A new report by the leading charity -- backed by a legal opinion from a leading QC -- says the Bill will make it impossible for all churches and faith-based charities to insist that their senior staff lead private lives in accordance with their religious beliefs.
CARE said that, under the Bill, which will be considered by the House of Lords on Monday, it would be illegal for a Christian charity to sack a senior manager for adultery or living an openly gay lifestyle. The same rules would, it added, apply to Muslim and Jewish churches and charities.
The House of Lords often shows some sense in these situations. What odds this time?
However, the biggest potential showdown is likely to be between the government and Britain's 4.3 million Catholics over the church's tradition of an all-male, celibate priesthood.
Previous legislation in 2007, also backed by Ms Harman, the Commons Leader and equality minister, forced the closure of two Catholic adoption agencies for refusing to comply with new laws requiring them to place children with gay couples.
CARE's report -- A Little Bit Against Discrimination? -- warns that the proposals contained in the Bill are a serious threat to religious liberty in Britain.
John Bowers QC said in a legal opinion for CARE that the Bill could make it unlawful for a church to require a priest or minister to be male, celibate and unmarried, or not in a civil partnership.
When the Bill, which aims to wrap up all existing equality legislation in one piece of law, was debated in the Commons, ministers MPs tabled more than 100 amendments to it -- but ministers imposed a "guillotine" on the Bill and prevented most of them being discussed.
The report's author, Dr Daniel Boucher, said: ''The Equality Bill is a direct assault on the freedom of all faith-based organisations, from churches to charities. This Bill will make it unlawful for those organisations to employ people who are committed to a particular set of religious beliefs.
"This Bill in its current form is a further blow to the faith-based voluntary sector and will leave many people unable to access services they always have.
"This legislation must be revised to recognise our plural society. It must recognise that there are many people in our country who have deeply held religious views and convictions, rather than trying to impose some modern day Stalinistic version of society where there is only ever one view that is right, the Government's."
Overall, the Bill is designed to deliver greater equality between people of different gender, race, religion and class.
However, it has attracted criticism, particularly from businesses. It paves the way for 'gender pay audits' in large companies, obliging employers to disclose the average hourly pay they award male and female workers.
The planned legislation would also allow employers to give preference to female or non-white job applicants over equally qualified white men.
Public bodies would have a legal duty to narrow the gap between the rich and poor in the provision of services. For example, local authorities would be expected to do more to help children from poorer backgrounds.
If passed, the Bill could also oblige public sector bodies to consider the "gender balance" among employees of companies bidding for all government contracts.
#1
"Overall, the Bill is designed to deliver greater equality between people of different gender, race, religion and class."
Assuming this would apply to, e.g, the NHS; there are a disproportionate number of people of Asian ethnicities in the health services. I assume there would be a cull of brown skinned doctors, however well qualified and competent they may be.
Also, I assume we could look forward to more white sprinters in the British Olympic team. In fact, a racially representative British team probably wouldn't have any black runners in most events.
#4
Zhang Fei, I'm sure that Muslims will be exempt from this law because it would offend their sensibilities. And we all know what happens when you offend the sensibilities of Muslims - rioting, bombings, etc.
Of course, it will also offend the sensibilities of other religions, but we all know what happens when you offend the sensibilities of other religions - nothing.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
01/10/2010 16:02 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Call this Dhimmitude to the Religion of Political Correctness.
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked for $6.9 billion in federal funds in his state-budget proposal Friday and warned that state health and welfare programs would be threatened without the emergency help.
No thank you. We, the rest of the country which has not been nearly so extravagant, would rather not.
Mr. Schwarzenegger's proposed $82.9 billion general-fund budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year would close a $19.9 billion gap over 18 months. In addition to the federal aid, he called for $8.5 billion in cuts and $4.5 billion in alternative funding to balance the budget.
"It's time to enact long-term reforms that will change the way the most populous state and the federal government work together," Mr. Schwarzenegger said. He and state legislative leaders plan to visit Washington to lobby for bailout money. White House budget officials weren't available for comment on the governor's request.
Mr. Schwarzenegger said that without the federal aid, he would propose cutting $4.6 billion from state assistance programs and raise another $2.4 billion, largely by extending the suspension of tax breaks.
The governor said California deserved the federal help because the state sends far more tax money to Washington than it receives in return. Federal mandates, he added, "force us to spend money that we do not have."
The budget proposal said the federal government should reimburse California $2.8 billion for costs related to the state's Medicaid program, as well as more than $1 billion for special-education spending and $2.1 billion in federal-stimulus money.
