An openly practicing homosexual who was refused a post as a youth officer by the Bishop of Hereford has won his case for employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation beforethe Employment Tribunal (UK).
The freedom of churches to employ only Christians of integrity, living in accordance with the Bible???s teaching, was damaged by the recent judgment of a Welsh Employment Tribunal. On July 17, 2007, the Employment Tribunal held that the Hereford Diocesan Board of Finance had acted unlawfully in a case concerning the decision of the Bishop of Hereford, Anthony Priddis, not to offer a five-year post as Diocesan Youth Officer to an openly homosexual applicant, John Reaney.
Along with three other applicants who were called for interviews for the position of Diocesan Youth Officer, Mr. Reaney was specifically asked to confirm his compliance with the 1991 “Issues in Human Sexuality” statement by the House of Bishops and General Synod of the Anglican Church. Mr. Reaney declared his compliance by saying that he was not currently in a relationship and “for this post he did not intend to enter into a relationship.” Mr Reaney had been in a five-year homosexual relationship that had ended a few weeks prior to his application for the Youth Officer job.
After the interviews, an 8-person panel unanimously recommended Mr. Reaney to the Bishop for the Hereford post.
The Bishop was concerned that Mr. Reaney had not ended his recent homosexual relationship in order to be celibate but rather because the relationship had simply broken down. Mr. Reaney???s previous job in the Chester diocese had ended prematurely when he was told to choose between his homosexual partner (who had turned up “unannounced, inappropriately” at events), and his job in the diocese. He had chosen his gay partner.
When the Bishop asked Mr. Reaney what would happen “if he met someone” [another gay partner] in the future, Mr. Reaney responded that if a homosexual relationship might develop, he would discuss it with the Bishop.
After consideration, the Bishop informed Mr. Reaney that he would not be offered the post. A short while later, with the assistance of the gay activist group Stonewall, Mr. Reaney initiated legal proceedings against the Diocese.
The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations were passed by the Labour Government in 2003 in order to implement a European Union Directive. The Regulations make it illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation in relation to employment.
After lobbying by the Archbishops??? Council of the Church of England and other religious groups, the Government created a “very narrow” exception to the Regulations. The exception operates where someone is being employed “for the purposes of organised religion,” so that the employer (a church, mosque, synagogue, etc.) can refuse to employ someone on the grounds of their sexual orientation if necessary to comply with the “doctrines of the religion,” or in order to avoid conflicting with the “strongly held religious beliefs of a significant number of the religion???s followers.”
The exception would apply, for example, if a church refused to employ a pastor or vicar who was an unrepentant practicing homosexual, because that person???s sexual behavior is contrary to Biblical doctrine.
The judgment of the Cardiff Employment Tribunal is notable for its lack of criticism of the Bishop???s conduct in the case. In fact, it is clear from the evidence heard by the Tribunal that Anthony Priddis dealt with the situation with wisdom, sensitivity and grace. For this reason, the Tribunal unanimously threw out the allegations of harassment that Mr. Reaney had made.
The Tribunal accepted the established law that there is no difference between sexual “orientation” and sexual “behaviour” in the eyes of the law. The Bishop was not discriminating because Mr. Reaney was attracted to men, but because of Mr. Reaney???s lifestyle as a sexually active homosexual. The Tribunal decided that Mr. Reaney had been subjected to unlawful discrimination because he was a homosexual.
The Tribunal decided, moreover, that the post of Diocesan Youth Officer did fall within the “very narrow” exception for which the Church of England could discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. Stonewall had argued that churches should not be able to refuse to employ practicing homosexuals in any jobs other than the clergy.
The Tribunal, however, ruled that Biblical standards of sexual morality could not be imposed by the Church of England on employees holding non-clergy posts, saying that “we do not think it would be in accordance with the Issues [in Human Sexuality] statement to require [unmarried] lay persons to commit to celibacy.”
The ruling holds that a Church employer can require no more than that its non-clergy employees are not in practicing homosexual relationships during their employment. Lay employees of the Anglican Church cannot be asked to repent for past homosexual behavior or even to acknowledge that such behavior was wrong.
The Tribunal therefore decided that the Bishop was wrong to take the view that Mr. Reaney did not meet the Church of England???s requirements in relation to sexual morality because he was not in a homosexual relationship at the time of his employment interview. The Diocese was consequently found to have acted unlawfully. The Tribunal held that “there was no good reason to consider Mr Reaney did not at the present time meet the [Church of England???s] requirement.” The Tribunal held that since Mr. Reaney was single on the day of the job interview and declared an intention to remain single, he fulfilled the Church of England???s requirements, a position which they said was “wholly logical and rational because the future is not known to any person.”
This holding of the Tribunal is disingenuous. The future may not be wholly foreseeable, but reasonably a church employer must be permitted to take into consideration the immediate past conduct of a prospective clergy employee who has made no effort or statement of intent to reform his behavior to conform to Biblical doctrines and church standards and practices. It was perfectly reasonable in the circumstances for the Bishop to listen to Mr. Reaney???s comments about his current and future intentions in the light of the substantial past evidence (particularly his long-term homosexual relationship that had ended weeks before applying for the Hereford job) and conclude that Mr. Reaney did not satisfy the “Issues in Human Sexuality” document.
It is to be hoped that the Church of England will appeal this decision to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. It is also to be hoped that the Anglican Church will make clearer its position on the requirements relating to sexual morality for lay employees. Its current position makes it very hard for Christians like Bishop Anthony Priddis to uphold the orthodox teaching of the Bible. The judgment also shows the importance of all denominations having clearly stated positions on the issue of sexual morality in relation to employment. A lack of such official, written standards can leave churches vulnerable to legal action.
