216 UK Christians celebrate victory over "Equality" Bill

UK Christians celebrate victory over "Equality" Bill

(1) Jewish Groups: Churches Must Hire Gays. ADL drafted the Employment Non-Discrimination Act
(2) "Interfaith" (but Jewish core) letter calls for Bush exemption on Churches employing Gays to be withdrawn
(3) Dozens of Groups to Justice Dept: End Faith-Based Hiring
(4) UK Christians Celebrate Victory Over Equality Bill
(5) Churches "panic" over equality bill - Guardian opinion
(6) Let's fight the church on equality - Guardian opinion
(7) Labour's Equality Bill incompatible with Toleration - Telegraph View
(8) Labour trying to force religion behind closed doors while defending Gays
(9) US Gays postpone Gay Marriage, push for anti-discrimination bill instead

(1) Jewish Groups: Churches Must Hire Gays. ADL drafted the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Jewish Groups: ‘Churches Must Hire Homosexuals’

By Rev. Ted Pike
24 Sep 09

http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=4525

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) had its first hearing in the House Education and Labor Committee today. (To watch the hearing, click here.) Key witnesses were homosexual Reps. Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League, architect of the bill, issued a release today saying, “Support for ENDA sends an important message to all Americans that…discrimination will not be tolerated in the workplace.” House Democrats favor ENDA’s plan to grant homosexuals, transgenders and all sexual deviants included under “sexual orientation” special rights to be hired and not fired in American businesses of 15+ employees. Meanwhile, liberal Jewish organizations are lobbying to make sure ENDA will require Christian churches to hire homosexuals in all non-spiritual positions (including church administration, business and education).

The civil rights legislation of the 1960s banned discrimination in hiring and firing. But they don’t clearly state whether churches must hire unbelievers or people of other faiths in nonspiritual positions. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 suggests churches can remain free to discriminate. In 2007, a Bush administration legal memo said churches (and even religious organizations receiving federal funds) don’t have to hire unbelievers. Now 11 Jewish groups including the Anti-Defamation League, plus other liberal organizations, are demanding that the Obama administration and Att. Gen. Eric Holder reverse Bush’s “discriminatory” policy.

The Jewish Telegraph Agency:

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, 11 Jewish groups and dozens of other religious and rights organizations said the 2007 Bush Administration Office of Legal Counsel memo used an “erroneous” interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act… Signing onto the letter are the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith International, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Hadassah, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, National Council of Jewish Women, Na’amat USA, Rabbinical Assembly, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and Women of Reform Judaism.

The two largest groups of American religious Jews—Reform and Conservative—broadly embrace homosexuality. Their members may openly practice their deviant lifestyle and even become rabbis. Thus, the majority of American religious Jews, who have repeatedly marshaled in favor of the pro-homosexual federal hate crimes bill, have nothing to lose by inviting even more homosexuals into their synagogues, nonprofit businesses, schools and summer camps. Polls consistently show that roughly four out of five American Jews are liberals who vote for the homosexual-friendly policies of the Democrat party.

In contrast, the vast majority of evangelical Christians are morally opposed to homosexuality. ENDA would force Christian churches to hire activist homosexuals and thus devastate the spiritual autonomy and identity of American evangelicalism.

Organized Jewry in America thus reveals its continuing opposition to Christianity. Evangelicals, on the other hand, have historically favored Judaism and supported Israel unconditionally. They still exempt Israel’s PR representative, the virulently anti-Christian Anti-Defamation League, from criticism. Liberal Jews in America are biting the hands of those who have fed them.

Is the church mounting its own counteroffensive against ENDA and four other Christian-persecuting hate bills now surging through Congress? With few exceptions, it is not. But YOU can join the National Prayer Network at www.truthtellers.org as we rally opposition to ENDA and the flood of new Christian-persecuting, ADL-conceived hate crimes bills.

Call your two Senators and House members toll-free at 877-851-6437 or 202-225-3121 toll and say,
“I am angry that the Democrats are moving forward even more freedom-stealing hate crimes bills. I will vote against the Senator and Congressman who votes for ENDA and other hate crime legislation.”
Please send a similar message to the pivotal members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, names available on the Action Page at www.truthtellers.org.

