The BBC reports on the outcome of the judicial review of The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006:
New legislation banning discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals is lawful with just one exception, a High Court judge has ruled.
Mr Justice Weatherup said harassment provisions in the Sexual Orientation Regulations must be removed…
…The judgement followed a five-day hearing last June when the Christian Institute and numerous churches applied for a judicial review of the regulations which they claimed were a “gay rights charter.”
… The regulations came into force last January when former secretary of state Peter Hain was accused of rushing the powers into law by limiting consultation to six weeks whereas people in the rest of the United Kingdom were given six months to examine the controversial issues.
It was on the consultation ground that Mr Justice Weatherup said the harassment provisions had to be set aside.
A harassment clause was not included in the corresponding regulations for Great Britain, as the topic was to be considered as part of the wide-ranging Discrimination Law Review. (The consultation period following that review has just closed, see here.)
The Evangelical Alliance issued a press release saying:
The Evangelical Alliance is encouraging Christians to respond respectfully and in a Christ-like manner to the decision made in today’s judicial review of Northern Ireland’s Sexual Orientation Regulations that banning discrimination against gays, lesbians and bisexuals is lawful with one exception.
The Alliance welcomes the fact that a number of Christian organisations were able to exercise their right to call for the review. It also welcomes the removal of the harassment clause and particularly of the judge’s confirmation that the regulations do not apply to the core school curriculum. But it is also praying that following the decision, Christians’ rights do not appear bigger than their representation of Christ or their commitment to the rights of others.
For an alternative interpretation of the decision, see the Christian Institute’s press release.
7 CommentsUpdated again Saturday
The Archbishops’ Council has issued a response, available here as an RTF file, to the UK government’s consultation paper, A Framework for Fairness: Proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain.
The consultation paper, which can be found as a large PDF file via this link, sets out the government’s proposals for a Single Equality Bill for Great Britain. These proposals were developed as a result of the Discrimination Law Review, launched in February 2005 to consider the opportunities for creating a clearer and more streamlined discrimination legislative framework which produces better outcomes for those who currently experience disadvantage.
A Church of England press release about the response can be found here.
Ekklesia has reported on this, see Church of England concerned that equality bill will reduce its influence. Here is the concluding part of that report:
…The response claims that the Church of England has been consistent in its support for the use of the law to combat the manifestations of prejudice and to promote equality and fairness since the introduction of the first anti-discrimination legislation more than forty years ago.
But critics say that the Church has used its unelected representatives in the House of Lords and its lobbying muscle elsewhere to oppose or seek to water down equalities legislation and regulations, particularly in relation to sexual orientation. The desire for ‘opt-outs’ has also been challenged.
While many church groups have opposed the new Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs), the evangelical Faithworks network has called on Christians to recognise the need for equal treatment in spite of moral disagreement.
Simon Barrow, co-director of the independent Christian think tank Ekklesia, commented: “The comprehensive and integrated equalities agenda across Britain’s public institutions is no threat to freedom of religion or tolerance. On the contrary, equal treatment is a cornerstone of fair access and open expression for all – including people of faith and those of non-religious outlook.”
He added: “It is sad that some faith organisations seem fearful of equal rights, especially when it applies to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered persons. But there is a clear distinction to be made between the moral stipulations of a community of commitment, and the obligation on public institutions to ensure fair treatment. Religious bodies do not have to take public money, run schools and work in cooperation with community and public services. But if they do so, they need to occupy the same level playing field as others.”
Ekklesia argues that the churches need to pay more attention to the “radically egalitarian” strand of the Gospel message in developing their response to public policy, rather than defending their institutional interests over and against others.
Jonathan Petre reports on this at the Daily Telegraph: Church fears lawsuits over gay rights. He says in part:
…The Church of England, in its official submission to the Government’s consultation on the Bill, said the proposed harassment laws were unnecessary.
If such legislation was introduced, however, it would be “crucial” to ensure that a religion’s followers, and not just clergy, could continue “to express the views of their faith about homosexual conduct, including challenging people to lead lives consistent with the teaching of the Church.
“To deny Christians (and followers of other faiths which take a similar view) such a right would amount to an unjustified interference with the right to manifest religious belief.”
