The text of the House of Lords SOR motions
Wednesday 21 March
†Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 Baroness Andrews to move that the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 March be approved. (Dinner break business)
†Baroness O’Cathain to move, as an amendment to the above motion, to leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House, having regard to the widespread concerns that the draft Regulations compromise religious liberty and will result in litigation over the content of classroom teaching, and having regard to the legality of the equivalent regulations for Northern Ireland, declines to approve the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.”
http://www.publications.parliament.u...dpap.htm#order
Links
*
The SORs are available at
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/draft/20075920.htm
*
A central page with documents on how to lobby MPs and Peers, including advice on finding contact details for MPs and Peers, can be found at
http://www.christianconcernforournat...owTo/howto.php . The Telephone number for Parliament is 0207 219 3000. The Information Line will be also be able to put you through to Parliamentary Offices or assist you with specific telephone numbers.
Template letter on the SORs for your MPs (please modify and personalise to write to Members of the House of Lords). Please also used the attached Frequently Asked Questions Document for ideas.
Dear MP
I write in relation to the proposed Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) which are being considered and voted on by the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee on the 15th March 2007 at 8:55am. Firstly, as my MP I would ask that you attend this Committee meeting – any MP is allowed to attend and take part in the debate. I would also ask you not to approve the Regulations when a Motion is put before the House of Commons to do so.
The aim of the SORs is to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in relation to providing goods, services, facilities, premises, education and public functions.
As a Christian, I believe in the Bible’s teaching that all humans are my ‘neighbours’ and that I should love all of my neighbours equally. The Bible also teaches the importance of peace, justice and fairness. I therefore support any work done by the Government to promote such principles. However, I am very concerned that the proposed SORs go beyond these principles and encroach on my freedom of conscience.
The Government had a large volume of responses to their consultation on the SORs, and the majority of those responses were from religious groups who were concerned that the Regulations would not give them the freedom to continue to profess and live according to their long-standing religious teaching that the only rightful sexual relationships are those between a man and a woman in the context of marriage. It is of grave concern that the Government do not appear to have fully understood those submissions. Although there are some exemptions for religious organisations, there are many areas where the freedom of conscience for Christian, Jews and Muslims, has been left unprotected.
Some of the principal problems with the Regulations are as follows:
1) The Regulations automatically assume that homosexual civil partnerships are fully equivalent to heterosexual marriages and therefore it is assumed that any discrimination (in the provision of goods and services) between married couples and homosexual civil partners is illegal.
2) There is a crucial gap in the protection of vicars and ministers so that it will be illegal for them to teach their congregation that they should follow the Bible’s teaching on sexual morality even where this conflicts with the SORs. For example, it would be illegal for a vicar to cite the example of the Christian printing company and then say ‘it is better to follow the Bible’s teaching and risk being sued than to be complicit in sin by printing leaflets promoting gay pride’.
3) There is no protection for individuals to guarantee their freedom of conscience – the only exemption for religious belief (Regulation 14) applies to organisations rather than individuals. Therefore an individual Christian GP, for example, would have no freedom of conscience to refuse to give a reference recommending homosexual parents as suitable for adopting because the GP did not believe it would be right / in the best interests of a child to be raised without a father and a mother. This does not make sense in light of a doctor’s freedom to refuse to recommend / perform an abortion on the grounds of conscience under the Abortion Act.
4) There is no specific protection for faith schools which are bound by the law in the same way as all schools (see further, below). Also, there is a substantial danger that it will be illegal under the SORs for faith schools to continue to teach that extra-marital sexual relationships are wrong.
5) There is no protection for commercial Christian organisations, however strong their Christian ethos (e.g. a Christian printing company will be acting illegally if they refuse to print fliers promoting gay sex).
6) There is no protection for many voluntary organisations which, although run by Christians who are motivated by their faith, are not strictly 'religious' in the language of the legislation (e.g. a Christian homeless shelter would not be able to hold the policy that ‘we will not provide services to someone if this were to promote homosexual practices’).
7) There is no protection for a church or other religious organisation where they receive funding from the local authority to provide goods or services such that if a church receives state funding to run, for example, an overnight homeless shelter, it will lose all the protection under Regulation 14 and would not even be able to refuse membership of the church to openly practising homosexuals.
8) There is a danger that it will be unlawful for vicars to be able to continue to preach that same-sex relationships are sinful because preaching itself is not protected by the religion exemption and may contravene Regulation 9.
I think (and I invite you to agree with me) that the SORs are based on a significant misunderstanding of faith and religious belief - that the freedom to have such faith and hold such beliefs is only needed at certain times of the week and on certain occasions (on a Sunday for a Christian, on Saturday for a Jew, and on Friday for a Muslim). The reality for me as a Christian is that the teaching in the Bible is just as important to my life outside church as it is inside. This means that if the SORs only allow me freedom to be a Christian on a Sunday (and this itself appears to be limited by the SORs, see 2), 7) and 8) above), they seriously encroach on my right to live as a Christian in this country.
For example, it is no good allowing a Christian who runs a printing press to go to church on a Sunday and express the Biblical view that all extra-marital sex is sinful, if during the week he is forced by the SORs to print a poster advertising an event which will promote homosexual practice. The law would be forcing him to act against his beliefs – to lose his integrity. I am firmly of the belief that the Government should not pass any law which forces me as a Christian to promote, the practising of homosexuality. To do so would force me to contravene my beliefs. To do so would be equivalent to making it illegal to follow part of the Bible.
Nb Comprehensive ‘frequently Asked Questions’ Sor Document
Linear Mode
