Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Senior bishops call on Lords to retain gay employment exemptions

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. “Baroness” Detta O Cahoyne is Irish with an Irish language name so she should be in the Irish Dail (Doyle) not the United Kingdon House of Lords and de facto a Catholic.Amongst the Neanderthal Tory peers she has taken over in her fanatic bigotry and homophobia from the late (and good riddance of her)Baroness Young.This Irish Catholic has been a vociferous opponent of the meerest scintilla of gay rights lining up incredibly with the Ulster bigots of the Iris Robinson variety.

    The vision lives in my memory of the late Jerry Fitt lining up with Maguinness and Taylor in the Lords to oppose the Civil Partnership Bill busily supporting discrimination against gay folk while supposedly fighting to his last breath discrimination against Roman Catholics in Ulster.

    Lousy hypocrites.Like that evil little German bastard in the Vatican

  2. theotherone 25 Jan 2010, 4:10pm

    you yourself are a bigot gendy, a bitter, bigoted, hate filled individual.

    Glass houses and stones come to mind.

  3. Gendy is, of course, right. The bigotry of the established church the Roman Catholic Church and many evangelical churches knows no bounds. The ability of religious bodies to discriminate must be defeated at least in line with the European directive.

  4. theotherone 25 Jan 2010, 4:30pm

    but neville she is saying that ALL catholics are like this not the church. This is self evidently not true.

  5. Simon Murphy 25 Jan 2010, 4:43pm

    No 1: Gendy: You say: “Baroness” Detta O Cahoyne is Irish with an Irish language name so she should be in the Irish Dail not the United Kingdon House of Lords”

    But members of the Irish Dail have been democratically elected to that House by popular vote in a general election.

    Since when have members of the House of Lords been democratically elected?

  6. Pete & Michael 25 Jan 2010, 4:53pm

    No discrimination should be allowed in employment laws. For the church to be able to discriminate should not be allowed, one will have doctors, teachers, police next. Anyway, the church seems to do well out of the parish council tax which is levied on most council tax bills, which has to be paid whether one is gay,straight, atheist etc.

  7. the bible says to obey the laws of the land
    no church or anyone should be immune to the law or above the law

  8. the.kitty.channel 25 Jan 2010, 5:46pm

    We do not think you deluded brethren quite comprehend the sacred importance of our enlightened words. In our copy of “The Big Boys’ Book of the Church” it says that our super-sacerdotal body has evolved from the period of presbyters and elders to an organisation to whom Princes are beholden for their power, and the rabble are beholden for their salvation, and to whom everyone has to submit one tenth of their wealth. This is right and proper, because it enables us to collect lands and valuables, and go around in magnificent vestments and generally lord it over Princes and rabble alike. Only we can know what is good for mankind, and only we truly understand what the Lord calls mankind to. So it follows that we, the Lords Spiritual, have a monopoly on values, virtues, and valour. It is because those things are timeless that we call on the constant suppression of that which is egregious. Only the other day in Chariots we… oh goodness, is that the time already? Have to dash, we have more altar-boy interviews to conduct…

  9. darkmoonman 25 Jan 2010, 5:53pm

    “… religions would be more likely to be sued if restrictions were placed on their ability to select staff.”

    Good. Overt unreasoned prejudice that hurts folks solely for personal pleasure should be open to legal prosecution.

  10. Robert, ex pat Brit 25 Jan 2010, 6:04pm

    This is the problem when you have state religion. Its time we disestablished this cult once and for all. They get all kinds of tax breaks at our expense and they’re allowed to discriminate because of beliefs? Getting rid of the House of Lords would also be a wise move, why should unelected people get to say who can and cannot be exempt from discrimination? Its not even democratic and is an anachronism.

    Why is it that its always the EU commission that compels the UK to do the right thing on equality? It was the same with gays serving in the military. Do we not do anything voluntarily? It makes you wonder if Labour or the Tories are that supportive having to be told what to do. Absolutely appalling.

  11. Sounds about right for these bigots. It never ceases to amaze me that these so-called christians deliberately twist the truth in order to get their own way. Oh, btw, it’s being recommended that their cathedrals are given government money to pay for their upkeep. Yet schemes like the Freedom Pass are under threat because of a shortage of money. Yet another example how two-faced these folk are.

  12. Disestablishment now. Full semantic human rights. Campaign for a secular state. Simple.

  13. Would Stonewall be allowed to discriminate against employing Christians?

    We all know the Christian Institute would be funding lawyers to sue if Stonewall discriminated as Christians are currently allowed to.

    The hypocrisy of the churches position is astounding as they expect us to treat them with equally yet we are not given the same in return.

    We should be launching a campaign for the right to discriminate against Christians ourselves.

