• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Christian bakers 'gay cake' appeal defeat

SwingsitlikeHogan said:
We let our rooms to such as Toddlers Groups; the WI; AA; Local Historical Society; even UKIP - but I might feel I have to turn down a request from Stonewall. And why would I have to consider doing that?

The problem is that for a very few older members of our congregation, homosexuality is a difficult issue for them from their faith perspective and in the context of the church - as much as I wish it wasn't - it just is - and I have a duty to the whole congregation. I cannot do things unilaterally as I do not have that authority.

Would I be breaking the law? I guess I would be.
Click to expand...

I don't fully understand the congregations role in the decision in the example of who to rent the hall/rooms to

Are the congregation also holding roles as c0-owners/shareholders/business partners (and if so why would you describe them as the congregation and not as business partners or building owners?)
 
sawtooth said:
Would it have been legal if they advertised in the window beforehand that they will refuse to print messages that are in anyway, political, obscene, blasphemous, pornographic and offensive to others?

That way you know the score before you go in and it's fair and equal to all. That's what most people want equal treatment but not special treatment.
Click to expand...

Wonder if they stock same-sex couple hand-in-hand cake decorations.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
We let our rooms to such as Toddlers Groups; the WI; AA; Local Historical Society; even UKIP - but I might feel I have to turn down a request from Stonewall. And why would I have to consider doing that?

The problem is that for a very few older members of our congregation, homosexuality is a difficult issue for them from their faith perspective and in the context of the church - as much as I wish it wasn't - it just is - and I have a duty to the whole congregation. I cannot do things unilaterally as I do not have that authority.

Would I be breaking the law? I guess I would be.
Click to expand...


I think you are right, you would be.
 
sawtooth said:
Would it have been legal if they advertised in the window beforehand that they will refuse to print messages that are in anyway, political, obscene, blasphemous, pornographic and offensive to others?

That way you know the score before you go in and it's fair and equal to all. That's what most people want equal treatment but not special treatment.
Click to expand...

I think the only part of your advert that would be dodgy is "offensive to others" probably impossible to actually define that.
 
Slab said:
I don't fully understand the congregations role in the decision in the example of who to rent the hall/rooms to

Are the congregation also holding roles as c0-owners/shareholders/business partners (and if so why would you describe them as the congregation and not as business partners or building owners?)
Click to expand...

The church building is owned by the United Reformed Church and not by the congregation. The elders are in effect the management board for the church and as well as church operational and maintenance matters we also consider matters of faith and how we reconcile our beliefs and what we are taught with the practicalities and legal requirements of the 21st Century. And as we are a charity the elders are also the trustees of the charity.

The elders are nominated for election by the congregation, and in a ballot are elected by the congregation. For anything or any change of significance we (the elders) seek advice from our local synod (regional administrative organisation) and from what is agreed at the URC General Assembly. We then agree our recommendation and put that to all members of the congregation for debate and to the vote. If the congregation votes the elders recommendation down, then we have to think again.

And this is what is going to happen with same-sex marriage. The GA has said that the church as a whole is agreeable to same-sex marriages being held in URC churches - but that each congregation can decide themselves whether they wish to approve that for their own church. We have yet to have that debate. I will be supporting the proposal. I cannot at the moment say for certain what the elders as a body will propose - but as there are only 12 of us and I know them all well - I think we will propose to the congregation that same-sex marriages can be held in our church. It is then up to the congregation - guided in their deliberations as required by our minister.

And so as far as hiring the rooms and to who - well the elders might have to make a decision if the potential hirer is contentious - and we might have to say that it is so contentious that we have to put it to the congregation.

Now that is how it would work, if it had to. But in general we are trusted by the congregation to make the correct decisions on their behalf - and so such a decision would most probably never have to go further than the elders. If we make 'wrong' decisions then as I only serve for a 3 year period and am then required to be re-nominated and then elected - I can be given the boot by the congregation if they don't like me and what I stand for.
 
Last edited:
Fippin eck its kicked off on this one ant it.

Reminds me me of the time a anti road group was once asked, how would you feel if the road was going through a mink farm. you save the minks but have a road.

damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
The church building is owned by the United Reformed Church and not by the congregation. The elders are in effect the management board for the church and as well as church operational and maintenance matters we also consider matters of faith and how we reconcile our beliefs and what we are taught with the practicalities and legal requirements of the 21st Century.

The elders are nominated for election by the congregation, and in a ballot are elected by the congregation. For anything or any change of significance we (the elders) seek advice from our local synod (regional administrative organisation) and from what is agreed at the URC General Assembly. We then agree our recommendation and put that to all members of the congregation for debate and to the vote. If the congregation votes the elders recommendation down, then we have to think again.

