Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Peter Tatchell: Discrimination would be ‘rampant’ if Christian hotel couple won case

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Dan Filson 18 Jan 2011, 1:45pm

    I dread to think what the legal costs in this case were.

    I am not sure exactly what the legal precedent set here is – is it that a hotel cannot bar customers sharing a bed who are not ‘married’ however defined? So what if there are twins beds (see the William Hague issue!). Or is that a pair of male customers cannot be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality, and if so is the onus on the customers to:
    (a) assert their sexuality, and
    (b) prove that it was perceived by the hoteliers (or whoever), and
    (c) that the latter discriminated on the basis of the sexuality rather than say the marriage status?
    If so, there could be endless case by case arguments and no especial precedent set. Also note this case was not heard in the Supreme Court. So it may not be over yet. Nor binding.

  2. In the DailyMail, Mrs Bull is quoted as follows:

    ‘We are obviously disappointed with the result. Our double-bed policy was based on our sincere beliefs about marriage, not hostility to anybody,’ she said.

    Yes, indeed, she and her husband were “only” acting according to their “sincere beliefs”. And last week Peter Tatchell advised the world that the sincere beliefs of Christians should be respected unless, he said, the Christians in question are advocating violence, slaughter, or death to us.

    Clearly, Mr and Mrs Bull did NOT indicate to Steven Preddy and his civil partner Martin Hall that they wished them DEAD, so according to Peter Tatchell the judge has judged wrongly.

    Mrs. Bull says they may take the matter to appeal. When it goes to appeal, the lawyers acting for Mr. and Mrs. Bull should quote Tatchell’s loony advice of last week!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348207/Gay-couple-win-1-800-Christian-hotel-owners-refused-double-room.html

  3. Tatchell is a fan of the dramatics, isn’t he…

  4. Trust Tatchell to rush out a statement – as if he were some kind of authority and we give a darn what he thinks! As far as I’m concerned he’s lost any authority he ever had. Here he is shouting “Hooray! Hooray!” when only last week he rushed out a statement saying as JohnK and Sam have said above, respect them unless they incite violence, murder, etc. He’s mad. One hit too many to the old head, methinks.

  5. A victory for common sense and hopefully another nail in the coffin for marriage inequality.

  6. Good stuff, and well done Peter Tatchell. His position looks completely logical to me.

  7. Jock S. Trap 18 Jan 2011, 2:44pm

    “the ruling was “further evidence that equality laws are being used as a sword rather than a shield””

    Yet more proof that these certain Christians feel they should always be above the law.

    The law is there for Everyone, including Christians, follow it or face the consequences.

    As for Mr. Tatchell’s inconsistency, it’s making me dizzy. Make ya mind up do! Stop making allowances for discrimination and support helping the LGBT community being treated equally.

  8. Mrs Bull said: husband, Peter, was unable to attend because he is to undergo triple heart bypass surgery later today. So surly appealing would say she cares more about her God than her husband and that doesn’t sound very Christian of her?

  9. Peter said before that he’s against hate speech, but nevertheless thinks it ought to be legal as long as it doesn’t incite violence or murder.

    A Christian hotel owner might put a sign in the window saying “homosexuals are diseased and we’d prefer not to have any on these premises.”

    Should that hotel owner be allowed to put such a sign in his/her window?

  10. When will people learn that moral objection is not above or more important than the law. I just find this ridiculous, although i am not religious, i respect other people’s rights to worship and to live how they want and respect that it is their choice, whereas respect for my way of living might as well be non existant, and I have no choice about my sexuality

  11. Arthur Mann 18 Jan 2011, 5:12pm

    Rich,

    I trust that you will reflect on how your views on the state of the health of one of the defendants appear on this website.

  12. Peter Tatchell 18 Jan 2011, 5:19pm

    Contrary to what Sam claims, I never said we should “respect” Christian homophobes. I said protest against them, and other anti-gay bigots, but don’t criminalise them unless they incite violence.

    You may disagree with me. That’s your right. But it is perfectly reasonable to make a distinction between views that are merely intolerant (lamentable thought these views are) and views that incite violence. Many of the great moral philosophers throughout the ages have made the same distinction: Voltaire, John Stuart Mill etc.

    I repeat: all homophobia should be challenged, exposed and protested against (which is what I do). But criminal prosecutions should be reserved for those who incite violence.

    I would be grateful if certain people stopped misrepresenting what I have said. Thank you.

