It’s the views that make you a bigot, not why you hold them.

Plenty of Christians hold opposite views. My “own” Church* accepted the legitimacy of homosexual relationships whilst they were still illegal and held religous celebrations of such relationships well before the civil partnership legislation.

*this is stretching a point massively – you can’t be a lapsed Quaker but if you could I am one!

That is a principle that is well recognised in some other areas though – most notably an opt-out for medical staff regarding abortion procedures.

“Is it perfectly alright for the state, in changing the terms of that job’s requirements, to force a particular political viewpoint on an individual, regardless of whether or not the overall service provided will be affected?”

I have some sympathy with this view – it is possible to argue that she wouldn’t have taken the job under the current legislation. That is different to someone who took the job post the Civil Partnership legislation

According to Grammar Police the court said this was a proportionate means of achieving the required end. That doesn’t mean that it was the only route open.

Though as usual in these cases I wonder whether the person who has such profound objections to what bits people rub their genitals against have equally strong views against marrying people wearing wedding dresses of mixed fibres or serving prawn cocktails at the reception.

As for ‘sanitising homophobia’ – I will attempt to avoid semantic wranglings over what homophobia is or is not, but iainm stated that the woman was a bigot. She holds the views she has because she is a Christian. As far as I am concerned that implies that Christians are bigots.

The essence of building up a liberal society must start with the employees of the ‘state’ (here, local government). If we say that it is perfectly alright for a tax-funded employee to not carry out her job, and in the process alienate a segment of society, there is no basis from which we can urge toleration and, through such, a harmonious and truly liberal society.

Again: she doesn’t argue for the prevention of civil partnerships per se, nor does her refusal to perform them prevent couples from taking part in them if they so wish. How is it liberal to prevent people from living out their beliefs, as long as they don’t harm others? Who’s being harmed here (apart from her)?

This is absolutely a cause for celebration. The woman is a bigot, plain and simple. The fact that she’s sincere bigot doesn’t excuse her. She’s entitled to her beliefs just like anyone else, but as a public servant she has no more right to be excused from conducting same-sex ceremonies than a registrar with racist beliefs should be excused from conducting inter-racial ones.

According to UKPR there are 23 Lib Dem-held seats that will need to fall to the Conservatives (assuming the same swing nationally) if Cameron is to have a majority of one. Mike Smithson questions whether many of these will fall given anti-Tory voting by Labour supporters.