The Times Nicola Woolcock Youth worker wins gay job rights claim against bishop.
Daily Telegraph Jonathan Petre Bishop discriminated against gay youth worker.
Guardian Stephen Bates Bishop urged to resign after diocese loses gay bias case.
Daily Mail Rebecca Camber Gay Christian wins job tribunal against Church of England.
Western Mail Darren Devine Church faces payout over gay discrimination case and also Hailed as a victory for gay rights – here is reaction to yesterday’s tribunal decision.
And the BBC report linked yesterday has links to two video clips: these contain quotes from the bishop at yesterday’s press conference in Hereford, a short interview with Mr Reaney, plus other footage from the time of the Cardiff hearing.
Update The Hereford Times today has Bishop loses in gay worker case:
…The crux of the Bishop’s decision rested on a five-year gay relationship which Mr Reaney had ended four months before the interview.
Despite Mr Reaney’s promises of celibacy and self-control, the Bishop believed the situation would change.
The Bishop told the press conference he was “disappointed” with the outcome but insisted his decision was the right one and was not clouded by lifestyle.
“He had been living in a committed same-sex relationship for five years and that ended shortly before I met him,” he said at a press conference.
“I took the view that anyone who has been in a committed relationship of that kind for five years will be in a position of loss, grief and bereavement.
“If he had been a heterosexual person with a five-year relationship outside marriage then I still wouldn’t have appointed him because that’s not the teaching of the Church.”
Update Thursday evening: here’s one I missed earlier. The Hereford Journal had:
Bishop’s blessing as gay organists ‘wed’
As he awaits a landmark tribunal decision after turning down a homosexual man for a job, the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, has congratulated a Cathedral organist on his forthcoming gay wedding.
Hereford’s assistant organist Peter Dyke is set to tie the knot in a civil partnership ceremony with former church director of music Shaun Ward, at the city’s Town Hall.
An opponent of the C of E developing a formal Christian ceremony to bless gay couples in church,the Bishop has “offered his congratulations” to the couple.
A diocesan spokesman said: “Our eminent organist Peter Dyke has chosen to enter into a civil partnership.
The Bishop joins others in offering them his congratulations…”
This whole story is rather confusing. One side (the Diocese and the Archbishops’s Council) claim that the verdict backed their right to inist on celibacy for key lay workers (as for clergy) whilst the other side (eg the guy’s solicitor and Stonwall) maintain that such an insistence would be unfair discrimination. Which view is right?
““I took the view that anyone who has been in a committed relationship of that kind for five years will be in a position of loss, grief and bereavement.”
Is it common practice in the church to deny grieving people employment?
The Right Reverend Bishop of Hereford: “If he had been a heterosexual person with a five-year relationship outside marriage then I still wouldn’t have appointed him because that’s not the teaching of the Church.”
Just show us!
Anthony Priddis has congratulated the Cathedral organist on his and his partner’s forthcoming Civil Partnership— apparently.
I am VERY confused.
Surely the Cathedral organist should also be sacked as a non-ce;eibate lay (sic) man ?
On another matter, the bishop has a fine way with bereaved people. He is wasted as a bishop ! Perhaps he could become a (Good ?) Samaritan ?
Goran wrote: “The Right Reverend Bishop of Hereford: “If he had been a heterosexual person with a five-year relationship outside marriage then I still wouldn’t have appointed him because that’s not the teaching of the Church.” Just show us!” Difficult for him to do, unless he could point directly to a case in which he had actually done so. The linguistic features of the utterance attributed to the bishop (use of conditional mood) would seem to indicate that he had not. Your tone seems sceptical, Goran, but I seriously doubt if a bishop would employ a straight guy who said,… Read more »
“The Bishop joins others in offering them his congratulations…”
Not a P45, I’m pleased to hear.
