Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Churches 'could be forced' to hire women, gays and transsexuals

Monday, 25 January 2010

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/churches-lsquocould-be-forcedrsquo-to-hire-women-gays-and-transsexuals-14650249.html (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/churches-lsquocould-be-forcedrsquo-to-hire-women-gays-and-transsexuals-14650249.html)

Churches have warned they may be forced to hire women, gay people and transsexuals under proposed equality laws to be debated in the House of Lords today.

Christian campaign groups, Catholic bishops and the Church of England say the Equality Bill could force them to go against their faith when employing staff.

While this might sound really appealing, I can't stand the thought of any government telling a religion what the must or must not believe and practice.   Nor do I like the reverse process.   This is not, and never has been a solution.   Very sad.


(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

I can't stand the thought of any government telling a religion what the must or must not believe and practice

I was under the assumption that is exactly why King Henry 8 started the Church of England in the first place.

Yes you are correct.  I would have opposed it then as well.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

"In the case of ministers of religion and other key jobs that promote and represent religion, the Bill recognises that a church may need to impose requirements regarding, for example, sexual orientation. The Bill does not stop religious organisations recruiting someone of the same faith where this is a requirement of the job."

Looks to me like we're talking about the churches being forced to hire the best man/woman to do the non-religious jobs regardless of their religious standing, colour, sexuality, etc... etc... etc...
You know, jobs that don't mean you (as the worker) have to, or even have reason to interact with the congregation at all.
Honestly, I have a hard time seeing the problem with that.

This link seems to be saying the exact opposite. http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE60P1KJ20100126 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE60P1KJ20100126)

The problem with UK politics is that, when in opposition, the Torys and their supporters sped their time attempting to put a negative gloss on everything.

tekla.

At the risk of hijacking the thread, Henry VIII was an opportunist who saw the reformation was likely to take over and hijacked it. He actually had some pretty good reasons for doing so, but they had nothing to do with religion as such.

But the point of the reformation was right and just.

---

Post Merge: February 01, 2010, 07:35:23 AM

---

This is a link to the UK government's Equality Bill's site.

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill.aspx (http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill.aspx)

Hope those of you in the colonies can pick it up.

I know we will never agree on this, and I am fine with that, but I will try to explain with an example.

Reverse the roles.  Let's say you are a member of a religious or other non-profit organization.  You need a lot of work done on the property you own.  Money is very tight.  Your members have given the best they could, but none of you are rich.  But without the work your building will fall in.  When the bids come back the only one in your price range comes from an organization well-known to hire white supremacists and Klansmen, including the guys suspected in the murder of a transgender person recently.  These workers will be doing the work but will not come into direct contact with your members.  But when the bill is paid, guess who will be getting the money.  In fact, it will keep their business from going under.  Some people are very offended at the idea.

Now I have to say that my particular church is open to anyone and everyone, so this would not really matter to me personally.  But I don't want to be forced by any government to live out my beliefs in a particular way, or to spend precious collected money in a way that goes against the consciences of the ones who gave it.


(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: spacial on February 01, 2010, 07:33:40 AM
This is a link to the UK government's Equality Bill's site.

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill.aspx (http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill.aspx)

Hope those of you in the colonies can pick it up.

Yes, we can, thank you.  In a prior thread I quoted the provision in the bill which provided exemptions for religions:
===============================================================
SCHEDULE 9 Section 83
WORK: EXCEPTIONS
PART 1
OCCUPATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
<snip>
Religious requirements relating to sex, marriage etc., sexual orientation
2 (1) A person (A) does not contravene a provision mentioned in sub-paragraph
(2) by applying in relation to employment a requirement to which subparagraph
(4) applies if A shows that—
(a) the employment is for the purposes of an organised religion,
(b) the application of the requirement engages the compliance or nonconflict
principle, and
(c) the person to whom A applies the requirement does not meet it (or
A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person
meets it).
<snip>
(4) This sub-paragraph applies to—
(a) a requirement to be of a particular sex;
(b) a requirement not to be a transsexual person;
(c) a requirement not to be married or a civil partner;
(d) a requirement not to be married to, or the civil partner of, a person
who has a living former spouse or civil partner;
(e) a requirement relating to circumstances in which a marriage or civil
partnership came to an end;
(f) a requirement related to sexual orientation.
======================================================

But it seems the House of Lords decided that the Bill as written would be changed after passage to conform to European Commission standards, resulting in the loss of those protections.  Being on the left side of the Atlantic, I don't know if that was a realistic concern or if it is simply the sort of fear mongering that we often see in the US regarding legislation to protect the LGBT community.

