British court: Church of England must hire gay youth work

[MrVersatile48]

4. British court: Church of England must hire gay youth workers

Church of England Bishop of Hereford Anthony Priddis was wrong not to hire John Reaney as a youth worker, an employment tribunal ruled Wednesday. Reaney had stated on his application that he was gay and had been in a homosexual relationship, but that he was not then in a relationship and did not intend to enter one.

After interviewing Reaney for two hours, with several questions about his past relationship and sexuality, Bishop Priddis decided not to hire him. Reaney's behavior, he explained, "had the potential to impact on the spiritual, moral and ethical leadership within the diocese."

Reaney sued, and his lawyers argued that a heterosexual candidate would not have been asked the same questions. The tribunal apparently agreed, and ruled "The respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual orientation." (The full decision has not yet been made public.)

Bishop Priddis stands by his decision. "I regret the polarisation of view that tends to take place when these things happen," he said at a press conference. "I took the decision after a great deal of thought and prayer and anguish. If there had been a stability of life then I would have taken a different view, but there wasn't. I don't normally ask anybody about their sex lives. Mr Reaney raised the issue, not me."

The case is one of several important U.K. court decisions we've been watching this week...


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/200 ... -41.0.html

See Romans 1:18-32

Ian

 

[MrVersatile48]

Romans 1:18-32 (New International Version)

God's Wrath Against Mankind

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.

25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorâ€â€who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,

30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;

31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[Devekut]

But didn't he state that he did not intend to enter into another relationship?

I think that's an enormous distinction. Are heterosexuals asked about their previous deviant sexual behavior? Would it matter if a heterosexual had been in, but no longer is, living with someone out of wedlock or had premarital sex? Are women asked if they had ever had an abortion?

If he no longer intends to enter into a homosexual relationship then I don't see where the basis for rejection is, unless of course, the church would refuse any applicant who is guilty of any other sinful behavior even if they do not intend to commit it again.

 

[Solo]

But didn't he state that he did not intend to enter into another relationship?

Can you really believe those homosexuals?! :wink: