Catching the Conscience of the Human Rights Commission

 Propaganda Stunt

The following should be an "open and shut" case.  This from the NZ Herald:

A homosexual man is taking the Anglican Bishop of Auckland to the Human Rights Tribunal after being rejected for training as a priest.  A hearing begins today following a complaint from the man, who says he feels discriminated against because of his sexuality.  It is understood the man - who is in a sexual relationship with his partner - has wanted to enter the church's training programme for priests for years.  But after applying to enter after years of study, he was rejected by the Bishop Ross Bay, who approves entrants.

The NZ Bill of Rights provides a carve out for churches and religions from the non-discrimination obligations of the Bill of Rights.  In such cases, the law says conscientious discrimination is just fine.
 

What will be interesting is how the Human Rights Tribunal will frame the decision.  Will it be along the lines of: " we sympathize with the plight of the complainant and would urge the Anglican Church not to discriminate in such a pernicious way, but regretably it is the law, so we have no choice but to reject the complaint."?  If so, we make a prediction: the present "carve-out" will not survive.  It is only a matter of time before the Bill of Rights is amended and persecution against Christians and churches begins in earnest. 

Or we could see the Commission provide a fulsome defence of the current law, along the lines of: "freedom of conscience and religion are fundamental human rights.  We, therefore, have no hesitation in dismissing the complaint as being without merit".  We will see.  Let's hope for the latter. 

In any event, the whole thing smacks of a propaganda stunt by the complainant and his confabulators for longer term political purposes.  Will the Human Rights Commission fall into the trap?