Discrimination by religious groups to be outlawed

[marshlander]

The impending Equality law will make it illegal for religious groups to discriminate against gay employees. It's a bold move which changes past practice and as far as I can see is a welcome addition to the move towards equality of the past few years. (more)

[CardShark]

Since when was their discrimination between religion and people like youth workers?

is that frowned upon in the bible "Tho must not be gay and a youth worker?".

So from what I read its only gay people working with the public?
So if you don't work in the public eye religion is able to discriminate against gays?

[marshlander]

Since when was their discrimination between religion and people like youth workers?

is that frowned upon in the bible "Tho must not be gay and a youth worker?".

So from what I read its only gay people working with the public?
So if you don't work in the public eye religion is able to discriminate against gays?

Sure, it's always been part of the game ... unfortunately. I know some teachers in RC schools who have had a very tough time :mad:

[sox-and-the-city]

Gives a quiet and indingnant 'hmph'.

We can rail against religion all we want but is forcing people to accept rules they see as invasive REALLY the way to change minds??

And can we please remember not all Christians are raging mentalists, indeed, even within Catholocism there are actually good people who have a genuinely held faith...

[marshlander]

And it's not invasive when someone's livelihood is threatened, simply because they happen to prefer the same sex?

[sox-and-the-city]

Did i say it wasn't??

All i was trying to point out is that the measures aren't going to tackle the root causes of the problem, they'll give a legal framework for sure, but whose MIND will it change??

I always despair a little bit when i think of many of the steps forward we take now will set us back in years to come.

[fredv3b]

I agree with Sox that it is hardly going to change people's minds and it may well be resented. However to me the real issue was of equality before the law. Religious groups were hoping for such exceptions to the law that few if any of their employees would be covered. Given that many religious groups engage in activities clearly outside of their places of worship why should they be exempted from laws that the rest of us have to follow?

[marshlander]

Thanks, Fred.

Sox, however genuine and kindly many believers may be the organisations to which they affiliate are rarely benign. That the churches would seek to be exempted from laws designed to support fairness and decency is outrageous. That they have sought exemption is the very reason they should be denied it. Religious organisations cannot be trusted. They take for granted they can do as they like and the faithful will fall into line. This article on the situation in Ireland is just something else to add to the centuries of attrocity in which religion has been implicated and the naivity of the faithful abused.

[marshlander]

Well, as we know by now, the government intentions were defeated in the House of Lords mainly through the voting of the bishops (remind me again WHY are the lords spiritual there?).

However, The Times carries this story which shows the pendulum swinging a bit in the other direction

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 prohibits civil partnerships from being registered in any religious premises in Great Britain. Three faith communities — Liberal Judaism, the Quakers, and the Unitarians — have considered this restriction prayerfully and decided in conscience that they wish to register civil partnerships on their premises. An amendment to the Equality Bill, to allow this, was debated in the House of Lords on January 25. It was opposed by the Bishops of Winchester and Chichester on the grounds that, if passed, it would put unacceptable pressure on the Church of England. The former said that “churches of all sorts really should not reduce or fudge, let alone deny, the distinction” between marriage and civil partnership. In the same debate, the bishops were crucial in defeating government proposals to limit the space within which religious bodies are exempt from anti-discrimination law. They see that as a fundamental matter of conscience. But it is inconsistent to affirm the spiritual independence of the Church of England and simultaneously to deny the spiritual independence of the three small communities who seek this change for themselves (and not for anybody else).
The bishops’ “slippery slope” argument is invalid. Straight couples have the choice between civil marriage and religious marriage. Gay couples are denied a similar choice. To deny people of faith ...

more

[Wintereis]

Gives a quiet and indingnant 'hmph'.

We can rail against religion all we want but is forcing people to accept rules they see as invasive REALLY the way to change minds??

And can we please remember not all Christians are raging mentalists, indeed, even within Catholocism there are actually good people who have a genuinely held faith...

This would definitely not go down in the United States, and I wouldn't want it to either. I don’t want gay people to be discriminated against, but I do believe in freedom of religion, which means that if a religion wants to discriminate based on their beliefs, they should be able to do so. That also means that the religion and any of its institutions should not be financially supported in anyway by the public coffers.

I agree with you. The way to win hearts and minds is not through forced measures. Mandating religious institutions is as invasive as telling those gay and lesbian people working for them that they cannot have a job. There is no clear cut right or wrong in this situation.

"The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." -- John Stuart Mill