And this is what is going to happen with same-sex marriage. The GA has said that the church as a whole is agreeable to same-sex marriages being held in URC churches - but that each congregation can decide themselves whether they wish to approve that for their own church. We have yet to have that debate. I will be supporting the proposal. I cannot at the moment say for certain what the elders as a body will propose - but as there are only 12 of us and I know them all well - I think we will propose to the congregation that same-sex marriages can be held in our church. It is then up to the congregation - guided in their deliberations as required by our minister.

And so as far as hiring the rooms and to who - well the elders might have to make a decision if the potential hirer is contentious - and we might have to say that it is so contentious that we have to put it to the congregation.

Now that is how it would work, if it had to. But in general we are trusted by the congregation to make the correct decisions on their behalf - and so such a decision would most probably never have to go further than the elders.
Click to expand...

Cheers

So is the natural progression that if the congregation don't approve of actually holding same sex marriages in the church, that then means the hall cant be hired out to someone who is gay and does support same sex marriage if the purpose of the rental period is to show support for same sex marriages, because others may mistakenly think this 'cause' has the support of the church when it actually doesn't?
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
We let our rooms to such as Toddlers Groups; the WI; AA; Local Historical Society; even UKIP - but I might feel I have to turn down a request from Stonewall. And why would I have to consider doing that?

The problem is that for a very few older members of our congregation, homosexuality is a difficult issue for them from their faith perspective and in the context of the church - as much as I wish it wasn't - it just is - and I have a duty to the whole congregation. I cannot do things unilaterally as I do not have that authority.

Would I be breaking the law? I guess I would be.

Actually what would happen is that our administrator, being sensitive to potential issues around taking any booking, would contact the elders and ask for their advise - and we would in almost all cases say OK. And we'd take the flak if any came out of a booking. So we'd say OK to Stonewall -= as we are like that :)
Click to expand...

People's attitudes don't change from pandering to them. Take the booking and invite them to the meeting. They might work out they are simply dealing with another human.
 
My father in law is homophobic. My cousin is gay. They met once and my f-i-l came away saying what a nice bloke he was, he is as well. A while later it came up that my cousin was gay. It was like an Alf Garnett moment. The conflict, like the bloke, he is gay, don't like gay people. Very funny to watch him unravel. He still doesn't quite believe he is gay, "because he seemed such a nice bloke". He is a nice bloke I tell him but his brain conflicts this information.

My point to this is some peoples views are entrenched and no matter who they meet they will not budge. My f-i-l will die and his views will go with him. His views are not uncommon in his generation but it does not make him or them right. We argue about it but he wont change, neither will I stop challenging his Garnett like rants. The next generation will have fewer hang ups and so on and so on. I'm in my mid 40's and my generation couldn't care less about colour, sexuality etc. We are getting there.
 
Slab said:
Cheers

So is the natural progression that if the congregation don't approve of actually holding same sex marriages in the church, that then means the hall cant be hired out to someone who is gay and does support same sex marriage if the purpose of the rental period is to show support for same sex marriages, because others may mistakenly think this 'cause' has the support of the church when it actually doesn't?
Click to expand...

No - that doesn't follow. For the congregation to approve holding same-sex marriages in a church is actually a very big thing - and that's why it is so contentious an issue across many denominations and why we as a congregation have been given the authority to decide ourselves. The top level approval has been given and if we want to follow that guidance that is up to us.

If we chose not to approve of it there is nothing stopping a group hiring our hall to promote it - just that at the current point in time the congregation has specifically chosen to not accept requests for same-sex marriage in our church. Of course as mentioned this request might have to come to the Elders for their approval as it would clearly be sensitive. But of course we could give approval next month or next year if peoples minds has changed and support seems to be there. And part of that change process might well be hosting meetings of pro same-sex marriage groups that members of the congregation might attend to understand better and come to an acceptance.
 
Last edited:
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
No - that doesn't follow. For the congregation to approve holding same-sex marriages in a church is actually a very big thing - and that's why it is so contentious an issue across many denominations and why we as a congregation have been given the authority to decide ourselves. The top level approval has been given and if we want to follow that guidance that is up to us.

If we chose not to approve of it there is nothing stopping a group hiring our hall to promote it - just that at the current point in time the congregation has specifically chosen to not accept requests for same-sex marriage in our church. Of course as mentioned this request might have to come to the Elders for their approval as it would clearly be sensitive. But of course we could give approval next month or next year if peoples minds has changed and support seems to be there. And part of that change process might well be hosting meetings of pro same-sex marriage groups that members of the congregation might attend to understand better and come to an acceptance.
Click to expand...

