Should religions be allowed to be exempt from the laws they don’t like?
Under the 2005 Sexual Orientation Regulations, it became illegal for all businesses and services to discriminate against gay people. There were some exemptions, which included a genuine occupational requirement for a particular post (as in all other discrimination legislation) or where the employment is for the “purposes of an organised religion”.
This has led to the ridiculous case of an Anglican male priest who has been allowed to enter into a civil partnership with his male partner, on the understanding that they remain celibate! 
There were a number of Catholic adoption agencies who had refused to consider gay couples as prospective adoptive parents. This is not provided for in the legislation, but they were given extra time to adapt their services to being fair and to work within the law.
Catholic Care, a Catholic adoption agency in Leeds, felt it should be exempt from the law and should be allowed to continue to restrict its service to heterosexual couples. It went to court, and thankfully, sense prevailed and they lost their appeal. They will not be allowed to choose which bits of the law they want to obey.
There are two separate issues of concern here. The first is the assumption that gay parents are by default bad parents. The other is around the dangers of allowing organized religions to pick and choose which bits of the law they want to obey.
Let’s look at the first one. The assumption that gay parents can’t be good parents is based on stereotypes. Other (equally wrong stereotypes) are that mothers are automatically better parents than fathers. So, if we are to believe these stereotypes, wouldn’t a family with two mothers be better than a family with a mother and a father? The reality, of course, is that someone’s gender or sexual orientation has no bearing at all on their suitability to be good adoptive parents. There are many successful adoptive families with a heterosexual couple, a gay couple, a single mother or a single father. The adoption approval process should focus on the parenting skills of the individuals, and then find a good match with children requiring adoption. It is in the best interests of those children to have as wide a pool of suitable adopting families as possible. This is more about the rights of children than the rights of gay couples to adopt.
The second one is less clear cut. I’m sure there are many laws that each of us think are unjustifiable. In which case we should challenge the current law rather than suggesting that those who belong to a specific organised religion should be exempt from the laws that everyone else is subject to. Where would it end? One religion thinks its OK to stone to death a woman who is considered to have committed adultery (even ‘tho she may have been raped) so we allow people from that religion to do it in Britain?
Why should some Catholic adoption agencies feel they should not have to obey the same laws as, for example, secular, C. of E., Jewish and Muslim adoption agencies? There was a huge outcry when some Muslim extremists wanted Muslims to live under Sharia law a while ago. What’s the difference?
What do you think?
About JaneHattonJane Hatton helps people with disabilities find a job through an Even Break. If you are an employer who is looking to recruit a talented individual from a Jane, then take a look at how you can here
View all posts by JaneHatton →
6 Responses to Should religions be allowed to be exempt from the laws they don’t like?
All that jazz – All in A Day
Review of: Cousin Alice Jazz Music by Cousin Alice: Elaine Sturgess Reviewed by: Elaine Sturgess Rating: 5 On January 21, 2012 Last modified: January 30, 2012 Summary: What makes Alice so distinctive is her wonderfully smokey voice, a quality that furniture designer William Yeoward found so arresting at a concert she was performing for the [...]
Pingback: Tweets that mention Should religions be allowed to be exempt from the laws they don’t like? | Birds on the Blog -- Topsy.com
Religion has no place in law at all. I so often here a defense of a crime being the defendant is a holy or spiritual person, a religious person… They are a person accused of a crime, their religion is irrelevant and the judges should disregard this information, after all no one says in their defense that they are a good athiest, do they?
I take your point that ‘being religious’ shouldn’t be a mitigation (in fact perhaps even the opposite, as they’ve committed a second ‘crime’ of being a hypocrit
) but I’m not sure it’s even possible to suggest “Religion has no place in law at all” – if for no other reason than the fact that our laws are, by and large, based upon a Christian perspective.
I’m not saying that other religions wouldn’t have come up with similar laws, BTW!
No person or entity should be exempt from the law for any reason. Full stop. I find it very difficult to comment on the question of religion at all because I have such strong views that a huge amount of religious dogma is so fundamentally flawed.
I mean it from the perspective as it should not be used as a defense. It’s also used for parole purposes – so and so has found **** <— insert deity of choice here and is now a changed person. Why should that weigh more than a person who has been rehabilitated and now wishes to live a life according to societies rules. Now I know why a ‘religious conversion’ gets extras when it comes to parole, I just don’t see why it should. If all things are equal, that means equal in all aspects, including the law.
The bible also says we can sell our daughters into slavery, it’s not something that any sane human being would wish on another, yet people do hide behind religious texts for hideous acts of cruelty.
My gripe with religion is that so many people hind behind it to commit all manner of atrocities. This is the whole world over. I ask time and time again why do these so called religious people leave their faith in the buildings or places they worship in!