All things being equal (which they never are) any business, and all business (and religion is a big business) should be able to hire and fire anyone they want.  Kristi's point is well taken.  One would assume they are hiring the people they think will do the job best in the environment that the work is in.  If not, they are going to be out of business, so it does not matter.

At any rate, particularly in the current economy, but even in good times, its pretty hard to force any company/business/enterprise to hire anyone in the United States.  And, though the First Amendment has not kept the religious organizations out of politics, it for sure would be brought in to keep the government from mandating who they can, and can not, hire.

Quote from: Kristi on February 01, 2010, 07:44:50 AMWhen the bids come back the only one in your price range comes from an organization well-known to hire white supremacists and Klansmen, including the guys suspected in the murder of a transgender person recently.

Again, this is comparing a set of violent criminals to a group of people who haven't done anything wrong, but are considered, by the religion in question, to be headed straight to hell.

This isn't a fair nor a reasonable comparison.

Quote from: Miniar on February 01, 2010, 11:15:15 AM
Again, this is comparing a set of violent criminals to a group of people who haven't done anything wrong, but are considered, by the religion in question, to be headed straight to hell.

This isn't a fair nor a reasonable comparison.

LOL tell that to the Quiverfull!  Seriously Miniar, I normally agree with just about every dang thing you write, but Kristi has a point and it is reasonable despite how dramatic it might be.  It sucks that hate and prejudice can be so blinding to some people but it is, and they would assume hire a murderer who they don't feel threatens their religious views than a person whose actual existence is an assault on their "truth".

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter.  As the old sports saying goes: When you stand depends on where you sit.

Quote from: spacial on February 01, 2010, 07:33:40 AM
The problem with UK politics is that, when in opposition, the Torys and their supporters sped their time attempting to put a negative gloss on everything.

Hey I could resent that remark ;) I thought that was just normal behaviour for any politician in oposition.

Seriously though, as someone who is a lifelong floating voter and has voted for all three main UK parties at one time or another I can't help but observe that on this occasion there is mischief making going on on both sides.

Yes the bill has some exclusions and opt outs but the churches are worried that the UK courts may not interpret them widely enough.

As always with UK politics it probably isn't just what the bill actually "says" that matters, it's how some clever lawyer and mischievous judge might choose to twist it that is the real issue!

Maybe if they were forced to hire people based on their skills and not according to their prejudices they might find out gays, lesbians and transgender people are not the evil entity they make them out to be.

But then again, what evil would be created next to unite their followers in the fight?

There's no perfect solution but there can be good coming from people having to face their prejudices and gain an education in the process.

I very much agree that churches and every other type of organization should face their prejudices head on, and learn that there are actually decent people on both sides of any fence.  And yes, I know there are exclusions to this bill, at least on paper.  If those in the UK are concerned that they will not be upheld, I have to trust their judgment.

The basic issue here, however, remains unchanged.  Is legislation the best way?  If the church, or any religion, can be forced to believe or act in a certain way by the state, there is no more freedom of religion.  Before you applaud that idea too hard, look at history.  The pendulum swings in both directions.  When they come to take away your freedom, things will look quite different.  There is freedom for all, or there is, in the end, freedom for no one.  That is a society I will always oppose.

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Well it is Great Brittan, and religious freedom has always been a hit and miss thing there, except for Mary Queen of Scots, Thomas Becket, and Thomas More, those seem to be a hit and a connection or two.

If you have a State Church, then the State gets a lot of sway in what the Church says and does, no two ways around it.

