'Discrimination' as Kinross-shire churches ban gay candidates from minister job
Kinross-shire Parish Church has been criticised for 'discrimination' after banning gay people from becoming a minister.
Kinross, Orwell, and Fossoway churches merged at the start of the year and are set to advertise for a new minister.
Now, kirk elders have voted to bar gay candidates from applying for the job.
The decision has been backed by the Church of Scotland, despite gay ministers serving elsewhere in the country.
But it has been met with dismay and concern from members of the congregation and local LGBTQ group Perthshire Pride.
Perthshire Pride chairman Jack Simpson lives in nearby Abernethy.
The 27-year-old's brother grew up in Kinross and much of the mother's side of his family still live in the town.
'It's not great to hear,' Jack told The Courier.
'They aren't allowed to discriminate against people with learning difficulties or for the colour of their skin, so it is weird they are trying to do it here.
'Last week we had the Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman and now this.
'It feels as though there will be more and more stuff like this happening now.
'The concern is that it always starts with one group.
'And if they're banning gay people from applying, who will they ban next?
'It is disheartening because we have taken a step forward but now we've gone two steps back again.
'We are doing all this hard work to boost the community and make it a safer place but you feel you are getting pushed back straight away.'
Jack says the attitude of the Kinross-shire kirk is at odds with his experiences in Perth.
'At Perthshire Pride we have connections with the churches in Perth,' he added.
'And I know the churches in Perth are so pro LGBTQ and they're so up for helping the gay community.
'Then to hear there is one down the road banning people from applying for a job as a minister is weird.
'I would like to know how the discussion began that led to this ban.'
Kinross-shire Parish Church elders voted 20 to 19 to bar gay candidates.
A kirk member raised their concerns to Perthshire Advertiser.
He said: 'This has caused a great deal of personal hurt for many.
'There is a great deal of unrest within the congregation as it is felt that the views expressed by a subset of elders is not representative of the views of the wider congregation.'
Kinross-shire Councillor Dave Cuthbert told The Courier: 'In principle, each unto their own.
'It's disappointing that they are selecting based on sexual orientation but they must've had a reason and I respect their decision.'
Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.
This means it is unlawful to discriminate against someone for being gay in areas that include employment.
When approached for comment, The Courier was directed to the Church of Scotland.
A spokesperson confirmed the organisation has gay ministers across Scotland.
But, in relation to Kinross-shire Parish Church, added: 'Religion is a protected category under law, and the Church has the right to freedom of religion and belief.
'The Church has affirmed its traditional doctrine on marriage, but permits congregations to depart from it as a matter of liberty of opinion.
'If a congregation decides to depart from the traditional doctrine they may consider applications from ministers in same-sex marriages or civil partnerships.'
'Forty elders and a number of congregation members attended a public meeting of the Kirk Session and the views of everyone who spoke, as well as written and verbal submissions, were considered respectfully.
'The process was correctly followed and was exactly the same as for all congregations in the Church of Scotland, which are seeking to call a minister.
'The congregation holds a wide range of strongly held views on this matter so no matter what the outcome it would be upsetting for some people.
'Yet, despite these differences, the congregation is thriving with more than 70 people attending the Maundy Thursday service and its members are committed to treating each other graciously and welcoming everyone with love.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
3 hours ago
- BBC News
Focus on Africa Uganda: World Bank lifts loan ban
In 2023, Uganda voted in some of the world's harshest anti-homosexual legislation meaning that anybody engaging in certain same-sex acts can be sentenced to death. The World Bank decided to ban Uganda from receiving loans because of its legislation. The bank now says it's confident that new "mitigation measures" will allow it to roll out funding in such a way that does not harm or discriminate against LGBTQ+ community. We hear analysis. Also, why increasing numbers of people in Togo are thinking about leaving ECOWAS And why is Nigeria importing cows from Denmark? Presenter: Audrey Brown Producers: Yvette Twagiramariya and Bella Hassan in London. Charles Gitonga in Nairobi and Blessing Aderogba in Lagos. Technical Producer: Kane Masaba-Morgan Senior Journalist: Karnie Sharp Editors: Andre Lombard and Alice Muthengi
Telegraph
9 hours ago
- Telegraph
Beware the employee activists threatening to bring down British business
This was also true of issues like trans rights, which 64pc of respondents told us they felt 'well prepared' to deal with. But our survey was conducted shortly before the Supreme Court handed down its seminal decision on the meaning of 'sex' under the Equality Act 2010. From the intense public interest the decision has generated, it is reasonable to assume that not all employers may have judged this correctly. Why does any of this matter? Well, for one thing, because getting it wrong can end up in expensive and reputation-damaging litigation that an employer is unlikely to win if they have not been paying attention to their obligations. And if employers already think the Bill is going to drive up business costs, then finding themselves in court won't help. But it also matters because we found that employers are confronting an increasingly politicised workforce where issues that may have no relationship to the workplace itself are becoming topics of intense debate. For every social issue we asked about, from climate change to Israel and Gaza, employers told us it had at least doubled in salience in recent years. And this was particularly likely