'Discrimination' as Kinross-shire churches ban gay candidates from minister job
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
5 hours ago
- BBC News
Sir Chris Bryant: 'I felt phenomenal shame about being sexually abused'
Sir Chris Bryant has been representing his constituents in Westminster for nearly 25 years, but his life before politics was a rollercoaster ride of light and growing up in Spain under the reign of General Franco, to living with his alcoholic mother, to being ordained as a Church of England priest, the Labour MP for Rhondda and Ogmore - now in his 60s - has lived a varied is openly gay, but says he was figuring out his sexuality at a time when homosexuality was "looked on with terrible shame and disgust by the vast majority of society".Earlier this month, he revealed he was sexually abused as a teenager, by the late former head of the National Youth Theatre, Michael details the many "shenanigans" of his early life, the good and the bad, in his biography set to be released next week. "It was fascinating for me, because the book stops in 2001 when I was first elected, so it's about my early life," he told BBC Radio Wales Breakfast."It's about the tough stuff when I was a kid, growing up with my parents. My mum was an alcoholic and the pain and the horror… and the challenges that poses for you as an individual."The rows, the guilt, the anger, the lies and recriminations, and then eventually mum's death."All of that is part of the story, but also some very funny stories." Speaking about his choice to share details of being the victim of abuse, by Michael Croft but also in separate incidents later in his life, Sir Chris says it was "a really important part" of authentically documenting his life story."It's one of the stories that I hadn't even really told any of my family until very recently, because I suppose I felt phenomenal shame about it. I remember when I did first tell family members, I was in tears for ages," he said."This may seem bizarre, for many young people in particular these days, but it's a story of a young person growing up in an age where homosexuality was completely illegal. It was completely illegal when I was born, partially decriminalised in 1967, but still looked on with terrible shame and disgust by the vast majority of society through most of my formative years."Telling that whole story as honestly as I possibly can was important... It's not the complete story of Chris Bryant without that story in it, to be honest."I suppose part of what my book is there to do is to try and explain an age that I hope has gone, and has gone forever." Leaving his role as a Church of England priest and moving to London as "a young gay man, discovering the freedom of the great city", working for the Labour Party, Sir Chris recounts many a humorous encounter with famous faces. He met Peter Mandelson, now British Ambassador to the United States, in the changing room at the YMCA gym and they became friends."I was in Peter's flat… he had two phone lines and one phone rang and it was Gordon Brown, so he spoke to Gordon and then the other phone rang, I answered it and it was Tony Blair," he recalled."Peter switched – he went to speak to Tony Blair while I talked to Gordon Brown – and I think that was the moment when Peter made his decision about who he was backing for the leadership."On another occasion, while Sir Chris was dating a Spanish architect living in Madrid, Mandelson decided to stay with him and attend the final rally in socialist leader Felipe Gonzalez re-election campaign."At the end, I thought we were going to be introduced to my political hero, Felipe Gonzalez, but instead Peter said 'No, I want to meet him over there' – so went and chatted to Antonio Banderas for half an hour instead," he said with a laugh. "Who, it has to be said, was a very handsome young man." In the book, Sir Chris says he doesn't think Tony Blair "ever really trusted or rated me".Pressed on why he'd made this claim, he says that for several years, people would predict his appointment to a minister role in Blair's cabinet reshuffle, only for him not to be offered any such position."One year, Tony called me in afterwards to his office in parliament and said 'really sorry Chris, you're one of our best people, definitely next time'. "A year goes by, another reshuffle, I'm not appointed to anything and Tony calls me again and does the same routine."He said 'definitely next time, you're in your 20s, you've got your whole life ahead of you, but you don't look happy' and I said 'no, because you told me all this last year and, secondly Tony, I'm not in my 20s, I'm 43'."So I always had a great time for him, I thought he was a great prime minister, but I disagreed with him about some significant matters." In an interview with BBC veteran broadcaster Patrick Hannan when he was first elected as an MP in 2001, Sir Chris was described as an "exotic" choice - something he's never forgotten."I think they meant too gay," he no label has deterred him from striving for authenticity, he says, adding his attitude is summed up by a Spanish word with Arabic roots that he "absolutely adores" - ojalá [I wish]."Some of it stems from the powerlessness I felt through my mum's alcoholism, some of it is learnt because of what I saw under Mrs Thatcher and my early days in the Labour party, some of it is the passionate belief in things when I was a priest in the Church of England."That sense of fairness and that belief that we really could make a better world if we all actually worked on it, I suppose that's the thing that burns in me."If you have been affected by the issues raised in this story you can visit the BBC Action Line for details of organisations who can offer support.