It would be almost impossible to do this in the United States.

If a church becomes involved in the political process, should that make them more suspectible to the hiring (and other) laws of the state? 

If separation of church and state was truly honored by all religious organizations then I would agree whole-heartedly with Kristi.  But the fact is many churches make huge political contributions, fund campaigns affecting laws and encourage their followers to vote in favor of church policies. 

If you don't want the state to be involved in your business, stay out of the state's business.

Quote from: Julie Marie on February 04, 2010, 05:18:38 AM
If a church becomes involved in the political process, should that make them more suspectible to the hiring (and other) laws of the state?  If you don't want the state to be involved in your business, stay out of the state's business.

Well I sort of agree, but not quite.  Yes, in the USA, churches, as organizations, were never supposed to be political organizations.  And even today most are not.  Historically, the African American churches have always been quite political, a fact that the Democratic party has generally taken advantage of.  In more recent times the religious right has also become quite political.  I have never understood how either of these have kept the tax exempt status.

That being said, there is not, and never will be, a way to keep the church out of the political process.  Why?  Who is the church?  It is not a THEM out there.  It is not some villainous secret part of society.  The church is not a building, but people, individuals with rights and freedoms just as you have.  The church is your neighbor, your co-worker, your boss, your subordinate, your banker, your garbage collector.....   These people all vote, they have individual values they base their votes on, and yes, they think some things are wrong.  Most would never even think of carrying a sign or attending a rally.  They simply vote their conscience as do you.  To keep the church "out of the state's business", you would need to suspend the civil rights of a sizable portion of the population.  Is this really what you want to do?  As I said, it is so tempting as long as it is someone else.  But when it is your turn......


(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fganjataz.com%2F01smileys%2Fimages%2Fsmileys%2FloopyBlonde-blinking.gif&hash=4545ddf8251cf9c32ae6074d56e48bc34a755857)Kristi

Quote from: rejennyrated on February 03, 2010, 01:44:02 AM
Hey I could resent that remark ;) I thought that was just normal behaviour for any politician in oposition.

Seriously though, as someone who is a lifelong floating voter and has voted for all three main UK parties at one time or another I can't help but observe that on this occasion there is mischief making going on on both sides.

Sorry, wasn't trying to blacken the good name of our beloved Conservatives.

The Torys, when in opposition, tend to attack by implying that the government is incapable of doing the job. That they lack competance. That everything will soon collapse. Look at Hague.

Labour, when in opposition, tend to attack by implying that the Torys only take care of their own, favour certain classes, institutions and so on.

I was briefly involved in politics in the late 70s. I quickly became very cynical as I realised that, it has little to do with right, justice, fairness or even common sense.

It's about appeasing the mob.

The clever politicians try to manipulate the mob. Seeking to move atitudes in directions. But still, the point is to appease.

Americans are slowing coming to realise this. Bush, for all the hyperbole, was a very clever and skillful manipulator of the mob.

Sadly, the Democrats don't appear to have figured this out at all.



Addition.

Further to #19

There was a link to a BBC news report I wanted to show you, but couldn't find.

Anyway, found it now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8474611.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8474611.stm)

It's some psychologist type annalying US politics. How you take his conclusions is up to yourself of course. But he uses an example which is actually really interesting.

QuoteIn his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen, an exasperated Democrat, tried to show why the Right often wins the argument even when the Left is confident that it has the facts on its side.

He uses the following exchange from the first presidential debate between Al Gore and George Bush in 2000 to illustrate the perils of trying to explain to voters what will make them better off:

Gore: "Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modelled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries."

Bush: "Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers.

"I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's trying to scare people in the voting booth."

Mr Gore was talking sense and Mr Bush nonsense - but Mr Bush won the debate. With statistics, the voters just hear a patronising policy wonk, and switch off.

What I read here is that, while Gore was trying to present some issues, Bush played to the crowd.

Gore was boring, tedious. The clever and those who see themself as such would listen to Gore, nod knowingly and try to form a counter argument that sounded at least as intelegent as Gore.

