http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8476862.stm

Can't say I've any sympathy with the churches on this one...

They are employers same as everybody else, and very very wealthy and profitable ones to

Bingo. There’s your reason.

Pardon me for being idiotic, but surely an individual's ability to do the f**king job is of overriding importance, not how they feel about certain aspects of belief? If I advertise a position of data entry and a non-english speaking Nigerian applies, then I should employ him if his skills best suit the position. Regardless if he doesn't say "hello" to me in the morning, if he's got the fastest fingers in the west at coping addresses, he gets the job.

Unfortunately, bigoted on stick-in-the-muds such as the bishops behind this story, prove that although we've moved forward massively in the past 20 years, we have still to shake off such outdated, old-fashioned and....dare I say it.....hateful opinions of the old days.

But what are the chances of a Nigerian who doesn't speak English getting a work visa for this country? Isn't that discrimination?

I'll throw a little bit of Devil's Advocate argument around, as there's only one way I can think of for any organisation to justify this.

I work for Toshiba. Part of my job requirement is that I endorse the Toshiba way of doing things in everything I do, and generally praise their good name . If I don't then this can lead to trouble (dashing their good name etc.) Now I quite like Toshiba, so this doesn't give me any conflict of interest.

However, in something like a religious organisation this becomes a rather different kettle of fish, becuase the issue being agreed on are in a decidedly more 'moral' territory, where agreement / disagreement on these issues is often at a deeper level than simple personal preference.

The expectation of someone who is hired by an organisation is not to be in an atmosphere that is predujical and discrimantory. If this is found to be the case then the outcome if it is not addressed will be a court case and a payout.

in the case of a religious organisation, that as part of its belief says that certain practices are sins and against the creator and are proscribed by the central scriptures. This is going to create an atmosphere that is untenable for both parties and just lead to some lawyers becoming very rich.

I've worked for several organisations that I didn't particularly agree with the sentiments of but it didn't impact my work for them.

However if they had wanted me to do things that were against my belief's I wouldn't have and I'd have left their employment.

Not being entirely au fait with the actual content of the proposed changes I'm hesitant to wade in wrt specifics. However I do have opinions on general principles.

1. Should a church be prepared to discriminate wrt. a priest/teaching position? Yes, absolutely.
2. Should a church be legally entitled to discriminate wrt. a priest/teaching position? Not sure tbh - heart says yes, head says no.
3. Should a church be legally entitled to discriminate on any grounds wrt. a clerical, admin or other ancillary position? No - total rubbish.
4. Should a church ask for a legal entitlement to allow it to discriminate wrt. a priest/teaching position? Yes - anyone can ask. I just have objections to Christians expecting a specially protected status.
5. Should a church be prepared to endure litigation due to that discrimination? Yes - if they believe it to be correct then they should be prepared to fight.

Really, really no. The only churches I know of that make a profit are very cult-ish. The CofE, for instance, is to money what Margaret Thatcher was to popularity. They couldn't run a piss-up in a brewery.

Of course none of the lords would let their 'faith' affect their unbiased reasoning.