It seems to me that this piece does Simon Sarmiento and his Anglican publishers little credit. Take, for example, the statement by the minister that ‘both sides will want to be lining up’. What is this if not a warning that the bill will bring many legal challenges to the churches? Secondly, we can be sceptical about his claim that an atheist or non-Christian cannot bring a case against a Christian employer (such a case being brought on the grounds that the worker feels offended by Christian symbols or practices in the work-place). What this overlooks is that the worker will almost certainly get legal aid; by contrast the church employer will have to fight its own battle and pay its own legal costs, which could be overwhelming. This kind of legislation is almost certainly guaranteed to produce what it allegedly aims to prevent, ie bad feeling between adherents of different religions. It is a shameful, shoddy and spiteful piece of legislation, brought by a Labour government that at Christmas Abp Rowan Williams said was often motivated by anti-Christian prejudice.
I could decline to hire anyone based on any prejudice I have, whether it be hair color, dress sense, or the size of his or her nose. If it’s against the law to do so I could just as easily find reasons which would be legally permissible.
And they could just as easily take you to court. Japanese companies with offices in London, for example, have paid out colossal sums to women bringing gender discrimination suits. Sometimes these firms have pleaded that the women were dismissed, or given differential pay rises, for perfectly good reasons eg poor sales performance, but they still lost their case and had to pay compensation. And remember: if the plaintiffs lose it might cost them nothing. If you the employer win it might still cost you big sums in legal fees which you cannot recoup from the plaintiff. I cite these cases not out of any anti-female bias, but simply to indicate that # 2’s rather flip response above does not meet the gravity of the situation facing religious organizations under the law being proposed.
#2: yeah, but under this bill, if it could be demonstrated that you had a pattern of denying employment to gays, and it could also be demonstrated that your reasons for such denial were a cover for denying them because they’re gay, you could be found in violation of the law. Even if it’s a candidate for the priesthood. At least that’s the way I understand it be.
Technically it would not apply to candidates for ordination or clergy for that matter. The proposed law exempts those who spend 50% or more of their time leading worship and/or teaching doctrine. Of course, this raises problems for clergy who (for example) hold administrative posts. Their jobs are not exempt. Think about the work of an archdeacon in England, for example, which might well be mostly desk-bound. The legal ramifications are endless.
Here is an actual example from England under existing law brought not long ago. A young woman applied for a job in a hairdressing salon in London. She wore a hijab which covered her hair. The owner/manager of the salon explained that it was necessary for her staff to show that their own hair was styled in a currently fashionable mode, and she could only employ the Muslim applicant if her hair was visible. The applicant sued on the grounds of discrimination. The owner/manager said that if she lost, the compensation would lead to the closure of the salon, as it would bankrupt her. After a nerve-wracking court case, the owner/manager won – but still faced a big legal bill for her own fees.
Anti-discrimination is the new way to end religious freedom. The only purpose of this sort of legislation is to intimidate and coerce behavior changes and association. Example, the Boy Scouts.
I would suggest that Br Michael, #8, has quite succinctly hit the nail on the head. And I never said I wouldn’t hire a LGB or T person on the grounds of mere sexual preference that have been suggested. I was merely pointing out that such as this is what happens all the time, including when teachers, social workers, and even parish clergy are selected. There are a number of examples I could cite in the latter regard, including one curate of whom the then rector said to me, ‘He would do a great job, I’m sure, but I took one look at his clerical shirt and I knew I couldn’t work with him.’ The guy’s shirt was blue, polyester, short sleeved, with a tongue depressor collar. An Evo rector would have probably said the same thing, in reverse. There are numberless nearly unconscious, almost instinctual prejudices which at bottom are unconscious strategies for preserving one’s own status quo. That’s how the orthodox were cleared out many diocesan administrations both in the CofE and TEC. That could very well be seen as illegal, I think, as well.
