Bonefishblues wrote:I think they're hanging it out in the wind, but that's the only basis on which I can see them trying to justify it. The law's really quite sensible in the most part.
I studied this area of the law under one of the leading experts in the field and I reckon I'd not like to be on the CofE's end of the argument, but none of us know enough to really pronounce, of course. It's inconceivable that advice wouldn't have been taken over this, especially as lthe letter is so explicit.
Its not as if they are refusing the guy any curates post? just that one in particular.
Yes, they're preferring a white person over a black person, who gets a runners-up prize.
Nope, not keen on running that argument...
who is the "they"? the parishoners? then the exclusion clause mentioned above comes into play? Now had they not enquired of the vicar etc that would be another matter. if the parishoners say "we dont want a black guy burying our dead/doing baptisms ..." what then? Being racist isnt yet a crime - it is if you do so as an employer - the parishoners are not the employers?
Last edited by mercalia on 17 Jun 2020, 2:19pm, edited 2 times in total.
mercalia wrote: Its not as if they are refusing the guy any curates post? just that one in particular.
Yes, they're preferring a white person over a black person, who gets a runners-up prize.
Nope, not keen on running that argument...
who is the "they"? the parishoners? then the exclusion clause mentioned above comes into play? Now had they not enquired of the vicar etc that would be another matter. if the parishoners say "we dont want a black guy burying our dead/doing baptisms ..." what then? Being racist isnt yet a crime - it is if you do so as an employer - the parishoners are not the employers?
It is dangerous to post on things which are largely unknown but I will give my own experience from many years ago. In the Mitchell Library in Glasgow it was common practice among students to keep seats for their pals or in my case my then girlfriend. There were many vacant seats but a person from the Indian sub continent who I had never seen before decide he wished to sit next to me. When I pointed out that that seat was for my girlfriend he immediately started to cause a scene about this and accused me of racial discrimination. Such a thought had never entered my head and ever since then I have been wary of any cases of alleged racial discrimination. I am not saying it does not happen but there can be two sides to any story.
ambodach wrote:It is dangerous to post on things which are largely unknown but I will give my own experience from many years ago. In the Mitchell Library in Glasgow it was common practice among students to keep seats for their pals or in my case my then girlfriend. There were many vacant seats but a person from the Indian sub continent who I had never seen before decide he wished to sit next to me. When I pointed out that that seat was for my girlfriend he immediately started to cause a scene about this and accused me of racial discrimination. Such a thought had never entered my head and ever since then I have been wary of any cases of alleged racial discrimination. I am not saying it does not happen but there can be two sides to any story.
How is this relevant to the case in point - where a job applicant has been told they have been rejected because they are black?
If one has witnessed how church worship is carried out in the US black community it's radically different to how it is conducted here. Perhaps that's why the guys application was summarily rejected? However he should have been seen and the clumsy way his application was rejected was insensitive and wrong.
Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
mercalia wrote:well I assume the disappointed guy publicised his rejection out of hurt feelings and indignation? It seems to me he hasnt got the right attitude at all. He is there to serve God and the people of the parish not to indulge in his hurt feelings or sense of personal injustice? Many would regard that the holy spirit has spoken. If not that, then that the reference that he would feel uncomfortable is a polite way of say that the parishioners would feel uncomfortable and they would reject him? Fact of life in small country parishes?
Completely wrong attitude, lack of humility or awareness of the situation?
"I think the church has institutional issues with [racism]." he says
When I was a church-going RC Christian I was under the impression that God loved all his children be they black, white or whatever, and his flock should do likewise. That black vicar would be welcome in my nearly all-white village. What is wrong with people?
al_yrpal wrote:If one has witnessed how church worship is carried out in the US black community it's radically different to how it is conducted here. Perhaps that's why the guys application was summarily rejected? However he should have been seen and the clumsy way his application was rejected was insensitive and wrong.
Al
There is more than one tradition of Christian worship in the US with black members.
mercalia wrote: if the parishoners say "we dont want a black guy burying our dead/doing baptisms ..." what then?
Then they cannot be genuine Christians anyway.
Yes. Exactly. If churchgoers can't deal with a different skin colour, what hope is there? They need to be told, this is your new vicar, he's black as it happens but that is irrelevant, now make him welcome.
al_yrpal wrote:If one has witnessed how church worship is carried out in the US black community it's radically different to how it is conducted here. Perhaps that's why the guys application was summarily rejected? However he should have been seen and the clumsy way his application was rejected was insensitive and wrong.
Al
Don't run away with the idea that all Christian worship in the black community in the US is so different to white and mixed race communities in the UK it isn't.
AFAICS going off what his reply from the CofE says,is that he was turned down on colour in the first instance.That's a bit more than clumsy I'd say.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
The holder of the job provides persons of a particular racial group with personal services promoting their welfare, and those services can most effectively be provided by a person of that racial group.
Very very dangerous ground indeed.
Thank you. Not something I was aware of. Hard to see how it's relevant here mind.
It is very unlikely to be relevant. The 'personal services and welfare' clause is standard to most of the protected categories. It is mainly invoked where gender, religion, sexual orientation and gender reassignment are involved. The purpose is that, for example, a charity running a telephone counselling helpline for gay teenagers can specify that staff must be gay themselves and able to understand where the callers are coming from, or that the manager of a care home can specifiy that only women staff shall do intimate care tasks such as changing incontinence pads for elderly women clients. Just as you write, it is hard to envisage a situation where racial characteristics might legitimately have a similar role. E.g. elderly women objecting to having their incontinence pads changed by a man is far more likely to be regarded as reasonable than their objecting to their being changed by a black woman. The idea that men should not see strange women's private parts is well established in British culture, but the idea that black people should not see white people's is not: many swimming pools, sports clubs, etc, have separate female and male showers, but none here have separate white and black ones.
Bonefishblues wrote:Yes, they're preferring a white person over a black person, who gets a runners-up prize.
Nope, not keen on running that argument...
who is the "they"? the parishoners? then the exclusion clause mentioned above comes into play? Now had they not enquired of the vicar etc that would be another matter. if the parishoners say "we dont want a black guy burying our dead/doing baptisms ..." what then? Being racist isnt yet a crime - it is if you do so as an employer - the parishoners are not the employers?
only if they do some thing racist publicly? telling your vicar you dont want a black person dont count?
except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.
Last edited by mercalia on 17 Jun 2020, 5:01pm, edited 1 time in total.
mercalia wrote: if the parishoners say "we dont want a black guy burying our dead/doing baptisms ..." what then?
Then they cannot be genuine Christians anyway.
Yes. Exactly. If churchgoers can't deal with a different skin colour, what hope is there? They need to be told, this is your new vicar, he's black as it happens but that is irrelevant, now make him welcome.
then they go some where else or not there at all and the church closes
