Employee Wins Freedom-of-Speech Case
A housing trust manager in Manchester has won his case in a County Court ruling. Adrian Smith, an employee of Trafford House Trust, had been demoted to a non-managerial post by his bosses after posting comments against same-sex “marriage” on a social network website. His comments, made outside working hours, expressed his concern that potential changes in the law, allowing same-sex couples to “marry” in church, were “an equality too far”.
Only those listed as his social network friends could see the remark and one, a work colleague, replied, “Does this mean you don’t approve?” to which Mr Smith responded rather mildly, “No, not really . . . the Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the state wants to offer civil marriage . . . then that is up to the state; but [it] shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience”. For these remarks he was branded
“homophobic” and suspended from his post as a manager by the Greater Manchester Trust. Subsequently they found him guilty of gross misconduct. The Trust argued that he had broken its code of conduct by expressing religious views that might upset co-workers. His salary was reduced from £35 000 to £21 396 a year and he was warned that if he committed any further offence he would be sacked. In fact the only reason he did not lose his employment was that he had had 18 years’ service.
Mr Smith, who attends an Evangelical church in Bolton, took his case to the County Court, where it emerged in evidence that the Trust was worried it could lose a “gay” rights charter award if it did not take disciplinary action. The judge, Mr Justice Briggs, ruled that “Mr Smith had been taken to task for doing nothing wrong, suspended and subjected to a disciplinary procedure, which wrongly found him guilty of gross misconduct, and then demoted”. He added, “In my judgement Mr Smith’s postings . . . are not, viewed objectively, judgemental, disrespectful or liable to cause upset or offence . . . they are widely-held views frequently to be heard on radio and television or read in the newspapers”. He further stated that the comments could not be called homophobic; rather the Trust had committed a “serious and repudiatory” breach of contract.
Commenting afterwards, Mr Smith said, “I have won today but what will tomorrow bring? I am fearful that, if marriage is redefined, there will be more cases like mine. And if the law of marriage changes, people like me may not win in court.” He added, “I did not do this for the money; there is an important principle at stake. Britain is a free country where people have freedom of speech, and I am pleased that the judge’s ruling underlines that principle.”
While it is encouraging that this case has had a favourable outcome, we have every reason to be concerned for the future. A spokesperson for Christian Concern says, “This is a sign of things to come if marriage is redefined in our nation. The fact that freedom of thought and belief are already being restricted in this way should be a wake-up call. . . . The Government still does not seem to realise what far-reaching effects its planned redefinition of marriage will have on civil liberties.”
Chancellor George Osborne is blindly pushing the same-sex “marriage” agenda and claims in a recent article in The Times that he is “proud” to be part of a Government that is redefining marriage. He is urging his party to “get in step with people and how they want to live their lives”. However, it is Mr Osborne who seems to be out of step, not only with many in his own party, but also with his own position before the 2001 election. Then, as an advisor to William Hague, the then Conservative leader, he encouraged him not to support repeal of Section 28, which was so hated by the homosexual
lobby. Under Section 28, passed in 1988, local authorities were “forbidden to promote the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”. Sadly it was repealed in England in 2003 (2000 in Scotland). It is alarming how great the moral deterioration has been in just one decade.
A recent opinion poll indicated that this issue could cost the Conservatives 30 parliamentary seats and over 1 million votes. But it is God’s Word that should make us tremble: “Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Is 5:20). KHM
Government Proposals for Same-Sex “Marriage”
In spite of previous assurances, the Prime Minister has now announced that proposed new legislation for England and Wales will allow same-sex “marriages” to be conducted in religious premises. He has given an absolute assurance that no one will be forced to conduct such a “marriage”. Others are less than convinced that those who refuse to do so will be protected from litigation. Even if the right to religious freedom would prevent such lawsuits from being successful, to have to defend oneself in court is highly stressful.
As far as one can see, it is most unlikely that the proposed legislation will fail to get through Parliament. Even if there was a change of government, it seems likely that any alternative government would push such a law even more forcefully. Yet we must remember that nothing is too hard for the Lord.
Reaction to Women Bishops Vote
Again the General Synod of the Church of England has voted, by a very small margin, against the appointment of women bishops. In some ways, this is not a big issue, given that women have been acting as ministers for many years; and diocesan bishops, having authority over other ministers, are not bishops in a scriptural sense (in Scripture bishop is synonymous with elder).
It is good that the vote went the way it did, but this note focuses on the general reaction, both inside and outside the Church. Bishop Justin Welby, recently appointed as the next Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke about a “very grim day”. Prime Minister David Cameron claimed to be “very sad” and stated that the Church needs “to be in touch with society”. Maria Miller, the Equalities Minister, complained that the Church is “behind the times”. And Sir Tony Baldry, who answers questions in the House of Commons on behalf of the Church of England, asserted that a “broad Church is being held to ransom by a few narrow minds”. Another MP even proposed that Parliament should pass legislation to impose women bishops on the Church of England.
Clearly the problem is that the Church of England, in common with many other churches, is too much influenced by present-day society and too little
by the Bible. If the Church is behind the times, it is because society has drifted even further from God’s revelation than the Church. But the Bible speaks clearly on this matter: “It is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Cor 14:35). Each of those quoted in the previous paragraph is an example of how British society has rejected the authority of Scripture and, accordingly, the authority of the Most High. May the Lord so pour out His Spirit that professing churches and society generally would be spiritually transformed and yield a proper, gracious submission to the Word of God!