  13. Peter wrote

    “I would be grateful if certain people stopped misrepresenting what I have said. Thank you”

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Peter it is a bit rich you coming onto the site and accusing us of distrorting your words!

    Peter when are you going to take responsibility for the fact that your words, are now being used to promote homophobic christianity.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262310/Gay-rights-campaigner-condemns-1-000-fine-preacher-said-homosexuality-sin.html

    http://www.inspiremagazine.org.uk/news.aspx?action=view&id=4496

    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/gay-activist-welcomes-lords-free-speech-win/

    http://scottishchristian.com/lords-back-free-speech-shield-in-gay-hate-law/

    http://news.pinkpaper.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=2972

    http://www.christian.org.uk/news/labour-vows-to-rip-up-free-speech-safeguard/

    . . . . . . . . . .

    Peter when are you going to recongise that their is a continuum of homophobic violence and it begins with words.

  14. Peter Tatchell’s position seems perfectlt acceptable to me.

    A homophobe should be allowed to express their views. Just as I should be allowed to condemn religion.

    A bigot should not be allowed to encourage people to kill me.

    I should not be allowed to encourage people to kill christians or jews.

    If I am running a business however then I am obliged by law not to discriminate in the provision of goods and services. If a gay couple books a room in a christian’s hotel then the hotel is iobliged by law to accept the booking. This couple refused.

    Likewise I would be obliged to provide a hotel room to a muslim couple where the woman is wearing a burqa.

    JohnK; Sam and Jock S Trap’s arguements do not make any logical sense.

    They seem to have a gripe against Peter Tatchell as their arguements do not make sense.

  15. JohnK

    You are falling on deaf ears (again, yawn). This personal hate agenda against Herr Tatchell isn’t winning you many fans, it’s only the same hysterical people who are backing you up again. As in any society, there is always a persistent core group of nutters that remains vocal even when the fight is over.

    Have some self-respect mate and move on!

  16. Peter

    It’s ok, you don’t need to justify yourself to the rational on here. Like Christian bigots, there are persistently irrational nutters in the gay world too and they will probably hound you on here forever.

    Most of us are happy with what you are doing. And to be fair, even if you are doing a couple of things that we don’t all agree with, are any of us doing any better? Nah, so we can’t complain. If people don’t like it, they can go and set up their own gay rights group.

    Simples!

  17. The Heretic Philosopher 18 Jan 2011, 7:32pm

    JohnK I don’t think Peter Tatchell is responsible for those who are twisting his words for their own agenda. Rather it is the people who are twisting what he has said who I think you should be focussing your criticisms on. From what I can see all the links you’ve posted are all organisations prone to biased reporting and editing of their reports to support their homophobic agenda and they will do anything they think they can get away with as well we know from the Banned & Censored On The Christian Institute Facebook Page group.

  18. “JohnK I don’t think Peter Tatchell is responsible for those who are twisting his words for their own agenda”

    THP . . . so is Peter not provding impossible, unrealitisc and lofty ideals such as “Free Speech”, which can be used to support Bigotry?

  19. “Peter when are you going to recognise that there is a continuum of homophobic violence and it begins with words.”

    Absolutely right on, JohnK.

    Verbal violence to the passing young (or old) gay or lesbian can be just as hurtful as physical violence.

    Anyone who contests this is ignorant of the pain and suffering caused by psychological abuse.

    Peter Tatchell seems to be indicating that he believes that verbal violence by Christians is all right.

    Yet within verbal violence he makes distinctions! He asks did the person just tell you that you’re going to burn in hell for all eternity, or did they “just” say that they think you should be killed here on earth?

    For Peter Tatchell it’s apparently fine for religious people to say to gay and lesbian passers-by that they are going to roast in hell for all eternity (because they are so evil). But for Peter Tatchell it is not OK for them say that they think you are so evil that you should be murdered.

    Why is Peter Tatchell so stubborn that he won’t recognise how similarly abhorrent both these instances of verbal violence are! What’s his problem?

    There is indeed a continuum of homophobic violence and it begins with exactly the kind of verbal violence that Peter Tatchell has told Christians he, as our self-elected spokesperson, thinks is acceptable on the street and should not be illegal.

    Barmy.

  20. Well done Peter Tatchell – and really, ignore the dreary, vacuous, repetitive interjections from dimwits on here who are too mentally challenged to distinguish between expression of opinion, which can be ridiculed or ignored, and actions which harm others.

    The only reason people want to silence loonybin street preachers is because a. they are so thin skinned, self-pitying weeds, or b. they don’t have the mental capacity to answer back.