Other commenters, please remember that this legislation is being done in the U.K. We here in the U.S.A. have different problems. However, it seems that what happens in the U.K. is a bellwether for what will happen in the U.S.A. The powers that be in the U.K. presently appear to be hell bent on destroying Christianity. It seems that any other religion there may do what they want to Christians. But if a Christian stands their moral ground they are struck down by the government. Just remember the malevolent entity that is behind this; its greatest enemy is the Church.
Another great example of how “liberal Christians” are working right alongside the secular humanists to destroy the Church. Keep up the good work, Simon Sarmiento, Giles Fraser, Colin Coward and gang!
#10, 11: you are correct – this modern ‘trahison des clercs’ is advanced in England by liberal Anglicans bitterly hostile to evangelicals (as Fraser and Coward are) and strongly allied to the ‘gay rights’ movement. Unlike Tec, they cannot win the argument within the Church of England, where evangelicals are too strong and run the largest parishes, so they act alongside the UK government, which is very negative toward biblical Christianity, to undermine the church’s own power to rule its own life.
Of course, the UK government would never take on the anti-semitic, anto-homosexual mosques because (1) they need Muslim votes (80% of Muslims vote Labour); (2) they are allergic to being killed.
Oh dear, some of you here do like talking up the Doomsday rhetoric, especially if you can link it to Islamophobia (azusa #12)!
This law is a necessary consequence of dealing fairly with everyone in a society which formerly privileged one, and only one, form of Christianity over holders of every other religion and none. It is also occurring in the context of Europe-wide laws doing the same thing.
Pleas don’t whine about liberal plots behind everything all the time. You need to understand European history a little better: in the whole continent, there was barely a country until very recently that did not discriminate on the basis of one form of religion being privileged over all others, and that time of privilege and discrimination is coming to an end, not least because more and more Europeans are taking advantage of free movement within the EU; thus we find Roman Catholic Europeans moving into Scandinavia for the first time in any numbers, North European Protestants moving into Spain, etc. Of course there needs to be parity of treatment for them all throughout Europe, as also for those of no faith.
I don’t find the cross example convincing. What’s much more likely to happen is a single lgbt person is hired – that lgbt person then becomes partnered – the partnered lgbt person then brings the partner to the place of work and begins engaging in physical demonstrations of affection. Persons in the workplace take the event as an opportunity to begin discussing the ethics of human sexuality. Lgbt person or partner sues for victimization and “targeting,” even though any hetero person would also bring about the same response by, e.g., tongue-kissing someone of the same sex.
It looks to me like Christian organizations all over the UK will need – very quickly – to revise employment policies and teaching policies. E.g., it should be made clear, something perhaps along these lines –
“Anyone working here, should be comfortable with crosses on the wall. Anyone working here should also be comfortable with Christian teachings on sexuality being brought up at any time, especially in cases where certain situations might bring up challenges to an individual’s notions of Christian teaching on sexuality. This includes the presence of a person in church employment who is in a relationship which is contrary to church doctrine, or engaged in activities arousing reasonable suspicions thereof. Persons employed by the organization function socially in a different manner from the persons we serve, and are more likely to be the subject of discussion – this is a simple matter of sociology, and it bears on prinicples of Christian leadership.
It is quite possible that some we serve would perceive a person serving the church who is in a same-sex relationship as the most significantly sinful aspect of our church organization, thus such discussion is likely to be frequent, and perhaps even on the part of the person involved, experienced as “constant” and “harassing” or even “bullying,” even though the person engaging in such behavior may even consider it to be “love.”
Unfortunately, our church can not take on the responsibility to mediate disputes coming from such persons, as they are expressing their convictions regarding sin inside a religious institution – while they frequently do not feel free to do so outside of religious institutions. Should such incidents arise, we expect our employees to react graciously, with a response which in no way contradicts or casts doubt upon our organization’s beliefs regarding sexuality.
I’d be interested in hearing what legal advice Christian organizations are getting these days.
I would not like to see this kind of thing happen, but I am now beginning to think that there may be a hidden blessing here, contrary to my usual habit in discipleship and evangelism.
I take Paul very seriously in distinguishing “milk” from “meat” in teaching, and usually do not like to discuss sexuality at an early stage of discipleship. Frequently it does not come up at all.
