British churches may be forced to hire gay and lesbian staff beginning next year if the Equity Bill passes. This makes sense. Given the logic of gay rights advocacy, and its comparison of gay rights to civil rights, if a church cannot decline to hire someone on the basis of their race, then neither can they decline to hire someone on the basis of their sexual orientation. This may be coming to a U.S. church near you! Remember New Hampshire? Their House of Representatives initially voted down a same-sex marriage bill because they didn’t want to allow religious organizations to opt-out of participating in same-sex ceremonies. The trend is moving toward decreased religious liberty.
June 22, 2009
UK Churches May be Forced to Hire Gay Staff
Posted by Jason Dulle under Apologetics, Homosexuality, Politics[14] Comments
Thinking to Believe 
June 23, 2009 at 2:11 am
The worst part of all this means that some churches will not hire the said youth worker now, which in turn will affect the communities in an adverse way.
The UK is halfway down a slippery slope away from democracy as it is, so it should not come as a surprise that even more liberties are removed from us…
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 2:19 am
What’s next, hiring a Bhuddist monk to offer religious based counselling?!?
Reminds me that recently, there have been problems in UK registry offices as some christian registrars are informing the company that they do not wish to participate in same-sex ceremonies – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5594962/Christian-registrar-demoted-to-receptionist-after-she-refused-to-preside-over-gay-marriages.html
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 10:18 am
I didn’t realize you live in the UK. I think both the UK and the US are slipping away from democracy. The US is fast giving up its liberties, and the power of the federal government is growing immensely. The people here seem to want socialism. While I love the US and think it is still a great nation, we have surely strayed from the principles of our founders. And for that, we are in a state of decline.
The Buddhist monk scenario is a good one. After all, if race and sexual orientation cannot be discriminated against by religious bodies, how can they discriminate against someone based on their religious beliefs? One might say it is obvious: what sense does it make for a religious group to hire someone who thinks their religion is wrong. I agree. But what is different about homosexuality? What sense does it make for a religious group to hire someone who does not follow the dictates of their religion?
As for the news story you linked to, it’s amazing how the discriminatin is being reversed now that the gay community has political clout. Now it is them persecuting us, and using the force of law to boot!
Jason
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Wow…there is so much to be said about this. Here are a couple thoughts that came to me.
1 – The core issue! — I do not agree that a religious organization should be “forced” to contradict their values in any manner. That is pretty basic and self-explanatory.
Now to the tricky aspects…
2 – Procedure! — So, how specifically can a church be “forced” to hire a homosexual? I assume it would work similiar to affirmitive action, where they have to meet a quota of sorts? I did not see that detail in the article, perhaps I missed it.
3 – Double standards?! — This is what I mean. I assume that a church would more than likely deny a homosexual a position to work for them because their sexual orientation is contradictory to the organization belief’s. Correct? If that be the case, I wonder if the same church would more than likely deny a person not converted because their spiritual position (unsaved) is contradictory to the organization’s belief’s? Are all workers at all churches everywhere converted or are some unsaved? If there are those unsaved, why would a church hire them but not a homosexual person when both are in some fasion contradictory to the church’s belief’s? Of course this example is hypothetical, but I think it’s highly probable…
4 – Irony! —- I know that there are countless Christians, including the leaders, who have same sex attraction (whether married or single) – COUNTLESS. I wonder how THEY feel about this issue – while I am sure they would disagree about being “forced” to hire, I wonder if they would feel hypocritcal if they willingly denied an “out” homosexual the chance to work for the church, when they themselves share that same struggle (whether it’s known or not)…?
Just some thoughts…
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 3:08 pm
A wee bit of a stretch, wouldn’t you say? Do you have statistics to back that up? I do not deny the “closet” is occupied by professing Christians; but “countless” goes to infinity and presumes a majority. Hyperbole, perhaps?
If they don’t already feel hypocritical, I doubt the Pharisee bug will bite them then.
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Michael,
They will be forced by litigation. A gay person will apply for a church job, make it clear that s/he is gay, not get the job, and then sue the church/organization. The church will either have to hire them, or be forced to pay out a lot of money in legal fees and/or settlements.
True, one would think that a church would be no more prone to hire a “general” unbeliever than they would a homosexual unbeliever. Conversely, those who are willing to hire general unbelievers probably wouldn’t mind if they are homosexual as well. Some, however, might think differently, and hold to a double standard.
I think we need to distinguish someone who struggles with same-sex attraction, and someone who is a practicing homosexual. I don’t think a Christian should be denied employment at a church because they struggle with same-sex attraction (unless, perhaps, they are going to be working with youth). The sin is not the attraction (which they do not choose), but rather acting out on those attractions (which they would choose). That’s not to say the attractions are normal or healthy, but it is to say having the attraction itself is not sin in itself, no more than heterosexual attraction outside of marriage is a sin in itself. Both become sin only when they are acted upon.
I’ll let you respond to Scalia, but I am pretty confident you are speaking hyperbolically. I know there are more people struggling with homosexuality in the church than many people would like to believe, but it is clearly a minority. We wouldn’t expect it to be any higher than the national average of about 2-4%.
