John Reaney appears to be within the bounds of his faith and commitment to Christ. He faces a Church that is trying to find a way forward from decades of institutional mendacity on the issue of sexuality. The evidence of this is clear. There are so many 'closets' in the church that it is hard to conclude otherwise that 'hiding' is a requirement. The Bishop here represents well that mendacious attitude.

The real issue is not sexuality. We have a Church that is willing to be so unreal that Truth is compromised. Whatever the Truth on sexuality - it IS harder than the clobber texts of Biblical literalism. The Bishop and his fellow prelates need to go back to Author of Faith itself and see Christ.

In the Doctrine of the Family - it is understood that marriage and family have high priority BUT loyalty to Christ is the supreme loyalty for all Christians. This is expressed through love and service to all who proclaim Christ as LORD.

The issue - Sexuality or Mendacity ?

Trevor Moss, London, UK

I think that this case poses some legal issues that need to be resolved, perhaps by an appeal. Turning the case around, would this man have won the case had he been straight? The testimony of the Bishop was that, sex outside marriage was not acceptable for the holder of the position. Therefore, this right does not exist for heterosexuals and never has, yet the Gay lobby would have us think that our conscience over sexual conduct has no place in what we can agree with or endorse even in matters of general application, so long as it affects a Gay person. Presumably, John Reaney, by applying must have been aware of the rules of the Church. So why did he apply? Just to bring this case? The Bishop's evidence was not impugned. was that the same question would not have been asked of a Straight person!. How did he know, is he Straight? . What does this decision therefore do to freedom of conscience? Why shoould one that diagrees with the stance of the church about what constitutes sin, want to work there in a position that may require the expression of Church doctrine? It is not equality, which sets homosexuality in a league of its own, protected by Law that heterosexuality has never had. Gay now enjoy full rights under the law, by virtue of being citizens, not by virtue of being Gay, and that is how it should be

Nike Olafimihan , Den Haag, Netherlands

Rachel
The Bishop was free to act in accordance with his beliefs. No one prevented him from acting in accordence with his beliefs. Our democratic society is also free to act in accordance with its majority belief that discrimination is wrong and must be compensated for. So the church has to fork out a little cash now and then in order to finance its continuing bigotry - but hey , money is the root of all evil isn't it? So that's all ok then.

Karen, Edinburgh,