Thinking Anglicans

Government guidance on new regulations

The UK Department of Communities and Local Government has published guidance documents relating to the two sets of Equality Act regulations that came into force on Monday 30 April.

Guidance on New Measures to Outlaw Discrimination on Grounds of Religion or Belief

This document gives guidance on Part 2 of the Equality Act 2006, which comes into effect on 30 April 2007. Part 2 prohibits discrimination against a person because of their religion or belief (including lack of religion or belief) when providing goods, facilities, services, public functions, or education, and in management and disposal of premises. The guidance sets out the effect of the law and the exceptions provided. The most significant exceptions allow charities and other organisations whose purpose is related to religion or belief to serve particular communities. There are also exceptions in public functions, including education.

The booklet can be downloaded as a PDF file here.

Guidance on new measures to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation- Part 3 of the Equality Act

This document provides guidance on the practical effects of Part 3 of the Equality Act 2006, which comes into force on 30th April, 2007. Part 3 outlaws discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education, the disposal and management of premises and in the exercise of public functions. The guidance sets out the effect of the law and the exemptions provided.

The booklet can be downloaded as a PDF file here.


  • This is an interesting comment:,,2070077,00.html

  • Merseymike says:

    The Guardian article is interesting – all part of the process of growing up, which is what the gay community is starting to do. The rights and responsibilities of civil partnerships are part of this escape from the enforced infantilism of non-recognition.

    The article is right, though: the whole issue is now so unremarkable and mainstream – and as a result, guess who ends up looking silly when they angst and whine? Got it in one….

  • Joseph

    It was an interesting article. Thanks.

    One of the questions to be asked of many modern dilemmas is “Will they save everyone in a particular category?” The answer to that has to be “no”.

    When we see religious castes being aware of pedophilic tendncies in priests but then allowing retain their priestly citizenship and positions of office, it begs the question of whether they should deny citizen rights to GLBTs. Similarly, when some humans have become so corrupt and cruel, but declare their innocence through the stature of their perfect male humanness and consistent flattery of Jesus, it begs the question whether fallible humans and other souls (e.g. angels) should not also be given a second chance.

    If priests and their heirarchy are prepared to give corrupt priests (including serial pedophiles) a second chance, then who are they to deny a second chance to anyone else?

    Nor do I accept a hyperbole legalism which says that because the secular state “caught them out” this once that it has not been happening for centuries before. Similarly, that it would happen again whenever they thought they were no longer accountable.

    They might go to great depths to hide their secrets and corruption, but God knows it is going on. If God has to forgive corrupt Christian priests, then God has to consistently forgive other fallible souls. Isaiah 29:12-24 and Amos 3:4-7, which includes “Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground where no snare has been set? Does a trap spring up from the earth when there is nothing to catch? …Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.”

  • Cheryl, you blend together two things — giving fallible humans a second chance, and ensuring the civil rights of gays. In theory the Church offers a second chance to everyone, and stands for the civil rights of all. In practice the Church has often failed to body forth the forgiveness of God, or has used it to evade responsibility; and also it has failed often to identify and defend civil rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *