Church of England fights proposed "equality" bill

Over at Comment is Free, Simon Sarmiento of Thinking Anglicans examines the Church of England's opposition to the "equality" bill currently before Parliament:

This is not just about sexual orientation. Existing equality regulations already give religious organisations a pass for various other reasons, including the circumstances in which a marriage came to an end, gender (female bishops are not compulsory) and marital status itself. [William] Fittall [of the Church of England said: "You might believe that some of our rules and disciplines are wrong, but our view is that that is a matter of religious liberty – a matter for the Church of England, Roman Catholics, the Jews or whoever."

"We are not seeking carte blanche, but if a religious organisation is employing someone in a role for which you have to be a member of that faith, it is reasonable that restrictions – whether they be on marital history or whatever – can be part of the requirements."

Posted by Jim Naughton on June 11, 2009 8:49 PM | |
Comments (4)

I found the equality bill 85 08-09 on the Parliament UK website and don't see why Simon is worried about anti-discrimination laws harming religious organizations in the UK.

Gary
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmbills/085/volii/09085ii.86-92.html#j010s

or

http://tinyurl.com/nef6go

Posted by garydasein [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 12, 2009 12:53 AM

I don't think Simon is worried about it. That's not the impression I get from this essay.

Posted by Jim Naughton [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 12, 2009 8:09 AM

The official representatives of the churches were worried by the wording of the draft legislation, not me. That's because they see it as narrowing their freedom of action.

The Cif belief piece does question whether the whole concept of these religious exemptions is justified. That's a wider question.

There's a straight news report of these events in the Church Times at

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=76558

Posted by Simon Sarmiento [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 12, 2009 9:20 AM

Simon, I should have said the church authorities. I do wonder what the point of the story is when the bill itself makes it clear that religious exemptions can only be given for specific religious functions. Ordinary activities cannot be exempt.

The church authorities have made a bad case that the bill would harm them in any way.


Gary Paul Gilbert

Posted by garydasein [TypeKey Profile Page] | June 14, 2009 6:52 PM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Advertising Space