The question: Does faith trump equality?

The government’s recent defeat on religious exemptions in the equality bill has propelled us into difficult, yet depressingly familiar, terrain. How do we make our way through the panoply of groups that comprise society, and preserve a balance between the conflicting interests that arise? According to the pope, the balance has swung too far in favour of non-religious groups. In a speech to UK-based Catholic bishops this week, he claimed that the effect of certain equality legislation has been “to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.”

Any first-year law student will tell you that clarity is essential to good legislation. There is no better reminder of this than the equality bill, which aims to consolidate the contents of 116 different acts of parliament, regulations and codes of practice into a single enactment. The recent House of Lords debate concerned the extent of the exemptions permitting religious organisations to discriminate against job applicants on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender and marital status. Eight Anglican bishops, including Michael Scott-Joynt, voted against the government, which was ultimately defeated by five votes. Consequently, we find ourselves in a blur: not only have the definitions of these exempt jobs been removed, but so has the requirement for these exemptions to be proportionate (a key principle of the EU employment directive).

The bishops argued that all religious organisations have the right to implement their own doctrines without external interference. In which case, this vote is a tremendous own goal because it means that courts will have to refer to the EU directive for guidance in future litigation, making the process longer and more complicated than it was before.

Faith-based organisations were already allowed to discriminate against gay people in terms of posts that entailed the promotion of religion. Nobody is forcing mosques to hire openly-gay imams, for example. In any case, very few LGBT people would want to apply for these kinds of posts; the only gay imam that springs to mind is Muhsin Hendricks in South Africa. However, senior religious figures were becoming concerned that this law did not go far enough in permitting them to exclude other employees who did not fit their “guiding doctrine and ethos.” This is a real setback for job-hunters who deliver services at an operational level eg canteen operatives, youth workers and administrators – particularly in these times of recession and economic instability.

Lord Alli, the openly-gay Muslim peer, cited the case of John Reaney, a homosexual candidate who applied for a youth worker position with the Diocese of Hereford in May 2006. During his job interview with a Church of England bishop, Reaney repeatedly stated that he was not in a sexual relationship, was not looking for one and was “certainly happy to remain celibate for the duration of the post.” Whether celibacy should be a requirement for lay posts in religious institutions is another matter, but the point is that Reaney was a highly competent individual who showed a willingness to compromise, yet was still turned down for the job. In 2007, a Cardiff employment tribunal found the Bishop of Hereford guilty of discrimination as his interrogation of Reaney lasted for two hours and left him feeling “very embarrassed and extremely upset.” Regardless of individual views on homosexuality, this is no way to treat a prospective or current employee. We need more open, constructive interactions between LGBT people of faith and religious leaders. There are numerous gay Muslims who are embroiled in daily struggles between their faith and their sexuality, yet feel it is impossible to turn to imams and scholars for guidance.

My organisation, British Muslims for Secular Democracy, believes that reciprocity and fairness should guide all our decisions in this arena. The equality bill will also reinforce laws against gender, age, disability, racial and religious discrimination. Remember the case of Bushra Noah, the headscarf-wearing Muslim hairstylist who was refused a job at a King’s Cross hair salon. She was rightly awarded £4,000 by the employment tribunal because the prospective employer could not justify the requirement that stylists must display their hair at work. It is only fair that if religious minorities demand equal treatment from others in the realms of employment and the provision of goods and services, that we should give the same in return.