Reader comments · Harriet Harman confirms climbdown over gay church employees · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Harriet Harman confirms climbdown over gay church employees

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. of course shes not taking it back to the house. the labour poarty, bought and owned by the godsquad. not a friend to us.

  2. Lucio Buffone 5 Feb 2010, 2:12pm

    Or maybe, the queers were too busy necking copious amounts of G, E, K, C and plant fertiliser to bother writing to their MP’s or members of the Lords and had our asses kicked by a well orchestrated and brilliantly planned campaign by the main religions. We f**ked this one up, through our own laziness

  3. Can I go into 4-year-old child mode and ask, “Whyyyyy….?”

  4. Sometimes it’s better to leave a piece of legislation in place as it is. That’s all she has done. So there’s no need for hissy fits, or childlike tantrums. LGBT people are still covered by the law.

    Remember this act is about tidying and clarifying the law and drawing things together.

  5. Spineless. They’re supposed to be the government, in charge of the country, not showing deference to the Church.

  6. Mihangel apYrs 5 Feb 2010, 2:53pm

    what this means is that the bigots will now feel empowered.

    Thus a gay teacher in a RC school receiving public funds can now summarily sacked because the law can be read (and “parliament’s will” perceived) as supporting the purging of queers in “leadership positions, with the new, wider definition of the term “leading”

  7. The woman should resign, she’s not fit to do the job!

  8. theotherone 5 Feb 2010, 3:11pm

    how subservient paul.

    Are you sucking GB’s cock or something? Or are you just such an apologist for Labour that they can do no wrong even when they stab us in the back?

  9. The sacking of those who do not live by the tenets of the church concerned will not be permitted under European law. Exceptions to this are very limited. The courts will make this very clear. Any other interpretation is based on lack of knowledge of the 2003 Employment Regulations!

  10. But Neville, if an employer really wants to get rid of someone because, for example, they are gay, then they will find an excuse to do so. They will claim the individual is dismissed for some other trumped-up reason so as to get around the law by claiming the person was not singled out for being gay, even if they were.

  11. Cowards.

  12. I just wish that the Church (of varying denominations) and the Pope in particular would keep their bloody noses out of British law.
    And the Labour Party is no more reliable, trustworthy or on our side than the Conservatives. This story proves that.

  13. Jean-Paul Bentham 5 Feb 2010, 4:54pm

    Aim for the Moon, I always say.

    Who wouldn’t want a non-unionized, minimum salary job with the RCC who will overwork you till you drop and get away without paying you any retirement benefits?

    Let’s all form a tidy line-up now, and no shoving.

  14. Religious employers may try to find excuses to dismiss gay employees, but they will then have to face industrial tribunals which may give them pause for thought. Stonewall has said that it will support any gay employee who is dismissed. This is another factor which may act as some kind of brake on any wholesale attempts to discriminate, for it would soon become obvious if a number of cases reached tribunals in which the complainants were gay.

  15. Omar Kuddus GayAsylum UK 5 Feb 2010, 7:53pm

    Why cant the British government for once respect and understand that we are a multifathe country and leave religon out of politics and the decisions it makes.

  16. theotherone 5 Feb 2010, 8:45pm

    alas kaz, as you say, Labour have hardly proven themselves reliable have they?

  17. theotherone 5 Feb 2010, 9:11pm

    I have sent the following email in responce to the reply I receved from HH’s office (see the other story on this topic for the text of that email):

    Dear —–,

    Thankyou for your reply on the 4th of February.

    I find it odd that, when this Government has been more than willing to ‘take on’ The Lords you have decided, in this insistence, to back down. The to and fro between the Upper and Lower Chambers is part of our Democracy and, at it’s best, allows for a better law as it has, rather like a pebble in the sea, had it’s rough edges knocked off.

    I can not understand why the Government has, in this instance, chosen to not engage in any debate with the Upper House. My concern is that this decision has more to do with appeasing religious groups given the imminent Papal visit and the similarly imminent General election. With these and similar misgivings in mind both myself and several of my Queer friends feel we can no longer support the Labour Party if it would rather appease religious groups than allow us basic Human Rights accepted as the bare minimum that a country can award it’s citizens by the European court Of Human Rights.

    Can you please give more details as to the Government’s reasons for refusing to continue with this piece of legislation and can you assure both myslef and the people I know who, like myself, are troubled by this decision that it does not show (as it appears to) a new direction in Government policy in the run up to the General Election.


  18. Sister Mary clarence 5 Feb 2010, 9:57pm

    Again, very nice theotherone – please let us hear any response you get (even if its a non-response)

  19. theotherone 5 Feb 2010, 9:59pm

    I don’t expect much back from them – something totally and utterly non comital.

    Perhaps they’ll send the police round to my house.

  20. theotherone 5 Feb 2010, 10:06pm

    related but not particularly Queer is the news that three Labour MPs who are facing prosecution over very, very dodgy expenses claims will be claiming Parliamentary Privilege to stop the prosecution.

    A Party of honorable people obviously.

  21. john sharp 6 Feb 2010, 9:28am

    so i can discriminate Christians
    on the base they are anti gays
    thanks i will respond to the Christians war against US

  22. Ah yes. The supportive, gay rights leaders, peoples party have done a complete youee and run away from confronting the church.

    Had this been a Tory government, there would have been screams of “Homophobia!” to raise the roof. But oh, no. This is the party all you lefties want us all to support because of their attitudes to gay people.

    Well there you have it in a nutshell: They just shafted us.
    Don’t tell me any other party can do any worse. The next time some socialist dickhead on here rants on about Labour’s record on gay rights, I’m going to take this article and ram it down their self-opinionated, blinkered throats.

  23. After Italy and Poland, it’s now GB’s turn to be governed by the catholic church !

  24. theotherone 6 Feb 2010, 8:51pm

    why not? We’ve been governed by the TB Church and now the GB Church, now it’s the RC Church.

  25. RobN – not all of the left support Labour especially as they aren’t into equality
    plus you stereotype

  26. I don’t want to sound like a broken record, however I’ll say it again. Labour ONLY bring in equality laws for the LGBT community when the European Courts threaten to take them to task.

    The ONLY party to vote for to ensure that we have FULL equality for the LGB and T community is the Liberal Democrats. The ONLY MPs raising their voices for us are the LibDems, especially Dr Evan Harris and Lynne Featherstone. Where are the L&B Labour MPs? Hiding away for fear of the ministerial positions!

    Don’t complain again if you continue to vote for Labour and / or the Conservatives.

  27. Sorry . . . the L&G – typo there . LoL

  28. This is a very disappointing outcome. That said, I wouldn’t want to work for a homophobic organisation anyway.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.