The religious right, following the defeatist advice of Dr. James Dobson, has largely concluded that it is useless at the present time to fight the Democrat majority in Congress and its five hate bills (See, July 11, 09 article, “Possible Hate Bill Vote Moday…Dobson Fails Us in the Battle.“). Focusing on healthcare, conservatives hope to alienate voters against the Democrats at midterm elections next year and regain control of Congress. Yet, it is likely that Democrats this fall will steamroll opposition and pass Obama’s healthcare plan. History has shown that when a controversial plan becomes federal law, organized opposition quickly dissipates. Conservatives may well lack the momentum to actually overthrow the Democrats. Meanwhile, they will have allowed at least five major hate crimes bills to pass, creating a legally enforceable, Christian-persecuting hate crimes bureaucracy in America.

If this happens, even the most upright conservative President who might be elected could not halt it; the federal government, justice department, FBI and all local police would be obligated to enforce anti-Christian persecution—at least until the hate laws were repealed. And that is unheard of once hate laws are passed. No nation laboring under hate crimes bureaucracies established by ADL has thrown off its freedom-destroying yoke. Hate laws, like Roe v. Wade, reveal an incredible tenacity to outlive public opposition.

How, I ask, can anyone consider this terrifying scenario and not pick up their phone right now and protest?

(2) "Interfaith" (but Jewish core) letter calls for Bush exemption on Churches employing Gays to be withdrawn

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/news/320-interfaith-alliance-calls-on-attorney-general-to-review-and-withdraw-memo-that-threatens-crucial-religious-freedom-protections

Thursday, 17 September 2009 12:44  

For Immediate Release
Contact: Ari Geller - Rabinowitz/Dorf Communications  202-265-3000

Interfaith Alliance and Others Call on Attorney General to Review and Withdraw Memo That Threatens Crucial Religious Freedom Protections

Washington, DC - Interfaith Alliance, along with 57 other religious, education, civil rights, labor and health organizations, today wrote U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. to request that he direct the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to review and ultimately withdraw a 2007 memorandum that threatens crucial religious freedom protections.  Rescission of this memo is vital for the protection of religious liberty and civil rights.  The undersigned organizations are deeply concerned by the memo’s interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which prohibits any federal law that would substantially burden religious exercise without a compelling reason, achieved through the least restrictive means.

Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy – a member of the Reform of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships Task Force, one of six task forces led by the White House's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships – issued the following statement regarding Interfaith Alliance’s position on the memo:

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was enacted to protect religion and those who wish to freely exercise it,” said Interfaith Alliance President Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy.  “Unfortunately, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo instead turned RFRA into an enabler of religious discrimination.  Interfaith Alliance has long worked to protect religious freedom, a central principle of the U.S. Constitution, and today I join my colleagues in calling upon Attorney General Holder to ensure that religion is never used as a means for an organization to implement discriminatory hiring decisions.  Today, the battle to protect religious freedom is hard enough without the government, which should be defending the Constitution, making it more difficult.  I look forward to the day when this harmful and constitutionally suspect memo is rescinded.”

A copy of the letter follows.

REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND WITHDRAWAL OF JUNE 29, 2007 OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL MEMORANDUM RE: RFRA

September 17, 2009

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Mr. Attorney General: 

The undersigned religious, education, civil rights, labor, and health organizations are committed to protecting religious liberty, and working to do so at all levels of the government.  We write today to request that you direct the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) to review and withdraw its June 29, 2007 Memorandum (“OLC Memo”).1 The OLC Memo’s interpretation that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 19932 (“RFRA”) provides for a blanket override of statutory nondiscrimination provisions is erroneous and threatens core civil rights and religious freedom protections.

Some of us were leaders in the Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, which led the effort to persuade Congress to enact remedial legislation after the United States Supreme Court sharply curtailed Free Exercise Clause protections in Employment Div. v. Smith in 1990.3 This effort culminated in 1993, when then-President William J. Clinton signed RFRA into law.4 In essence, RFRA was intended to provide robust protection of free exercise rights, restoring a standard of strict scrutiny to federal laws that substantially burden religion. 5

Many of us also are members of the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination (CARD), which formed in the mid-1990s specifically to oppose insertion of the legislative proposal commonly known as “charitable choice” into authorizing legislation for federal social service programs.  Upon taking office, the Bush Administration sought to impose “charitable choice” on nearly every federal social service program.  Stymied in its legislative efforts to do so,6 the Administration instead issued Executive Orders and federal regulations to allow religious organizations to participate directly in federal grant programs without the traditional safeguards that protect civil rights and religious liberty.