to be the case if the employer had taken a position on certain issues in the past (say the Ukraine War or Black Lives Matter). We found that once the employer expressed a view on one issue, the more likely they were to be expected to have a position on every issue. This means employers are increasingly being drawn into contentious issues where strongly held views may conflict, and there is a heightened imperative to strike the right balance between competing perspectives. And yet we found that employers are very often getting that balance wrong. Take, for example, the use of social media. Almost 40pc of employers who have a social media policy told us that they routinely reviewed the social media posts of staff and a quarter told us that they had either sacked or disciplined a current member of staff on the basis of something they had written online. Asked why they had taken disciplinary action, and almost 70pc told us that this was because they feared that what the employee had written could cause 'reputational damage' to the business. Around 60pc said it was because it could 'cause offence to other employees', roughly twice the proportion who said they had considered whether it impacted on the employee in question's ability to discharge their professional duties. But from a legal point of view, all of this must be viewed through the prism of the Court of Appeal's landmark decision in Higgs v Farmor's School that was handed down in February of this year. In a decision that was viewed as a vindication of free speech, the Court held that to discipline or dismiss an employee because they had expressed a religious or protected philosophical belief (here, a 'gender critical' view and criticisms of same sex marriage) to which the employer objected, could be unfair and amount to unlawful discrimination. They said it was insufficient to say that other employees had been offended because the employer 'does not have carte blanche to interfere with an employee's right to express their beliefs simply because third parties find those beliefs offensive.' None of which is to say that employees are free to say what they like either. The court described a balancing exercise in which relevant considerations might include whether the comments were made on a professional or personal account, whether guidance had been given about their post, what they had actually said (as opposed to what a third party may have chosen to read into it) and whether their post impacted on their ability to perform their duties. All of which adds up to a tricky situation for employers facing a more politicised (and often polarised) workforce. Protecting one set of views against another not only risks confrontation with members of staff but could also break the law. More than ever, employers need to prepare themselves with sound legal advice, clear internal communications with staff and a robust crisis plan for dealing with these kinds of eventualities. Because getting it wrong in an era defined by employee activism isn't just a management problem, but one that could impact the share price, affect consumer trends or even hit the balance sheet.
The Independent
a day ago
- The Independent
'Not just a party:' World Pride celebrations end with defiant politics on display
After the raucous rainbow-hued festivities of Saturday's parade, the final day of World Pride 2025 in the nation's capital kicked off on a more downbeat note. More than a thousand people gathered under grey skies Sunday morning at the Lincoln Memorial for a rally that will lead into a protest march, as the community gathers its strength for a looming fight under President Donald Trump 's second administration. 'This is not just a party,' Ashley Smith, board president of Capital Pride Alliance. 'This is a rally for our lives.' Smith acknowledged that international attendance numbers for the bi-annual World Pride were measurably down, with many potential attendees avoiding travel to the U.S. due to either fear of harassment or in protest of Trump's policies. 'That should disturb us and mobilize us,' Smith said. Over a thousand people cheered on LGBTQ+ activists taking the stage while waving both traditional Pride flags and flags representing transgender, bisexual, intersex and other communities. Many had rainbow glitter and rhinestones adorning their faces. They held signs declaring 'Fight back,' 'Gay is good,' 'Ban bombs not bathrooms' and 'We will not be erased.' Trump's campaign against transgender protections and oft-stated antipathy for drag shows have set the community on edge, with some hoping to see a renewed wave of street politics in response. 'Trans people just want to be loved. Everybody wants to live their own lives and I don't understand the problem with it all,' said Tyler Cargill, who came wearing an elaborate costume with a hat topped by a replica of the U.S. Capitol building. Wes Kincaid drove roughly 6 hours from Charlotte, North Carolina to attend this year. Sitting on a park bench near the reflecting pond, Kincaid said he made a point of attending this year, 'because it's more important than ever to show up for our community.' Reminders of the cuts to federal government programs were on full display, Sunday. One attendee waved a massive rainbow flag affixed on the same staff as a large USAID flag; another held a 'Proud gay federal worker' sign; and a third held an umbrella with the logos of various federal program facing cuts — including the PBS logo. Trump's anti-trans rhetoric had fueled fears of violence or protests targeting World Pride participants; at one point earlier this spring, rumors circulated that the Proud Boys were planning to disrupt this weekend's celebrations. Those concerns prompted organizers to install security fencing around the entire two-day street party on a multi-block stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue. But so far, the only clear act of aggression has been the vandalizing of a queer bar last week. Late Saturday night, there was a pair of violent incidents near Dupont Circle — one of the epicenters of the World Pride celebrations. Two juveniles were stabbed and a man was shot in the foot in separate incidents. The Metropolitan Police Department says it is not clear if either incident was directly related to World Pride.