This may not be right on my part. It could be that so many organizations are taking this tack, that Christian teaching regarding sexuality is largely being understood. For example, the difference between “orientation” and “action.” Many people still seem to believe that Christians think that “homosexuality” (i.e. the orientation) is a “sin for which people go to hell.”
Possibly this legislation will cause Christian organizations to be more public and forthright regarding their teachings concerning sexuality, to prevent persons from coming into their employment and later experiencing things which they construe to be “unfair targeting.”
jmc, I think that you are missing the point. Such a policy, clearly stated, would itself be tantamount to discrimination. The lawyers would promptly say that this was the equivalent of saying ‘Jews might be uncomfortable here because of vigorous discussions about Israel’ – not only might this condone antisemitism but it would also be accepting of bullying. So, the lawyers might argue, a policy like you suggest inherently discriminates against gay people.
To the extent that Simon Sarmiento is correcting misreporting of the minister’s words, I applaud him for doing so. There is enough heat in the debate without muddying the waters further.
Whatever his motivations are for doing so, he has done us a service in setting the record straight.
For myself, I can’t see any good coming from government legislation in this area. History tells us that such legislation will end up being used in ways that were never envisaged by the law makers. The Human Rights Act is one such which is being used to suppress freedom of expression and freedom of information among other unintended consequences.
We will have a new government by the Summer hopefully, but this one is determined to do as much damage as possible in the interim, having handed what remains of our decision-making over to the European institutions…..without a referendum. Something all our political parties promised to give us – of course they knew we would say no!
I see no indication that he has set any sort of “record” straight.
I see little to no difference between “get ready to be sued” and “Both sides will want to be lining up, no doubt.” The paper is entirely accurate when it warns Christians to “get ready to be sued.” Indeed, reading SS confirms the impression: churches should get ready to be sued by people who believe SS’s gospel.
What I see is SS attempting to *confuse and muddy the waters further* by saying something equivalent to “nothing to see here, just move along, you foolishly paranoid religious conservatives.”
The fact that SS is, of course, hostile and inimical to the gospel of Christians and wishes desperately for it to be defeated, if not by the sinking market for his particular liberal gospel then by legal means , aids my mockery of his efforts in this post.
Hi Sarah
I know he runs a gay-campaigning website, but don’t know anything about his other views. Over here there are quite a few who take a liberal view on gay bishops and marriage and a strangely orthodox view on other matters – perhaps reflective of the Dean of his cathedral in St Albans; quite different from TEC which actively appears to embrace heresy on all issues including the SS one. Of course it does require a curiously schizophrenic mindset to do that and an ability to live with that unresolved and contradictory set of beliefs.
Simon works very hard and is a useful source of up to date news [although it does tend to be selective], and for the effort which he puts in also I am thankful, as I am for his recollection of the Minister’s press conference.
“Fr Mark” chimes in again with his usual misunderstanding and/or distortion of the laws in Europe. What I said about the British Labor Party and and its Nelsonian eye to Islam is simply correct. Muslim = votes in key constituencies. But this won’t help them next year.
The way Rocco Buttiglione was treated by the European Communion, the refusal to mention the foundational role of Christian ity in the European ‘Constitution’ in place of obesiance to ‘European humanism’ – and the business over crucifixes in Italian schools (worthy of the best days of the Warsaw Pact) tells you what is going on. Of course, none of this was ever voted for by the peoples of Europe. The political class acts to perpetuate itself by leapfrogging democracy.
#18: Simon Sarmiento judiciously plays the role of a William the Silent, but his website ‘Thinking Anglicans’ relentlessly pushes the revisionist agenda – even if it’s still the same ten contributors.
#20: as for the Dean of St Alban’s – he utterly detests evangelical and catholic understandings of atonement and has broadcast fiercely so. Orthodoxy gets very tenuous once you give the imagination or (re)interpretative spirit free rein.