The Church added that the proposals “should not prevent church schools from continuing to teach in accordance with such a school’s religious ethos.”
Government plans to extend the same harassment laws to religion and belief were also criticised.
The Church said it could lead to people objecting to religious symbols such as crosses on hospital walls on the grounds that they were an affront to atheists.
It added that the proposals were in danger of undermining religious freedom.
“We have been concerned at what has seemed in some recent debates to be a trend towards regarding religion and belief as deserving of a lesser priority in discrimination legislation than the other strands where the law seeks to bring protection,” it said.
Religion and belief seemed to be treated as subordinate to other rights because they were deemed to be a personal choice, but this was “a false analysis”, it continued.
“Nor is religious equality achieved by the elimination of expressions of religious belief in public institutions such as schools or local authorities.
“This does not amount to, or achieve, equal respect for different religious groups and those of no religion; rather it amounts to an enforced secularism that fails to respect religious belief at all.”
Steve Doughty in the Daily Mail has Church of England: Labour’s equality law denies Christians right to oppose homosexuality.
8 CommentsUpdated Monday
My Church Times articles published in last week’s paper edition are now available on the web:
Priddis loses, but sticks to his guns
Quotes from the bishop:
Talking to the Church Times last week, the Bishop said that he had consulted the diocesan registrar on four separate occasions during the course of the recruitment, and believed he had followed the advice given. He was therefore surprised at the tribunal’s judgment, which, he said, was puzzling and in some ways inconsistent. A particular concern to him was that it felt able to override his own pastoral judgement, based on 35 years’ experience.
He awaited further advice from the lawyers on whether to appeal, but he also needed them to advise on changes to diocesan procedures to avoid future problems. “I am disappointed that the judgment spends so much time focusing on the 1991 House of Bishops teaching document Issues in Human Sexuality, and so little on the more important decision of General Synod in 1987.”
The Bishop insisted that in rejecting Mr Reaney he was upholding the 1987 teaching of the General Synod that “holiness of life is particularly required of Christian leaders,” which was not limited to the clergy.
Why this constitutes illegal discrimination
My concluding paragraphs:
The tribunal found the facts of this case so compelling that it found in Mr Reaney’s favour without needing to rely on the discriminatory nature of the underlying Church of England policy of “marriage or abstinence”. The marker laid down here, however, and the inherent difficulty of proving justification, suggests that any future case might well succeed in a claim of indirect discrimination.
On the other hand, the ease with which this tribunal accepted that this officer-level post fell within the ambit of the religious exemption will be of concern to those who had imagined that only top-level lay employees in dioceses and at the National Church Institutions were affected.
Last Tuesday’s edition of The Times carried a profile of the barrister who represented John Reaney. Sandhya Drew said this about the case:
What were the main challenges in this case and the implications of the decision?
The challenges were having to deal with the culture of fear and concealment surrounding sexual orientation in the Church of England. What was very striking, however, was the amount of support for John Reaney from Christians of all sexual orientations, not only within the Church of England but within the Diocese of Hereford itself. The main implication of the decision is that organised religions should not assume that they can rely on an exemption from the law against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Lesbian and gay people of faith make a significant contribution to all the leading world religions and the law will protect them where necessary.
Update Monday
The case is cited in an article in Personnel Today Weekly dilemma: Job interviews.
The Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship has published its opinions on the tribunal judgment.
Although it is not yet visible on the LCF website, or even on the Christian Concern for our Nation website, it can be found at Anglican Mainstream.
Further Analysis of the Bishop of Hereford case (scroll down to get to the start of the full text of the document).
7 CommentsThis week’s Church Times has three items about the Hereford tribunal case.
Two of them are subscriber only until next week, but for the benefit of subscribers here are the links:
Priddis loses, but sticks to his guns (this is a revision of my earlier article with new quotes from the bishop after I interviewed him last week).
Why this constitutes illegal discrimination in which I set out how the employment tribunal found against the Bishop of Hereford.
The third item is by Giles Fraser: The split of orientation and practice helps none.
