HLE blogger James Wilson observes the struggle to balanace the rights of religion and equality with the law
"Once again the media have found a dispute which requires balancing the competing rights of religion, equality and the law. It concerns Canon Jeffrey John, who has allegedly been passed over for promotion in the Church of England because of his homosexuality. According to The Guardian: ‘Dr Jeffrey John…a celibate priest who is in a longstanding civil partnership with another cleric—was prevented from becoming the bishop of Southwark after the archbishops of Canterbury and York stepped in. Reports on Sunday suggested John had become so exasperated at his treatment that he had hired…an employment and discrimination law specialist…to fight his case under equality law.’
Although the competing considerations are many, the nub of the issue can be stated simply. As a starting point, everyone has the right to practice his or her religion. Everyone also has the right to do as they please with their own premises. Employers may choose whomsoever they wish for their staff.
As against that, everyone has the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
The question is how to balance those three rights. On one hand, if a religious employer wants all members of her or his staff to be practising members of the religion, one might say that no outsider has the right to object. If the religion in question has particular moral tenets (and all do, almost by definition), then its followers would be expected to conform with them.
On the other hand, no non-religious employer would be allowed to implement an unlawfully discriminatory employment policy on the ground of a secular moral code. For example, a law firm specialising in criminal law could not insist on recruiting only male solicitors because the crusty old partners took the view that criminal law was 'not a job for ladies' (as I once heard an elderly Rumpolesque barrister opine, not so many years ago).
So does the Church’s right to run itself according to its own tenets and beliefs trump Dr John’s right not to be discriminated against in his employment?
First we need to deal with a red herring, namely whether or not Dr John is actually an 'employee'. It is no answer to try and be slippery about whether church office amounts to ‘employment’…”
To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
