Evangelical extremist?

[Spud]

Of course it is: you just make the cake to meet the needs of your customer and keep your opinions to yourself.

Possibly, though with difficulty. What about conducting a same sex marriage ceremony?

[Gordon]

Possibly, though with difficulty. What about conducting a same sex marriage ceremony?

I'd have no problem with it whatsoever. 

[Spud]

I'd have no problem with it whatsoever.

What, conducting it without endorsing homosexual activity?

[Aruntraveller]

What, conducting it without endorsing homosexual activity?

As has been pointed out ad nauseam many people do things in their jobs that conflict with their conscience. Religious people do not have a get out clause from this.

[Gordon]

What, conducting it without endorsing homosexual activity?

What makes you think my endorsement (or yours) is relevant?

I endorse happiness and decry discrimination: give it a try yourself.

[Brownie]

Possibly, though with difficulty. What about conducting a same sex marriage ceremony?

Seriously, are you likely to be asked to conduct a same sex marriage?   You're not a registrar; registrars are obliged to do what the law requires, they are not Religious people.  If they raise objections on religious grounds, they are in the wrong job.  Being a registrar is a secular job.  Neither is it a particularly high powered job, it's something most people can do if they want to.  All that's needed is a calm, pleasant manner and reasonable clerical skills.

You can please yourself what you think about SSM but it isn't gonna affect you.

[Spud]

What makes you think my endorsement (or yours) is relevant?

I endorse happiness and decry discrimination: give it a try yourself.

Apologies, if I didn't make myself clear: I meant that it is impossible to conduct a same sex marriage without endorsing homosexual activity. In contrast, it is possible to employ or provide medical treatment for them without doing so.

The relevance of the registrar's endorsement can be illustrated by two people who are closely related or underage wanting to be married. The registrar would be sanctioning sexual intercourse. Maybe sanctioning/giving permission  is a better word than endorsing.

[Spud]

As has been pointed out ad nauseam many people do things in their jobs that conflict with their conscience. Religious people do not have a get out clause from this.

No law should make going against one's conscience compulsory.

[Nearly Sane]

No law should make going against one's conscience compulsory.

what if it is against my conscience not to punch Christians?

[Aruntraveller]

Apologies, if I didn't make myself clear: I meant that it is impossible to conduct a same sex marriage without endorsing homosexual activity. In contrast, it is possible to employ or provide medical treatment for them without doing so.

The relevance of the registrar's endorsement can be illustrated by two people who are closely related or underage wanting to be married. The registrar would be sanctioning sexual intercourse. Maybe sanctioning/giving permission  is a better word than endorsing.

And so by the same token if staff in A & E patch up thugs and send them out of hospital they are endorsing violence.

your arguments make no sense.

[BeRational]

No law should make going against one's conscience compulsory.

Then do another job.

Simple

[Spud]

Then do another job.

Simple

Simple but unjust.

[BeRational]

Simple but unjust.

No it's not.
If you cannot do the job you should leave or be sacked.

[Aruntraveller]

Simple but unjust.

Not unjust at all, unless you have a true free for all where you allow everybody to act according to their conscience. But I would suggest that way madness lies.

[Gordon]

Apologies, if I didn't make myself clear: I meant that it is impossible to conduct a same sex marriage without endorsing homosexual activity. In contrast, it is possible to employ or provide medical treatment for them without doing so.

Don't be silly, Spud - you can provide a service competently without having a personal opinion on the matter: it isn't about you, it's about them!

The relevance of the registrar's endorsement can be illustrated by two people who are closely related or underage wanting to be married. The registrar would be sanctioning sexual intercourse. Maybe sanctioning/giving permission  is a better word than endorsing.

Even sillier: since for the registrar to perform their role the people involved need to meet the legal criteria for marriage (which includes both familial relation and age). Provided they do, the registrar's personal opinion is irrelevant.