    Lisa for example, is horrified that someone might say that gays will roast in ‘hell’. Well, the bible says that gays will roast in hell. If you can’t even think to ask ‘how do you know it’s true’ or ‘how do you know the mind of god’ or ‘what is the evidence for hell’ then – you deserve to be insulted.

  21. Peter and Hazelmary should appeal against this, they have the right to do so.

    This PRIVATE case should never have been funded by The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as it is not one that the public is intersted in, certainly myself as a gay guy believe.

    Peter and Hazelmary please appeal this case.

  22. The Heretic Philosopher 19 Jan 2011, 2:53am

    @ Matt…I’m a member of the public and I’m interested.

  23. As a openly Gay man I must admit this story sickens me and I feel it puts Gay rights back 10 years. I wouldnt want to stay somewhere I was not welcome and when making a booking would check there was no problem.This was not a corperation it was a couple running a buisness from there home with strong religous beliefs , wether I agree with them or not it was there home and ultimatly there choice.There always seems to be a certain faction of the gay community who wish to advertise there sexuality and ring it like a bell . You are who you are your sexuality is just part of it, I wish people would stop acting if it was the most important part of there character..

  24. @dave

    Should a hotel owner be legally permitted to put up a sign that says that gays are diseased and that the hotel would prefer not to house them?

    I guess that depends. I don’t think it would be ok if the sign simply said that. But if it said “It is the opinion of the owner of this hotel that…” then it might be ok. What would absolutely not be ok is if that same hotel actually refused to house a gay person/couple. They can say all they want about not liking gays, but they cannot deny service offered to everyone else.

  25. @steffan

    I agree with you to a degree. I’m not certain that this case really represents your situation though. If I recall correctly, there was no reservation made – this couple showed up to the hotel to make a booking for that night in person. They also didn’t specifically say “Hi, we’re gay and we want a room”. Instead, they were interested in a room with only a double bed, implying that they would share said bed. The hotel owners are the ones who used their brains and determined that the two men who were perfectly comfortable sleeping in the same bed when (I believe) there were rooms with two smaller beds available were, in fact, gay.

    I don’t believe that any business, whether a multi-national or a business run out of one’s home, should be excluded from equality laws. If a gay couple wants a room, you would have to treat them the same as a straight couple. If a gay couple wants flowers for their civil union ceremony, you have to treat them the same as a straight couple for their marriage. Yes, knowing that a business is anti-gay might make many of us avoid that business, but what happens if you don’t know in advance? I could easily show up to a hotel that is the only hotel for miles and want a room with my husband. This hotel could be run by anyone. If I’m already there and looking for a room then I clearly don’t want to go somewhere else. In this case, I would sleep in the home of an anti-gay Christian extremist, even though I disagree with their opinions on a number of issues. In reality, I am paying for a service that they are offering. I might later recommend to others that this hotel isn’t friendly, but if they are respectful and pleasant, I wouldn’t concern myself with their religious beliefs.

  26. Will Clarke 19 Jan 2011, 8:35am

    The likes of JohnK, Sam and Jock S Trap scare the stuffing out of me. If these are imbeciles screeching gay rights from from the rooftops are typical of gays today, then we are all doomed. Do they actually have the capacity or faculties to decipher, syllable by syllable, what Peter T is actually saying? They do say the louder the truth, the more that Philistines who do not have ears to hear won’t hear it. How true.

  27. I don’t find Peter T’s assessment to be inconsistent at all.
    The problem with annulling free speech entirely is that once the bigots are on the ascendent they will use exactly the same sanctions we advocated against us.
    If that comes to pass, forget about criticising fundamentalist homophobic dogma because that would be just as illegal as when you advocated ad-hominem criticism of gay people as illegal.
    Read up on John Stuart Mill’s harm principle:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations_on_freedom_of_speech
    “…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered.” Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”
    The harm principle covers actual incitement to harm as in “I want gays to be rounded up and shot” but doesn’t cover “I don’t like the gays”.
    It’s not a perfect world but unless you want the same Orwellian level of scrutiny focused on yourself you have to take some of the rough with the smooth.
    The odd bigot mouthing off is not an arrestable offence and in a democracy we also have the freedom to point out that they’re bigoted jerks. The only slightly grey area is exactly at what point freedom of speech becomes freedom to oppress, but individual cases have to be examined on their own merits.
    Well that’s my take on it anyhow…

  28. Will Clarke 19 Jan 2011, 10:29am

    I braced myself and logged onto the Mail’s web site today and there are hundreds of people commenting, mostly against the ruling. This post is typical:

    “I dont understand the gay rights movement. Cases like this alienate them. They preach about people having to respect thier rights, their beliefes that they can lead their life the way they choose. But by enforcing these rights and beliefes in this way unsing a court and the law, they ride rough-shod over the rights and beliefes of others and stop them leading the life they choose. The homosexual community wont get any proper respect untill they start to respect the views of those around them. You cant win respect through a court order.”