101 CommentsSome time ago, we reported on the attack by Coherent and Cohesive Voice against the Sexual Orientation Regulations.
The Advertising Standards Authority finally published its adjudication of the 51 complaints that it had received about this. It upheld 3 of the 10 distinct issues raised by the complainants.
0 CommentsWe concluded that the ad exaggerated the effect of the proposed regulations and was likely to mislead readers of The Times. We considered that although a parliamentarian readership would be likely to be aware of the content of the proposed SORs, the claims exaggerated their effect. We concluded that the ad was likely to mislead readers.
On these points, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).
Updated
The radio programme Sunday contains a substantial item on the Hereford tribunal. Both Richard Kirker and Bishop Priddis are interviewed by Roger Bolton.
Bishop of Hereford and gay discrimination
Richard Kirker of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement believes the Bishop of Hereford should resign. His remark followed an employment tribunal ruling that the Bishop discriminated against John Reaney, a candidate for a position as a youth minister in his diocese, on the basis of his sexual orientation.Reaney had held youth officer positions in Norwich and in Chester dioceses, but left his post in Chester early in 2006 [sic] after his relationship with another gay man had come to light. He told his interviewing panel in Hereford that he was gay, although now celibate, and the panel recommended to the Bishop that he should be given the job as youth minister. The Bishop was needed to give final approval, and after meeting Mr Reaney and discussing his sexuality, the Bishop refused to do so.
As a result John Reaney took the Bishop to an industrial tribunal. His claim that he had been harassed was not upheld, but his claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was. Richard Kirker and the Bishop both talked to Sunday.
Listen (8m 57s)
A transcript of the interview with Bishop Priddis can be found here.
Note: the mention of the year 2006 above is incorrect. Mr Reaney left Chester in 2002.
45 CommentsLGCM issued a press release: Gay Christian Triumphs in Battle Against Bigoted Church.
Changing Attitude issued a press release: Diocese of Hereford loses discrimination case against gay Christian youth leader.
The National Secular Society issued Bigoted bishop gets egg on his face.
The Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association said BISHOP OF HEREFORD SHOULD HANG HIS HEAD IN SHAME.
The Lawyers Christian Fellowship said (link to site currently broken now fixed):
“At first sight this judgment appears to be a serious affront to the freedom for churches to guarantee that their children and teenagers are being taught by people who are living according to the Bible’s clear teaching about sexual morality.”
“The law is shifting rapidly so that where there is a ‘competition of rights’ it is the homosexual’s right that trumps the Christian’s right. This is a situation that needs to be reversed. At the very least, our law should recognise conscience exemptions for Christians so that they can live according to their faith.”
The Christian Institute said:
24 CommentsIn an astonishing judgment, an employment tribunal has ruled that an Anglican Bishop was wrong to refuse employment to a gay youth worker. It is not known whether the Bishop will appeal.
Yesterday’s Church Times carries my report on the case, but only on the website, as the paper edition went to press before the announcement was made. See Gay youth worker was discriminated against, tribunal rules.
0 CommentsThe full judgment of the employment tribunal in the case of John Reaney v the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance has been placed online by the Diocese of Hereford. It’s a 1.2 MB pdf file made up from scans of a fax so it’s not of the highest quality, but it is legible.
Update an html copy of this can at present be found here. (This URL will likely be replaced in the next day or so.)
An amended html copy is now available here. (Many thanks to pluralist for scanning the original PDF.)
25 CommentsThe 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:
33 CommentsBishop’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…”
The Archbishops’ Council has issued a Statement on Judgement of Employment Tribunal between Mr John Reaney and the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance:
27 CommentsA spokesman for the Archbishops’ Council said:
“The broader issue raised by this case is whether there are posts, including some non clergy posts, where the religious exemptions permitted under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations can properly be applied by bishops and dioceses. The Tribunal has helpfully confirmed that there are. It also held that the role of Diocesan Youth Officer is such a post, though on the specific facts before it – and in particular Mr Reaney’s assurance that he would continue to live a life consistent with the teaching of the Church – concluded that the bishop had taken the wrong decision.
“The regulations will continue to provide important protection for churches and other religious organisations in ensuring that their recruitment policies can reflect the organisation’s beliefs.”
