Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Relevant, I think, to the conversation about the Court's decision to weigh in on the ministerial exception's foundations and content is this post, by Aidan O'Neill, at the U.K. Human Rights Blog. Commenting on the (to me) striking refusal of many in the U.K. to distinguish invidious discrimination from religious exercise, O'Neill observes:
[T]he application of the norms of anti-discrimination law, even in the face of religious based conscientious objection, is interpreted by the new religious Dissenters as the State’s imposition of a required outward conformity to a new form of religious settlement: no longer Anglicanism, but a secularism which would banish religiously motivated action from the public square and confine religious belief wholly to the internal forum. . . .