Posted on 07/20/2007 7:57:56 PM PDT by freedomdefender
AN employment tribunal this week issued its judgment in the case brought against the Hereford [Church of England] diocesan board of finance by John Reaney (News, 20 April).
Mr Reaney succeeded in his claim that, in failing to appoint him to the post of youth worker, the Bishop of Hereford, the Rt Revd Anthony Priddis, and the Hereford diocese had discriminated against him because of his sexual orientation.
The decision followed three days of public hearings in Cardiff during April.
The tribunal found that the actions taken by the Bishop constituted unlawful direct discrimination under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003. An additional charge of harassment was dismissed.
The Bishop had blocked the appointment of Mr Reaney, even though an eight-person interview panel had unanimously recommended him as the best-qualified candidate for the post from a short-list of four.
In rejecting Mr Reaney, who had stated in his application form that he was a homosexual, the Bishop was, in the tribunal’s view, doing so because of Mr Reaney’s sexual orientation, and was not (as the Bishop claimed) applying the same criteria that he would have used in the case of a heterosexual candidate.
Crucially, the Bishop had not accepted Mr Reaney’s assurance that he would continue to live a life consistent with the teaching of the Church.
The tribunal went on to say that, if necessary, they would also have found the diocese guilty of indirect discrimination, because of the Bishop’s stated policy of imposing a requirement of celibacy for lay people in employment within the Church.
The “religious exemption” clause that might otherwise have been claimed did not apply in this case. This was because the tribunal held that Mr Reaney was in fact living in accordance with the church policy that the Bishop required, and it was not reasonable for the Bishop to be unsatisfied that this was so.
Commenting at a press conference on Wednesday, Bishop Priddis said that he was “disappointed but not completely down. . . I still think that the decision I made was the right one.
“I regret lots of aspects of what happened, naturally. I regret the polarisation of view that tends to take place when these things happen. I took the decision after a great deal of thought and prayer and anguish.”
Bishop Priddis repeated his view that Mr Reaney had not been discriminated against on the grounds of his sexuality. “If there had been a stability of life, then I would have taken a different view, but there wasn’t,” he said. He dismissed suggestions he might resign saying: “It’s not that kind of issue.”
A diocesan statement said: “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.” The board of finance will take further legal advice before deciding whether or not to appeal the decision.
The Archbishops’ Council issued a brief statement that noted: “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.”
John Reaney said, in a statement issued by his solicitors: “I am pleased that the tribunal agree that I have suffered discrimination and that I was right to bring my claim. I thank them for their decision. As a committed Christian, I did not bring this claim lightly, and remain sad that the Bishop acted in this way. All I ever wanted to do was to continue to use my skills in youth work for the diocese and the Church.”
The gay lobby group Stonewall, which financed the claim, said: “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.”
The next step is to set a date for a remedy hearing, to determine what financial compensation should be paid to Mr Reaney, or whether any other actions should be required of the employer.
> I don’t know what the rules are in England, but isn’t the Queen nominally head of the Church of England, its chief defender...doesn’t this decision in a sense declare the queen a bigot?
The Queen is the head of the Church of England, not just nominally but in fact.
I do not know what Her Majesty’s viewpoint on all of this is, and would not presume to second-guess on Her behalf.
That said, I do not give a bl**dy blast what Her Majesty thinks about this matter: She does not hold the keys to Heaven. God does.
If I had to guess, I’d suspect HRH would take a magnanimous viewpoint on this issue. She has been a sensible Queen and has seen massive change during Her reign. And, by all reports, she is a good Christian.
In my books, that is the only thing that matters.
> magnanimous toward the Bishop found guilty?
“Guilty” of what? No crime was committed.
Homosexuality is not a crime. Some folk have a great difficulty with that concept. Some folk see it as disgusting. Some folk wish it were a crime. But it isn’t, and it shouldn’t be.
So long as it happens between consenting adults and does not involve animals or children, and otherwise harms nobody, no one has any business saying “boo” about what happens in the privacy of somebody else’s bedroom.
Her Majesty would be magnanimous on that basis. As would any decent Freedom-loving and Liberty-defending human being.
*DieHard*
> The bad news is that God discriminates against this perverted lifestyle CHOICE. An arrogant pervert has no business working for ANY church.
Arrogance is a perversion and a sin in and of itself. It is arrogant of you to judge this person as you have.
As the Volume of Sacred Law says, St Matthew 7:1-5 “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”
If you don’t like that, then argue with Jesus.
Our Christ, who died on the Cross for us, wanted ALL sinners to repent. Not just the ones that you personally approve of. ALL of them.
You have arrogated to yourself the role which Christ Himself alone deserves: the right to decide who is worthy and who is not. Judging the Worthy from the Unworthy.
Jesus earned the right to Judge by dying on the Cross for our sins.
You have not.
Like me, you are a Sinner. You have no business at all commenting on the sins of others: look instead to your own sins and your own salvation.
Just dang Baptist bump!
But is it a sin? The Bible would seem to suggest that it is.
You're absolutely correct. Why else would he include that he was a homosexual on his application if it wasn't a setup.
> But is it a sin? The Bible would seem to suggest that it is.
It is indeed a sin. So is much of the rest of what mankind does. Therefore we need to be very, very careful before we start hucking stones a other folk. More often than not, we stand Condemned by our own actions. Nevermind the other fellow, look after our own behaviors.
God will never judge us by our inability to see the faults in others: but God *shall* surely judge us by our own faults.
It is better to be a Sinner, and to know our faults and limitations and repent for them, than to be an unrepentant Judge who acknowledges neither fault and limitation and who seeks not forgiveness. “For by the measure you mete...”
(People like *that* nailed Jesus to the cross. And they will be Dam’ned as a result...! Crikey!)
So you see no difference between someone who steals and repents of their sin, and someone who steals, and not only does not repent, but considers that stealing is not even a sin?
> So you see no difference between someone who steals and repents of their sin, and someone who steals, and not only does not repent, but considers that stealing is not even a sin?
Huh? Please re-explain: this one is difficult to parse.
Sounds like Ancient Rome, or modern China.
I used stealing as an example. As you say, homosexuality is a sin, yet we should not judge.
But I say if one commits sin, and says such activity should not be considered a sin, and continues to commit such sin, then they should be treated differently than someone who commits a sin and is genuinely repentant.
> But I say if one commits sin, and says such activity should not be considered a sin, and continues to commit such sin, then they should be treated differently than someone who commits a sin and is genuinely repentant.
I’d say leave the judgment to God, and ensure that your own walk is as good as you can make it. He has not asked you for any help in ascertaining evildoing, so unless it blatantly interferes with your walk, you should pay no attention to it.
If, on the other hand, it interferes with your walk, then take immediate and decisive action against it.
So, in this case, if homosexuals are causing you to homosexualize, or if they are homosexualizing against you or somebody you care for, then do something about it. Otherwise, best to mind your own business.
If he’s really gay it wouldn’t be long till he cheated.
1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Unrepentant (practicing) gays, just like unrepentant thieves will go to hell. End of argument.
Christians have the RIGHT (and the duty) to not hire gays.
The religious exemption in the UK law was a deception. Those who wrote that law never intended to protect religion. And here we see the judge convieniently ignoring that provision.
Don’t be fooled when such exemptions are offered here.
The homosexual agenda cannot tolerate dissent. They will do whatever that can to censor all who oppose them. Like cockroaches, gays hate the light of truth, and they will extinguish it if they can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.