    As much as I understand the reasons why the case was instigated, I can’t help also understanding the other sides’ argument in this. From where I am standing we haven’t acted with much dignity in this incident, particularly if reports that the hotel was set up by Stonewall are anything to go by. If we use this win to gloat and zealously pursue other hoteliers and similar establishments like bulls about to charge a red flag, then I fear we will be stunned by the mother of all backlashes. We have to behave with dignity and decorum and present our arguments from a humane perspective rather than foot-stomping all over the place if we are to earn the respect and support of the masses, otherwise we will set back the advances we have made into being accepted by the mainstream by years.

  29. Will Clarke 19 Jan 2011, 10:34am

    I should have added restrained and reasoned (that is, explaining our arguments in a rational, thoughtful manner) alongside humane in the way we need to deal with these sensitive issues in future if we are to earn respect. Humility could be our greatest weapon of all, yet it is the one quality that always appears to be sadly lacking where are battles for equality are concerned.

  30. Jock S. Trap 19 Jan 2011, 11:14am

    Problem with those kind of commentors is the minute they spout on about Gay people by saying things like ‘we have to repect their rights’ and ‘they just want more rights’ etc is they proof they just don’t get it.

    When will these people learn its not about our limited rights or beliefs, its about making a stand to have exactly the same rights they themselves are entitled to. The ones they have never had to fight for becaus ethey have been just there.

    It’s seems they just don’t get it that we are all human beings yet they are the ones who feel the need to restrict overs just because of who they are and love.

    Christian beliefs should never come above the law of the land. These laws are there to make society work together to become better and fairer people and respect one another. Trouble is they’ve had things their own way for so long they’re having temper tantrums because things aren’t now going their way. They’ve got away with allowing killing and persecution of teh LGBT community all in the name of the Bible and they’re still trying to get away with it.

    In a decent society we surely have to learn from each other. That means accepting all who are human beings may be different to our own view but that doesn’t give them or us the right to abuse and discriminate because of it.

    Common sense says that if we don’t like something or even someone then go somewhere else be with those you do want to be with but don’t disresepct them.

    However if you then open a business then common sense suggests you open up to all and can’t discriminate. Personal opinions have to take a sidewalk unless you close that business.

    It doesn’t give the power to be selective.

    These laws are in place to government common sense and treat all equally.

    The minute this Christian B&B couple Chose, yes chose to ignore the fact this couple had a civil partnership, then they broke the law. The separate rooms talk doesn’t need to enter the arguement, thats just to side step their true discrimination from view.

    Follow the law like Everyone else or face the consequences.

    I do think though now is the strongest case every for total Equal Marriage.

  31. “I dont understand the gay rights movement. Cases like this alienate them. They preach about people having to respect thier rights, their beliefes that they can lead their life the way they choose. But by enforcing these rights and beliefes in this way unsing a court and the law, they ride rough-shod over the rights and beliefes of others and stop them leading the life they choose. The homosexual community wont get any proper respect untill they start to respect the views of those around them. You cant win respect through a court order.”
    idiots like this will never understand – they are ok with the christians only so they don’t see any other sides, christians can and do ride over others any time they want and yet they want others to respect them, it’s like telling people in the back of the bus that’s where they belong

  32. Adrian T, re your really hurtful comment to Lisa, you should be ashamed of yourself! From the little photo that accompanies your post you look like a muscleman. And from the aggression you have shown towards Lisa I expect you’ve got a strong mouth on you too. That would be right, wouldn’t it?

    So can you see how bullying, MALE, and insensitive you are being in refusing to protect the vulnerable in society and in demanding that every gay and lesbian should put down their shopping bags and stand there and bark away in front of everybody?

