[Metrobeans]

B354 - The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) 2011 - Conservative/Libertarian Coalition Government

The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) 2011

An Act to abolish The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1 Repeal

(1) The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 is hereby repealed.

2 Commencement

(1) The provisions contained within this Bill shall come into force with immediate effect.

3 Short Title

(1) This Act may be cited as The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) 2011.

Rationale

Recently, a Christian couple morally opposed to homosexuality because of their faith lost a landmark High Court battle over the right to become foster carers. The legal ruling was made according to The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007. The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 is secondary legislation made under powers granted by the Equality Act 2006. The original Equality Bill contained no clauses dealing with discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In the House of Commons in 2007, the sexual orientation regulations were adopted by 309 votes to 99. The dissenters were mostly Conservative MPs, although twenty-nine Tories did support the measures. However ten Labour Members (Joe Benton, Tom Clarke, Frank Cook, Jim Dobbin, David Drew, Peter Kilfoyle, James McGovern, Alan Meale, Geraldine Smith and David Taylor) voted against, along with four Liberal Democrats (Alan Beith, Colin Breed, Tim Farron and Bob Russell).

Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Birmingham declared his opposition to the sexual orientation regulations, saying that the legislation contradicted the Catholic Church's moral values. He supported efforts to have Catholic adoption agencies exempted from sexual orientation regulations, which were ultimately successful in a judgement given on 17 March 2010. Further to this, the House of Lords is still considering an exemption to the legislation that will let religious agencies abide by their belief-based proscriptions regarding employment of active homosexuals.

Therefore, this Bill has been put forward to abolish the The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 of which have caused anomalies to arise whilst simultaneously allowing for discrepancy through the use of exemptions. Such exemptions, highlighted above, detract from the principle of equality. However, the proponents of this Bill prefer to abolish the sexual orientation regulations in its entirety. This is because, contrary to the notion that it protects minor groups, it also hinders their freedom of association such as gay hotels which are now being investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for discriminating against heterosexual couples.

Previous Discussions:

First Reading

[L i b]

I had a hard time deciding not to abstain on this Bill. Whilst I agree with the sentiment that it should be an individual's absolute right to refuse to obey and serve any person they choose, the Bill as it stands only addresses one characteristic - sexual orientation - when the principle applies across all characteristics. I certainly do not want to be seen as singling out sexual minorities or for this House to be perceived in that way.

What swung it for me was that the so-called Equality Act is in itself discriminatory and applies only in this piecemeal fashion. It does not insist on some overall equality, but instead applies only to 'protected characteristics', singling groups out for special treatment. We cannot attack the fundamentals of this Act without considering the individual situations it addresses.

As such, I've voted Aye, and would urge other members who are of a liberal mind-set to do likewise.

[Samwest1992]

Aye. Below is the reason I gave last time and I still hold it.

It is a very tricky situation. It is a clash between the freedom of religion and the equality of sexuality. Either way, one is going to loose out. I support the bill because I believe in the freedom of those people who wish to retain their religious values and beliefs. Religion has been an important aspect of this country for hundreds or even thousands of years. Today, homosexuals have increased rights, and rightly so. Thank goodness they are no longer executed, burned or imprisoned. Christians in the past may have believed in that, but Christians today don't. In fact, Christians today aren't calling for any punishment for homosexuals. All Christians want today is a society where they have the freedom of thought and belief. Not the kind of thought where they want homosexuals to be punished, but the thought and belief that they don't want certain activities going on inside their own home, such as with the case of the hotel owners. Homosexuals do deserve to have rights in our equal and civil society, but I just don't believe this right should invade the rights of others in every single case.

[Eru Iluvatar]

Definately a no, simple because there is no alternate proposal made, and i feel that flawed legislation is better than no legislation in this case.

[Wilzman]

(Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
Definately a no, simple because there is no alternate proposal made, and i feel that flawed legislation is better than no legislation in this case.

Ditto that.

[Stricof]

[Jace Falco]

I'm abstaining, in simple terms because I agree with Lib's argument and Eru's.

Not taking into account that I vigorously detest the Catholic Church.

[Metrobeans]

The change to British Summer Time appears to have messed about with the closing time for this poll. If I'm online at 23:55, I'll close this manually.

[AnythingButChardonnay]

Hear hear!

[Metrobeans]

The aye's have it! The aye's have it!