From one response to our consultation on the DUP’s conscience clause:

Christ commands that his followers must not treat any other human being in a way in which they would not like to be treated themselves. This attempt to legalise discrimination against LGBT people is unchristian and sinful.

—Antaine O’Labhradha

From one response to our consultation on the DUP’s conscience clause:

 I think if people go into a profession where they will be serving the entire community then they must accept that they cannot pick and choose who they provide for.I think the dup should reflect on Jesus’ key message ‘Love one another as I have loved you’.

—Deirdre Agnew

There are two major problems with the DUP’s proposed conscience clause.

• It may harm those who are less well-off
• It doesn’t actually help situations where a Christian’s conscience may tell them to refuse work

The first problem was addressed in yesterday’s article. The second is addressed in this article.

The stimulus for this proposed legislation was the refusal of a “Christian” bakery to decorate a cake that it felt carried an un-Christian message. The consultation document itself refers to a hypothetical Catholic adoption agency and a hypothetical Evangelical photographer. Would this legislation have any effect in these cases?

While a Christian should operate within human laws, it is far more important that Christian behaviour is governed by the laws of God, as found in the Bible. It should come as no surprise that the New Testament already contains a “conscience clause”.

Paul the Apostle gave this advice to the Christians in Corinth.

“I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral … But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral… Do not even eat with such people.”

(1 Corinthians 5:9-11)

In Paul’s view, your conscience regarding ‘sexually immoral’ people did not stop you interacting with them as normal. It was only when a fellow Christian was sexually immoral that you were supposed to invoke Paul’s conscience clause:

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” (verse 12)

Consider an Evangelical photographer. He is free to believe that same-sex relationships are always immoral. Refusing to photograph a civil partnership ceremony for a non-Evangelical couple on grounds of ‘conscience’ is an act of judgement, and an act of judgement for someone outside the photographer’s church. Paul the Apostle says this is wrong.

No Christian would ever exercise the conscience clause this proposal seeks to give, as doing so would go against the clear teaching of Christian Scripture. This proposal is of no benefit to the hypothetical Catholic adoption agency, the hypothetical Evangelical photographer, or even the very real “Christian” bakery. It is quite simply un-Christian to discriminate in the way the conscience clause would allow.

Based on page 14 of Faith and Pride’s response to the consultation on the Northern Ireland Freedom of Conscience Amendment Bill.

There are two major problems with the DUP’s proposed conscience clause.

• It may harm those who are less well-off
• It doesn’t actually help situations where a Christian’s conscience may tell them to refuse work

The first problem is addressed in this article. The second will be addressed tomorrow.

Christians ought to show concern for the less well-off and vulnerable in society. This proposal provides protections for a relatively prosperous sector of society while at best ignoring, and possibly even harming, the less prosperous.

Consider an Evangelical photographer who believes that it would be a violation of their faith identity to take photographs of a civil partnership ceremony. If that photographer is rich enough to own his own business, this proposal will allow him to refuse to take photographs of a civil partnership ceremony. However if the photographer is not rich enough to own his own business and is employed by a photography company, then his employer determines whether or not he should photograph a civil partnership ceremony.  If this proposal provides freedom of conscience, then it only provides it to the rich. This discrimination against the poor is abhorrent to Christianity.

It is conceivable that, if this proposal is passed, the employment opportunities for people with a strong faith identity will be harmed. For example, if a photography firm is owned by an Evangelical who refuses to photograph civil partnership ceremonies, then certain sectors of the population will not approach the firm to do business. If another photography firm merely employed an Evangelical, then there is a real risk that the firm will be perceived as being Evangelical and as a result its business will be harmed. This makes Evangelical employees less desirable, making it harder for Evangelical people to find employment. Once again, the proposal protects the prosperous and in this scenario actively harms the less well off.

It is completely impractical to suggest that the conscience clause be extended to all employees. It would make it impossible for firms to recruit staff to do a particular job, because at any point in their employment an employee could invoke the conscience clause to decline to do essential tasks. For example, an Evangelical human resources manager may refuse to do the necessary administration to add an employee’s civil partner to a company’s health insurance plan because it was believed that that was an endorsement of same-sex relationships.

Based on page 15 of Faith and Pride’s response to the consultation on the Northern Ireland Freedom of Conscience Amendment Bill.

We have submitted our response to the DUP’s consultation on the Northern Ireland Freedom of Conscience Amendment Bill. Our response was based on responses we had to our own consultation.

Overall, based on the responses we have had, and an analysis of the proposed legislation compared to the teaching of the New Testament, Faith and Pride is opposed to the proposed legislation.

Read our response in full here.

The previous version of the response had a number of errors. Please see Conscience Clause response errata.