I have to agree with Morris, you can't have double standards... If she is as devout as she claims..then having a child out of wedlock is a contradiction, and she is a hypocrite...that is undeniable sorry!!

However as to the charge of her being a 'bigot' hmmm now hold on a moment... i do not agree with 'gay marriage'..it is in my opinion hypocracy at its worse... Yet i accept that Gays should have the same civil rights as other couples...I do not hate or disapprove of gays.. but I do not accept their lifestyle as natural....Now am i a bigot...

where the hypocracy comes into this debate for me with Europeans is the pretence of liberalism, when in fact the opposite is the case.. we only have to check out the Uproar...and subsequent cancelling of a TV advert after two men kissed.... were they called bigotted, was the actions of the advertiser who pulled the ad bigotted? Are the Catholic church who decided to withdraw from the Adoption racket rather than place children with SAME sex couples Bigotted?

My point here in the first instance is that its VERY easy to point fingers at this woman and call her a BIGOT, for being HONEST and truthful about her feelings... In my view having equality does not mean, should mean that i have to LIKE the rights confured on another group.. I just have to accept it..

Now my view is that if she choose to apply for a job KNOWING that she would have to marry Gays and then refused, fair game.. but lets remember she was in post long BEFORE Civil ceremonies were made legal... and i don't THINK in that context it was unreasonble for her to OPT out..geez they lwet others OPT off of the most ridiculous things these days...

On a second separate but equal point, i find it facinating that on the issue of race, immigration and crime.. I'm constantly told to that we need a 'grown up' , 'mature' & 'honest' debate.. I'm constantly told how Europeans feel 'shouted down' when they raise these topics....yet when that is applied in reverse, suddenly people are 'bigots'..come on now..people really can't have their cake and eat it....

Astmartin..No come on now THIS is NOT called for..nor is it on...Morris whether you like him or not raised a FAIR point..respond without the abuse.. If he had abused you.. you would DEMAND his removal forthwith... Now even though I'm on record for being biased in favour of our people.. your reaction is out of line sorry!!!

So because she had a child out of wedlock, that means she has to compromise on everything else because she comitted one 'sin'?

Answer iMO no...But in my view it does weaken your case and your position if you CLAIM a so called devout line on what is a traditional family.. and then you're not in one, sorry prince that is a contradiction....

The only point i would make is the timeline arguement.. Now it could be argued if i was being really picky, that she could have become devout after or as a result of single parenthood.. In which case Morris's position is worthless because people are allowed to change...

Now i do think its strange that the other side did not argue this to undermine her case, the fact that it wasn't raised leads me to suspect that there is more to THAt issue than meets the eye..

I thought the subject was bunnin queers?

the thing is if they bow to this then whats next? you cant really look to europe for morality afterall they have blokes with bigger titts than pam anderson and male genitalia below....its not on.

Nope we are bunning bad minds..not 'queers'

Kunjufu
Although the word "bigot" is usually in a wider sence, the word actually refers to a person who is a religeous hypocrite. I'm not accusing her of any other form of hypocricy.

Lifted from the Wikipedia definition of the word "Bigot":

"The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable."

In my opinion, having a child out of wedlock and then getting on her high horse and preaching about religious morality shows that she is a bigot, in the true meaning of the word. And even if she "saw the light" after she gave birth - she should still have the humility to recognize that she was in no position to judge other "lest she be judged"

Also, this whole thing about her child not being brought up at the tribunal may simply be that they didn't go to the extreme of checking her family out. Who would have guessed that she was that much of a hypocrite!

On the other hand. I don't know that much about the case, and, if she was bullied - that's wrong. And she should win. But not because of her stance - but because of her treatment.

As for her having the right to refuse to perform Civil Ceremonys because they didn't exist before she took the job - well, things change, and she's a public official. This wasn't the caprice of a private employer, this is a change in the law. Should someone be allowed to smoke in their place of work just because, when they took the job, it was legal to do so? Or be able to use language that contravenes the Race relations Act because it wasn't law before they took the job. No.

Anyway, I don't really know what she's going on about. A civil Ceremony isn't a "Marriage" - it's, in reality, a contract that just gives basic legal rights - like inheritance etc. Before Civil Ceremonies, a couple may have been together for fifty years, but their relationship had no legal basis - even to the point that when one of them died, the survivor had no legal right to say how his partner should be buried - or even a right to attend the funeral!


And, actually, I think those about to undertake a Civil Ceremony are really quite lucky in not having that sour face officiating - she'd only ruin their day with muttering under her breath, giving them the "evil eye" and sucking her teeth as she asks them to exchange vows.

I do aplogise to BNV Posters and Viewers for my language but not to @NewImprovedMorris..
I understand him having a different point of view but he just seem so hell bent on either pushing his values down enough of us throats which is fundamentally at odds with everything Africans stand for sexually.I meet people like him sometimes in that he fails to recognise in that particular court case.... everything is all well and dandy with YT folks until you stand for something contrary to popular opionion...read YT viewpoint..how people here can testify to that??
Anyway we still don't want that stuff in Africa..South Africa can carry on but it would NEVER EVER spread across the Whole Continent

Morris....If you read my response I fully except that this person was a hypocrite it would be curlish notto accept that central point....So I'll mover on from remaking this point again...

Mind you I'm a bit shocked at you referencing Wikipeadia as a source of evidence.. come on now you and I know that it is NOT reliable..lucky for yo I'm not in my argumentative mood...

Now on the secondary point...Morris the principle for me is what is reasonable.... It is unreasonable for someone to insult me racially, it is unreasonable for someone to endanger my life to satify their own needs... However i question whether it is unreasonable to want to be excused from performing one type of ceremony... It cannot be deemed an 'insult' to the unsuspecting couple.. It cannot be deemed harmful if put in a respectful way....

There is nothing wrong imo in being respectfully disagreeing with a position, wishing not to participate in everything just because it is LAW... Laws believe it or not can be BAD!! and Not all laws should be obeyed!!! and some laws are immoral , I do not say this law is immoral..but I make the point that some laws are immoral... Should i then as a public servant OBEY them blindly? No of course not...so come on now..Lets not play the law is the law game... The point this could and should have been accomodated... I believ it wasn't for political reasons and that is NOT reasonable in my view...

And yes your right its NOT a Marriage... its a CIVIL partnership.. But the fact is it has been sOLD as a union on par with Marriage and THATS the problem....I believe there is a bit of having your cake and eating it happening here.. I don';t think it good.. and I think the consequences are coming home as we speak... the lack bounderies and clarity on what is or is not a family is partly to Blame for the current mess we find ourselves in, within the UK... It will get worse the more we try to define EVERYTHING as Marriage, or as FAMILY.. how long will be before we are marrying Animals, or redinfing men/women as something other than what they actually are...madness!!!

It's called "debate"...
And it just shows that I'm getting to you, because you know I'm right, and you're getting frustrated. That's why you're throwing your dummy at the screen and using bad language.

But I'm prepared to forgive you.

Friends?