I guess the gay man is making an exception and not turning the other cheek in this case.
he can start his own «church«
A little bit of confusion in the article, some mentioned, some not.
To start with, the article even said that the Anglican church does not ordain those living in an unmarried sexual relationship of any kind. However, the Anglican church does not require celibacy (non-marriage), but only chastity (no sex) if unmarried.
Add to that the huge variations among the Anglican dioceses. The largest number of Anglicans are in Africa, and are very conservative and moral. The North American and English Anglicans are very liberal, to the point where the conservatives have often split off from them to form conservative “African missionary” churches, functioning in parallel with their former Anglican dioceses, but not under their liberal bishop.
Importantly, the New Zealand Anglican church is having a schism in the other direction, with the liberals trying to force their agenda on the church as a whole, such as in this case.
However, it is harder to force such things in Anglicanism, because each bishop is regarded as equal, the equivalent of “mini-Popes”, so if the bishop is liberal, the conservatives schism; but in this case, there is only one really liberal Anglican church in NZ, not enough to schism, so they are trying to use the government to force their bishop to do what they want.
Isn’t this a shocker? /s
He could be a Imam ,they have dancing boys
They are discriminating against someone who openly and unrepentantly sins? I’m shocked. That’s as bad as my local grocery store discriminating against expired milk from five years ago. While that expired milk is “Bush’s fault”, so it’s okay to make fun of it, discriminating is always bad, isn’t it? There’s nothing wrong with having a religious leader whose actions as a role model contradict the Bible, is there?