[Sebastian Toe]

Apologies, if I didn't make myself clear: I meant that it is impossible to conduct a same sex marriage without endorsing homosexual activity. In contrast, it is possible to employ or provide medical treatment for them without doing so.

The relevance of the registrar's endorsement can be illustrated by two people who are closely related or underage wanting to be married. The registrar would be sanctioning sexual intercourse. Maybe sanctioning/giving permission  is a better word than endorsing.

Maybe they don't intend to have sexual intercourse. Where's the sanctioning then?

[Enki]

Apologies, if I didn't make myself clear: I meant that it is impossible to conduct a same sex marriage without endorsing homosexual activity. In contrast, it is possible to employ or provide medical treatment for them without doing so.

The relevance of the registrar's endorsement can be illustrated by two people who are closely related or underage wanting to be married. The registrar would be sanctioning sexual intercourse. Maybe sanctioning/giving permission  is a better word than endorsing.

Then you would be in the wrong job.

To be a registrar, according to the careers service:

You’ll need:

the ability to relate to people from all backgrounds and cultures
tact, patience and empathy, for dealing with people who may be distressed
the ability to understand and apply rules and laws
clear and accurate handwriting
the ability to work under pressure
administrative skills

So, to sanction illegal marriages, is not part of your remit.

[Spud]

No it's not.
If you cannot do the job you should leave or be sacked.

So basically, someone who believes a particular activity is wrong cannot apply for any job, since a situation can arise in any job where they are asked to do something against their conscience.

[BeRational]

So basically, someone who believes a particular activity is wrong cannot apply for any job, since a situation can arise in any job where they are asked to do something against their conscience.

Yes.

If you cannot do the job then do not apply.

Why is this not simple to understand?

[Sebastian Toe]

So basically, someone who believes a particular activity is wrong cannot apply for any job, since a situation can arise in any job where they are asked to do something against their conscience.

So basically, in your world anyone can refuse a service to anyone else whilst doing thier job as long as they can claim that it is against thier conscience. Is that correct?

[Gordon]

No law should make going against one's conscience compulsory.

If your conscience tells you to discriminate and this conflicts with laws enabled to promote equality and deter discrimination then you'd do well to avoid situations that you have this personal antipathy towards - so don't seek to become a registrar.

Given than SSM has been in place in the UK (except N.I.) for a while now, and there are no frightened horses to be seen, I'm surprised you haven't moved on as yet.
 

[Aruntraveller]

So basically, someone who believes a particular activity is wrong cannot apply for any job, since a situation can arise in any job where they are asked to do something against their conscience.

Are you hard of thinking or what?

You have had it explained to you that everyday, people do things in their jobs that go against their conscience. All you are doing is pleading for special exemption on religious grounds. It won't work. Too many different issues intersecting would cause chaos.

I believe beating people up is wrong and if given a choice I would not treat or sanction the treatment of these scrotes, I do not have that choice - do I stop working for the NHS where these people are treated?

What is wrong with your thought processes that you can't grasp this?

[wigginhall]

Spud is wriggling, because he's trying to insinuate his homophobic ideas in, without actually saying, ew,  men having sex, ew, ick, or whatever the theological equivalent is.

[Gordon]

So basically, someone who believes a particular activity is wrong cannot apply for any job, since a situation can arise in any job where they are asked to do something against their conscience.

Last year the drink driving limit here in Scotland was reduced (it is now lower here than elsewhere in the UK) so that where previously someone may have passed the test they would now fail: this being social policy legislation to discourage drink-driving.

I'm a traffic policeman and I disagree personally with the change - so do I:

a) Work on a personal basis using the old limit and don't charge drivers who wouldn't have failed under the old limit but now do under the new one.

or

b) Apply the new limit in line with the requirements of my role despite my personal views.

So, Spud, is it a or b?

[floo]

So basically, someone who believes a particular activity is wrong cannot apply for any job, since a situation can arise in any job where they are asked to do something against their conscience.

If you realise something will go against what you believe in, you should not apply for a job where that is likely to happen.