It seems to me that this piece does Simon Sarmiento and his Anglican publishers little credit. Take, for example, the statement by the minister that ‘both sides will want to be lining up’. What is this if not a warning that the bill will bring many legal challenges to the churches? Secondly, we can be sceptical about his claim that an atheist or non-Christian cannot bring a case against a Christian employer (such a case being brought on the grounds that the worker feels offended by Christian symbols or practices in the work-place). What this overlooks is that the worker will almost certainly get legal aid; by contrast the church employer will have to fight its own battle and pay its own legal costs, which could be overwhelming. This kind of legislation is almost certainly guaranteed to produce what it allegedly aims to prevent, ie bad feeling between adherents of different religions. It is a shameful, shoddy and spiteful piece of legislation, brought by a Labour government that at Christmas Abp Rowan Williams said was often motivated by anti-Christian prejudice.
I could decline to hire anyone based on any prejudice I have, whether it be hair color, dress sense, or the size of his or her nose. If it’s against the law to do so I could just as easily find reasons which would be legally permissible.
And they could just as easily take you to court. Japanese companies with offices in London, for example, have paid out colossal sums to women bringing gender discrimination suits. Sometimes these firms have pleaded that the women were dismissed, or given differential pay rises, for perfectly good reasons eg poor sales performance, but they still lost their case and had to pay compensation. And remember: if the plaintiffs lose it might cost them nothing. If you the employer win it might still cost you big sums in legal fees which you cannot recoup from the plaintiff. I cite these cases not out of any anti-female bias, but simply to indicate that # 2’s rather flip response above does not meet the gravity of the situation facing religious organizations under the law being proposed.
#2: yeah, but under this bill, if it could be demonstrated that you had a pattern of denying employment to gays, and it could also be demonstrated that your reasons for such denial were a cover for denying them because they’re gay, you could be found in violation of the law. Even if it’s a candidate for the priesthood. At least that’s the way I understand it be.
#3 beat me to it.
Technically it would not apply to candidates for ordination or clergy for that matter. The proposed law exempts those who spend 50% or more of their time leading worship and/or teaching doctrine. Of course, this raises problems for clergy who (for example) hold administrative posts. Their jobs are not exempt. Think about the work of an archdeacon in England, for example, which might well be mostly desk-bound. The legal ramifications are endless.
Here is an actual example from England under existing law brought not long ago. A young woman applied for a job in a hairdressing salon in London. She wore a hijab which covered her hair. The owner/manager of the salon explained that it was necessary for her staff to show that their own hair was styled in a currently fashionable mode, and she could only employ the Muslim applicant if her hair was visible. The applicant sued on the grounds of discrimination. The owner/manager said that if she lost, the compensation would lead to the closure of the salon, as it would bankrupt her. After a nerve-wracking court case, the owner/manager won – but still faced a big legal bill for her own fees.
Anti-discrimination is the new way to end religious freedom. The only purpose of this sort of legislation is to intimidate and coerce behavior changes and association. Example, the Boy Scouts.
I would suggest that Br Michael, #8, has quite succinctly hit the nail on the head. And I never said I wouldn’t hire a LGB or T person on the grounds of mere sexual preference that have been suggested. I was merely pointing out that such as this is what happens all the time, including when teachers, social workers, and even parish clergy are selected. There are a number of examples I could cite in the latter regard, including one curate of whom the then rector said to me, ‘He would do a great job, I’m sure, but I took one look at his clerical shirt and I knew I couldn’t work with him.’ The guy’s shirt was blue, polyester, short sleeved, with a tongue depressor collar. An Evo rector would have probably said the same thing, in reverse. There are numberless nearly unconscious, almost instinctual prejudices which at bottom are unconscious strategies for preserving one’s own status quo. That’s how the orthodox were cleared out many diocesan administrations both in the CofE and TEC. That could very well be seen as illegal, I think, as well.
Other commenters, please remember that this legislation is being done in the U.K. We here in the U.S.A. have different problems. However, it seems that what happens in the U.K. is a bellwether for what will happen in the U.S.A. The powers that be in the U.K. presently appear to be hell bent on destroying Christianity. It seems that any other religion there may do what they want to Christians. But if a Christian stands their moral ground they are struck down by the government. Just remember the malevolent entity that is behind this; its greatest enemy is the Church.
