Here's the lower court ruling [link] and here's the ruling overturning it [link] (I haven't read the second one yet.)

I guess I don't see how saying that all children of converts would be accepted as Jewish would be discriminating by ethnicity.

Because that is choosing by birth, not by belief or practice. Again the problem is that being "Jewish" is both a religion and an ethnicity. But UK law only allows discrimination on religious but not ethnic grounds. The fundamental problem is that UK law can't recognize "son of a Jewish mother" as valid grounds to accept or refuse to accept a student for admission to a school.

But I found a bunch of Christian schools in the UK that say that a kid gets preference if his or her parent regularly attends church.

And I think your definition of "religion" is too narrow. Judaism is a religion, which defines who is a member based on religious law. It makes no sense to say that Judaism is enough of a religion that it can have a Jewish school where they're allowed to give preference to Jewish kids, but not enough of a religion that the religious rules defining who those Jewish kids are don't hold. This is trying to make Judaism fit into laws that were written with Christianity in mind, and it just doesn't work.

Also, it looks like the official admissions policy of the school says that kids who are planning to convert and are enrolled in course toward that end should be considered Jewish for admissions policies, but the school didn't actually abide by its own rule on that one -- the father tried enrolling his kid in conversion classes, but then the school said that he had to have been in the classes for a few years before the school would accept him.

But I found a bunch of Christian schools in the UK that say that a kid gets preference if his or her parent regularly attends church.

None which base that on attendence before the child's birth. Note that post-birth conversion would not make the child Jewish.

It makes no sense to say that Judaism is enough of a religion that it can have a Jewish school where they're allowed to give preference to Jewish kids, but not enough of a religion that the religious rules defining who those Jewish kids are don't hold.

The judge actually answer that question with the example of the Dutch Orthodox Church which does not recognize Black people as capable of being Christian. Until quite recently, the Mormon Church had similarly discrimantory policies (well not quite the same -more the way Catholics treat women). The right of a religion to designate stuff and HAVE IT ENFORCED is not unlimited. Old joke: How legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Answer: four, calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.

I admit, I look forward to seeing Catholic Schools in the UK required to train woman as Priests, even though the religious branch will never actually admit them to the Priesthood.

I'm sorry, msbelle.

It's not just me.

It's not. I'm pretty sure DH says both too.

I think I caught what Dana had this morning.

There is not a single food item in my apartment that I am sure I could eat without puking.

But I found a bunch of Christian schools in the UK that say that a kid gets preference if his or her parent regularly attends church.

Christianity doesn't cross ethnicity/religion lines. My parent attending church doesn't affect my ethnicity.

They should have enforced that preference at the convent school my sister went to. She mistakenly took communion (we're godless heathens) and was scarred for years because of it.

Hmm. I'm reading through the decision, and it seems like part of the argument is that, if they say that Jewishness is not a race or ethnicity, then that will set a precedent that antisemitic acts can't be prosecuted under the laws against racial or ethnic discrimination. But wouldn't it be an immediate corollary of that reasoning that this decision would set a precedent that Jewishness is an ethnicity and this kid (and all other people who are the children of converts, or are converts themselves) are not ethnically Jewish and therefore antisemitic acts against them could not be considered ethnic discrimination? I mean, the court can't rule that the same person was discriminated against for being part of an ethnic group and also for not being part of that ethnic group, right?

Sorry for the bad night, msbelle.