Would love to be able to find some time to write about one or two things, but it’s a busy week. I’ll try and squeeze something in later on today on the Ladele case. Just to say, has anybody considered the fact that given that she has been moved to a job registering births and deaths, and given the fact that registering civil partnerships is as different a role from registering marriages as registering marriages is from registering births (para 6 of the ruling refers to this fact), why has she been forced to do one registration job (civil partnerships) but not another (marriages)? As para 74 of Neuberger’s ruling says:
It is right to add that this conclusion may well not have applied if Islington had not designated Ms Ladele (along with all the other registrars) a civil partnership registrar. If they had not so designated her, it seems to me that there would have been a powerful case for saying that she would then have had no cause to refuse to officiate at civil partnerships, and accordingly no problem of discrimination under the 2007 Regulations could arise. Accordingly, I doubt whether a decision by Islington that she would not be designated a civil partnership registrar, at her request because of her religious problems with officiating at civil partnerships, would fall foul of the 2007 Regulations.
Of course, that’s only one side of the argument…