  14. John(Derbyshire) 25 Jan 2010, 6:48pm

    My prediction is that the three amendments tabled by the Baroness WILL be passed- mainly due to the votes of the (unelected) anglican bishops. The labour government are currently trying desparately to remove all unelected lords- but this move is being vehemently opposed by the conservative party. There is no doubt that these opponents of equality are vehemently homophobic-as is Anne Widdecombe and at least 70% of the present conservative party. Another prediction- Gay rights have come as far as they can during the last 10 years- and now will be relentlessly pushed back by religious bigots aided and abetted by the conservative government when it is elected in May. Also-can I remind you that David Cameron intends to reduce the number of MP`s and also change electoral boundaries so that the conservative government would be very difficult to remove. I fear that we are looking years ahead for any further progress to be made on the road to equality. I think it is not unreasonable to label the anglican church as totally obsessed with homosexuality- as indeed is the pope-and all roman catholic politicians.

  15. Brian Burton 25 Jan 2010, 6:57pm

    As soon as the People see fit to get rid of the Two-Party system in UK and the USA. Then democratic Politics might stand a chance in this unfare world we live in.

  16. Dave North 25 Jan 2010, 7:14pm

    This is an EC diktat anyway.

    The European Court of Justice is presently gearing up to prosecute the UK govt. for not fully implementing all of the articles as agreed to.

    No matter how loud these “good ole christians” squeal.

    This WILL become law.

  17. theotherone 25 Jan 2010, 7:17pm

    john: we’ve had a house of lords that has tried to stop bill after bill aimed at limiting our civil liberties. It is the disobedience of The Lords that Labour is targeting as they want to fill it with Labour appointed puppets.

  18. Tim Hopkins 25 Jan 2010, 7:37pm

    John was right – the Lords have voted for O’Cathain’s amendments (by 216 votes to 178), and against the Govt amendment (by 195 votes to 174). The effect is to remove the requirement that employment discrimination by religious organisations must be _proportionate_ to the need to comply with their doctrine (it no longer has to be proportionate), and to remove the paragraph that would have limited that discrimination to posts such as ministers and teachers of the religion.

    Amazing how many of these people want to further damage the reputation of traditional religion in this country, by presenting it as obsessively homophobic in a way that most people, especially younger people, will be find absurdly bigotted.

  19. Tim Hopkins 25 Jan 2010, 7:40pm

    … and transphobic of course – the amendments allow transphobic discrimination and gender discrimination as well.

  20. theotherone 25 Jan 2010, 7:47pm

    sad indeed. I’ll have to have a look at how the vote went.

  21. force feed soy milk to the entire house of lords till they all shrivel up and disappear.

  22. Robert, ex pat Brit 25 Jan 2010, 8:22pm

    John, of course the tories don’t want the House of Lords abolished, its filled with them by an overwhelming majority. It should be abolished since it has NO place in a democracy, along with the monarchy. Nothing but parasites.

    Noel and Abi1975, I totally concur. Bring it on I say!

  23. theotherone 25 Jan 2010, 8:42pm

    but robert would you rather a second house stocked up by whatever party happens to hold power rubber stamping anything that came through them? I’m no fan of privilege and on many occasions the Lords has been a backwards thinking place but…

    I think of ID Cards, 28 Days Detention. I think of an independent second chamber than can not be controlled by a government that lacks a popular mandate.

  24. Mumbo Jumbo 25 Jan 2010, 9:27pm

    Here is the vote:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8479761.stm

    The Conservatives and the bishops have done their work and voted against equality.

  25. Dave North 25 Jan 2010, 9:32pm

    Doesn’t matter one jot what the wrinklies and bishes have done.

    The EC has already ruled it illegal.

  26. BBC NEWS
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8479761.stm

    The government has suffered a House of Lords defeat over a move churches said would prevent them denying jobs to gay people and transsexuals.

    Ministers insisted their move was only to clarify the Equality Bill and that the status quo would stay, but churches said it would create confusion.

    Peers voted by a majority of 38 to strike out the plans.

    The current law allows religious organisations to rule out some applicants on conscientious grounds.

    ‘Why fix it?’

    The Archbishop of York, the Most Reverend John Sentamu, told peers: “You may feel that many churches and other religious organisations are wrong on matters of sexual ethics.

    “But, if religious freedom means anything it must mean that those are matters for the churches and other religious organisations to determine for themselves in accordance with their own convictions.”

    He added: “Where are the examples of actual abuses that have caused difficulties? Where are the court rulings that have shown that the law is defective? If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

    Peers voted by 216 to 178 against the government.

    We now need to counter this with a campaign for the right to discriminate against Christians.

