[Livia]

Actually, if a registrar feels strongly for religious reasons that they can't perform a civil partnership for a gay couple, as part of the Human Rights Act, they can be relieved and another registrar will do it. It's all about people's personal beliefs and their right to them. You cannot force someone to believe something, or to reject their own beliefs. However, a registrar could not refuse to marry a black couple.

It's a minefield.

[flamingGalah!]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually, if a registrar feels strongly for religious reasons that they can't perform a civil partnership for a gay couple, as part of the Human Rights Act, they can be relieved and another registrar will do it. It's all about people's personal beliefs and their right to them. You cannot force someone to believe something, or to reject their own beliefs. However, a registrar could not refuse to marry a black couple.

It's a minefield.

It's shocking discrimination!

[Livia]

Originally Posted by flamingGalah!

It's shocking discrimination!

I'm not arguing with you.

This is why it surprises me when people say they are not interested in politics. It affects all of us all the time and it's only through politics that outdated, archaic laws can be changed. I mean it's only a little over fifty years since homosexuality was legalised; before that you could be sentenced to prison for being gay. So things are changing. But reeeeally slooooowly.

[stonedape]

Originally Posted by Livia

Actually, if a registrar feels strongly for religious reasons that they can't perform a civil partnership for a gay couple, as part of the Human Rights Act, they can be relieved and another registrar will do it. It's all about people's personal beliefs and their right to them. You cannot force someone to believe something, or to reject their own beliefs. However, a registrar could not refuse to marry a black couple.

It's a minefield.

one of these things is not like the other!

[Livia]

Originally Posted by stonedape

one of these things is not like the other!

No, I know that. That was my point. That was a point someone else made earlier in the thread.

I'm happy to discuss with with you seriously, but we're probably not going to agree totally because you're looking at it idealistically and I'm looking at it from a legal point of view. I'm not trying to antagonise you and I hope you feel the same.