrimination at work. She has also been ordered to pay costs.

The National Secular Society has commended Islington Council for standing firm in its defence of equality against considerable pressure from the media and religious activists.

A Muslim pilot and co-pilot who paused to pray before taking emergency measures as they ditched a passenger plane in the sea, killing 16 people, has been sentenced to 10 years in jail.

Pilot Chafik Gharby and co-pilot Ali Kebaier were convicted of taking inadequate emergency measures by an Italian court.

The 2005 crash at sea off Sicily left survivors swimming for their lives, some clinging to a piece of the fuselage that remained floating after the ATR turbo-prop aircraft splintered upon impact.

A fuel-gauge malfunction was partly to blame, with technicians putting the wrong type of gauge on the plane before it took off. It meant the pilot and crew believed they had more fuel than they actually did. The plane's engines cut out simultaneously when the fuel ran out.

However prosecutors also said the pilot succumbed to panic, praying out loud instead of following emergency procedures. They claimed he then opted to crash-land the plane instead trying to reach a nearby airport.

Another five employees of Tuninter, a subsidiary of Tunisair, were sentenced to between eight and nine years in jail by the court, in a verdict handed down yesterday. The seven accused, who were not in court, will not spend time in jail until the appeals process has been exhausted.

A Muslim catering manager who was asked to handle pork sausages and bacon is bringing a claim for religious discrimination against the Metropolitan Police.

Hasanali Khoja was told he would be expected to handle pork products when he started a new job at the Empress State Building in Earls Court, west London.

An informal agreement has been reached but Khoja, who launched his claim last year, wants it to be formalised. His lawyer, Khalid Sofi, said the informal agreement to excuse Khoja from handling pork products was made in June last year after he spent a period on special leave from his job.

Khoja, who has worked for the force since 2005, had previously worked at Hendon Police College in north west London, but was excused from touching pork products due to his religion.

An employment tribunal in Watford will consider his claim in a hearing which is expected to last two weeks.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: The Metropolitan Police is defending the claim.

A Muslim chef who accused the Metropolitan Police of religious discrimination when told he must handle pork has lost his tribunal case.

Hasanali Khoja was told he would be expected to handle pork products at his new job at the Empress State Building in Earls Court, west London.

The force was it was "pleased" at the tribunal's decision.

Khoja said earlier he was stressed and humiliated at the prospect of handling pork products, which Islam considers to be unclean. He said even wearing gloves or using tongs to cook would not protect him from the risk of splashes.

A Metropolitan Police spokeswoman said: We are pleased to have been cleared of allegations of discrimination on the basis of religion or belief against Mr Khoja. She added: Mr Khoja remains a valued member of staff.

A Muslim waitress has been awarded a £3,000 pay out for sexual harassment after being made to wear a revealing red dress for work.

Fata Lemes quit her job after claiming that the low-cut dress was disgusting and made her look like a prostitute.

Miss Lemes, a Bosnian Muslim, had told an employment tribunal that she might as well have been naked in the dress: I was brought up a Muslim and am not used to wearing sexually attractive clothes.

But lawyers acting for the Rocket Bar where she worked, have tried to re-open the case after a picture emerged of Miss Lemes on Facebook showed her wearing a plunging T-shirt exposing her cleavage while she was at the beach.

The Central London Employment Tribunal awarded Miss Lemes damages after pointing out that only women - and not male staff - were required to wear the summer uniform at the bar in Mayfair, London. The outfit was described as brightly coloured, figure hugging garb.

But the tribunal said Miss Lemes’s £20,000 compensation claim - including £17,500 for hurt feelings - was manifestly absurd. Instead they awarded her £2,919.95 for both hurt feelings and loss of earnings.

The tribunal said that while Miss Lemes held views about modesty and decency which some might think unusual in Britain in the 21st century, her employer should have taken her feelings into account when asking her to wear the dress.

The ruling said: Her perception was that wearing the dress would make her feel as if she was on show, as if she was being presented as one of the attractions which the Rocket Bar was offering its customers. In our view that perception was legitimate and not unreasonable. It [the dress] is clearly a garment for a girl or young woman. It is intended to, and does, show the curves of the body.

A Christian registrar was demoted to receptionist because she refuses to preside over gay marriages – and last night claimed she is facing dismissal. Theresa Davies said she is being forced out of the £26,000-a-year job she loves because of her religious objections to same-sex civil partnerships.

The case parallels that of Lillian Ladele, the registrar who had a similar battle last year with the same Islington Council in North London. Davies has worked for the council for 18 years and was a friend and colleague of Ladele in the same department.