Mr. Schwarzenegger called the state legislature into a special budget session. He proposed cutting $2.4 billion from health and welfare spending and $1.2 billion from prison spending. He also called for cuts in salaries and pensions for state workers.
Republicans praised the plan. "It's a good first step," said Bob Dutton, vice chairman of the state Senate's budget committee.
State Senate President Darrell Steinberg, a Democrat, said: "I have one reaction: You've got to be kidding me." He and other legislative leaders said they opposed any more cuts to welfare and health programs. Instead, they said they preferred federal help or taxes on, for example, oil drilling and tobacco sales.
"These cuts would come at a bad time because there is growing demand from families who are struggling to make ends meet," said Jean Ross, executive director of the nonprofit California Budget Project, which studies policy impacts on the poor.
Mr. Schwarzenegger has been mired in a budget crisis for much of the past two years. California revenues have plunged amid double-digit unemployment and high foreclosure rates. The state has delayed billions of dollars of payments and issued IOUs to keep the government from defaulting.
The return of partisan statehouse clashes over the budget is likely to revive worries on Wall Street over the state's ability to resolve its fiscal troubles. "My concern at this point is that the negotiations could go on longer than the amount of cash the state has on hand," said Gabriel Petek, analyst at Standard & Poor's Corp., which has California on a negative ratings outlook.
A deeply divided legislature finally closed a cumulative $60 billion shortfall last year -- long after its budget deadline.
There are signs California is beginning to slowly emerge from recession. Housing sales have been growing for several months, and state Controller John Chiang on Thursday released his December cash report that showed the month's receipts rose above estimates by $481 million, or 5.7%.
"December receipts showed signs of improvement, but the state continues to face tremendous fiscal challenges," Mr. Chiang said. "At best, this is the beginning of a long and gradual recovery."
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11130 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The governor said California deserved the federal help because the state sends far more tax money to Washington than it receives in return. Federal mandates, he added, "force us to spend money that we do not have."
He should have asked the Senators from California to hold out on voting for ObamaCare until they got the same deal as Ben Nelson did.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
01/10/2010 1:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
warned that state health and welfare programs would be threatened without the emergency help.
Thoughtful of the Terminator to identify the root of the problem, along with his request for money.
#3
First of all Arnold, you are a Republican, so as far as the Chicago mob is concerned, you do not deserver any cash, Democrats in DC only pay off supporters. Never was that way until now.
Secondly Arnold, your representative, Pelosi cares nothing about the people of California, she is too busy bringing in "Socialism", another name for nationalist power grabbing and has no interest in representing the people in her state.
#7
...well, some of that is because a federally appointed social engineer in the guise of a judge orders expenditures by the state to cover illegals. Make a note that in Constitution V.2 that the judiciary to be told in no uncertain terms that any decrees involving expenditures by state or federal agency is the basis of immediate impeachment. The purse strings are the sole power of the legislative branch.
#8
...I have said this before, and I shall say it again: if California gets a bailout, they will have defaulted on being a state - that is; they are incapable of having a legislature that can produce a budget. I WISH somebody would pick up on this.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/10/2010 9:10 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Mike, would it become part of Nevada? Would you really wish that fate on those poor people to the east?
As a born and raised Californian, I insist that the Feds don't give us any money. It only encourages a continuation of bad behavior. Kind of like giving crack to an addict going through withdrawal.
#12
Aid is concitional: suspends all the pollution limits stricter than federal standards, open up offshore and inshore drilling, suspend any and all environmental regulations that are more strict than federal ones, institute ID and citizenship confirmations for all welfare and medicaid/medicare, deport all illegals when they are convicted of breaking any law, cap all lawsuit non-economic damages to triple the economic proven damages, go to loser pays for civil suits, declare bankjruptcy and use that to abrogate ALL public union contracts and retirement agreements to bring them in line wiht national levels, and do not allow any retirement benefit payouts prior to age 60, and reduce retirement payments to double and triple dippers.
#13
I like the way you think OS. However, it is too sensible and I won't hold my breath waiting for sanity in the giant sucking black money hole called CA.
#14
Hopefully I speak for GolfBravo as well in saying that CA should NOT be bailed out...What's the definition of insanity again? The amount of fraud, waste, graft and mis-management is rampant in our state.
On another note...1 hr. special tonight on Capt. Sullenberger (proud resident of the town GBMC and I call home..
#16
IIRC WAFF > US STATES IN REBELLION AGAINST OBAMACARE/UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE LEGISLATION, ARGUE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT. Obamacare will make their various STATE-SPECIFIC BUDGET CRISES-DEFICITS WORSE THAN EVER???