Notes
A statement from the Diocese of Hereford is available here.
Press Statement by the Diocese of Hereford:
TRIBUNAL DECISION IS MIXED BLESSING FOR CHURCH
The Employment Tribunal in which the Board of Finance of the Diocese of Hereford, was accused of Sexual Discrimination has issued its judgement. The Tribunal found in favour of the plaintiff, accepting that the Diocese did discriminate against Mr. John Reaney in not appointing him to the post of Youth Officer within the Diocese.
Commenting after receiving the Tribunal’s Judgement, The Bishop of Hereford, Anthony Priddis, who gave evidence at the hearing, said he was disappointed but not completely down. “The Tribunal accepted that I did not ‘interrogate’ Mr Reaney and that I had acted in accordance with the teachings of the Church of England. It also recognised that the post of Diocesan Youth Officer falls within the small number of posts outside of the clergy which are within the religious exemptions of the
Sexual Discrimination ActEmployment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.”The House of Bishops teaching document “Issues in Human Sexuality” spells out in some detail the General Synod statements that the Church upholds the teaching that sexual relationships belong within marriage and that this high standard to which all people are called is especially expected of those in leadership within the Church.
That policy was endorsed by a General Synod motion of 1987, the Lambeth Conference of 1998 and the House of Bishop’s teaching document “Issues in Sexuality”. That policy, to which the Bishop of Hereford fully subscribes, is that those of homosexual orientation are wholly welcome and entitled to participate in the full life of the Church of England
It is the duty of every Bishop to uphold spiritual, moral and ethical standards and the Tribunal agreed. However, in the light of the tribunal decision the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance will now again look at its recruitment literature to make clear the teaching and requirements of the church in respect of the lifestyle of those in leadership roles.
In the light of the Tribunal decision, the Board of Finance will be taking further legal advice with a view to appeal.
The references above to “Sexual Discrimination” and to the “Sexual Discrimination Act” are what the press release says. They would appear to be errors. The case relates to the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.
The second reference has now been corrected on the diocesan website.
39 CommentsThe Employment Tribunal in Cardiff will formally publish its judgment tomorrow in the case of John Reaney v the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance.
TA’s previous report on this was in April: see Hereford case: hearing concludes and my Church Times article is here: Reaney judgment awaited.
Subsequently, the following article was published in the Hereford diocesan magazine: DIOCESE AWAITS YOUTH OFFICER TRIBUNAL DECISION.
Today, the Hereford Times carries this report:
Bishop of Hereford loses case
By Mark BowenA gay man has won his discrimination case against the Bishop of Hereford.
John Reaney,who was backed by gay rights group Stonewall, is celebrating today’s (Thursday) employment tribunal decision.
Mr Reaney was interviewed by a panel of eight people for the post of Youth Officer in the Diocese of Hereford last summer.
But an unanimous decision to appoint him was blocked by the Bishop of Hereford after a meeting Mr Reaney looks set to secure substantial compensation.
In its judgement, the Tribunal said: The Respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual orientation.The case will now be listed for a remedy hearing.’
John Reaney said: ‘I’m delighted that the Bishop of Hereford has lost this case. It demonstrates to many lesbian and gay Christians working for God within the Church of England that they are entitled to fair and respectful treatment.”
The case was heard over four days in Cardiff in April.
The diocese called a press conference for 9.30 am. More information about that will be published here when received.
Meanwhile, Mr Reaney’s solicitors have published this press release:John Reaney wins case against Church of England:
…His solicitor Alison Downie, partner at Bindman & Partners said:
“My client is pleased that he has won his claim. The Bishop and the Diocese were wrong and unlawfully discriminated against him because he is a gay man in refusing to appoint an excellent candidate to the post of Youth Officer. In this landmark test case the Tribunal found not only that he suffered direct discrimination but that if necessary they would have found indirect discrimination in the Diocese imposing a requirement of celibacy for lay people in employment within the Church. It is highly regrettable that the Bishop acted as he did and that my client lost a year of his life in bringing this claim to right the wrong done to him”.