Bush played to the crowd. Punch the air and say YEAH! Bush gave people an excuse to be on his side. A catchy phrase, Fuzzy Math, is all the response it needs.

I could say, to a proposition, I don't agree. You ask, why?, I respond, because I don't. Asserting my right to my opinion, even though I clearly don't actually have one.

But the political maxim creates a different response. It's Fuzzy Math. You reply, what does that mean?. I say, Just look at the figures. I gain the intellectual high ground, even though I don't understand the issues.

I have my rope tied to my maxim. Fuzzy Math.

That has been the process of British politics since at least the early 70s. Wilson was a master of this. He attacked heath, in 1973, over repricing of goods on the shelf claiming he had broken a fingernail trying to peal a label. He won the issue, using  a fingernail.

Literally.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to believe whatever you want to believe, it is not freedom to ignore the laws everyone else has to obey because of your religion.
If freedom of religion should be absolute, shouldn't honor-killings be allowed?

And a church is not an individual, it's an organisation.

There talking about GB not the USA, there is no separation of church and state there, in fact, the exact opposite.

Quote from: Kristi on February 04, 2010, 07:26:46 AMThe church is your neighbor, your co-worker, your boss, your subordinate, your banker, your garbage collector.....   

No, they are the church members.  The church is the RCC or the LDS, the ones in control of the money, who often use it to influence elections and the passing or blockage of laws.  They are the ones who tell their members how to vote (and sometimes use fear mongering to do so). 

Just like Microsoft is not the programmers but Bill Gates, the church is the people at the top who make the decisions.  And if they make decisions to get involved in the political process and the passage of laws then they should lose their tax exempt status and be subject to the same rules and regulations as everyone else.

Of course I'm referring to the US here but I'm sure the UK would feel much the same way.

Quote from: Julie Marie on February 04, 2010, 08:23:17 PM
No, they are the church members.   

Ummm, no!  A common misconception.  But I do agree that the organization should not be allowed to interfere in the political arena. 

At the very least they ought to be forbidden (as everyone, including corporations) from crossing state lines with money for local issues.

The religious groups in the UK tend to be viewed as representing sections of society.

Formally, of course, they were part of the business of government. The CofE especially and the CofS in Scotland were not only consulted, they also proposed. This is more or less changed now. The upper house, The Lords, has very little power left.

But all of the major religious groups are and will be consulted and when they complain, their voices are heard, even if their opinions might be ignored.

The princpal groups in the UK, but especially England now are the CofE, the Roman Catholics, Judaism and Islam. Islam is generally, though not exclusively, represented through its Muslim parliment which is akin to the Synods of the two main Christian groups. Judiasim is generally represented through Board of Deputies.

Fro what I can see, the religious groups in the US have taken on a psuedo political role. Seeking to impose their values onto society as a whole.

That many claim to be supporting demoncracy suggests they are either really ignorant and stupid or that their agenda is considerably more sinister than many assume.

The fundimental principal of democracy is that society is never governed according to dogma. But rather by conscent accoding to local needs.

Any policeman will tell you that the difference between policing and military rule is that policing is by conscent. One policeman can maintain the peace in a community of thousands simply because the people agree to be policed.

Nothing 'pusdo' about the way many religious groups function here, they are flat-out political entities. 

kristi, as a Libertarian  and a hated one at that , I have stated publicly and shall do again : Government has no place in peoples bedroooms , private lives , or religion ! Ellen

tekla and ativan.

Thank you for your responses. I was using my words somewhat carefully, I have caught the ire of some Americans before, but I do take your point.

I have to say that, while most of the principals of the founding fathers were good and just, they seem to have been part of their time.

Sadly, the world and society has moved on, but so many in America cling to notions of the intent of the founding fathers.

However, American society does indeed develop and evolve. I believe that, in the long term, TG will be acceptd fully into US and UK society, if only because so many TG people have so much to contribute.

Sadly, like so many social changes that have occured in the past, America may, yet again, need to be carried, kicking and screeming into the modern world.

ativan, it sounds like you need to read up on some history :P.