Hereford case: Thursday report
Today, Thursday, John Reaney gave evidence to the tribunal, see this report from the Press Association Bishop ‘embarrassed’ gay job applicant:
…At the meeting on July 19, Bishop Priddis wanted to ask Mr Reaney, who currently works for the Weston Spirit charity, the reasons why he had left his youth worker post in the Diocese of Chester in 2002 after 16 months.
Mr Reaney told the tribunal today he resigned after being asked to choose between his partner and his job.
Around four months prior to the meeting with Bishop Priddis, Mr Reaney said this five-year relationship had come to an end.
During a two-hour meeting at The Palace in Hereford, which was also attended by John Chapman, the chairman of the Hereford Diocesan Board of Education, Mr Reaney claims the Bishop first asked him about his relationship history.
“I said I was not in a sexual relationship and was not looking for one and that I was able to exercise self control,” said Mr Reaney.
“The Bishop put it to me that this situation could change. I made it very clear to the Bishop that I was not seeking a relationship and would adhere to his wishes if I were under his authority.
“I would communicate with him if I was struggling. He asked me ’what would you do if you met someone?’
“I told that if I felt a relationship might develop in the future, I would discuss it with him.
“However, I reiterated to him that I was not in a sexual relationship and I did intend to remain that way and I explicitly told him that I was certainly happy to remain celibate for the duration of the post.”
He added: “When the Bishop asked me if I thought it was appropriate for a Youth Officer to have such a homosexual relationship, I turned to the Bishop and said ’before we go any further what is your stance?’
“His words to me were ’whilst many of our colleagues are becoming more liberal on the issue, I find myself becoming more conservative.’
“At this point my heart sank. That was the turning point in the conversation for me.”
Mr Reaney said he was left “very embarrassed and extremely upset” following the meeting…
BBC Bishop ‘upset’ gay lay applicant
56 CommentsHereford case: diocese issues statement
Updated Thursday morning
Statement from the Diocese of Hereford April 03rd 2007
“The Bishop of Hereford denies any unlawful discrimination and has acted in accordance with Church teaching in applying a standard of sexual practice that applied equally to heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual and transsexual people and not on the orientation of any particular group. We expect the same sexual standards of behaviour from support ministers, or lay ministers, as we do of clergy. We will not comment further whilst the Employment Tribunal proceedings are continuing.”
Anni Holden, Director of Communications
The Diocesan Office, The Palace, Hereford HR4 9BL
Tel: 01432 373342 mobile 07889 186316
a.holden@hereford.anglican.org
www.hereford.anglican.org
Updates
Wednesday morning press reports:
Press Association Bishop accused of discrimination
Wednesday afternoon press reports:
Press Association Bishop denies discrimination
Hereford Times Bishop gives evidence
BBC Bishop faces gay claim tribunal
PA reports:
Bishop Priddis said at a staff meeting on July 19 last year, following the interview process for the youth worker position, he learnt that Mr Reaney had indicated on his application form that he was gay.
He said he subsequently decided to call Mr Reaney in for a discussion during which it emerged that he had not long come out of a five-year homosexual relationship.
The Bishop said he concluded that Mr Reaney was not emotionally in a position to be making promises about his behaviour for the future. “Such sexuality in itself was not an issue but Mr Reaney’s lifestyle had the potential to impact on the spiritual, moral and ethical leadership within the diocese.,” said Bishop Priddis.
He said he made it quite clear to Mr Reaney that a person in a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would also be turned down for the job, which he said was a key appointment within the diocese.
The Bishop said this view on sex outside of marriage was reinforced by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the General Synod, the national assembly of the Church of England, and the Lambeth Conference, which is a meeting of the archbishops and bishops of the Anglican Communion every ten years.
The tribunal heard the job was not offered to anyone else after Bishop Priddis vetoed the appointment.
After highlighting the limited finances of his diocese, Bishop Priddis said: “Even had Mr Reaney been appointed last summer, there would have been the possibility of him being made redundant and that could have happened sooner rather than later.”
Under cross-examination from Mr Reaney’s barrister, Sandhya Drew, Bishop Priddis denied he had breached the equal opportunity policy of his own diocese.
He said: “The Church’s teachings draws distinction between sexual orientation and practice and lifestyle.
“We didn’t discriminate against Mr Reaney on the grounds of sexuality. Had we done so we wouldn’t have called him for an interview.”