Not all statutory provisions barring religious discrimination in the workplace could be obviated by Executive Order,7 and the Bush Administration’s attempts to repeal them in Congress were repeatedly rejected.  Failing in its attempts to repeal these laws in Congress, the Administration then developed and promoted the far-fetched assertion, memorialized in the OLC Memo, that RFRA provides religious organizations a blanket exemption to these binding anti-discrimination laws.

The OLC Memo wrongly asserts that RFRA is “reasonably construed” to require that a federal agency categorically exempt a religious organization from an explicit federal nondiscrimination provision tied to a grant program.  Although the OLC Memo’s conclusion is focused on one Justice Department program, its overly-broad and questionable interpretation of RFRA has been cited by other Federal agencies and extended to other programs and grants.  The guidance in the OLC Memo is not justified under applicable legal standards and threatens to tilt policy toward an unwarranted end that would damage civil rights and religious liberty.

When President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13498, amending former President George W. Bush’s Executive Order 13199 (Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives), he underlined the importance of ensuring that partnerships between government and faith-based institutions can be created and maintained effectively while “preserving our fundamental constitutional commitments.”  The OLC Memo, however, stands as one of the most notable examples of the Bush Administration’s attempt to impose a constitutionally questionable and unwise policy—RFRA should not be interpreted or employed as a tool for broadly overriding statutory protections against religious discrimination or to create a broad free exercise right to receive government grants without complying with applicable regulations that protect taxpayers.

We accordingly request that the Obama Administration publicly announce its intention to review the OLC Memo, and that at the end of that review, withdraw the OLC Memo and expressly disavow its erroneous interpretation of RFRA, the most significant free exercise protection of the post-Smith era.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of our views.

Respectfully,

African American Ministers in Action (AAMIA)
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee
American Association of University Women
Asian American Justice Center (AAJC)
American Civil Liberties Union
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
American Humanist Association
American Jewish Committee
Americans for Religious Liberty
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Anti-Defamation League
Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
B’nai B’rith International
Center for Inquiry
Central Conference of American Rabbis
Disciples Justice Action Network
Equal Partners in Faith
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Interfaith Alliance
Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America
Hindu American Foundation
Human Rights Campaign
Japanese American Citizens League
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Lambda Legal
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Legal Momentum
NAACP
NA’AMAT USA
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Community Action Foundation
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of La Raza
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Education Association
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Ministries, American Baptist Churches USA
National Organization for Women
National Partnership for Women and Families
National Women’s Law Center
OMB Watch
People For the American Way
The Rabbinical Assembly
Rainbow PUSH Coalition
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Secular Coalition for America
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS)
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF)
Sikh Council on Religion and Education
Texas Faith Network
Texas Freedom Network
Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
Women of Reform Judaism
Women’s Law Project

cc: The Honorable Gregory B. Craig, White House Counsel

1 Memorandum for the General Counsel,  Office of Justice Programs, from John P. Elwood, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the Award of a Grant Pursuant to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (June 29, 2007).
2 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.(2000).
3 494 U.S. 872 (1990).
4 The Coalition for the Free Exercise of Religion, chaired by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, also led the effort to enact the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(4) (2000).
5 Although RFRA, as enacted, reached both federal and state law, the Court held in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), that application of RFRA to state and local laws was unconstitutional. The Boerne decision, however, did not render RFRA per se unconstitutional and subsequent cases demonstrate that, as applied to the federal government, RFRA remains good law. See Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal et al., 546 U.S. 418, 424 (2006).
6 In 2001, the Bush Administration strongly promoted legislation (H.R. 7) which would have expanded “charitable choice” to nearly all federal social service programs. The measure failed in Congress, in large part, because of the civil rights and religious liberty concerns CARD raised.
7 Many programs – including Head Start, AmeriCorps, and those created by the Workforce Investment Act – contain specific statutory provisions barring religious discrimination that cannot be superseded by Executive Order. # # #

The Interfaith Alliance celebrates religious freedom by championing individual rights, promoting policies that protect both religion and democracy, and uniting diverse voices to challenge extremism. Founded in 1994, the Interfaith Alliance has 185,000 members across the country from 75 faith traditions as well as those without a faith tradition. For more information visit www.interfaithalliance.org.

