The Sexual Orientation Regulations do effect
Schools
Whatever the Government says, the regulations will be interpreted as applying
to teaching in schools. Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights has called for the GB regulations to make clear that they apply to the
curriculum - to stop schools teaching that homosexuality is sinful or morally
wrong.1 The Committee said that schools should not be able to
teach “…a particular religion’s doctrinal beliefs as if they were objectively true.” Parallel religious discrimination laws have exceptions for the school
curriculum and acts of worship, but the Government has refused to provide such exceptions in the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Without clear exceptions for the curriculum and acts of worship, schools will come
under huge pressure to endorse homosexual lifestyles. Education bodies are already training teachers to use pro-homosexual resources.
Moreover, an aggrieved pupil could sue a school which does not endorse homosexuality in sex education or citizenship lessons.
Interpreted in this way, the regulations would also undermine devolution. The
Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales
are meant to be responsible for the school curriculum. The regulations apply
to all schools – state and independent. The Government argues that the regulations only apply to school admissions and exclusions, or to access
to school trips. But the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whilst not giving a legallybinding interpretation, has shown that homosexual activists will interpret the regulations as applying to teaching in schools.
Old people’s homes
A Christian old people’s home which refused a double-bed to a homosexual couple could also be sued under the regulations. The operators of a Christian home could face an action for discrimination under the regulations if the
claimant or the home is funded by the state. Although such homes
restrict double rooms to married couples only, and also refuse
unmarried heterosexual couples, the regulations require a person in
a civil partnership to be treated like a married person. Even if the legal
action is unsuccessful the expense of defending themselves could
be huge. A Christian conference centre may be protected by
the exception for religious organisations. No such protection
has been given to Christian B&Bs or guest houses because they are
‘commercial’.
Adoption agencies
Publicly-funded adoption agencies that refuse on principle to place
children with homosexual couples will breach the discrimination
provisions under the regulations. These agencies could be forced to
close, particularly if an expensive legal action is mounted against
them. The Government has refused to grant them an exception, giving the
agencies until the end of 2008 to comply with the regulations.
Doctors
A Christian GP who refuses on moral grounds to refer a lesbian
couple for IVF treatment will be unlawfully discriminating under the regulations. The medical practice to which he belongs or the NHS trust which
funds the practice may face litigation. Even if the medical practice is based on a publiclystated Christian ethos, it could still face a legal action. It would
not be able to use exceptions for religious liberty because it is deemed to be ‘commercial’ and it receives public funding.
Professionals involved
in weddings A Christian wedding photographer could be sued if
he refuses to attend and take pictures of a civil partnership
ceremony. A florist could be sued for not providing
flowers. Caterers, hoteliers, car-hire firms, tailors could
all face expensive lawsuits if they refused to provide their
facilities, goods or services for a civil partnership ceremony.
Christians working in these professions should not face
crippling legal actions simply because of their religious
beliefs on sexual ethics.
http://www.christian.org.uk/pdfpubli...er_march07.pdf