Wednesday evening:
BBC Bishop denies gay discrimination
Daily Mail/Evening Standard Why I barred gay worker, by the bishop:
… Mr Reaney said he had recently ended a five-year homosexual relationship and gave an undertaking that he would not have another.
But, said the bishop, giving evidence: “I had my misgivings. If he had remained celibate it would have satisfied this issue. The question was, did I have good reason for believing that was his position, and my conclusion was: no.”
Thursday morning
Church Times Bill Bowder (written before the hearing yesterday) Tribunal case after bishop blocks job for youth worker
…Mr Reaney was an experienced youth worker when he applied for the post. The Norwich diocese had employed him as a youth officer for four years. He left to go to the diocese of Chester in 2001 with good references, a diocesan spokeswoman said.
A Chester diocesan spokesman said that Mr Reaney had spent a year as a youth officer in the diocese and that his work had been “successful”. Asked whether Mr Reaney’s sexuality had been discussed in any public fora, the spokesman said: “That was not an issue with us.” It was an issue arising in another diocese, he said.
Peter Ball, the Church of England’s national youth officer, who wrote a reference for Mr Reaney for the Hereford post, said on Monday that he had written it “on the basis of his capability to do the job. He is a good person to do the job.” Mr Ball would make no further comment, as he was directly involved in the tribunal proceedings, which he was due to attend on Wednesday.
On Tuesday, Sue Johns, a General Synod representative for the Norwich diocese, said that she was also attending as a witness for Mr Reaney. “I had experience of his ministry in Norwich diocese, which was quite amazing,” she said.
“He was immensely gifted with young people and he brought many young people to faith. He engaged them, enlivened them, and energised them. He set up a diocesan youth synod in the 1990s. He left because he came from the north of England, and he saw a job in Chester diocese, which was closer to home.”
The Times David Sanderson Gay man’s lifestyle made him unfit for post, insists bishop
35 CommentsEnglish bishop to appear at tribunal
Updated Monday
The Bishop of Hereford, Anthony Priddis is to appear before an employment tribunal in Cardiff on Wednesday, in a case involving the Employment Equality Regulations (Sexual Orientation) 2003.
Reports today in both the Observer Bishop blocks gay youth worker’s job by Anushka Asthana and in the Sunday Telegraph Gay youth worker accuses bishop of discrimination after failing to get job by Jonathan Wynne-Jones.
Update
The BBC is now also carrying this story: Gay man takes bishop to tribunal.
Update Monday
The Mail on Sunday had Bishop accused of blocking gay man’s job will face a tribunal by Tom Kelly.
Western Daily Press BISHOP BANNED JOB APPLICANT WHO WAS GAY.
44 CommentsSORs: follow-up and analysis
Ekklesia has Victory goes to equality in House of Lords vote.
The BBC has Blair proud of gay rights record.
The Daily Mail has How agencies could beat gay adoption laws and also Gay adoption laws forced through by the Lords.
…Equalities Minister Meg Munn admitted the nine Catholic adoption societies in England would be released from the demands of the Sexual Orientation Regulations if they forego cash from state-run social services and instead rely entirely on collections from supporters.
The announcement caused speculation that the Catholic Church could launch an appeal to England’s one million Catholic churchgoers to make up the £10million agencies get from local councils.
Miss Munn revealed the breakaway option in a Parliamentary written answer.
She explained how regulation 14 of the gay rights laws allows religious organisations exemption from the discrimination rules, as long as they are not run on commercial lines.
They can discriminate if it is necessary to comply with doctrine or the beliefs of members…
The Parliamentary written answer to which reference is made above can be found here.
The Evangelical Alliance issued this press release: Christians should continue to deliver public services until the law stops them.
Craig Nelson has an excellent detailed and critical analysis of the bishops’ contributions to the House of Lords debate at More on the House of Lords debate – the bishops’ speeches. It’s worth reading in full, but predictably he selects this quote from the Bishop of Winchester as winning the prize:
“I greatly regret the fact that the Government chose not to do so, but, rather, chose to legislate to coerce the churches and others to accept as the norm for this society—the regulations ask us to accept this and to collude in the Government’s promotion—alternative patterns of living and of family life that many people conscientiously believe are less than the best, less than the most healthy, and less than God’s will for humankind.”