(3) Dozens of Groups to Justice Dept: End Faith-Based Hiring

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/09/17/dozens-of-groups-to-justice-dept-end-faith-based-hiring.html

September 17, 2009 05:55 PM ET | Dan Gilgoff | Permanent Link | Print

By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

More than seven months after announcing that it would deal with the so-called hiring issue around faith-based programs on a "case by case basis," the White House has given no indication of how its piecemeal policy is playing out.

Many conservative religious interests want Obama to continue George W. Bush's policy of allowing faith-based groups to hire only fellow believers with federal funds. But many religious minorities, liberals, and secular groups are appalled at the thought that the Obama White House is extending the Bush-era policy. Growing ever more frustrated that the administration is delaying action on what they consider a bedrock constitutional issue, that coalition is stepping up its campaign to get Obama to officially reverse the Bush policy. ...

(4) UK Christians Celebrate Victory Over Equality Bill

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100126/christians-celebrate-victory-over-gov-t-on-equality-bill/

World | Tue, Jan. 26 2010 02:18 PM EDT

By Jenna Lyle | Christian Today Reporter

LONDON – Some Christians say their prayers have been answered after the House of Lords on Monday defeated changes to a law that would have required church groups to hire homosexuals or others whose manner of life is inconsistent with their teaching.

Peers voted 216 to 178 in favor of Lady O’Cathain’s amendment to retain an exemption for religious groups to equality employment laws.

Reacting to the result, Lady O’Cathain said Tuesday: “I know that very many Christians were praying that justice would prevail as the House of Lords voted on this important issue. Many also wrote wise, sensitive letters to peers, seeking to persuade them of our case.

"We give thanks to God for the outcome, and we continue to pray for our Government, as Scripture exhorts us to do, that God would bless their counsels."

The Christian Institute’s Mike Judge commented, “The prayers of thousands of Christians and letter writing to peers was key to protecting our freedom."

"Surely churches should be free to employ people whose conduct is consistent with church teaching. Surely that’s not asking too much," Judge added. "It's called freedom of association, and it’s a key liberty in any democratic society. The fact that the Government couldn’t see this will concern many Christians.”

The government attempted to restrict the exemption for religious organizations solely to ministers and other positions that wholly or mainly “exist to promote or represent the religion or to explain the doctrines of the religion.”

Christians argued that if the Equality Bill was passed without Lady O’Cathain’s amendment, which leaves the current law unchanged, it would impose considerable restrictions on who religious organizations could employ and put them in the difficult position of having to appoint someone who did not conform to their ethos and beliefs.

Last week, bishops in the Church of England argued that the bill would leave religious organizations “more vulnerable to legal challenge.”

Dr. Don Horrocks, head of public affairs for the Evangelical Alliance, said the government's amendments to change the current law "would have left churches and organizations unsure whether they could prefer practicing Christians for the majority of their roles."

"Now, they can continue to appoint people who are committed to the ethos of the organizations they are supposed to represent," Horrocks said. "It's a victory for common sense. I hope the government will accept this and not prolong the issue by asking the House of Commons to challenge the Lords' vote."

Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of Christian Concern For Our Nation, also praised Monday's vote. “This is a great day for religious liberty in the United Kingdom. We are thankful that the law has not been changed and the freedom of churches to control their own affairs has not been restricted any further.

“The results show what can happen when Christians pray and take action. Let us be encouraged that even in an increasingly secular society, the voice of the Church can still be heard.”

Harriet Harman, whose name is attached to the Equality Bill, may decide to force the bill through the House of Commons or revert to an EU directive prohibiting discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

(5) Churches "panic" over equality bill - Guardian opinion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/24/religion-anglicanism

Churches panic over equality bill

Why are the churches fighting the government's equality bill so fiercely in the House of Lords?