Oops, sorry I thought I was getting a handle on their point of view

Ok so still confused. If not related and nothing stopping you, why would the above current stance on holding same sex marriages mean you'd feel you might have to turn down a request for a hall booking from Stonewall ( I googled them as no idea who they were)
 
Slab said:
Oops, sorry I thought I was getting a handle on their point of view

Ok so still confused. If not related and nothing stopping you, why would the above current stance on holding same sex marriages mean you'd feel you might have to turn down a request for a hall booking from Stonewall ( I googled them as no idea who they were)
Click to expand...

I am not actually saying that we would - but as we have not had the discussion and vote on same-sex marriage in our own church we (elders) might decide that it would not be appropriate until we have had that debate to 'assume' what the congregation thinks - and that hiring our hall to Stonewall could be seen as us getting above or ahead of ourselves. Remember that we are a very democratic church. You might think this a but daft of us - but a year ago we had to debate a request for hire that some would scratch their heads over...:)

Since we have been having this discussion I will take the opportunity to ask our administrator what she'd do if approached by Stonewall - as I'd be interested to know,
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I am not actually saying that we would - but as we have not had the discussion and vote on same-sex marriage in our own church we (elders) might decide that it would not be appropriate until we have had that debate to 'assume' what the congregation thinks - and that hiring our hall to Stonewall could be seen as us getting above or ahead of ourselves. Remember that we are a very democratic church. You might think this a but daft of us - but a year ago we had to debate a request for hire that some would scratch their heads over...:)

Since we have been having this discussion I will take the opportunity to ask our administrator what she'd do if approached by Stonewall - as I'd be interested to know,
Click to expand...

Do you really need to ask though SILH? You've already established you would be breaking the law if you denied them, and I can't believe any senior person would recommend that...
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I am not actually saying that we would - but as we have not had the discussion and vote on same-sex marriage in our own church we (elders) might decide that it would not be appropriate until we have had that debate to 'assume' what the congregation thinks - and that hiring our hall to Stonewall could be seen as us getting above or ahead of ourselves. Remember that we are a very democratic church. You might think this a but daft of us - but a year ago we had to debate a request for hire that some would scratch their heads over...:)

Since we have been having this discussion I will take the opportunity to ask our administrator what she'd do if approached by Stonewall - as I'd be interested to know,
Click to expand...

I'm still stuck on the bold bit, if the two aren't linked/dependent in some way why might it not be appropriate to rent them the hall until a vote is taken on holding same sex marriage

The congregation would be consulted on the marriage aspect not who can hire the hall (unless the hiring of the hall is perceived as an endorsement of the marriage by elders, in which case a circular to the congregation explaining that the two are not related should suffice)
 
Difficult moral case.

I am reminded that it is never a good idea to piss off the person who is cooking for you.
You just might find some 'unwanted' ingredients in the mix.

Lovely story up here a wee while ago about the specially made Rangers birthday cake.
When you cut through the blue icing it was green and white inside.
 
Lord Tyrion said:
My father in law is homophobic. My cousin is gay. They met once and my f-i-l came away saying what a nice bloke he was, he is as well. A while later it came up that my cousin was gay. It was like an Alf Garnett moment. The conflict, like the bloke, he is gay, don't like gay people. Very funny to watch him unravel. He still doesn't quite believe he is gay, "because he seemed such a nice bloke". He is a nice bloke I tell him but his brain conflicts this information.

My point to this is some peoples views are entrenched and no matter who they meet they will not budge. My f-i-l will die and his views will go with him. His views are not uncommon in his generation but it does not make him or them right. We argue about it but he wont change, neither will I stop challenging his Garnett like rants. The next generation will have fewer hang ups and so on and so on. I'm in my mid 40's and my generation couldn't care less about colour, sexuality etc. We are getting there.
Click to expand...

That's what I was trying to say about me mum, her views are borne of what she was " taught" (and I use the term very loosely )from the forties. It was an education that also taught that your sister had to go and live with your auntie coz she were pregnant, and it brought shame upon the familyWhat I will say about gays, religion, sex, race etc is the world is big enough for them all. . It seems to me that one culture entered another's space and no one comes out of this happy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
I am not actually saying that we would - but as we have not had the discussion and vote on same-sex marriage in our own church we (elders) might decide that it would not be appropriate until we have had that debate to 'assume' what the congregation thinks - and that hiring our hall to Stonewall could be seen as us getting above or ahead of ourselves. Remember that we are a very democratic church. You might think this a but daft of us - but a year ago we had to debate a request for hire that some would scratch their heads over...:)

Since we have been having this discussion I will take the opportunity to ask our administrator what she'd do if approached by Stonewall - as I'd be interested to know,
Click to expand...

It might also be worth checking what the law is in regards a charitable organisation discriminating between different groups using your building. I can't remember the legality of it as it was quite a few years ago when I came across something similar.... you might actually be endangering your charitable status, which could have a huge impact nationally for the United Reform church. Can of worms??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Equality & Diversity in the NHS
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
10K
Robster59
Robster59
Top