And Stonewall Cymru has published this one: Stonewall Cymru celebrates tribunal victory against Bishop of Hereford:
…Matthew Batten, Stonewall Cymru’s Policy Officer, said: ‘This outcome is a triumph for 21st century decency over 19th century prejudice. We’re very happy for John. The tribunal has rightly made clear that the Church of England cannot discriminate against gay people with impunity. No one, not even a Bishop, is exempt from the law.’
And the BBC reports the decision as Bishop loses gay employment case:
…The Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Rev Anthony Priddis, said he was “naturally disappointed” and may appeal…
…speaking to a news conference in Hereford on Wednesday, the Bishop said: “I still think the decision I made was the right one.”
“I regret the polarisation of view which takes place when these things happen,” he said, adding he had made the decision after a “great deal of prayer and contemplation”.
Press Association report: Gay man wins Church tribunal claim
For the diocesan press release go here.
55 CommentsI previously drew attention to a page from the UK Department of Communities and Local Government, with links to guidance booklets.
There are now two further pages from the same department:
5 CommentsThe Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) website carries this: Press briefing by Archbishop Peter Akinola on Sunday 13th May at the end of the Abuja Diocesan Synod.
In addition to various comments on Nigerian matters, he also gives his views on legislative developments in the USA and on the Hereford tribunal case in the UK:
Many people look to the USA as a Christian country and its leaders often assume the role of moral leaders for the world who are ready to point the finger at problems around the globe and yet we must not forget that there is another side to their story. The present generation of Americans would do well to remember their own history. While they and their forebears claim their nation to be a gift from God it is in truth a land forcefully taken with no respect for the human rights of the despised and dispossessed Indians – it is also a land where a great deal of its early economic foundation was built on the sweat and blood of de-humanized African slaves.
Americans seem to have forgotten the same LORD in whom they say “In God we trust”. Deuteronomy 7 and 8 are relevant biblical passages
“And you shall remember the LORD your God, for it is He who gives you power to get wealth” 8:18a“Then it shall be, if you by any means forget the LORD your God, and follow other gods, and serve them and worship them, I testify against you this day that you shall surely perish.” 8: 19
The God who has blessed so abundantly is also a jealous God who requires obedience and holy living. But instead of calling for obedience to the Word of God we now have the situation where those who call for faithfulness in holy matrimony or abstinence outside of it risk being accused of hate speech. The breakdown in marriages in the USA is a scandal. It is causing a massive crisis in their own society and the rest of the world. But instead of admitting the problem and finding creative ways to strengthen traditional families we see a relentless promotion and protection of so called ‘alternative lifestyles.’ Recent legislative bill H.R. 1592 (Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007) passed in the House on May 3rd 2007, and the H.R 2015 (Employment Non-Discrimination Act.) being discussed are worthy of note. God will not be mocked.
We see a similar crisis in the UK. The decline in marriages and the breakdown in families has become an epidemic. But instead of encouraging holy living and strengthening family life we read of a bishop of the Church of England called before tribunal to explain his refusal to hire a certain youth worker. His offence was ‘discrimination’, we were told because the job seeker in this case was a self-confessed homosexual and who said he had just ended a five-year homosexual relationship. Surely the Church has an obligation to promote holy living not apologise for it!
- Where is the Christian voice in all these?
- Why are Church leaders not concerned about this breakdown in society?
- Why are they ashamed of promoting holy living?
- Why have they lost their confidence in the Word of God?
We are very much aware of the challenges that face us today in Nigeria. Many of these we addressed in our Synod and continue to do so day by day. Our hope is in the Lord – the maker of heaven and earth – and in His Holy Word.
We call on Christians worldwide to rise to the challenge of protecting our Christian: –
- Freedom to read the Bible privately and in public
- Freedom to preach from the Bible, and declare uncompromisingly the total oracles of the Lord
- Freedom to shield ourselves, and our children, from what we believe our God says is immoral and abominable.
- Freedom to seek to help those willing to escape Satan’s deceitful traps.
