One is suprised and not amused! The Old Queen mMm loved her Gay servants! Bet she would have loved a good civil partnership knees up!!!!!
Once again the bible nuts get extra rights.
I am sure HM knows all about her mother’s social preferences. Is our Sovereign Lady aware that people running her mother’s property are breaking the spirit, if not the letter, of her laws?
The Trustees are:
Ashe Windham CVO (Chairman)
The Rt. Hon The Earl of Caithness PC FRICS
The Rt. Hon The Viscount Thurso MP
James Stobo CBE DL
Of them, the Earl of Caithness has been a vocal opponent of gay rights in the Lords while the Viscount Thurso is a Lib Dem front bencher and so, presumably, is in favour of gay rights.
However, the Chair of the Trust is Prince Charles, who might treat accusations of homophobia seriously – as might actress Susan Hampshire, who is ‘celebrity ambassador’ for the castle and Alan Titchmarsh, who is honorary patron of the Friends of Castle Mey.
Shouldn’t worry. This seems to exclude Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews and Jeddi Knights and others so at least four of those will be unhappy about it. Seems a deliberate snub to all of them, not just us. I can’t see this ban lasting very long.
I just hope the Jeddi Knights aren’t too offended.
Strictly speaking, it’s not discrimination. Just really stupid business sense. Surely if the idea is to make a profit, they would invest in licensing the property, expanding the potential amount of business?
I am speaking as an American almost lawyer (last year in law school), but isn’t this type of treatment just another thing to throw before the legislature (in your case, in ours could be either before courts or legislature) and tell them “these civil unions you allow us are not equal to marriage, we are not being treated equally?” But before that, I would suggest getting a couple of Jewish, Muslim and Hindu clerics to demand the right to conduct weddings there as well.
Andrew, I think you’ll find it is discrimination onthe grounds of both religion and sexual orientation. The statement (if it is as published) would be fairly weighty evidence if produced in court.
So if they had a licence, only christian weddings could be performed there. Am I to assume then that would rule out straight civil marriages too since they have nothing to do with any religion?