Can religious social workers practice affirmatively with LGBTQ service recipients? An exploration within the regulatory context

ABSTRACT

Tensions between religious freedoms and lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer (LGBTQ) rights have evolved from debates about sinful deviance to competing equality claims. There is a growing debate, originally in the US, but emerging in the UK, about whether religious social workers, particularly those holding fundamentalist Christian beliefs, can deliver affirmative, anti-oppressive services to LGBTQ people. This is important because over two-fifths of social workers identify as Christian and almost a quarter of UK charities, including those running community and residential care services for older people, are religious organisations. These concerns have been highlighted in a recent judicial review involving a social work student, Felix Ngole, who was expelled by the University of Sheffield for making homophobic comments on his Facebook page. The Court of Appeal ruled the University’s decision was procedurally flawed and had conflated religious prejudice with discrimination. This paper considers 70 online responses to a Community Care article written by Ngole, which highlight divided opinions within the social work profession. It critically interrogates, within regulatory contexts, whether it is possible to be both deeply opposed to LGBTQ people’s lives and yet work affirmatively and anti-oppressively with them. An urgent research agenda is proposed.

KEYWORDS:

• LGBTQ
• sexuality
• transgender
• religion

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to: the anonymous reviewers for their feedback; my colleagues Isra Black, Alex Green, Jed Meers, Simon Halliday, Lawrence McNamara, Jenny Steele, Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis, and Emma Waring, for helpful discussions; Searle Kochberg, Peter Kevern, and Sarah Malpas for useful comments; and Rhiannon Griffiths for excellent research assistance.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. R (Ngole) v The University of Sheffield [2019], para. 10.

2. Ibid., para. 11.

3. Ibid.

4. The Queen (on the application of NGOLE) (Appellant) v The University of Sheffield (Respondent) [2019] EWCA Civ 1127.

5. Ibid., para. 6.

6. Ibid., para 8.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid., para. 10.

9. Ibid.

10. S149(5)(b).

11. Equality Act (EQA) 2010 29(8).

12. EQA S33 (6), S34(4), S35(4).

13. EQA S85(10).

14. EQA S103(2).

15. Public Order Act (POA) 1986 S29J.

16. POA 29 JA(1).

17. POA 29JA(2).

18. Bull and Another v. Hall and Another [2012] EWCA 83.

19. McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs [2008] IRLR 29.

20. Ladele v LB Islington [2009] IRLR 154 (EAT); [2010] IRLR 211 (CA); Eweida and Others v. UK [2013] ECHR 37.

21. McFarlane v Relate Avon [2010] IRLR 196 (EAT); [2010] IRLR 872(CA); Eweida and Others v. UK [2013] ECHR 37.

22. Johns v. Derby City Council [2011] 1 FCR 493.

23. Dr David Mackereth v (1) The Department for Work and Pensions (2) Advanced Personnel Management Group (UK) Ltd, Case Number: 1,304,602/2018.

24. Lee (Respondent) v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others (Appellants) (Northern Ireland) [2018] UKSC 49.

25. Ibid., para. 22.

26. R. (on the application of Cornerstone (North East) Adoption and Fostering Services Ltd) v Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) [2021] EWCA Civ 1390.

27. S2.2.1.

28. S2.2.2.

29. S2.2.2.

30. In which British imperialism and colonialism are implicated (Lalor 2021).

Additional information

Funding

This article is funded by a small research grant from C & JB Morrell Trust Priming Funds (2019/2020), via the University of York.