Keith Porteous of the National Secular Society has much harsher things to say about the bishops:
13 Comments“As it turned out, only three of the bishops turned up. They probably realised that a show of brute power would seriously jeopardise the survival of the Bishops Bench in House of Lords reform. But they clearly tried to field their top brass. This included the Archbishop of York, who even apologised for the absence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and two senior bishops. All voted against the Regulations…
…“Their remarks were torn to shreds by several speakers in a way that would have been unthinkable just a year ago. The most effective attacks came from three non-aligned Christians, two peers who happen to be gay and a baroness who was chief executive of Childline. To murmurs of approval they lectured the prelates on love and discrimination. It was unforgettable.
“Lord (Chris) Smith spoke of the humiliation of a gay couple being turned away from a bed and breakfast, and the reality of gay and lesbian people being removed from GP lists because of their sexuality. In one of the most powerful speeches of the evening, Lord Waheed Alli spoke of his father, a Muslim. The Koran openly says that Jews should be killed, he told peers. As a Muslim, if he truly believed that, then there should not be a law against it, according to the arguments of the bishops. ‘The sight of children holding up homophobic placards outside the Lords seems a good argument for these regulations,’ he told peers. Baroness Howarth of Breckland concluded ‘Gay people deserve that as much as any of us, just as Wilberforce said that every black person deserved equal treatment.’
SORs: from the Church Times
Last week, I wrote an article for the Comment pages of the Church Times, which is now available on the public part of the website: How far churches may discriminate. Most of this article is an attempt to explain how generous the religious exemption is to churches. I also wrote:
…the initial Church of England response was only lukewarm: “The Government has gone some way to recognising the particular needs of churches and other religious organisations to act in accordance with their own convictions.” In contrast, the Christian charity Faithworks welcomed them: “The proposed SORs are an opportunity for Christians to demonstrate the love and grace of Christ.”
Sandhya Drew, a barrister who specialises in discrimination cases, commented: “People of faith who respect the principles of universal human dignity have nothing to fear from these regulations.”
This week, Bill Bowder reports fully on the latest events in Christians fight on gay Regulations.
25 CommentsSORs: what the bishops did etc.
There were three bishops present and voting last night, and one retired English bishop.
Lord Harries voted against the amendment.
The Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Winchester, and the Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham each spoke for, and voted for the amendment.
Lord Eames also voted for the amendment.
You can read their speeches here (in chronological order, scroll down as necessary):
Ekklesia has commented on this aspect of the debate: Bishops reject calls to vote on Sexual Orientation Regulations and also Bishop’s vote over Sexual Orientation Regulations.
The Press Association issued Kelly welcomes gay equality law
Zefrog has Sexual Orientation Regulations – Lords Vote and What the Christian Right Doesn’t Want You to See Anymore.
The Public Whip analyses the Lords voting in detail here.
10 CommentsSORs: Lords vote
Updated Thursday morning
The amendment seeking to prevent the Regulations coming into effect was defeated by 168 to 122.
Text of amendment here.
The original government motion to approve them was then passed on a voice vote: I heard no dissent while watching the last part of the debate over the internet. I saw only three bishops present: York, Winchester and Southwell & Nottingham. (The 42 objectors must be disappointed.)
Craig Nelson was also watching and made some notes here.
You can watch the debate by going here and going forward about 4 hours 30 minutes. The Hansard report on this debate starts here. Direct links to the bishops speeches in a later TA article.
Meanwhile, Zefrog has Anti-Sexual Orientation Regulations Vigil Outside Parliament – Report. It seems the demonstration was quite small.
Ekklesia has a report too: Christians demonstrate against anti-discrimination measures. (Note: this appears to relate to an earlier demonstration, see Zefrog comment below.)
The BBC has Lords support gay equality laws.
The Archbishop of York has published his speech. Anglican Mainstream has it here.
Thursday morning
BBC Gay laws ‘a major step forward’ (Note: story originally contained untrue statement about the General Synod, now corrected.)
The Times carries a comment article by Roy Hattersley criticising Lord Carey’s reported earlier remarks about disestablishment but also mentioning the SORs (which Carey had not done): Be off with you, Lord C.
Ekklesia has Victory goes to equality in House of Lords vote.
SORs: Lords will vote today
Updated noontime
The House of Lords debate and vote this evening will be accompanied by a demonstration outside.