She will send a strongly worded letter to all members of the House of Lords tomorrow, highlighting her plight and complaining of a militant political-sexual libertarian lobby at the council.

Davies told The Mail on Sunday: Britain is supposed to be a nation that respects freedom of conscience. But my conscience is not being respected. If Islington Council believes in dignity for all, why can’t my beliefs be accommodated and why is my dignity not being respected? I have nothing against homosexuals. My colleagues in the office will tell you that – and the openly gay ones have no problem with me. All I am asking is that the system can be arranged so I do not have to perform civil partnerships.

With the backing of the Christian Legal Centre, Davies is now launching a grievance procedure against the council, arguing that she has been the victim of discrimination on the grounds of her religious beliefs.

US Pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are personally opposed to the morning after contraceptive on religious grounds, a federal appeals court has ruled.

In a case that could affect policy across the western US, a supermarket pharmacy owner failed in a bid to block 2007 regulations that required all Washington pharmacies to stock and dispense the pills.

Family-owned Ralph's Thriftway and two pharmacists employed elsewhere sued Washington state officials over the requirement. The plaintiffs asserted that their Christian beliefs prevented them from dispensing the pills. They said that the new regulations would force them to choose between keeping their jobs and heeding their religious objections to a medication they regard as a form of abortion.

Ralph's owners, Stormans Inc., and pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen sought protection under the 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion and won a temporary injunction from the U.S. District Court in Seattle pending trial on the constitutionality of the regulations. That order prevented state officials from penalizing pharmacists who refused to dispense Plan B as long as they referred consumers to a nearby pharmacy where it was available.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has now lifted the injunction, saying the district court was wrong in issuing it based on an erroneous finding that the rules violated the free exercise of religion clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The 9th Circuit ruling means that the requirement that pharmacies stock and dispense Plan B takes immediate effect, said Joyce Roper, an assistant attorney general for Washington state.

The three 9th Circuit judges said that the right to freely exercise one's religion "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability. Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules.

A Saskatchewan marriage commissioner who refused to marry a same-sex couple has lost his appeal of a human rights ruling.

Orville Nichols was approached by a gay man who wanted to get married in 2005 . At first, Nichols congratulated the man, identified in court documents only as "M.J."

When M.J. told Nichols his partner was another man, Nichols told M.J. he wouldn't do the ceremony because gay marriage is against his religious beliefs.

M.J. filed a human rights complaint, which was heard in 2007.

A tribunal set up by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that Nichols did not have the right to refuse service based on his personal beliefs, and ordered him to pay M.J. $2,500 in compensation.

Nichols appealed that ruling, arguing that his religious beliefs should be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But in a 39-page decision dated July 17, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Janet McMurty dismissed Nichols' argument, concluding that the human rights tribunal was correct in its finding that the commission had established discrimination and that accommodation of Mr. Nichols' religious beliefs was not required.

The case of a Christian registrar, who claims she was discriminated against by her council employers for refusing to conduct homosexual civil partnerships as a matter of religious conscience, was heard in the Court of Appeal on 2 and 3 November 2009.

Lillian Ladele sought to challenge a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, which rejected her claim that her employer, Islington City Council, had subjected her to unlawful direct and indirect discrimination on religious grounds after she refused to serve as registrar in carrying out homosexual civil partnerships.

Ms Ladele claims she suffered ridicule and bullying as a result of her Christian stance and said she had been harassed and discriminated against by the council. She had been employed by Islington since 1992, and became a registrar in November 2002 dealing with births, marriages and deaths.

James Dingemans QC, for Ms Ladele, told a panel of three appeal judges that Islington Council mistook their obligation for compliance with the Dignity For All policy in failing to accommodate its employee when it was possible to do so. When two homosexuals working at the council complained about discrimination against them, their complaint was dealt with very quickly. In contrast, when Ms Ladele made the complaint, no one dealt with it. The council saw her belief and committed views about marriage as a problem, Dingemans told the Court.

Dingemans said there was evidence that the reason for the disciplinary action was that Islington Council found his client's views and principles unacceptable. He said that the council indicated to Ms Ladele that her right to practise the Christian faith, which had been protected for millennia, should be kept private and should not interfere with society.

Helen Mountfield, for Islington Council, was asked by Lady Justice Smith whether there is a provision that the right of homosexual people trumps religious rights. Ms Mountfield said no, but added that there is indeed a strong emphasis on same-sex rights. So, there is a trump?, the Judge asked. Ms Mountfield went on explaining a structural way to manage rights under the Sexual Orientations Regulations 2003 and why it is the only appropriate structure to deal with these conflicting rights.