Another great example of how “liberal Christians” are working right alongside the secular humanists to destroy the Church. Keep up the good work, Simon Sarmiento, Giles Fraser, Colin Coward and gang!
#10, 11: you are correct – this modern ‘trahison des clercs’ is advanced in England by liberal Anglicans bitterly hostile to evangelicals (as Fraser and Coward are) and strongly allied to the ‘gay rights’ movement. Unlike Tec, they cannot win the argument within the Church of England, where evangelicals are too strong and run the largest parishes, so they act alongside the UK government, which is very negative toward biblical Christianity, to undermine the church’s own power to rule its own life.
Of course, the UK government would never take on the anti-semitic, anto-homosexual mosques because (1) they need Muslim votes (80% of Muslims vote Labour); (2) they are allergic to being killed.
Oh dear, some of you here do like talking up the Doomsday rhetoric, especially if you can link it to Islamophobia (azusa #12)!
This law is a necessary consequence of dealing fairly with everyone in a society which formerly privileged one, and only one, form of Christianity over holders of every other religion and none. It is also occurring in the context of Europe-wide laws doing the same thing.
Pleas don’t whine about liberal plots behind everything all the time. You need to understand European history a little better: in the whole continent, there was barely a country until very recently that did not discriminate on the basis of one form of religion being privileged over all others, and that time of privilege and discrimination is coming to an end, not least because more and more Europeans are taking advantage of free movement within the EU; thus we find Roman Catholic Europeans moving into Scandinavia for the first time in any numbers, North European Protestants moving into Spain, etc. Of course there needs to be parity of treatment for them all throughout Europe, as also for those of no faith.
I don’t find the cross example convincing. What’s much more likely to happen is a single lgbt person is hired – that lgbt person then becomes partnered – the partnered lgbt person then brings the partner to the place of work and begins engaging in physical demonstrations of affection. Persons in the workplace take the event as an opportunity to begin discussing the ethics of human sexuality. Lgbt person or partner sues for victimization and “targeting,” even though any hetero person would also bring about the same response by, e.g., tongue-kissing someone of the same sex.
It looks to me like Christian organizations all over the UK will need – very quickly – to revise employment policies and teaching policies. E.g., it should be made clear, something perhaps along these lines –
“Anyone working here, should be comfortable with crosses on the wall. Anyone working here should also be comfortable with Christian teachings on sexuality being brought up at any time, especially in cases where certain situations might bring up challenges to an individual’s notions of Christian teaching on sexuality. This includes the presence of a person in church employment who is in a relationship which is contrary to church doctrine, or engaged in activities arousing reasonable suspicions thereof. Persons employed by the organization function socially in a different manner from the persons we serve, and are more likely to be the subject of discussion – this is a simple matter of sociology, and it bears on prinicples of Christian leadership.
It is quite possible that some we serve would perceive a person serving the church who is in a same-sex relationship as the most significantly sinful aspect of our church organization, thus such discussion is likely to be frequent, and perhaps even on the part of the person involved, experienced as “constant” and “harassing” or even “bullying,” even though the person engaging in such behavior may even consider it to be “love.”
Unfortunately, our church can not take on the responsibility to mediate disputes coming from such persons, as they are expressing their convictions regarding sin inside a religious institution – while they frequently do not feel free to do so outside of religious institutions. Should such incidents arise, we expect our employees to react graciously, with a response which in no way contradicts or casts doubt upon our organization’s beliefs regarding sexuality.
I’d be interested in hearing what legal advice Christian organizations are getting these days.
I would not like to see this kind of thing happen, but I am now beginning to think that there may be a hidden blessing here, contrary to my usual habit in discipleship and evangelism.
I take Paul very seriously in distinguishing “milk” from “meat” in teaching, and usually do not like to discuss sexuality at an early stage of discipleship. Frequently it does not come up at all.
