Some implications of the Hereford judgement

[...] So what the court basically said was this - the Bishop was entitled to treat Reaney, though a lay employee, in the same manner that clergy are treated in the House of Bishops’ 1991 statement “Issues in Human Sexuality”. The argument from the tribunal seems to have been that Bishop Priddis applied the Bishop’s advice in IiHS incorrectly. This itself however is an important legal precedent. What the tribunal seems to have ruled is that the church is entitled to ignore the provisions of the Sexual Orientation Regulations if they conflict with church doctrine or established pastoral practice based on doctrine.

Read Peter Ould's blog here.