Karon Monaghan QC, for Liberty who intervened in the case, said that accommodating Ms Ladele's belief in the workplace would mean allowing a bit of discrimination, and therefore, promoting its totality, which will undermine the whole purpose of non-discrimination and dignity for others.

The case is supported by the Christian Institute. Mike Judge, the Institute's spokesman, said: Islington Council accepts it was able to provide civil partnerships registrations without forcing Lillian to take part. They could therefore have reasonably accommodated Miss Ladele's genuinely held religious belief without affecting service delivery.

That would have been a balanced approach which respected both sides of the debate. Instead they chose to make gay rights more important than religious rights. If this decision is allowed to stand it will help squeeze out Christians from the public sphere because of their religious beliefs on ethical issues, he added.

The decision of the Court of Appeal is expected in the near future.

A relationship counsellor who refused to offer sex therapy to gay couples has lost his unfair dismissal appeal.

Gary MacFarlane was sacked by marriage guidance service Relate after he said he could not do anything to promote gay sex.

He alleged Relate had refused to accommodate his Christian beliefs.

The service's chief executive Claire Tyler said: The appeal judgement validates Relate's commitment to equality of access to our services. Relate's trusted service, both in Avon and across the country, relies on making sure that all members of society, regardless of their gender, age, race, religion, sexual orientation or relationship status, are able to access respectful and professional counselling and sex therapy.

Relate is committed to supporting all religious beliefs working within Relate. However, our primary consideration is to our clients who often need complex advice and assistance. We cannot allow anything to damage our clients, or to undermine the principle of trust that underpins our work.

MacFarlane, a former church elder, was appealing on the grounds of religious discrimination at the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Bristol.

The tribunal, chaired by employment judge Toomer, dismissed MacFarlane's claims of harassment.

Secular and libertarian groups have welcomed the Court of Appeal ruling that a council did not discriminate against a Christian registrar who refused to perform civil partnerships.

Lillian Ladele claimed that she could not officiate the ceremonies for gay couples because of her strict Christian beliefs.

She argued that Islington council's disciplinary action was discriminatory but the Court of Appeal ruled against her in the latest round of the case.

Gay organisation Stonewall said it was pleased the court had upheld the right of lesbian and gay people to receive public services from public servants.

Civil rights group Liberty had supported council in the case and described it as a common sense judgement.

Corinna Ferguson, Liberty's legal officer who specialises in religious freedom cases, said: Freedom of conscience is incredibly precious but other people have rights and freedoms too. Employers can't be expected to promote equal treatment under the law if they must also accommodate discrimination on the part of their employees.

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said the ruling was important and definitive. He said: It establishes, we hope definitively, that because a person has strong religious views, it does not give them the right to discriminate against and deny services to others of whom they disapprove.

Parliament has decided that gay people are entitled to civil partnerships and that their right to such a service be protected in law, so there should therefore be no opt-outs on any grounds, religious or otherwise, for public servants from performing these ceremonies. Christian conscience should not be a blanket licence to discriminate against others.

Ladele and the Christian Institute, which is supporting her, were refused leave to appeal at the Supreme Court. However, they plan to go to the Supreme Court directly to attempt to overturn the ruling.

Update: Appeal Refused

12th March. See article from telegraph.co.uk

Lillian Ladele's situation does not raise legal points of general public importance, according to the highest court in the land.

She is now considering whether to try to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights, as she believes it shows that the right to religious conscience has been trampled by the rights of homosexuals.

A state court in New Mexico has upheld a ruling against Jon and Elaine Huguenin. As owners of Elane Photography, they declined to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony in 2006 and were sued.

The court ruled the owners had violated a non-discrimination law.

Jordan Lorence, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), said it exposes the threat such laws pose to religious liberty: The court showed very little respect for that and said that this was no different than a caterer serving food and was liable to this same-sex couple.

Lorence points out New Mexico hasn't legalized same-sex unions. So, these couples are going through these ceremonies that have no legal significance to them. They're using these non-discrimination laws like 'blasphemy' laws, and they're going on witch hunts to root out the heretics and punish them.

ADF plans to appeal.

The parents who complained when a Christian teacher offered to pray for their sick daughter have spoken of their anger.

Paddy and Stephanie Lynch say maths tutor Olive Jones knew they were a non-religious family and that their 14-year-old daughter was distressed when she talked to her about heaven in visits to their home.