Simon Sarmiento

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 24 January 2010 10.56 GMT

On Monday, peers will debate amendments to the Equality Bill affecting employment by religious organisations. In the run-up, a fierce campaign has been mounted by Care, CCFON, the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship and the Christian Institute, and supported in substance if not in tone by the Roman Catholic bishops and the Church of England.

Is this campaign just wanton scaremongering by religious extremists as a cover for retaining the right to irrational prejudice? Or is the government really trying to narrow existing law so as to curtail the exemptions from employment discrimination law to which religious organisations are entitled under the law?

The government insists that it is doing nothing of the kind, merely "clarifying" the law, in the course of consolidating the myriad of existing anti-discrimination regulations into a single act of Parliament.

Three Church of England bishops clearly disagree. In an unusual Saturday morning press release they said that the government "have produced no convincing case for change."

But the bishops surely know that the UK government has a problem with the European Commission. When Parliament made the employment equality (sexual orientation) regulations in 2003, an extra clause was added at the last minute which allows "a requirement related to sexual orientation" to be imposed when employment is "for the purposes of an organised religion". Neither of these phrases was defined any further. There was quite a fuss at the time, and speaking for the government, Lord Sainsbury then said: "When drafting Regulation 7(3), we had in mind a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion, plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion."

Following a formal complaint filed in Brussels by the National Secular Society, EU officials have been discussing this clause with the UK government since August 2006. Last November they issued a "reasoned opinion" which "maintains that the wording used in Regulation 7(3) is too broad, going beyond the definition of a genuine occupational requirement allowed under the directive".

"The directive contains a strict test which must be satisfied if a difference of treatment is to be considered non-discriminatory: there must be a genuine and determining occupational requirement, the objective must be legitimate and the requirement proportionate. No elements of this test appear in Regulation 7(3)."

One government argument in response was that the 2004 judicial review in Amicus vs Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, while rejecting the unions' argument that the regulations were ultra vires, created a formal legal precedent that the exemption must be interpreted extremely narrowly. Nevertheless an employment tribunal in 2007 allowed its application to a Diocesan Youth Officer, although John Reaney won his case against the Bishop of Hereford on other grounds. This decision, though never appealed and so not forming a legal precedent, gives succour to those who want to believe that the exemption is not so narrow.

So there are some changes in the bill, by which means the government hopes to satisfy the commission. It has very recently proposed new wording for an explicit definition of "the purposes of organised religion". And the word "proportionate" now appears twice, in order to make explicit on the face of the bill that the European directive has such a requirement (in plain language, you must not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut) which the courts are in any case required to observe. The bishops are supporting precisely the amendments that would remove these changes.

The new definition expressly includes all "ministers of religion" and for the laity closely follows what Lord Sainsbury originally said. That is still unacceptable to both Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops, whose legal advisers are convinced the wording may somehow be interpreted by the courts in a narrower way than is possible at present. Both groups have stated that they strongly prefer there to be no definition at all in the Bill rather than the new one now offered, though they grant it is an improvement over an earlier draft.

The Church of England bishops are however insistent that their own view is "that the current limited exemptions for organised religions are balanced and should not be further restricted."

What they want is for candidates for "a small number of lay posts", or more exactly "certain senior lay posts that involve promoting and representing the religion" to be required "to demonstrate an ability to live a life consistent with the ethos of the religion".

It's very difficult to see why the latest wording proposed by the government does not concede all that they require.

(6) Let's fight the church on equality - Guardian opinion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/26/church-equality-bill-lords

Let's fight the church on equality

Christian conservatives have won a victory for discrimination in the Lords. Secularists should make their voices heard

Terry Sanderson

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 26 January 2010 16.12 GMT

Last night's parliamentary debate on the equality bill was one of the poorest and most ill-informed I have ever heard in the House of Lords.

Despite Lord Lester's eloquent explanation of the bill, and its duty to conform to the European framework directive from which it sprang, there seemed to be a determination among the Christian peers and bishops (of which there was a surfeit) to ignore our obligations to the EU as a member state. Indeed, Lord Tebbit put it most baldly when he said: "We have a choice tonight – whether we walk in fear of the law of the Lord or the law of Brussels. I know which way I am going."