First the official Order Paper:
Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007
Baroness Andrews to move that the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 March be approved. 12th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee and 14th Report from the Merits Committee (Dinner break business)Baroness O’Cathain to move, as an amendment to the above motion, to leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House, having regard to the widespread concerns that the draft Regulations compromise religious liberty and will result in litigation over the content of classroom teaching, and having regard to the legality of the equivalent regulations for Northern Ireland, declines to approve the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.”
Now the demonstration:
Anglican Mainstream Christians Called to Join Prayer Vigil Against Gay Rights Law
Today’s press coverage:
The Times Greg Hurst and Ruth Gledhill Peer seeks to block gay rights rules and more letters to the editor at Clash over sexual orientation.
From the Telegraph blogs, Jonathan Isaby asks Were senior Tory rebels nobbled?
Malcolm Duncan of Faithworks writes on his blog, The SORs: make up your own mind!
What the PM’s Official Spokesperson said about the alleged lack of debate from Downing Street Says
zefrog has Fundamentalist Vigil Outside Parliament on Wednesday
Craig Nelson has The Christian Right plans another torch-lit “rally”
Update
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor was on the BBC radio programme Today (listen here), see BBC report Gay adoption vote due for Lords and Zefrog has Murphy-O’Connor on Today. Also, see Could someone in the press actually read the Equality Act (2006)? on rhetorically speaking..
Kerron Cross has Sexual Orientation Regulations – Mass Lobby or Mass Hysteria?
The Evangelical Alliance has a press release: Christians should join in prayer as the House of Lords makes a decision on the Sexual Orientation Regulations
6 CommentsSORs: Commons vote
Updated Tuesday afternoon
From Hansard:
Sexual Orientation Discrimination
That the draft Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.—[Kevin Brennan.]
The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 100.
Division lists here. The debate record of points of order prior to the vote starts here (scroll to end).
Update Analysis of the voting by The Public Whip
BBC Gay adoption rules ‘rail-roaded’
Telegraph Last ditch attempt to block gay rights bill
Statement on SOR vote from Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor
Tuesday morning
Letters to The Times include one from the Prolocutors of the Convocations of Canterbury and York.
See Bishops’ opposition to laws on gay rights
Telegraph MPs back gay rights Bill despite protests
Daily Mail You’re abusing Parliament over gay vote, Catholic leader tells Blair
Update Tuesday afternoon
Ekklesia Christian groups told not to ‘play on people’s fears’ over Sexual Orientation Regulations and also Anglicans pin hopes on unelected bishops to block anti-discrimination measures
Faithworks press release Faithworks urges Christians to read the Sexual Orientation Regulations and draw their own conclusions and also A brief guide to the Sexual Orientation Regulations (PDF)
18 CommentsSORs: forty objectors found
Updated midday
There are in fact 42 signatures, see below
According to Ruth Gledhill in The Times today
Bishops of the Church of England are being urged by their flock to turn out en masse on Wednesday for the Lords debate on equal rights for gay couples wishing to adopt.
In an open letter sent to all the diocesan bishops of the Church, more than one fifth of the lay members of the General Synod urge the 26 bishops in the Lords to help to overturn the Sexual Orientation Regulations at its final vote.
As we discover later on, this means
In their letter, more than 40 members of the General Synod…
Read the whole news article at Vote to stop gay-rights law, bishops told.
The earlier article about Lord Carey and his views on House of Lords Reform, mentioned in the newspaper report can be found at Ruth Gledhill’s blog, under ‘Disestablish Church’ says Carey.
Meanwhile, the House of Commons vote on the SORs is listed in today’s order of business as the last item prior to the adjournment debate:
† 10 SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION [No debate]
Secretary Ruth Kelly
That the draft Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, which were laid before this House on 12th March, be approved.
To be decided without debate (Standing Order No. 118(6)).
There is also an earlier motion that Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to several divisions today, including this one.