Mrs Lynch lodged a formal complaint about Jones and Mrs Jones claims managers then dismissed her – an allegation which North Somerset Council denies. Jones said she had been made to feel like a criminal, and claimed that Christians were being persecuted because of political correctness.

Mrs Lynch said: My daughter has leukaemia and has not been to school this academic year. The local authority provide a tutoring service so that my daughter doesn't fall too far behind her classmates.

Mrs Jones was employed to teach maths but used every opportunity to discuss religion, despite the fact I made it clear we were a non-religious family and didn't want to talk about these issues in this way. On one occasion she asked my daughter to pray with her. My daughter was distressed by this behaviour.

On another, after the death of my daughter's close friend, Mrs Jones told my 14-year-old daughter that when young people die they go to heaven. These conversations upset my daughter deeply. The sessions with Mrs Jones became increasingly traumatic and we decided it was not appropriate for this woman to come to my home.

Update: Reinstated

4th February 2010.  See article from mailonsunday.co.uk

Olive Jones, the Christian teacher who was sacked after she offered to pray for a sick child, has won her job back.

After a case review council bosses now say she can return as supply maths teacher.

North Somerset Council agreed it could be appropriate for a teacher to share his or her faith, but a spokesman added: A careful judgment has to be made. We have now offered Olive further work.

Wake up and smell the bacon!

A Muslim chef who lost a claim of religious discrimination against Scotland Yard after complaining he was forced to cook sausages and bacon faces a legal bill of more than £75,000.

Hasanali Khoja accused the Metropolitan Police of failing to consider his Islamic beliefs when he was asked to handle pork products as a catering manager at a police station.

Khoja lost his claim in May after a police employee told an employment tribunal how she saw Khoja eat bacon rolls and sausages.

The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) has now won a ruling ordering Khoja to pay its costs, which total at least £76,200. In its costs claim, the Met said Khoja knew that he had asked for a bacon roll two or three times for personal consumption before bringing his claim and throughout the conduct of his claim.

The fact that he had knowingly come into contact with pork products before bringing the claim shows that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success from the outset.

Judge Michael Southam agreed and ruled Khoja should pay costs, though these would be determined at a later date at a county court.

The right of pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs is under threat after a consultation asked if it should be scrapped.

For centuries, pharmacists have been able to decline services with which they disagree on moral or religious grounds.

A significant number, mainly Christians and Muslims, have refused women the morning-after pill because they believe it is a form of abortion.

The Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, a Government quango that oversees the health professions, is now asking whether the practice should continue. The consultation, which ends on January 12, is part of plans to set up a new General Pharmaceutical Council to regulate the profession.

Calls for the conscience clause to be scrapped have come from pharmacists as well as groups such as the National Secular Society.

A pharmacist refused to serve a woman a prescription for the contraceptive pill because it went against her religious beliefs. The branch of Lloyd's pharmacy adjoins the doctor's surgery

Shocked Janine Deeley initially thought the female pharmacist must be joking, but became angry when she was told to try another chemist or come back the next day when someone else was on duty. She said she was furious at being treated like a child and having to explain herself like an irresponsible teenager.

She said: I couldn't believe the arrogance of the woman. Who is she to refuse to give me properly prescribed legal drugs? I am a responsible adult.

A spokeswoman for Lloyds pharmacy said an investigation had been launched: We are very sorry Ms Deeley was refused supply of her prescribed contraceptive pill at our Duke Street pharmacy. We have launched an investigation into the incident and been in contact with her to apologise for any distress and inconvenience caused.

A spokeswoman from NHS Sheffield, the primary care trust responsible for how well pharmacies and other health bodies across the city perform, said it would investigate the matter if a formal complaint was made.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) said the pharmacist was acting within her rights. The spokesman said: the Code of Ethics and Standards does not require a pharmacist to provide a service that is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs.

The General Pharmaceutical Council has decided to uphold the right of pharmacists in the UK to refuse to dispense treatments that conflict with their brand of religious nonsense.

The new pharmacy regulator said it would retain an existing code of ethics when it replaces the Royal Pharmaceutical Society as the regulator of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians later this year.

The code of ethics contains a conscience clause that allows pharmacies to opt out of providing items such as the morning after pill if doing so goes against their religious beliefs.

The council said, however, that consultation on the issue would continue and that in the future pharmacies may have to tell patients of other providers.

Pharmacies may also be compelled to display notices telling patients of the services they are unable to provide because of their religious convictions.