“Equality” on the march in the U.K.

The latest political tactic to undermine the sovereignty of the Church is rearing its ugly head in the U.K.  The British Parliament is debating the merits of a new Equality Bill, which would outlaw any employer (including religious organizations) from discriminating in their hiring practices on the basis of sexual orientation.

As Edward T. Oakes points out in his piece on First Things Online, this kind of legislation makes sense in the secular work environment, in which the personal beliefs or lifestyle habits of an individual has no bearing on his or her ability to perform a given task or job.  However, when you are talking about employees of a religious institution, this sanitary definition of work-suitability is neither sufficient nor appropriate.

The Pope has weighed in on this issue, igniting the ire of Parliament, who is accusing him of meddling in secular government affairs.  However, Oakes directs us to the analysis of Cambridge University Professor Jonathan Chaplin, who explains:

All British citizens properly possess the prima facie individual right not to be discriminated against – in matters like employment, housing and social services – on grounds of race, gender or sexual orientation. This is because these involuntary markers of identity are completely irrelevant to such matters. I said “prima facie” because even here there exist widely recognised and uncontroversial exceptions, often arising from the rights of organisations. A rape crisis centre surely has the right to discriminate against men when hiring its counselling staff (perhaps any staff). An African-Caribbean community centre obviously can’t be compelled by law to hire a white guy like me as its director. The Labour party is evidently entitled to discriminate on ideological grounds in hiring its research staff.

These are all examples of what the law calls a “genuine occupational requirement” (GOR). The idea is simple and compelling: every independent civil society organisation has a prima facie right to maintain its identity and mission by hiring staff who will support the distinctive purposes of the organisation and uphold its raison d’être. This isn’t a “privilege,” as is often tendentiously suggested, but merely a condition of meaningful self-government. Why then cry foul when religious organisations exercise their right to invoke the GOR provision? Why single them out and deny them the same rights enjoyed by others? Yet when they claim such a right, critics … routinely accuse them of seeking to claim “the right to discriminate.” But this is nothing more than a rhetorical ploy concealing a conceptual sleight of hand. Of course churches are defending their right to discriminate in hiring, but this is nothing other than the right [any] own organisation would claim.

This argument is not complex and it is not confusing.  It’s a plain fact of the right of association.  The only reason the Church is getting singled out and exempted from this commonsense application of the right to associate is because the mainstream secular culture doesn’t like it and is attempting to abuse the legislative process – not only to undermine the institutional and doctrinal integrity of the Church – but also in order to send a message of disrespect.  Think about it: Why would a homosexual even want to work for an organization that views their lifestyle as a sin?  It’s one thing if this individual is a believer who acknowledges that they are a sinner who – along with the rest of humanity – is in need of forgiveness and redemption.  But if they are not a believer, the only reason they would want to force a church to hire them is to make a political point.  In other words, to force the church to go against their moral beliefs at the proverbial point of a gun.

I hope the Equality Bill fails and fails big, but considering we’re talking about England, it will probably pass with overwhelming approval.