Update
Anglican Mainstream has now published a press release from LCF which includes the names of the signatories to this letter:
The letter was signed by the following lay members of General Synod (in alphabetical order): Anthony Archer (St Albans), Edward Armitstead (Bath and Wells), Lorna Ashworth (Chichester), Barry Barnes (Southwark), Anneliese Barrell (Exeter), Tom Benyon (Oxford), David Blackmore (Chester), Paul Boyd-Lee (Salisbury), Peter Bruinvels (Guildford), Michael Burbeck (Salisbury), Gerald Burrows (Blackburn), Graham Campbell (Chester), Jim Cheeseman (Rochester), Nigel Chetwood (Gloucester), Prudence Dailey (Oxford), Ian Dobbie (Rochester), Paul Eddy (Winchester), Sarah Finch (London), Philip Giddings (Oxford), John Hanks (Oxford), Glynn Harrison (Bristol), Mary Judkins (Wakefield), Frank Knaggs (Newcastle), Philip Lovegrove (St Albans), Keith Malcouronne (Guildford), Peter May (Winchester), David Mills (Carlisle), Steve Mitchell (Derby), Joanna Monckton (Lichfield), Gill Morrison (Peterborough), Terry Musson (Truro), Mary Nagel (Chichester), Gerry O’Brien (Rochester), Elizabeth Paver (Sheffield), Alison Ruoff (London), Clive Scowen (London), Ian Smith (York), Penny Stranack (Truro), Michael Streeter (Chichester), Carol Ticehurst (Lincoln), Sister Anne Williams (Durham), Alison Wynne (Blackburn).
Others writing about this are:
Ruth yet again, in SORs back in the news
rhetorically speaking Last throes of bigotry: some minorities are more equal than others.
I am told that what Ruth has posted is the full text of the letter.
6.30 pm update
AM has Commons vote tonight on SORS
SORs: Sunday programme report
The BBC radio programme Sunday had a segment about this. Listen here (about 8 minutes).
The item lasts 7 minutes. It includes an interview with the Bishop of Winchester.
Most of the discussion centred around the content of the school curriculum. Speakers appeared to be confused between two separate documents:
- The draft Sexual Orientation Regulations published by the government for Parliamentary affirmation.
- The recent report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The latter document did make a recommendation concerning the curriculum, but the government appears not yet to have accepted this recommendation, certainly not in terms of the wording of the regulations.
Opponents of the SORs appear to be using the latter document as an excuse to object to the former.
2 CommentsParliamentary reports on SORs etc.
Republished Friday lunchtime; updated again Saturday evening
The House of Lords Select Committee on Merits of Statutory Instruments has reported on the SORs.
Read it in full here.
Update The House of Commons Twelfth Delegated Legislation Committee met yesterday and its debate is recorded in full here. This is a must read!
Update again You can listen to it from here (90 minutes long).
Other items:
Anglican Mainstream has published the following:
Church of England Newspaper 15 March
Stand up for freedom: How new legisation raises serious concerns for the Churches and Parliamentary process.
Chris Sugden
The SORs legislation limits the freedom of religious belief and expression, in particular the freedom of religious people not to be forced to be an accessory to behaviour that they regard as destructive of human flourishing and contrary to the will of God for human beings.
AM has also linked to this report by another MP, John Redwood: How little democracy we have in the Commons-the Sexual orientation regulations.
Craig Nelson has commented on this in Anglican Mainstream goes into hyperdrive.
Update Peter Ould has What we should – and shouldn’t – be arguing about on SORS.
And, AM has PRAYER VIGIL OUTSIDE HOUSE OF LORDS OVER SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS – WEDNESDAY 21 MARCH 2007
Updates Friday evening
Other AM links to LCF anti-SORs material
Summary of latest news on SORS and call for action and prayer
Frequently asked Questions about SORS
Updates Saturday evening
Zefrog has three posts on recent parliamentary events: Sexual Orientation Regulations Approved by MPs, The Tory Position on the Sexual Orientation Regulations, and Sexual Orientation Regulations – What Next?
Equality Act: more on the GB SORs
Updated again Thursday afternoon
As expected, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Birmingham, Vincent Nichols is leading the attack, see 11.03.07 ARCHBISHOP NICHOLS ASKS CATHOLICS TO WRITE TO THEIR MP ABOUT THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION REGULATIONS.
This was reported in The Times by Ruth Gledhill as Prelate fights gay adoption law.
Meanwhile Ekklesia reports that Faithworks stands by sexual orientation regulations
Rupert Ward has some useful comments on his blog in Christian Spin.
Today, Wednesday, Anglican Mainstream expressed these opinions.
Craig Nelson has factual information about some claims made concerning changes, and other comments in Government updates the regs – Christian groups gird their loins.