Your tone seems sceptical, Goran, but I seriously doubt if a bishop would employ a straight guy who said, “I’ve been shagging a bird for five years but I’ve stopped now…” There is nothing tosuggest that the interviewee said anything of the sort. I didn’t get the impression that he was atall flippant, with the bishop, or that he regards relationships as ‘shagging’. But ahving been to the job interview and been given the job, the encounter with the bishop must ahve been confusing and shocking. They went agaisnt their own interview and selection policy. Thisis not equalk opportunties interviwing… Read more »
Alan Harrison, why should the Claimant appeal? He won. In fact, he can’t appeal, because he won. Appeals are against outcomes, not reasons. If you get the outcome you want, you can’t appeal just because you would have preferred another route.
I bet you the Bishop doesn’t appeal. Because, if he appeals, he’ll lose. He’s spent enough diocesan money on a losing case already.
I repeat, he lost on the facts. The law was apparently taken in his favour, and he still lost. He can’t appeal that.
Well of course the Bishop congratulated the organist on his civil partnership. Do you think there would be a single functioning cathedral or collegiate choir in the whole of the C of E if it weren’t for gay men?
“The Right Reverend Bishop of Hereford: “If he had been a heterosexual person with a five-year relationship outside marriage then I still wouldn’t have appointed him because that’s not the teaching of the Church.”
And if he had been a heterosexual man who’d just got divorced after a five-year marriage?
At the time John Reaney was still with his partner, civil partnerships weren’t yet legal. Saying “I wouldn’t employ anyone who’s been in a longstanding relationship outside marriage” by definition at this point excludes all gay people who’ve had lasting relationships.
I think the real question is whether the bishop would have ASKED an unmarreid heterosexual man if he’d been shagging his bird for 5years.
I bet he wouldn’t.
As for the organist, as long as he’s up in the loft and not “teaching da yout'”, then I suppose that’s the justification.
You don’t suppose the Bishop’s lawyer told him to congratulate the organist just to make it clear he didn’t hate homos?
Naw, that would be too cynical….
“I seriously doubt if a bishop would employ a straight guy who said, “I’ve been shagging a bird for five years but I’ve stopped now…”
You know, this is just despicable.
The man was in a relationship with another man – under the circumstances, they could not at the time marry or enter a civil partnership. It was not at all like a case of refusing to marry by heterosexuals.
Is ‘shagging’ what you think of as a sexual relationship with a woman? Really?
[Borrowing this line from another] For Bp. Priddis, apparently it’s only OK to be gay in the closet or the organ loft…
As a parish treasurer I am pleased that I am not in the Hereford Diocese as I should feel that I would have to recommend to the PCC that they with-hold part of the quota. The finances of the Diocese, the Bishop and the Cathedral are all quite separate and should be kept so. It is unfortunate that the action had to be taken against the Diocese as the potential emloyer rather than the Bishop who influenced the decision not to offer the employment.
I wonder if the claim that the bishop blessed a gay wedding is true. If it is, it reminds me of one of my friends favourite phrases “the smiling assassin”. The one who smiles and is mild to your face, whilst behind the scenes they are planning your assassination. We don’t mind who you assasssinate and send to hell. The reformers have reminded the devil that they are part of God’s creation and provide hospitality on unconditional basis. The Hindus are off acknowledging the beasts and alternative life forms as part of God’s divine order. The indigineous souls (e.g Australian… Read more »
It would be a lovely gesture if the Dean and Chapter of Hereford Cathedral were to offer the newly-weds the use of the cathedral for a ceremony to mark the occasion of their union, should they so wish.
Bring on Messrs Wagner, Widor and Vierne.
(If only Anthony Trollope were still around)
Alan,
I hope I’m just being hypersensitive. Are you equating committed monogamous gay relationships to two straight people getting together on a regular basis to get their jollies? I know a lot of anti-gay people think exactly that, so I’m a bit touchy on the subject.
And IT, realism isn’t cynicism.
“Gay Trollope.” As Molly Ivins used to say, “now there’s a notion”.