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
Watchdog: 'Inaccurate' use of Supreme Court sex ruling risks rights
The court ruled in April that the definition of 'woman' under the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex as opposed to gender, in a case brought against Scottish Ministers by gender-critical campaign group For Women Scotland. Four months after the judgement, the Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has issued a statement, warning that implementations of the ruling could put the rights of both transgender and non-transgender individuals at risk. READ MORE: Scottish Government slaps down Tory MSP over Nicola Sturgeon memoir claims 'The Scottish Human Rights Commission has taken time to consider the implications of the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case 'For Women Scotland Ltd vs The Scottish Ministers' in the context of the human rights framework', the statement reads. 'While we do not believe that the judgment itself directly violates human rights, inaccurate interpretation and implementation of the ruling could put rights at risk.' It continues to acknowledge fears over how individuals' rights will be 'protected and upheld' following the judgement. 'We are concerned that basic rights to dignity and respect for all may be undermined. It is our view that the judgment itself does not directly violate any human rights', the SHRC said. 'However, the interpretation of this judgment and the resulting changes in policy, public discourse and the behaviour of duty-bearers are highly likely to have an impact on the rights of people in Scotland.' The SHRC has powers to recommend changes to law, policy and practice and primarily deals with raising 'awareness, understanding and respect for all human rights in Scotland'. It has advised the Scottish Government to 'immediately conduct an audit' of all policies relating to the Supreme Court judgement and to do so with a 'human rights-based approach' to avoid regressing on the protection of rights. The watchdog flagged concerns over the impact of the ruling on policies covered by the Equality Act, including police search powers, access to domestic violence shelters and single-sex accommodation in both prisons and healthcare facilities. It also noted that the Equality Act does not 'exist in isolation', referring to the fact that any policies formed under the Act must also fall in line with the Human Rights Act 1998. 'Taking a narrow lens to compliance with only one piece of legislation may risk non-compliance with human rights standards', the statement says. Following discussions between the SHRC, legal experts and academics, the watchdog says 'practical' and 'context-based' policies should be put in place to protect the rights of both trans and non-trans individuals. The statement continues: 'Without clear policies, decisions about, for example, how and when to accommodate individuals in services cannot be made consistently or with sufficient consideration of the issues and legal obligations at play. 'Nor can rights-holders expect to have a clear understanding of how their rights should be protected, or how complaints arising from practice should be addressed. This is a risk both to rights and to the ability of individuals to seek appropriate redress.' The SCHR also expressed the need for the human rights of different groups to not be seen as 'mutually exclusive or a zero-sum game'. 'Human rights are about more than the letter of the law; they should uphold dignity and humanity', it said. (Image: PA)Scottish Greens MSP Maggie Chapman (above) reaffirmed her support for the trans community, saying: 'The Supreme Court ruling has raised many more questions than answers and it has put trans people and others in an intolerable position. READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon defends Kate Forbes amid Fringe venue banning row "Trans people are effectively being removed from spaces and services that they have used for decades. Their rights to access such places and go about their daily lives with dignity are being breached. 'Some of the most right-wing, reactionary and bigoted forces in our country have celebrated while trans people have found their worlds becoming smaller and more hostile. 'Trans people have always been with us. They are our friends and neighbours, our children and partners. They know their own minds. They cannot be erased and nor can their experiences. I will always stand in solidarity with trans people.'
Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump lashes out at people calling him a dictator then defends rewriting history
Donald Trump hit back at people calling him a dictator over his unprecedented takeover of police in Washington DC - before defending his plan to force museums to present history to align with his views Donald Trump moaned that people are calling him a dictator as he defended his unprecedented takeover of police in Washington DC. And he defended his plan to force museums to let him personally review exhibits to allow him to re-write history to reflect his views. He claimed many of his friends were "thanking" him for what he was doing in the capital. It comes after protests sprung up at random traffic stops last night, as locals branded officers "fascists". READ MORE: MIKEY SMITH: 12 wild Donald Trump moments as he floats second meeting with Putin and Zelensky Trump used emergency powers to take direct control of policing in Washington - and sent the National Guard in to bolster his response to what he claimed was an increase in crime. In reality, violent crime has decreased dramatically in DC over the last two years. "They like to say, 'Trump's a dictator!'," Trump said during a Q&A session in the Oval Office. "Well, I had calls from many, many friends - including Democrats - and they were thanking me so much for what I'm doing in DC." Asked if he was concerned the additional officers and troops patrolling the streets in Washington were being diverted from more important matters, he replied: "Like what? Like what?" The reporter replied: "Terrorism". Trump casually dismissed the suggestion, saying: "Oh terrorism, really?" He went on to say there would still be plenty of people to fight terrorism, and those deployed in DC were relatively small in number. He was also asked about his plan to "rid" Washington's world famous Smithsonian museums from what the White House has branded "left-wing spin". The White House has written to the institution, informing its Secretary Lonnie Bunch that the administration would be conducting a "comprehensive internal review of selected Smithsonian museums and exhibitions" in fulfilment of an executive order entitled: "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History." The letter said they plan to "ensure alignment with the President's directive to celebrate American exceptionalism, remove divisive or partisan narratives, and restore confidence in our shared cultural institutions." It's understood this could extend to exhibits relating to LGBTQ people, the Black Lives Matter movement and the Covid-19 pandemic. In the Oval Office today, Trump said: "We want the museums to treat our country fairly. We want the museums to talk about the history of our country in a fair manner, not in a woke manner or racist manner, which is what many of them are doing." An exhibit in the Museum of American History has already been re-written to downplay Trump's involvement in the January 6th attempted coup in 2021. The original exhibit noted - accurately - that Trump "repeated 'false statements' challenging the 2020 election results" and gave a speech that "encouraged -- and foreseeably resulted in -- imminent lawless action at the Capitol." Get Donald Trump updates straight to your WhatsApp! As the world attempts to keep up with Trump's antics, the Mirror has launched its very own US Politics WhatsApp community where you'll get all the latest news from across the pond. We'll send you the latest breaking updates and exclusives all directly to your phone. Users must download or already have WhatsApp on their phones to join in. All you have to do to join is click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! We may also send you stories from other titles across the Reach group. We will also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose Exit group. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. But the references to his false statements and the impact of his speech have been erased. It now reads: "On Jan. 13, 2021, Donald Trump became the first president to be impeached twice. The charge was incitement of insurrection based on his challenge of the 2020 election results and on his speech on Jan. 6. Because Trump's term ended on Jan. 20, he became the first former president tried by the Senate. He was acquitted on Feb. 13, 2021."