His earlier post More on the Sexual Orientation Regulations also has helpful information on the differences between the GB and NI versions of this, and other aspects.
Clive Scowen also has submitted his opinions to the House of Lords.
Christian Concern for our Nation a website of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship has published Government to rush SORs through House of Commons.
The written statement made by Ruth Kelly to the House of Commons on 7 March is available here.
Wednesday in the House of Commons, Peter Bone, an MP, raised this Point of Order.
A chap in Thanet named Simon Moores has this report of events in the House of Commons on Thursday.
30 Commentsreactions so far to GB SORs
Updated
The Telegraph reported their publication, Labour faces fresh battle over gay rights
The Daily Mail had Law to put gay rights ahead of religion
According to both these reports, the Church of England spokesperson said:
“As Ruth Kelly’s statement acknowledges, these regulations raise ‘complex issues about how to reconcile competing rights and freedoms’. The Government has gone some way to recognising the particular needs of churches and other religious organisations to act in accordance with their own convictions.
“We shall, however, want to study the regulations closely before commenting in more detail. It is a matter of regret that the decision to create new law in this way without going through the normal procedure for Parliamentary Bills means that the regulations will not have the full scrutiny that sensitive matters of this kind require.”
Faithworks welcomed them in this press release: Faithworks welcomes the publication of draft Sexual Orientation Regulations. An extract:
Faithworks welcomes the publication of the draft Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) as an attempt to ensure that goods and services are delivered inclusively and in non-discriminatory ways.
We stand by the statements we have previously made on the SORs (www.faithworks.info) and are confident that they do not pose a threat to Christians.
It is right that any organisation receiving public funds should deliver services to genuine public benefit. A commitment to diversity does not mean losing one’s distinctive faith identity: it actually presents an opportunity to develop a dialogue and demonstrate Christian love and service.
There is still a great deal of misinterpretation of the SORs, which is leading to fear and opposition. However, the draft legislation includes clear exemptions for faith-based organisations relating to doctrine, and government ministers have also publicly answered questions of concern over the scope of the proposed SORs.
We acknowledge the different contributions and views of the whole Christian church to the issue of human sexuality. The Faithworks membership is drawn from across the spectrum of the church. Our approach to the SORs and to Equality & Diversity legislation allows for Christian views of sexuality whilst encouraging unconditional love and service. This is the Jesus model: defending a person’s human rights does not involve endorsing their lifestyle choices.
Lawyers Christian Fellowship (LCF), the Evangelical Alliance, Care and the Christian Institute did not do so, New gay rules attacked from Religious Intelligence/CEN
The Evangelical Alliance issued Response to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007
The Christian Institute said New ‘gay rights’ regulations put religious freedom in jeopardy and also a briefing note in a very smart PDF format.
CARE’s response is in a Word document here.
The Lawyers Christian Fellowship has a press release titled GOVERNMENT PUBLISH LANDMARK INTOLERANT LEGISLATION SETTING GROUND FOR CLASH OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Giles Fraser writing for Ekklesia commented on these attitudes: Giving fundamentalism a secular boost
The National Secular Society has Government Stands Up For Equality, Forcing Religious to Back Down
84 CommentsEquality Act: more documentation
Updated Wednesday 14 March
See here for links to the text of The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.
The government has also published:
- Getting Equal: Government response to consultation (PDF file, 166K). This is essential reading for anybody who wishes to understand the government’s thinking.
- The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 – Final Regulatory Impact Assessment (PDF file 148K).
For the original consultation document see here.
5 CommentsEquality Act: GB Sexual Orientation Regulations
The UK government today published the draft text of The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.
The government press release is here: New protections for lesbian, gay and bi-sexual people come into force in April. Part of the press release says:
The regulations and consultation response published today reconfirms the Government’s position set out on 29 January on faith based adoption and fostering agencies. As the Prime Minister said, the Government believes there is no place in society for discrimination but that in the interests of vulnerable children, the regulations will provide for a transition period for faith based adoption and fostering agencies until the end of 2008.
