Yesterday saw what was, I think, a pretty sensible ruling from the European Court of Human Rights on the "Christian discrimination" cases. It seems reasonable that people should be able to express their faith, but in a way that is moderated by other issues, such as health and safety. If I say my faith means I have to constantly juggle knives doesn't mean I should be able to do that while being a nursery teacher.
Of course some Christian conservatives have been pushing this agenda as part of a "Christian persecution" narrative that bares no relation to reality, but seems to fit with their worldview. It is, though, a bit of an insult to people in other parts of the world who are genuinely persecuted for their beliefs.
The attitude, I think, comes from a place of entitlement and privilege. Take the case of a registrar who does not want to perform civil partnerships. Even if you accept the idea that civil partnerships are incompatible with Christian faith (which I don't) I think you have to accept the reality that doing civil partnerships is a core duty of a registrar. You can't expect to continue to be a registrar while not doing civil partnerships.
In the early days of Christianity this issue related a lot more to soldiers who became Christian. Killing was seen as incompatible with Christian faith (and there's a lot more Biblical warrant for this position than opposing same sex relationships and wearing jewellery). So becoming a Christian involved putting down the sword and refusing to kill. But, as carrying a sword and killing is part of the core duties of being a soldier, it was necessary to conclude that being a soldier was incompatible with Christian faith. This was something that had to be accepted. They couldn't demand that they continue to be employed as a soldier while refusing to go to war. The two could not go together, and so you had to choose one or the other.
I basically still agree with this position. Being a soldier would be against my religious principles, so I choose not to be a soldier.
If you consider being a registrar as incompatible with your faith, then I think you have to accept that and accept the consequences. You can't demand that the job works around you to uphold your principles. If the job is against your principles, then don't have the job.
What depresses me is that solemnising and counselling relationships is seen as what is wholly incompatible with Christian faith. And yet no one seems to think too deeply about jobs based on the accumulation of wealth, the exploitation of others, or violence as being against Christian principles. How do we get so far away from the way of Jesus?
Comments
In the case of the registrar refusing to conduct civil partnerships her position as a government official obliges her in my opinion to carry out her duties in accordance with the law as set down by Parliament ( unless that law is manifestly immoral e.g. deportation of citizens for ethnic reasons as in 1930's Germany ).
The second crucifix case involved a much larger item of personal wear - the health/safety reason for restricting its use just about 'stands up'; however the wearing of such a large item is almost an advertisement rather than an item of jewellery.I would expect someone in the same position in hospital to be restrained from displaying a 'Vote Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem' rosette on their unifirm for the same reason.
But that does make me wonder, would it be OK for a Relate counsellor to refuse to work with couples from ethnic minorities? Or refuse to work with mixed-race couples? If that is not OK, why should it be OK to refuse to work with same sex couples?
I think the law is pretty clear that you cannot pick and choose who your provide a service to. If you provide a service, it has to be to everyone.
It is a sad irony that Relate began as the National Marriage Guidance Council and one of its founders was a non-conformist minister and now a highly qualified and experienced Christian counsellor cannot be employed by the organisation.
Sexual orientation is believed by most people to be "an unalterable aspect of identity" like race. But even even if it isn't. Even if it's a freely chosen path like religion, it is still a "protected characteristic."
A perfect comparison cannot be drawn between race, sexual orientation, religion or other identities. Each is different. But nevertheless morally (and legally) you cannot discriminate against people based on these identities.
There exists a conscience clause for doctors who do not wish to counsel women seeking abortions ; they must however be prepared to refer their patient to another doctor who will provide advice. There is no evidence that Mr. McFarlane would not have been prepared similarly to refer gay couples seeking therapy despite his refusal to do so himself.
For some people though their orientation is more bisexual and they may have changed relationships while remaining bisexual.
Again even if sexuality does change for some people over time, it does not change sexual orientation being a morally and legally protected characteristic, as is religion.
The language that sexual orientation is a simple matter of choice is usually coupled with the implication that people "should" "chose" to be heterosexual. But pressurising people to do so does real psychological and spiritual harm, as it usually involves a deep repression of a part of who they are.
To return to the matter of Gary McFarlane's dismissal from Relate Avon, further investigation of the case reveals that he did not refuse to counsel gay couples generally about relationships but, after completing an advanced course in psychosexual counselling,he felt unable in conscience to provide intimate personal advice to gay couples .There is no evidence that I have come across that he acted in other than a professional manner in his earlier counselling of such couples.