Jason
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“A wee bit of a stretch, wouldn’t you say?”
—It’s depends on what we define as ‘countless’ —
“Do you have statistics to back that up?”
—The only statistical data I could give is what I have personally seen and/or heard, combined with what has been confirmed or denied. To some that may be sufficient, to others it may not. Yet that is to be expected I assume.—–
““countless” goes to infinity and presumes a majority. Hyperbole, perhaps?”
—Yes, I agree with that definition. I said countless more so from the stance of a hyperbole, however, slightly from a literal stance as well because I have literally “lost count” – or “stopped counting” rather.
“If they don’t already feel hypocritical, I doubt the Pharisee bug will bite them then.”
—Do mind explaining that statement? I need clarification on exactly what you mean before agree or disagree….thanks…
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Jason –
Thanks for the clarification concerning the litigation aspect. Frankly stated, that would just be a mess.
I absolutely agree that we need to distinguish between the “struggling” verses the “practicing” homosexual. However, from what my eyes and ears have witnessed, and from the testimonies of others who have been willing to share, its seems as though all homosexuals/bisexuals are treated as through they willingly practice, regardless it that is true or not. It seems that “we” don’t see them as “struggling” but we seem them as practicing. Meaning, its seems that anyone with the same-sex desire, regardless of the magnitude, they are all treated the same – negatively, with no empathy (or sympathy), and viewed as a practicing hell-bound self-deceived sinner who THINKS they are converted. Then I wonder, is there a third category? What about those who proclaim, “I am a homosexual” – meaning, they have those desires, YET they don’t act out on them. However, they don’t see themselves as “struggling” either – they are who they are and accept it, but deny the acts for the sake of what they interpret from the bible…? Where do they fall in all of this?
As for statistics for THIS issue, I am weary of them, lol. I just don’t see how accurate they can be, especially when so many people are willingly hiding the truth about themselves. I know statistics make room for that variable, but still, I trust more so from what is said from those who are actually apart of this issue. The same ones who willingly share “the real deal” about how widespread the issue is. I know of those who denied it vehemently, yet it was a cover up. I used to be shocked, but I am no more. Nevertheless, we ministers know that many times these things are shared in confidence from those involved, and with integrity we keep it that way. So I would not expect that data to be included in a statistical finding.
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Michael,
I don’t think one has to deny the reality of their desires in order to be considered one who struggles with same-sex attraction, anymore than the unmarried heterosexual has to deny the reality of his desires ir order to be considered one who merely struggles with heterosexual desire, rather than a “practicing heterosexual.” I do think, however, that most celibate Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction keep those attractions a secret, because as you point out, the church (due to a lack of addressing this issue) tends to see the desires themselves as sinful, rather than merely unnatural desires that need to be crucified just like other sinful desires such as vengeance.
As for the data, it depends on how the data was collected. If it was private, then the results are more likely to be accurate. But you’ll always have under-reporting on this issue because there is still a social stigma attached to it. And of course, some people are just in denial about their desires, or are confused about their sexual identity, or only consider homosexuals to be the practicing type (and they are not practicing). But even factoring all that in, I have a hard time thinking it is more than perhaps 5% of the population.
Jason
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Scalia – sorry for the typos in my response – I hate that! lol – long day…
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Jason –
I agree with your assessment and conclusions.
I just have one question – you mention: “I don’t think one has to deny the reality of their desires in order to be considered one who struggles with same-sex attraction, anymore than the unmarried heterosexual has to deny the reality of his desires ir order to be considered one who merely struggles with heterosexual desire, rather than a “practicing heterosexual.”
That was in response to my inquiry about a possible third category, correct? I want to make sure I have the right understanding of what you wrote: You are saying that if someone has same-sex desires, that is categorized as a struggle, period. They don’t need to deny it – if the desire is there, the struggle does exist. Is that what you are saying? I may need to apologize to you as well, as with Scalia – long day for me! lol…
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Michael, don’t worry about the typos. Blogs don’t require flawless spelling. 🙂
You wonder whether those with same-sex attraction will feel hypocritical denying employment to gay applicants.
There is a difference between somebody who struggles with this or that temptation and someone who openly embraces a vice. One who struggles is not a hypocrite unless s/he denies the struggle. However, if one has privately embraced a vice, then s/he is a hypocrite if s/he publicly denounces the same vice. And if one is living the life of a hypocrite and is comfortable with it, one is unlikely to feel the pangs of conscience over the same issue.
Best wishes,
Scalia
LikeLike
June 23, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Scalia,
Thank you for clarifying – I definitely agree! 🙂
LikeLike
June 24, 2009 at 9:38 am
Michael,
Yes, you’ve got it right. I don’t think one has to deny the reality of the presence of same-sex attraction in order to be considered one who is “struggling” with it. Someone struggles with same-sex attraction if they have same-sex attraction, and yet do not want to have such attractions. They are only a “practicing homosexual” if they act out on those desires. Now, we could debate the merits or demerits of such a person claiming to be a “homosexual,” but I won’t do so now.
No need to apologize.
Jason
LikeLike