There and Back Again

I went to visit my mother yesterday, and bought a Daily Telegraph for the train journey (only for the crossword - honest!). Anyway, after I'd given up on the puzzle I read this piece about the Equality Bill, which several of the Bishops in the House of Lords want to amend so that people will be able to refuse to do things that conflict with their conscience without being penalized in terms of employment. Thus:

Peers claimed that the Equality Bill should be altered to allow people to act according to their conscience when providing goods and services, in the same way that doctors are allowed to refuse to carry out abortions.

Bishop Scott-Joynt, the fifth most senior cleric in the Church of England, pointed out that similar exemptions had been requested but refused in the case of civil partnerships. A Christian registrar, Lilian Ladele, lost a case for unfair dismissal after she refused to carry out the ceremonies for homosexual couples.

The bishop said in a debate in the House of Lords: “The implication of the [conscience] amendment is that each of us... is bound to work as hard as we can to hold the whole range of different people's rights, because there is a sense around that some rights are better than others."

This "some rights are better than others" line strikes me as very unconvincing, not least because I can think of many examples of people's consciences conflicting with their work duties where no one else's rights are affected at all. For example, a vegan who works in an abbatoir, whose conscience won't let them be involved in the killing of animals. A pacifist in the SAS, whose conscience won't let them kill people. A person who works for Huntingdon Life Sciences but is against vivisection. Pacifists, vegans and anti-vivisectionists are all people of conscience for whom I have the greatest respect, even more than for those who believe homosexuality is a sin. So, would the bishops argue that all the people in these examples should be allowed to keep their jobs without penalty? And if not, why not? Am I missing some vital part of their argument?

( On the return journey... )

There and Back Again

I went to visit my mother yesterday, and bought a Daily Telegraph for the train journey (only for the crossword - honest!). Anyway, after I'd given up on the puzzle I read this piece about the Equality Bill, which several of the Bishops in the House of Lords want to amend so that people will be able to refuse to do things that conflict with their conscience without being penalized in terms of employment. Thus:

Peers claimed that the Equality Bill should be altered to allow people to act according to their conscience when providing goods and services, in the same way that doctors are allowed to refuse to carry out abortions.

Bishop Scott-Joynt, the fifth most senior cleric in the Church of England, pointed out that similar exemptions had been requested but refused in the case of civil partnerships. A Christian registrar, Lilian Ladele, lost a case for unfair dismissal after she refused to carry out the ceremonies for homosexual couples.

The bishop said in a debate in the House of Lords: “The implication of the [conscience] amendment is that each of us... is bound to work as hard as we can to hold the whole range of different people's rights, because there is a sense around that some rights are better than others."

This "some rights are better than others" line strikes me as very unconvincing, not least because I can think of many examples of people's consciences conflicting with their work duties where no one else's rights are affected at all. For example, a vegan who works in an abbatoir, whose conscience won't let them be involved in the killing of animals. A pacifist in the SAS, whose conscience won't let them kill people. A person who works for Huntingdon Life Sciences but is against vivisection. Pacifists, vegans and anti-vivisectionists are all people of conscience for whom I have the greatest respect, even more than for those who believe homosexuality is a sin. So, would the bishops argue that all the people in these examples should be allowed to keep their jobs without penalty? And if not, why not? Am I missing some vital part of their argument?

( On the return journey... )