  27. Christine Rourke 25 Jan 2010, 9:59pm

    Dave North is correct.

    But what a farce.

    This Bill is supposed to be a piece of flagship legislation for this government, and yet its passage has been appalingly badly handled.

    And so now they are in a mess. They have the option of bypassing the Lords’ amendments and getting flak for that in the Mail and Telegraph and the pulpit, or cranely accepting it and then getting told by the EU that they are in breach of EU Direcvtives.

    Trouble is they are headless chickens now. They are so leaderless and rudderless that they could not organise a nun-shoot in a nunnery.

    I’d like to see to see them get a bit of backbone and tell their lordships to get stuffed.

    But I won’t hold my breath.

    Chrissie

  28. Christine Rourke 25 Jan 2010, 10:01pm

    “cravenly” accepting it…

    bloody typos!!
    chrissie

  29. peter roberts 25 Jan 2010, 10:06pm

    THere’s something bizarre about Christian church leaders objecting to human rights. It’s not the sort of thing you’d imagine Jesus doing – but they never seem to worry what he would have done anyway.

  30. Mihangel apYrs 25 Jan 2010, 10:40pm

    It’s aamazing how the CoE can engage in blatent political activity yet still retain charitable status. And receive tax payers’ money including the tithe from the filthy queers and trannies.

    We really need to start fighting dirty

  31. BrazilBoysBlog 25 Jan 2010, 11:00pm

    Thank god for the EU I say. I hope they prosecute the hell out of the UK government (of whatever political persuasion) I am also thankful that the next government, whoever they might be, will have a hell of a job trying to further erode our equal rights under EU law. Let the religious bigots rot in the hell of their own making.

  32. So does this mean that as an employer they would be happy for me to deny employment to a Christian because it conflicts with my beliefs and ethos that have someone with a mental illness (believing in invisible beings, etc) is not acceptable in my workplace?

  33. Ken – nah as these ones only want everyone to jump to their twisted evil views

  34. Dr Clive R Wheeler 25 Jan 2010, 11:59pm

    Wow – it constantly amazes me – though Im well old enough to reliase it shouldnt – that so many in the position of power and influence yet unelected to be so – are so totally homophobic. What I ask is their problem? Stones and glass houses have been quoted. Inherent self knowledge and fear of their own sexualit springs to my mind. Those who seek to condemn often do so to save their own souls from what they think is a mortal sin within, I do not regard homosexuaity as a sin – one has to believe in sin to accept that. Having studied christianity as per CoR with an intent to enter its ministry I am aware I would have been excluded on the basis of my thoughts and dreams. Goodness knows the condemnation I would face as the result of my actioning those same thoughts!
    How can a mere female seek to condemn gay males?
    She has even less understanding of gay males than the ‘average’ female – and they don’t begin to comprehend the complexity of a straight male! And us gay ones are exceedingly more complex individuals.
    But, fundamentally, I am totally opposed to any person having the audacity to tell me what I may or may not be, think or do. I’ll accept a comment from a fellow gay male – but a straight, totally bigotted female – no way on this earth!
    Bluntly – if I want to express my homosexuality in what ever way I wish I will do do irrespective of the wishes of a group of hereditory bigots.

  35. John(Derbyshire) 26 Jan 2010, 12:01am

    What right has john Sentamu to vote on issues in the House of Lords? He has never been elected by anyone-and has no right to make laws that affect those living in this country. I couldn`t vote on any law affecting Ugandans- so why can he decide whats good or bad for me?

  36. Reading in a certain “newspaper” the daily m**l the bishops of Winchester, Exeter and Chester have put out a statement that says the government has “produced words which will still create difficulties for churches and religious groups” I wonder what those words are surely they can’t be EQUALITY FAIRNESS or perish the thought TOLERANCE would they?

  37. Simon Murphy 26 Jan 2010, 10:56am

    Isn’t John Sentamu from Uganda?

    He has been noticeably silent on the proposed new laws there.

    Looks like that vile old bigot John Sentamu regards his right to discriminate against gay people is more important than the right to life of his gay fellow countrymen.

    The Anglican church is hateful and vile.

  38. The Church of England really does need a new reformation! Split from the African Communion who are seemingly all totally homophobic, make peace with the Episcopalians, accept if you have women priests you are going to get women bishops/Archbishops and if you have gay men in the church they might one day end up as Archbishops! If only 36% of the UK think being gay is wrong, then the church is out of touch! (wot a suprise!)

  39. raymond h. burgoon-clark 26 Jan 2010, 5:53pm

    hoist those lace-wearing closet cases on their own croziers!

  40. Love to see a highly qualified muslim woman in a burka apply for a secretarial Job in the C of E and see what happens! Oh the Mischief it would make!!!!

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all