Intolerance of a conscientious objector

In his contribution entitled On Tolerance (June 14) I.M. Beck took umbrage at a Christian woman, a marriage registrar, who dared to request her employer, the local council, to make arrangements so that she would not officiate should a couple of the same sex seek to get married on the council premises. He said or implied, that she was intolerant, seeking to impose her will, being ultra-Christian, and selfish. He dismissed her conscience, that is her moral sense of right and wrong, as religious niceties which have no place in the temporal world.The solution to her moral problem was quite simple according to the learned writer, a lawyer who has experience in labour relations. She should obey or resign. How considerate!

Good employers accept flexitime, and find no difficulty in letting employees change rosters for any number of reasons, as long as production is not adversly affected. Surely, I.M. Beck knows this. Why does he object to such an arrangement only if the reason is one of conscience? Is he aware that even in time of war, when men are required to take up arms, it is possible to accomodate conscientious objectors?

I cannot but ask, "Who is being intolerant?"

When this woman's request was turned down she sought to fight her case by legal means. Does I.M. Beck see an element of intolerance in this woman taking this line of action, fully within her rights, rather than resigning?

This woman did not demand that her employer should deny a right to anybody else. She only asked for an arrangement so that she would not be involved. This woman's attitude to marriage between persons of the same sex is not that of an ultra-Christian, but one that is shared by most people all over the world, irrespective of the religion that they embrace, if any.

To bolster his lame arguments, Beck comes out with the original notion that conscience can only be invoked when the rights of third parties are involved, and he quotes doctors and abortion. Does he not know that the ever-diminishing majority in the House of Commons has maintained that a foetus of less than 24 weeks has no right to life, in spite of evidence that a foetus younger than that, has survived to live a healthy life? Following his argument, doctors must destroy a foetus if so requested according to law or resign, since it, the third party, has no right involved.