Nice theory and in principle I agree.

But seeing as there are legally protected exceptions to the principle of equality then it is not incumbent on ANYONE to abide by equality laws.

If LGBT people were fully protected by equality laws then I would be loudly condemning this charity’s ‘gay only’ advert.

As it stands it is legal to discriminate against us. Until that shanmeful situation is rectified then I think LGBT groups should endeavour to practice equal treatment towards non LGBT people. But if they feel that it is in their best interest to hire ONLY LGBT people, then they should go right ahead and do that.

We either endorse the principles of equality of we don’t.

The person best suited to the job should get it. The recruitment process should identify the individual with the skills set most closely matched to the person spec and that person should get the job. They may be LGBT, but they may not. The helpline operator taking the initial call apparently does not have to be, but the person them following in the advocacy role apparently does – why.

I would guess there are a range of inquiries to the helpline that need ongoing advocacy support, some sensitive, some not so, but its that ghetto mentality rearing its head again to assume that only another gay person could empathise with a gay victim of crime, or a gay person having problems filling in a benefits form.

That being the case, everyone would be doing it.

However it is unacceptable for the LGBT population to simply roll over and accept that religious employers are legally protected if they want to discriminate against us.

Neither Labour nor the Tories are willing to insist that religious employers (many of which are STATE FUNDED) be bound by equality legislation.

In such revolting circumstances, I think it is unacceptable to roll over meekly and accept it.

The government has created this situation where employment discrimination is legal. They need to realise that there are consequences for this.

This charity should uae the same arguements as the catholic church as to why they should be allowed to discriminate against straight employees.

It’s not right, but it’s OK in my view.

This organisation is following the part of the law that says its ok to discriminate on grounds of authenticity (chinese waiters, getting a woman to play the part of a woman in play), or decency (female care worker showering a female disabled person) or sensitivity (women in womens crisis centres, LGBT person providing support to LGBT person on crisis line) etc.

That is why the church can legally insist that their vicar is a christian but not the vicar’s secretary.

This part of the law exists for every equality strand AND ALWAYS HAS!

THIS IS NOT NEWS it happens ALL the time.

Once again, Pinknews muckraking.

(Admin staff – bit dodgier to defend, mind you)

chinese restaurants can legally disriminate against non chinese waiters on grounds of authenticity; admin staff in women’s refuges can discriminate against men on grounds of

Two people do not make a case, but my experience and pink pasty’s experience, is matched by other groups throughout the south west. I know a gay youth group leader who was forced out so that intercom could gain control of his youth group. There are probably other groups that I do not personally know, and pink pasty has reported other incidents when intercom has threatened LGBT people instead of its claimed mandate to support them.

This issue has little bearing on this advert, but basically there needs to be a debate about intercom’s legitimacy in general even thoughthey tend to quash, stifle and marginalise any attempt at such debate. They pathologise all those who question them (pink pasty is usually singled out for derision, but I was not prepared for when Michael Hall turned on me!) and I certainly question their right to receive money meant for LGBT people in the south west when they do us such disservice.

Yes the justifications for discrimination are very weak.

But so what.

Religions are entitled under equality legislation to discriminate. That makes an absolute mockery of the equality legislation, so I really don’t see why this charity should feel duty bound to follow it.

But considering that religious employers will be legally allowed to discriminate against LGBT people when hiring and firing, then I really fail to see why LGBT emmployers need to be strictly bound by equality laws either.

The religious opt out from equality legislation makes the legislation effectively useless as it opens the door for other groups to demand exceptions from it.

If a religious employer is allowed to discriminate then I really don’t see why an LGBT employer is not allowed to use the same reasoning to discriminate.

What if a REALLY camp straight guy applied for the job, one that everyone actually thought was gay, but had a wife and six kids at home?

Any good folks?

End of story. I just don’t see how you can argue against that, and none of the dissenting opinions on this page have made me think otherwise.

We’re talking about people who may be in very dire situations here, people who may be very vulnerable and even reticent to seek help in the first place. It does not matter how well a straight person could do the job – if somebody who has been victimised and abused by straight people knows this charity employs straight counsellors, they’re not going to come in for help at all. In that way, a straight person really couldn’t do the job as well as a gay person, because they wouldn’t even be able to attempt it.

The comparison to a rape crisis centre isn’t entirely misleading. Although only a small percentage of calls this charity gets will be as serious as the routine goings on at a rape crisis centre, they still do exist and it is for these eventualities that they need to plan.

The comparisons to construction work or a restaurant/bar/shop are entirely misleading. Construction equipment cannot refuse to be wielded by a woman. The laws of physics in fact dictate that anybody of sufficient strength can move it, be they male or female. In an establishment such as a shop, they are not dealing with vulnerable people who desperately, emotionally need to pick up a packet of crisps. In this case, it would benefit only the company’s profits to pander to their customers in such a way. This sort of exploitation definitely would be discrimination. And I think you’ll find disabled people are routinely turned down for jobs that they literally cannot physically do. Wherever possible, workplaces should be arranged to suit the needs of disabled workers, but it’s not discrimination if it’s actually impossible.

Interviewers tend to choose the candidate that they want to work with, whilst weighing up the pros and cons of their skill set.

It’s an absolute swine trying to agree with this stance given our own comments, re. the likes of the Laddelle woman and her refusal to perform civil partnerships.

I think if a heterosexual is deemed capable of doing the task, then they should be given the opportunity until deemed incapable.

Given the screaming for rights from our side of the coin, the last thing we want to do is introduce heterosexual discrimination.

I really see no problem with anyone applying, but a good sift and interview will identify people how can actually do a good job