Reader comments · Sexual activity grounds for denying employment claims bishop · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Sexual activity grounds for denying employment claims bishop

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Quite how did the bishop think that employing Mr. R. would have “the potential to impact on the spiritual, moral and ethical leadership within the diocese”?As the BBC report that the hearing is expected to last for four days, it appears that NOT employing him certainly IS having an impact on the bigoted bishop’s leadership!Meanwhile, the superannuated CoE is “dragging its feet and failing to come into line with laws concerning the equal treatment of women”. On Friday, the new Gender Equality Duty becomes law in England: though there is no corresponding “Sexual Orientation Equality Duty”

  2. UnvarnishedTruth 6 Apr 2007, 9:10pm

    The bishop would have been entitled to turn down anybody engaging in ANY sexual sin, not just homosexuality. It is not a campaign against any particular group; it is about seeking to employ someone that is living to the high moral standards that are desired.Brothers, sisters, turn from your sin, repent and live. What was wrong does not suddenly become right just because someone says it is and an agenda gets up and running. The time is fast coming when it will be too late to change. These days were prophesied about. Satan fools the world by making wrong look like right and vice versa. Look at the signs of the times and don’t be fooled. Your eternal destination depends upon it.Peace and blessings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

  3. George Broadhead 17 Apr 2007, 9:25am

    Susan Johns says that the Church of England has no firm position on homosexuality. Not so. It made its position clear at its General Synod in 1987 when it voted overwhelmingly to condemn homosexual acts and called on gays to repent, and this remains its official stance.

  4. howard llewellyn 17 Apr 2007, 10:18am

    I was at the Employment tribunal in Cardiff yesterday(16 April) The case went on until Judgement in the case was reserved and won’t be avaible for several weeks.

  5. I don’t understand how it acceptable for any employer to demand their employees refrain from any legal and consensual sexual practices in private. It is absoloutely acceptable for a youth worker to have casual consensual and private sex and it is unacceptable for any employer to dismiss them for doing so. It all comes down to social control and the churches desire to restrict the thoughts and behaviours of its memebers and everyone else, no matter how ludicrous, unjust and hurtful their beliefs and justifications are.

  6. The bishop would have been entitled to turn down anybody engaging in ANY sexual sin, not just homosexuality. – I think you miss the point. No specific sin was mentioned. The attitude of the Bishop seems to imply that reading this website or replying to this e-mail would count a sufficient gay ‘sin’. We need a moral basis for the judgement, only then can we know whether the Bishop’s judgement was morally acceptable.

  7. As a christian I hold to the teachings of Jesus Christ and God’s Commandments. The bibles teachings are clear on the issue of sex outside of marriage, whether that be heterosexual or homosexual. Sodomy is clearly described as an abomination in several books in the bible both old and New Testament. It would have been sinful for the Bishop as an ordained leader to expose christian children to a leader who is involved in a activities that are contrary to biblical teaching. Many activities are legal in this country but are contrary to biblical teaching. Gambling, drinking to excess, etc. This so called christian youth leader should drop the title christian as he chooses to disobey the commandments of Christ. The bible also tells us not to sue a brother in Christ, not to take out lawsuits against each other, Christs radical teachings tells us that if a man steals your shirt you are to also give him your jacket. It seems that he choose to live under ceasars law rather than God’s law.I call on him and all proffesing christians to repent if they are engaged in any sinful activity As described in the bible, so if you claim to follow Christ and are engage in sodomy, or adultery repent!Narrow is the path that leads to salvation, it seems that the path is far to narrow for John Reaney. Go be a Buddhist they love everybody and stop darkening the name of Christ with your reprobate (biblical) unrepentent behaviour.MaxBy the way sue me!

  8. Well “anonymous max”, here’s what I think:The bible is so contradictory, is simply couldn’t be “gods word”. Unlike you, I doubt God is so stupid. Anyone who hold this book as anything but an interesting historical curiosity is a fool. Yes, I’m saying your a fool.Secondly, anyone who purports to “know” god’s word is at best a naively arrogant, and at worst a pompous twit with delusions of the divine. And I’m pretty certain YOU are not a spokesman for god, if one exists.Thirdly, not everyone is as narrow-minded and uneducated as you. How do I know you’re uneducated? Well, educated people tend not to be so deluded by some daft line in the bible. And this is a gay site, what are you doing here? Picking up tips so you can help the local priest abuse an alter boy, eh?What I do with my life is my affair, and I, like many of my fellow gays here on this site, have no use or want of your singular brand of foolish. No one cares. So how’s about you, and yout version of god, f*cking off back to that pond you crawled out of and minding your own business.

  9. “By the way sue me!”By the way sue me??? What do you thinks this is Max, LA Law? Get a life you tosser.

  10. William - Dublin 11 Mar 2008, 4:38pm

    “Picking up tips so you can help the local priest abuse an alter boy, eh?”I’m sure this didn’t intend to come out like you intended, but it implies we’re paedophiles because we’re gay. And we all know that’s nonsense. What I’m sure you meant to say, William, is that this is a gay site and for those who are proud to be so, and if our bible humping friend Max is on a gay site, it probably implies he’s a bit of a queer himself of finds the whole thing quite titillating?The rest I couldn’t agree with more…

  11. William,Its so wonderful that you resort to bitchy little playground language. This so called ‘Gay Christian’ Youth worker also claims to follow the bible as I do. He seems to be the fool for following a book that condemns him. Then he has the cheek to sue a church for implementing biblical teachings. He seems to be the confused one. The irony is that the £47000 awarded to him will be taken from the tithes of the faithful, his so called christian brothers and sisters in Christ.As a foolish christian as you put it. I don’t steal, I don’t lie, I work hard, look after my children, look after my wife, pay my taxes…And you have a problem with that. William I didn’t mention paedophillia?I see your from Dublin…I think your talking about Romanist Priests…Roman Catholics are not christians they departed from the word of God, the bible a millenia ago. God will judge those paedophiles very harshly!I came to this site to get a rounded picture on how this issue was being reported.The bible tells christians not to judge non believers, God will judge them. But it tells me as a christian to judge my brothers and sister in Christ, fellow christians, I am to judge them against scripture, and have a responsibilty to point out their sin. ‘I am my brothers keeper’. And that is what I am doing by judging this ‘Gay Christian youth worker’.You are right you are entitled to life, enjoy it fill your boots because its the only life you have. I don’t judge you. But the day you call yourself a christian somebody like me has the right to call you to task on your sin, if they do not they are allowing you to march toward hell. To point out a christians sin is to safe guard their salvation and look after their emotional, spiritual and physical well being.Now good day to you sir.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.