Skip to comments.Gay youth worker was discriminated against [by church that wouldn't hire him], UK tribunal rules
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 tribunals view, doing so because of Mr Reaneys 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 Reaneys 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 Bishops 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 wasnt, he said. He dismissed suggestions he might resign saying: Its 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.
It was likely a set up, in my book.
I’d bet he applied for that job and deceived his employer just to set precedent and get the laws changed.
So, why didnt he look for a church that would accept him as a youth worker (with his particular proclivities) there are many out there.
What the homosexual lobby in the USA has been desperate to cover up and obfuscate is that the so-called “abuse” scandals of the Catholic Church have been overwhelmingly GAY PRIESTS HITTING ON TEENAGE BOYS scandal.
Yes, it is terribly abusive behavior, but the politically correct leftists have been desperate to try to define it as “child abuse” and “pedophile” behavior so that people assume it is just a tiny tiny segment of pedophiles going after under-11-year-olds.
In reality, it is more typical “gay” fantasy behavior of hitting upon adolescent males, ages 12 - 16. THAT is what they don’t want us to know, because then people would realize that gay males should NOT be put in any positions of trust around adolescent males!!
So it begins...
Wait till Hillary’s in the White House. “Hate crime” laws will be directed against orthodox Christians, I fear.
Soon we’ll have to start meeting in homes and NOT calling it “church.” No denominations, no hierarchy, no official lists of members for gays to sue.
Its amazing how a tiny minority of weirdos can force their disgusting lifestyle on others in the name of “tolerance.”
The tolerant, diverse left hates the truth.
If the gays aren’t interested in kids, then why do they always want so much access to children?
This stuff is just around the corner in the US, as soon as the homos and the ADL get the hate crime legislation passed.
I predict riots.
“Soon well have to start meeting in homes and NOT calling it church. “
That’s what they did in Ireland when the King declared himself to be the head of the church in England. They tried to stamp out all other churches. The Irish Catholics used to meet on a hillside. They called them “hedge churches”, and they always had a lookout who would warn them of the approach of the English police or soldiers. Then they all dispersed.
Get out your running shoes!
There’s something more to this story. This Bishop is not unfriendly to homosexuals or transgenders, but he has stood against church blessings of their relationships. The organist at his cathedral is gay and soon to have a civil ceremony. Read link 2.
According to link 1 he ordained a transexual.
Yep, there are plenty of examples in Canada and abroad of how the leftist use these non-discrimination laws and hate speech laws to attack Christians. That is the main objective of these laws is to force acceptance of homosexual behavior down the throats of Christians. It is almost always Christians following their beliefs who get prosecuted by these laws.
As far as the immediate story is concerned - I guess the $US660M that the LA Archdiocese just shelled out wasn’t a clear enough message.
Just the other day, I heard a guy say that he had about all the tolerance that he could take...
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 bad news is that God discriminates against this perverted lifestyle CHOICE. An arrogant pervert has no business working for ANY church.
> This is coming to America, if Hillary wins. Churches that try to uphold their principles will be punished.
Please remind me why Gays should be discriminated against...? Where in the Constitution does it say...?
I am not Gay, I do not understand or approve of the Gay lifestyle but in my books what someone does in the privacy of their own bedroom is of no concern of mine or yours or the gummints or the Church’s or anybody else’s.
Moreover, if Gays choose to publicly identify themselves as Gay I have no problem with that either. At all. And if they choose to assert their human rights, so long as it is legally viable for them to do so, they have my full unswerving support. That is what a Constitution is for.
Moreover, if somebody chooses to attack a publicly Gay person I will fight to defend them. Physically and shedding blood, if necessary: and it will not worry me in the slightest.
That is what my Forefathers stormed ashore at Dieppe and Normandie for: the right to fight bigots at any and every opportunity.
If Gay people go to Church to pray forgiveness for their sins (which are many), I will pay absolutely no attention to them: I have plenty of sins of my own to repent for.
Being Gay is not a crime. Some folk find it distasteful, and some folk disapprove (I do, on both counts). God certainly disapproves: but that is a matter that rests between Him and the sinner. It is not up to us to judge. We ought to mind our own bl**dy business and hope that God doesn’t notice our own recent petty sins.
This article is a stupid reason to have a thread dedicated to distaste for Homosexuals. You lot need to get used to the fact that some folk don’t live the same way you do. Get over it and move on.
*DieHard the Hunter*
> The bad news is that God discriminates against this perverted lifestyle CHOICE. An arrogant pervert has no business working for ANY church.
GOD does not discriminate against any sinner. Including me, including you.
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.