As for DA ARNUUULD > FOX NEWS + CNBC > the Governator is indir asking the Fed for massive Fed assistance calc in PRE-DETERMINED/FIXED RATIO TO CALIFORNIA'S SINGULAR POLECON IMPORTANCE TO THE NATION = COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES VEE OTHER US STATES [e.g. approxi
24% of US Population, percentage of US GDP, "Fifth largest economy in the World", Not just the USA, etc.].
IMO the USA could face another "BIG STATE VS. SMALL STATE" DEEP CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS [interstate egalitarianism] NOT SEEN IN MANY DECADES.
#17
So let me get this straight. You want me to pay for your mistakes like services to illegals and other hare-brained policies so you can continue them? I think not.
I like OS's idea, except I would sieze all assets of all illegals here past 1/1/11, and then deport them. I would make sure anyone who pays rent, goes to a doctor, gets a job, etc. has to prove their legal residency status. And penalize the crap out of anyone who is a serial offender of these policies.
Democrats have been playing a careful game as the Massachusetts Senate contest winds down, raising the stakes in an effort to keep supporters engaged, but unwilling to admit any real concern. But this survey out late Saturday from Public Policy Polling (D) (744 LVs, 1/7-9, MoE +/- 3.6%) is sure to have Democrats across the country in a more obvious panic.
Special Election Matchup
Brown (R) 48
Coakley (D) 47
Und 6
Brown, who has had the airwaves largely to himself since the December primary election, has strong net +32 rating, while Coakley is just +7. And that is helping him with indies. From PPP:
Brown leads 63-31 with independents and is winning 17% of the Democratic vote while Coakley receives only 6% support from GOP voters. Both candidates are relatively popular, with 57% viewing Brown favorably to only 25% unfavorable and 50% with a positive opinion of Coakley to 42% negative.
Brown has run on the idea that he would be the "41st vote" in the Senate to oppose health care, and it seems those who are more likely to vote on January 19 would favor that decision: 47 percent oppose the Democratic plan, while 41 percent support it. President Obama's approval rating among these likely voters is a slim 44 percent, to 43 percent who disapprove.
It seems unlikely a final health care vote will happen in the Senate until after this special election, which certainly raises the stakes for Democrats here. The Coakley camp has announced that President Clinton will campaign with the attorney general this Friday. Perhaps now you'll see some sort of direct appeal from the White House. And Democrats will certainly have to try and raise Brown's negatives and tie him to the national GOP if they are to right the ship.
Though he's been clear he'd side with his party on the key issues like health care, Brown called himself as an independent in an interview with RCP this week who wouldn't be beholden to anyone if he was elected. You can read more from that interview here.
#1
It seems unlikely a final health care vote will happen in the Senate until after this special election, which certainly raises the stakes for Democrats here.
Except that the Demons here have already announced that they will delay certifying the election results till after that Senate vote. Though the election is 1/19 they have stated that the certification won't come till the end of Feb.
This is getting very scary. I'm coming to the conclusion that the tyranny they are implementing cannot be stopped by anything short of arms.
#2
Didn't they change the law there twice already, the last time to get the interim acting Senator in so they could vote on healthcare? Can't the public see the massive corruption associated with this kind of behavior?
#5
Does Massachusetts have districts like California and Washington? Ones that "find" enough ballots hours or days after an election? Those ballots are always in liberal districts and seem to be just enough to get the Donk over the top.
#6
Dems, pay no attention. The Globe says you are up by 14, and nobody on the GOP side thinks there is any chance of winning, see some of the posters above for example. Just stay calm, dont sweat it. Coakley and the Kennedy Team have it handled.
#7
Can't the public see the massive corruption associated with this kind of behavior?
No. This is Mass, home of the inbred idiot Southies who vote Dem automatically because granpa did, the minority voter who votes by rote for their plantation masters, and the snotty upper class who votes for the fellow members of the ruling class.
In other words, its a state packed with self-important ignoramuses who cannot see just how stupid they really are. Its Arkansas with better press.
#10
The donks will do whatever they have to do to not lose this Senate seat. Whatever they have to! WHATEVER! I don't think they can have an honest election up there. As has been said, it is genetic. After all this is Chicago Boston politics.
#13
No way Mass votes for the Republican. They still have a foul taste in the mouth from Romney. Yeah, there's a reason he didn't run for a second term--he would have lost, badly.
Question -- if Mass elects the Dem, will they delay certification until end of Feb? Because then there wouldn't be 60 votes in the Senate for cloture...
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