"Religious freedom" seems to give these Christians an absolute right to ignore the law if they dislike it. The bishops were particularly culpable on this. As they argued for the removal of the need for a proportionate balancing of freedoms when freedoms collide (as they do with religion and gay rights), Lord Lester told them:

Amendments 98 and 99 would remove the principle of proportionality. That is a general principle of European law by which the United Kingdom is bound. The amendments would remove that principle as regards differences of treatment made to comply with the doctrines of a religion. As has been said, there are a number of exemptions for religious requirements in paragraph 2 of Schedule 9 relating to sex, marriage, sexual orientation and so on. For example, in certain circumstances it is permissible, for the purposes of religious employment, for a difference of treatment to be made in accordance with a requirement either not to be of a particular sex or relating to sexual orientation – quite right, too.

Under the bill, these exemptions must be applied in a manner that is a proportionate means of complying with the doctrines of religion. Removing proportionality here, as these amendments seek to do, would mean that any religious organisation could implement the requirements without a sense of proportion and in breach of the general principle of European law. In other words, the organisation could lawfully use its powers in a way that was excessive. That would inevitably lead to complex and costly litigation, as happened in the Amicus case, in our and the European courts, the outcome of which would be to require the principle of proportionality to be applied as part of the law of the land, whatever the movers of these amendments and the seven Bishops now present may say. It is the law under European law and it is the law of the land. Proportionality is required whether they like it or not.

The right for religious bodies to discriminate against gay employees is already written into the equality bill. The government was simply seeking to define the limits (ie you can demand a priest be of the faith, but not caretakers, cleaners, secretaries etc). It insisted that there was no change in the law as it had been written into the sexual orientation regulations of 2003, just a clarification.

According to a reasoned opinion (a sort of legal warning that they had not implemented the directive correctly) issued by the European commission, the government has already gone too far in trying to accommodate religious demands. The European commissioner warned the government that if it didn't narrow the exemptions given to religious groups, it might end up in the European court of justice. A complaint from the National Secular Society had led to this warning and we intend to press the commission to carry out that threat.

But this debate had followed an intensive lobbying by the newly-burgeoning religious right in this country. The Christian Institute and Christian Concern for Our Nation, as well as the Church of England and the Catholic bishops conference, have mounted between them a formidable campaign claiming that the human rights of religious people are under threat. "Religious liberty" in this instance seems to mean the freedom to visit injustice and discrimination upon those who do not abide by the doctrines of your religion. ...

If Christian influence is really a licence to practice bigotry at public expense, then it is time for all those armchair secularists to start manning the barricades.

(7) Labour's Equality Bill incompatible with Toleration - Telegraph View

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/6958063/Labours-Equality-Bill-should-not-be-tolerated.html

Labour's Equality Bill should not be tolerated

Telegraph View: ambiguities in the wording may penalise the Catholic Church and institutions linked to it

Published: 7:14PM GMT 10 Jan 2010

Toleration is one of the most fundamental values of a liberal society. It is also appears to be the one that some Labour ministers find hardest to understand. It requires accepting that other people are entitled to arrange their lives and institutions around their religious beliefs – even when those beliefs appear, to those who do not adhere to the religion in question, to be wrong-headed, or even discriminatory.

As we report today, there are serious concerns that Labour's new Equality Bill is incompatible with the value of toleration. According to one QC, it will make it illegal for a religion to insist on celibacy from some of its members, or to prevent women from becoming priests or holding other offices. There is enough ambiguity in the wording of the new law to make that intolerant result a real possibility. It would not be the first time that Labour's quest to achieve "fairness" has led to the imposition of prohibitions on religious organisations. A law passed in 2007 forced the closure of two Catholic adoption agencies for their refusal to place children with gay couples.

If the new equality law had been properly debated in the House of Commons, then the ambiguities in its wording and the potential for penalising the practices of the Catholic Church and institutions linked to it, and of several other religious organisations, would probably have been removed. But it was not properly debated: indeed, it was hardly debated at all. The Government imposed a guillotine on discussion of amendments, so the vast majority of the changes proposed were never considered.

Next week, the House of Lords will debate the Bill. It will be up to the Lords to prevent Labour's ill-considered proposals from having the result – possibly unintended – of reintroducing a degree of intolerance of Catholic and other religious practices not seen since the 18th century.