This may not be right on my part. It could be that so many organizations are taking this tack, that Christian teaching regarding sexuality is largely being understood. For example, the difference between “orientation” and “action.” Many people still seem to believe that Christians think that “homosexuality” (i.e. the orientation) is a “sin for which people go to hell.”
Possibly this legislation will cause Christian organizations to be more public and forthright regarding their teachings concerning sexuality, to prevent persons from coming into their employment and later experiencing things which they construe to be “unfair targeting.”
jmc, I think that you are missing the point. Such a policy, clearly stated, would itself be tantamount to discrimination. The lawyers would promptly say that this was the equivalent of saying ‘Jews might be uncomfortable here because of vigorous discussions about Israel’ – not only might this condone antisemitism but it would also be accepting of bullying. So, the lawyers might argue, a policy like you suggest inherently discriminates against gay people.
Heh.
Isn’t it sweet of the likes of Simon Sarmiento to try to allay conservative Anglican’s fears about this lovely bill.
I’m sure he’s completely well-meaning.
If SS likes it — why of course it must be a-ok.
To the extent that Simon Sarmiento is correcting misreporting of the minister’s words, I applaud him for doing so. There is enough heat in the debate without muddying the waters further.
Whatever his motivations are for doing so, he has done us a service in setting the record straight.
For myself, I can’t see any good coming from government legislation in this area. History tells us that such legislation will end up being used in ways that were never envisaged by the law makers. The Human Rights Act is one such which is being used to suppress freedom of expression and freedom of information among other unintended consequences.
We will have a new government by the Summer hopefully, but this one is determined to do as much damage as possible in the interim, having handed what remains of our decision-making over to the European institutions…..without a referendum. Something all our political parties promised to give us – of course they knew we would say no!
I see no indication that he has set any sort of “record” straight.
I see little to no difference between “get ready to be sued” and “Both sides will want to be lining up, no doubt.” The paper is entirely accurate when it warns Christians to “get ready to be sued.” Indeed, reading SS confirms the impression: churches should get ready to be sued by people who believe SS’s gospel.
What I see is SS attempting to *confuse and muddy the waters further* by saying something equivalent to “nothing to see here, just move along, you foolishly paranoid religious conservatives.”
The fact that SS is, of course, hostile and inimical to the gospel of Christians and wishes desperately for it to be defeated, if not by the sinking market for his particular liberal gospel then by legal means , aids my mockery of his efforts in this post.
Hi Sarah
I know he runs a gay-campaigning website, but don’t know anything about his other views. Over here there are quite a few who take a liberal view on gay bishops and marriage and a strangely orthodox view on other matters – perhaps reflective of the Dean of his cathedral in St Albans; quite different from TEC which actively appears to embrace heresy on all issues including the SS one. Of course it does require a curiously schizophrenic mindset to do that and an ability to live with that unresolved and contradictory set of beliefs.
Simon works very hard and is a useful source of up to date news [although it does tend to be selective], and for the effort which he puts in also I am thankful, as I am for his recollection of the Minister’s press conference.
“Fr Mark” chimes in again with his usual misunderstanding and/or distortion of the laws in Europe. What I said about the British Labor Party and and its Nelsonian eye to Islam is simply correct. Muslim = votes in key constituencies. But this won’t help them next year.
The way Rocco Buttiglione was treated by the European Communion, the refusal to mention the foundational role of Christian ity in the European ‘Constitution’ in place of obesiance to ‘European humanism’ – and the business over crucifixes in Italian schools (worthy of the best days of the Warsaw Pact) tells you what is going on. Of course, none of this was ever voted for by the peoples of Europe. The political class acts to perpetuate itself by leapfrogging democracy.
#18: Simon Sarmiento judiciously plays the role of a William the Silent, but his website ‘Thinking Anglicans’ relentlessly pushes the revisionist agenda – even if it’s still the same ten contributors.
#20: as for the Dean of St Alban’s – he utterly detests evangelical and catholic understandings of atonement and has broadcast fiercely so. Orthodoxy gets very tenuous once you give the imagination or (re)interpretative spirit free rein.