The Regulations will be applicable to a wide range of activities. For instance it would be unlawful to:
- Refuse a same sex couple a double room in a hotel because this might cause offence to other customers;
- Refuse to provide a gift registration service for couples planning a civil partnership where such a service was offered to couples planning a wedding;
- Refuse admission to a bar because someone was not gay;
- Refuse a child’s admission to a school on the grounds of either their or their parents’ sexual orientation;
- Refuse membership of a sports club to an individual on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
The Regulations will now go before both Houses for debate and, subject to Parliamentary approval, come into force on 30 April 2007 the same time as Part 2 of the Equality Act.
Part 2 provides parallel protection against discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of people’s religion or belief.
The wording of Regulation 14 which provides the principal exemptions relating to religious organisations is reproduced in full below the fold. I will provide a further analysis of the religious exemption aspects of this draft soon. The text of the regulation is © Crown Copyright 2007.
39 Commentsequality law: two developments
First, Andrew McClintock lost his Employment Tribunal case.
Sheffield Star Gay adoption row magistrate ‘was wrong’
BBC Magistrate in gay adoption defeat
Second, the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the UK Parliament published a report: Legislative Scrutiny: Sexual Orientation Regulations which is available on the web starting here. A PDF version of the document is here.
From the committee’s press release:
Regulations under Part 3 of the Equality Act prohibiting discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation are expected to be made soon for Great Britain. In light of the consultation held last year by the Government on these regulations, and the equivalent Northern Ireland Regulations which have already come into effect, the Committee in this “post-legislative scrutiny” Report sets out the human rights issues likely to arise in relation to the Great Britain regulations.
The report’s own Summary is here.
The Lawyers Christian Fellowship is upset over both these developments. Anglican Mainstream has their material, here, and here.
The Evangelical Alliance is also upset about Mr McClintock.
40 CommentsSORs: more from Faithworks
Ekklesia reports in Evangelical leader welcomes UK equalities legislation that:
A prominent evangelical Christian, the Rev Malcolm Duncan, who heads up the Faithworks movement – which is involved in public service provision – has welcomed the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) that some Catholic and Anglican leaders have described as compromising their consciences.
In a statement on the Faithworks site and in an extended article, Mr Duncan declared: “Much of the mainstream media has portrayed this as a defeat for the Church. We strongly believe this is not the case.”
The extended article can be found here: Wrong debate, wrong language by Malcolm Duncan.
28 CommentsChurch Times and the SORs
The Church Times not only reported on this week’s events, in Christians protest, but gay regulations continue in force by Pat Ashworth, but also had a leader which makes its editorial position very clear indeed: Misguided and misinformed:
69 Comments…But there is no threat. The broad support for the Equality Act from the Church of England and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, to name just two, has been drowned out by a small group of conservative Christians who seem to believe that, regardless of what the Government says, or the wording of the Act, only they stand in the way of a homosexual free-for–all. “This is a Christian country. If we don’t speak out now, in a few years’ time, it will be too late,” said one protester on Tuesday. No, it won’t. The legislation has been drafted to prevent discrimination against people on account of their sexual orientation; there is nothing about condoning sexual behaviour, a distinction made by the House of Bishops in 1991. The Government must simply take the protesters at their first word — every speech is prefaced by an assurance that the speaker is not against gay people as such — and ignore any misinformed opinions that follow. The mainstream Churches, having quibbled over some of the wording in the legislation, now need to make it clear that they do not share the views of the protesters, and that the majority of Christians will have no truck with discrimination on grounds of this kind.
more about Getting Equal
In June, I linked here to the article for the Church Times that I wrote about the latest DTI consultation Getting Equal on outlawing discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation throughout the UK in the provision of goods and services.
Since then, the Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Wales also published their response to the DTI consultation. You can read it here (PDF ) and also the covering letter (another PDF). It is far more restrained in its language than the response from Anglican Mainstream or the even more extreme response of the Lawyers Christian Fellowship.
One specific RC concern is to do with child adoption services. This week, The Tablet has an interesting article which discusses how this issue has been handled by Roman Catholics in the USA: Dilemma of gay adoption by Terry Philpot. (Access to this PDF article is free, but requires registration.)
There is a related news report (only available on the web by subscription) concerning opposition to the anticipated regulations from the Scottish RC bishops on this score. But there is no mention there of the English RC objections which are contained in the document linked above. A Scottish RC press release is here.
The DTI response to the consultation is expected 12 weeks after the closure date of 5 June. That could be next week. This response will then be followed by the publication of draft regulations for parliamentary approval in October.
1 Comment