I understand what you were saying – but (though I’m not gay) it seems more unacceptable to simply target gay people than if you are acting more broadly in the terms you’ve set for your own religion, and it’s not just a fit of pique because gay rights happen to be increasing and you don’t like it.

And I don’t think anyone really knows what was upsetting the Pope, but religious roles are specifically exempted. Whilst David Blackburn and AP and a few others link it to the employment related provisions of the incoming Equality Bill, the previous Equality Act (April 2007) removed the right of Catholic adoption agencies to discriminate against gay couples.

Since then five of the eleven Catholic adoption charities have complied with the law, one has closed and the other five are in various stages of compliance or challenge to find out what they are allowed to get away with. I think perhaps the Pope was broadly referencing these things, but this may have been key.

If it was, it’s old news – the law is in force and whilst the Bishops have renounced diocesan links with the charities that complied, they are still Catholic charities. Nothing much has changed, except a few more kids will get homes with happy families.

i.e. Man United discriminate against bad footballers.

As for the secretary/cleaner points. I can’t imagine that is what is particularly upsetting the Pope (I may be wrong, I can’t pretend I keep up with this stuff) – surely its people in a specifically religious role? If it is cleaners etc…more dubious ground.

My point was that, if the Catholic heirarchy was consistent – and was proposing detailed background checks to see if people were guilty of flagrant breaches of Catholic doctrine of which they didn’t repent – then their practice wouldn’t be discrimination against gays and the transgendered. But we are were we are – and it is discrimination, and it should be prevented.

I can agree with you that roles within a religion that have specific religious significance should be exempted from employment law – preaching roles for example. But who cleans the churches? Or acts as a secretary?

I don’t know if these roles are even kept for Catholics; if they aren’t, where is the harm in saying that they should be open to everyone, since the issue isn’t one of being part of a religion, it’s simply performing a job.

What seems curious to me, however, is that these issues are even being talked about. Has there ever been a case where a homosexual or transgendered person has applied for a job over which the Catholic heirarchy had control? If not, and if the statistical likelihood of this happening is low – which I imagine it to be – it seems like a foolish thing for the Pope to declaim on.

If we are to accept freedom of religion we arguably must accept that such religions are more free than other institutions to set down their own membership and appointment criteria, however odious we may find them. To assert the strength of the state to impose a moral position onto a religion is not to respect the religious freedom of that group of believers.

One could argue that in choosing to be part of a particular religious body, one agrees to waive some of one’s normal rights. Without the acknowledgment of such a fact where would we be? Would priests who get defrocked for sleeping around be re-instated by employment tribunals to avoid invasion of their private life? Would ministers who preached explicitly against the teachings of their church be protected from discipline by the right to freedom of religion?

I would not claim these arguments to be decisive. It is a troubling issue, as one of our fundamental beliefs must be compromised, and to imagine that there is a cut and dried answer is naive.

p.s. just to make it explicit to anyone reading: I am not coming down either way on any side. I’m not going to get embroiled in any of the ridiculous name calling elsewhere on this site. I merely wanted to point out that it is not as clear cut as Dave’s article makes out. It is a purely formal exercise in trying to flesh out the map of the issues.