A fascinating case has emerged where the Prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of sexuality has clashed with the Rule prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of religion.
In this case a Christian Registrar had refused to perform civil partnership ceremonies for same sex couples because she considered them to be against God's law. She had held this position long before the Civil Partnership Act 2004 came into being. When it did, she began swapping shifts with colleagues so that she did not have to perform civil partnership ceremonies for same sex couples.
She was disciplined after the relationship with her employers deteriorated and she continued to refuse to carry out civil partnerships. The Council, however, felt that this breached their policy entitled "dignity for all".
The lady in question took the London Borough of Islington to Tribunal for both indirect and direct discrimination and harassment and the Employment Tribunal supported the Registrar. The Tribunal stated that "this is a case where there is a direct conflict between legislative protection afforded to religion or belief and legislative protection afforded to sexual orientation. (The Applicant) accepts that there are important rights under the European Convention of Human Rights and Members of the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Community............. but (the Applicant) does not seek to undermine those rights".
"Equally (the Applicant) has convention rights on the grounds of her religion as a Christian and both sets of rights are protected. One set of rights cannot override the other set of rights."
In this particular case the Council had undermined their own position somewhat by telling other members of staff about the plans to discipline the Registrar, subjecting her to the disciplinary process due to her religion and failing to consider her for promotion due to her refusal to carry out civil partnerships. Indeed, the Council accused her of gross misconduct.
The Tribunal found that the employer in had placed greater emphasis on the rights of gays and lesbians than it did on the rights of Christians and appeared to show no respect for the Registrar's rights. In short the Council's actions were not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Clearly this places HR Practitioners in a quandary when faced with a balance of such rights and careful thought should be given to how such a balance is resolved.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