- Freedom to live holy and acceptable lives in the sight of God
The issue here is not about homophobia. We are concerned about defending the right to existence of Biblical Christianity. It is about allowing the Spirit of God to transform people rather than deceive them that there is nothing wrong in their unholy practices. It is about rejecting a world system that wants to curtail our freedom to live as our Saviour taught us to. It is simply trying our best to live and encourage others to live to be HOLY as our GOD IS HOLY.
May the Lord keep us Holy.
hat tip Jim Naughton who comments here.
57 CommentsThe UK Department of Communities and Local Government has published guidance documents relating to the two sets of Equality Act regulations that came into force on Monday 30 April.
Guidance on New Measures to Outlaw Discrimination on Grounds of Religion or Belief
This document gives guidance on Part 2 of the Equality Act 2006, which comes into effect on 30 April 2007. Part 2 prohibits discrimination against a person because of their religion or belief (including lack of religion or belief) when providing goods, facilities, services, public functions, or education, and in management and disposal of premises. The guidance sets out the effect of the law and the exceptions provided. The most significant exceptions allow charities and other organisations whose purpose is related to religion or belief to serve particular communities. There are also exceptions in public functions, including education.
The booklet can be downloaded as a PDF file here.
This document provides guidance on the practical effects of Part 3 of the Equality Act 2006, which comes into force on 30th April, 2007. Part 3 outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education, the disposal and management of premises and in the exercise of public functions. The guidance sets out the effect of the law and the exemptions provided.
The booklet can be downloaded as a PDF file here.
4 CommentsReligious beliefs give no right to discriminate against gays is the title of an article in The Times today, written by David Pannick QC. This article is concerned with the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. (PDF of print version here.)
Mr Pannick is a barrister at Blackstone Chambers and a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford. He writes a fortnightly column for The Times Law section.
Part of what he says:
59 Comments…The regulations do not prevent anyone from believing whatever they like for whatever reason they wish. But although freedom of belief is absolute, freedom to manifest belief is strictly limited. This was confirmed by the law lords last year when rejecting the claim of the schoolgirl who wanted to wear a particular form of religious dress in defiance of the school uniform policy.
The right not to be discriminated against on the ground of sexual orientation is a fundamental right, any interference with which requires substantial justification. That the discriminator is acting by reference to his or her religious beliefs cannot of itself provide a justification, any more than if the provider of the services (perhaps Boers who emigrated from South Africa after the National Party lost power) have a religious objection to dealing with people of a different race.
No doubt the State should interfere with the manifestation of the religious beliefs of others only where that is justified. But the religious objector is entitled to no special protection in this respect. If I run an adoption agency and believe that it is wrong for children to be adopted by homosexuals, the fact that my views are based on logic, careful study of reports, and an expertise in child psychology cannot make my beliefs less entitled to respect than if they are based on a belief that God told Moses or Muhammad the right answer…
Dave Walker has drawn attention to this Church Times advertisement in his blog article, Top job in the Anglican Communion up for grabs.
It appears that this is not a job for which any Genuine Occupational Requirement applies, either for Religion or Belief or for Sexual Orientation.
See also Diversity is the Key (H/T Hugh).
4 CommentsUpdated 27 April
The employment tribunal hearing of the discrimination case against the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance concluded on Monday in a long hearing that went from 10.20 am to 6.30 pm.
Judgement was reserved and will not be published for several weeks.
The day’s events attracted some press coverage:
Western Mail Church in a ‘shambles’ over homosexuality, says Synod member and an earlier version Church stand on homosexuality ‘a shambles’ with longer quotes.
BBC Judgement reserved at tribunal and Church’s gay policy ‘shambles’.
Norwich Evening News City diocese joins gay tribunal row and Norfolk Eastern Daily Press Anglican attitude to gays attacked.
Coventry Telegraph Bishop facing ‘gay bias’ claim.
My own report is due to appear in the Church Times on Friday. Last week’s report by Bill Bowder is here: Bishop: No extra-marital sex for leaders.
Press releases:
For the Claimant: John Reaney’s claim against the Diocese of Hereford closed today
For the Respondent: STATEMENT FROM THE DIOCESE OF HEREFORD…
Update The Church Times carried this report of mine on 20 April, Reaney judgment awaited. A copy of this article is reproduced below.
104 Comments