(Original post by ciawhobat)
Well, Junior, if someone's homosexuality was so hidden from view that it wouldn't impact upon their working role in the church, then that's fine for everyone, and the church surely wouldn't even know about it in the first place.
But surely the only homos that would get into work on the back of this bill are the ones who would be rejected otherwise, based on their overt ******ry and inability to simply act as a neutral and bland cleaner (for example).
If an employer doesn't want gay people, and a gay person wants to try their luck then that's fine by me, but they'll have to just keep it quiet. I think that sexuality is reasonable grounds to discriminate upon when considering employing someone, though (along with gender, race and other unmentionable concepts).
Even if you take that stance, which is questionable at best, what about grounds for dismissal? If someone is employed by an anti-gay employer and does not reveal his sexuality, but a few months down the line it is discovered, not by him acting inapropriately at work, but by being seen with another man and admits to it when questioned, for example. Do you think the employer has the right to dismiss the man instantly simply because he is gay? If not, how do you justify that the man would never have gotten the job in the first place if he had admitted to being gay, however briefly and however little he would have acted as such in the workplace?
If for example, any and every business was allowed to refuse to hire gay people, what if it was particularly unpopular to hire gay people at a certain time? It is fair that gay people should have extreme difficulty finding a job? Or do you think it's right that anyone should have to hide a part of who they are in order to get by in society? There are limits, of course, for when those parts of a person hurt or interfere significantly with others, but the fact that a man is openly gay (and by that i don't mean prances around like a queen all the time, he simply admits to it and in his private life, which everyone definitely should be entitled to, he has sexual relationships with other men) is totally irrelevent and insignificant. I can't think of a job where it would be inapropriate.
Running a government is extremely difficult. It is virtually impossible to please everyone. The equality bill takes a big step in removing a severe injustice in society and although not perfect, has been decided upon by the people you (general public) voted for to decide these things.
The Church has had too much power and influence for a long time and it still does.
The salvation army situation was frankly ridiculous in my opinion. I would have prefered the salvation army should be able to threaten whatever they want without consequence, but the moral decision is with them, not the government.