(8) Labour trying to force religion behind closed doors while defending Gays

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6873005/Equality-Bill-dangerously-trying-to-force-religious-belief-behind-closed-doors-bishops-warn.html

Equality Bill ‘dangerously’ trying to force religious belief behind closed doors, bishops warn

Bishops have accused the Government of “dangerously” trying to force religion behind closed doors while defending the beliefs of minority groups such as homosexuals.

By Martin Beckford
Published: 7:00AM GMT 15 Jan 2010

The senior clerics warned that Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill suggests some rights are considered "more important than others".

They backed calls for a “conscience clause” to be added to the law so that the rights of religious worshippers are not ignored by attempts to protect minorities.

Labour’s flagship equality legislation, currently in committee stage in the House of Lords, seeks to outlaw any form of discrimination against disadvantaged groups in the office or the market place.

However, there are fears that it could undermine the ability of worshippers to express the traditional teachings of their religions, many of which believe that homosexuality is a sin; that only men and women can marry; and that sex outside marriage is wrong.  ...

(9) US Gays postpone Gay Marriage, push for anti-discrimination bill instead

http://www.thetowntalk.com/article/20100114/NEWS01/100114018

Gay rights' advocates push for anti-discrimination bill

BY ERIN KELLY • GANNETT WASHINGTON BUREAU • JANUARY 14, 2010

WASHINGTON - After a 15-year fight, gay rights’ groups believe 2010 will be the year they persuade Congress to pass a landmark law protecting workers from being fired or denied jobs or promotions because of their sexual orientation.

With Democrats in the majority in the House and Senate and President Barack Obama promising to sign the bill, this is the best chance supporters have ever had to see passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, first introduced in 1994, said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

“I think it’s particularly poignant that this comes at a time when the nation is facing such a crisis in unemployment,” Carey said. “Each day that a job is lost because of prejudice compounds the problem.”

Opponents fear the bill could pave the way for the legalization of gay marriage and create workplace discrimination against people whose religious beliefs denounce homosexuality.

After delays last year that frustrated gay rights’ leaders, the lead sponsors of the bill say they expect a vote in the House in the first quarter of this year.

But others believe Congress may be afraid to pass the law in an election year.

“I do think the Democratic leadership is committed to acting on this bill, but whether they can pass it is another question,” said Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the conservative Family Research Council, which opposes the bill. “I think there is a reluctance on the part of some of the more moderate Democrats to tackle a controversial issue like this.”

The legislation before Congress would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote an employee based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The gender identity provision seeks to protect transgender people, whom gay rights’ advocates say often face the worst discrimination.

The proposed law would not apply to the military or to religious organizations such as churches and parochial schools. It also would exempt small businesses with fewer than 15 employees.
The legislation does not require employers to provide domestic partner benefits to the same-sex partners of their workers.

Unlike gay marriage, which a majority of Americans oppose, most people support efforts to bar workplace discrimination, public opinion polls show. Support for gays having equal rights in job opportunities has jumped from 56 percent in 1978 to nearly 90 percent today, according to the nonpartisan Gallup polling firm.

Opponents say that’s because Americans don’t really understand the implications of the bill.

“There is a lot of controversy about how broadly the religious exemption would extend,” Sprigg said. “It’s pretty clear it would not require churches to hire a gay pastor if they don’t want to. But it could force a Christian book store owner or the owner of a Christian publishing company to hire gays even if they have moral objections to that.”

Supporters of the anti-discrimination law say opponents are making wild claims to try to confuse people about what’s really in the bill.

“This is about employment discrimination and nothing more,” Carey said. “People see this as an issue of fairness and, in this economic climate, an issue of survival.”

Arizona Rep. Harry Mitchell, a moderate Democrat in a swing district, voted for the bill in 2007 and is co-sponsoring this version. He said it is needed because there are 29 states where employees can still be fired because of their sexual orientation. Discrimination against transgender people is legal in 38 states, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Meanwhile, 87 percent of Fortune 500 companies have adopted polices barring discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“The business community gets it,” Mitchell said. “Why would you want to exclude anybody who is industrious, smart, and who can do the job? That’s just crazy.”