Badman wrote: “Alan Harrison, why should the Claimant appeal? He won. In fact, he can’t appeal, because he won.” Not quite. He won on discrimination, lost on harassment. He could therefore appeal on the harassment issue, just as the diocese could on discrimination. It’s not uncommon for both sides to appeal when a verdict is mixed. (For an example close to my own heart, involving my former employer, see:http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/lelr-weekly-20-bias-at-brunel.htm ) Having read the judgment, admittedly pretty quickly and once again emphasising that my field of knowledge is employment relations rather than employment law, I suspect that the diocese’s lawyers will… Read more »
I hope Mr. Reaney will appeal agaisnt harrasssment and onthe grounds of a failure of Equal Opportunities interviewing — if one is to be interviwed by bishop, all must be, and all must be asked the same questions. This harrassment also breached flagrantly EO.
Still if the diocese thinks a deacon is a priest then heaven help them ! (see their website re 2 July Ordinations)
If the tribunal hadn’t thought the post was exempt then the judgment would have been even worse for the church ( and one could be forgiven for forgetting that they lost the case!)
There are very few exempt posts outside the clergy and the church is going to have to be extremely careful. I gather that this particular job no longer exists….
“if the diocese thinks a deacon is a priest”
“They will be known as deacons”
Well, no. Either they will be deacons, or they will be priests. I can see some thinking this is a mere quibble over terms. For me, it belies a basic profound difference between my understanding of the Church and theirs. That is unless the person who wrote the copy didn’t really understand the terms and it got by the editor. But still. it’s kind of like saying “This is my wife, but I’ll call her my fiance for the next 15 months.
“if the diocese thinks a deacon is a priest”
“They will be known as deacons”
Well, no. Either they will be deacons, or they will be priests. It’s like saying “This is my baby, but I’m calling it my housepet for the next 15 months till I can have “another service” “. I can see some thinking this is a mere quibble over terms. For me, it belies a basic profound difference between my undestanding of the Church and theirs. That is unless the person who wrote the copy didn’t really understand the terms and it got by the editor.
>if one is to be interviwed by bishop, all must be, and all must be asked the same questions<
Good point. That’s what many public employers do, though they never quite (when an interesting answer leads to elucidation).
The whole process did verge on the humiliating. Hereford got off lightly. It might still cost them.
Yes, it’s called Equal Opportunities interviewing.
Interesting thought. A deacon is a church baby or a church housepet. I know it was not your thought but it shows my thought.
Pluralist,
LOL. While inadvertent, I see how close the statement comes to traditional reality. We have in our diocese an active perpetual diaconate, and part of it is a rediscovery of the role of the deacon after centuries of the order being, as you say, Church housepet or Church baby. It’s an interesting dialogue. Some would say deacons are supposed to be thorns in the flesh of the hierarchy and the powers that be. St.Lawerence comes to mind.
Eats, Shoots, and Leaves! I meant of course that the statement, not myself, was inadvertant.
You know what? Last night in my reasonably meaningless existence, I was surfing from one place to another, reading pointless website after pointless website from a Forward in Faith perspective why they would reluctantly stay in touch with Canterbury with its lost liberals rather than join Abuja with its “Calvinism” and somewhere down the line I asked myself why am I wasting time reading all this stuff? I’d flatten the whole hierarchy. Half the time I’m trying to get into the mentality of this, not because I want to join in (hell’s teeth) but because it baffles me how it… Read more »
We agree Pularlist”
The structures and hierarchy are a big man-made mess and everyone would be better off without them.
This is why I favour a generous realignment – i.e. let everyone take their building and their people and join, let’s say, ” TEC Global” or The AC (with clear covenant)……..I think liberals and conservatives would both be better off without a strangely dysfunctional hierarchy which lacks authority in every sphere of the church
(sorry Cheryl, I am sure women were involved in making the mess too)
“The structures and hierarchy are a big man-made mess and everyone would be better off without them.”
There goes your right to use “traditional” and “orthodox” to describe yourself.
Let’s say: Anglican Communion Canterbury without Covenant or broad one, and Anglican Communion Abuja/ Sydney with restrictive Covenant. According to Chris Sugden, the concept of Communion should not be nationalistic any more.
Fine in Metroland, NP – but here, there’s just one Anglican church, and we try to be accessible to all. That, I think is part of my calling, and I wonder whether the Metro perspective on all this clouds the reality of church life out here in the sticks.