New Zealand Rights Tribunal Upholds Church's Exclusion of Man From Clergy Because of Same-Sex Relationship

In Gay and Lesbian Clergy Anti-Discrimination Society, Inc. v. Bishop of Aukland, (NZ Human Rts. Rev. Trib., Oct, 17, 2013), the New Zealand Human Rights Review Tribunal rejected a claim by a man seeking to enter the ordained ministry of the Anglican Church that his rejection violated the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993.  The Bishop of Auckland refused to allow Eugene Sisneros to enter the preliminary discernment process because Sisneros was in an unmarried same-sex relationship.  Sisneros claimed that this amounted to illegal discrimination on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation.  The Tribunal held, however, that the exception in Sec. 39(1) of the Act precluded the discrimination claim. Sec. 39(1) provides that:

Nothing in section 38 shall apply where the authorisation or qualification is needed for, or facilitates engagement in, a profession or calling for the purposes of an organised religion and is limited to one sex or to persons of that religious belief so as to comply with the doctrines or rules or established customs of that religion.

In concluding that the exemption applied, the Tribunal said:

it is clear that the purpose of s 39(1) was (in the present context) to preserve the institutional autonomy of organised religions in relation to their decisions concerning the appointment of clergy and ministers. The plaintiff’s interpretation would entirely negate that purpose. The Anglican Church would be required to ordain priests who taught that the right ordering of sexual relationships can only occur within a Christian marriage (defined by the Formularies as a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman) but who themselves did not “live” that doctrine.  Ministers would not be exemplars, nor would they be bound by submission to the Constitution of the Church or by their declaration of allegiance to its doctrine and Formularies. This would undermine in the most fundamental way the religious autonomy of the Church, its right to be selective about those who will serve as the very embodiment of its message and its voice to the faithful.

Last Friday's New Zealand Herald reported on the decision.  [Thanks to Eric Rassbach for the lead.]