    Good for you if you can do it. Maybe you even enjoy doing it. It would be fun to watch you sometime. (Time and place?) But, please, don’t speak with contempt towards the vast majority of people, who don’t wish to get involved in public fracas and should not have to do so, should not be insulted by religious people. OK? :-)

  33. Who gives a toss anymore what Peter Tatchell thinks?

    Anyway, I’m waiting now for news of when Tatchell and his partner take a Muslim to court for refusing them “goods and services”!

    The headline will be: “Peter Tatchell: Discrimination Would Be ‘Rampant’ If Muslim Won Case.”

  34. I am certainly not a Tatchell-basher in any way.

    I think he has done great work for the LGBT community over the years and I have the utmost respect for him.

    However, I do think he is being inconsistent in regard to this.

    The issue for some (not all) religious folk out there is that they regard all LGBT people are “sinners” who should be discriminated against and punished in some way, either by God or by his tools here on earth.

    In their view we have chosen to sin, by choosing to be homosexuals.

    If one agrees that we have chosen to be LGBT, then one can say that they have a valid right to criticise us and publicly express their opinion that we are sinners and should be punished for it.

    BUT… if one accepts that we are in fact born LGBT, then the situation is totally different.

    If we are born LGBT, then the religious groups who denigrate us do NOT have a valid reason to criticise us, any more than they would have if they claimed that, for example, disabled or ethnic groups were somehow sinful.

    To be publicly criticised and vilified, simply because of how one is born, can NEVER be a valid exercise of Free Speech, and that is why Peter is wrong in this instance.

    And I doubt many people would argue against the notion that spoken and written words can incite violent action, even if the words themselves do not overtly do so.

    These religious critics do not speak out of love and concern for “sinners”, but out of hatred for LGBT people, and there can be few people out there who do not realise that now.

    So think again, Peter. Consistency is the key here.

    Hugs
    chrissie

  35. Chrissie, I can’t speak for religious nutters (thank God … er, goodness) but I daresay they’d come back with the argument used by some of their ilk, that it’s not how you’re born but whether you act on it or not – ie the sin being homosex rather than homosexuality.

  36. Kudos to you self-loathing queers for setting the ’cause’ back about 50 years. Why not just let the b&b owners have their little day instead of getting the likes of the Daily Mail readers gnashing their teeth over this. For future reference- phone ahead to ask if a guesthouse owner has any problem with putting a roof over a queer’s head, if they do then stay somewhere else.

  37. Spanner, would you suggest phoning ahead to make sure a restaurant or a bar doesn’t have any objection to serving gays (or non-white persons or Jews) as well?

    If you run a business or provide a service, it’s YOUR responsibility not to discriminate: it shouldn’t be the customer’s/client’s responsibility to find out in advance whether their custom will be tolerated or not. It’s really not that difficult to comprehend, now that the days of ‘No dogs, no blacks, no Irish’ are supposedly over.

  38. Rehan- the point Spanner is possibly trying to make is that prejudice is everywhere and shows no signs of diminishing so it is our responsibility to shield ourselves from stuff like this by sticking to our own kind.

  39. @ Ian Bower: but on the contrary, it is diminishing, and partly as a result of this sort of ruling – just as it is no longer legal to put ‘No blacks, no Irish’ notices: where would we be now if people had just shrugged at that?

    It needn’t stop anyone from sticking with our kind if they so choose, but it will eventually stop people from expressing their prejudice in a commercial context with impunity, will it not?

  40. I think it was also denied in Parliament that “Civil Partnership” was the same as marriage. And the suggestion of “a sting” appears very well founded.

    According to accounts I have read, Hall and Preddy would have been welcome at this hotel in single rooms, and it was their insistence upon a double room which led to their departure.

    They were not discriminated against for being “gay”. But they were asked to abide by the same rule as unmarried heterosexuals.

  41. “so it is our responsibility to shield ourselves from stuff like this by sticking to our own kind.”

    Lets build a ghetto, eh? That’ll fix our problems. Ghetto’s always have been proved to work in the past, haven’t they?

    Ian, that was a really stupid statement to make.

  42. “But they were asked to abide by the same rule as unmarried heterosexuals.”

    Rules? What rules? They can’t arbitrarily make up rules as they see fit. So, a guest house that refuses to give double rooms to straight people married or otherwise, but only to gay people, that okay with you, is it?

    Jeez, some of the people in here, I fear for the education system in this country if they can slip through so easily!

  43. Hold on.

    John, how is it you posted this same identical comment under the name “Robert” on another thread?

    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?comments_popup=22157

    Split personality disorder getting the better of you? Need to make it look like there is more then one freaking nut here spouting your pseudo-religious bigoted nonsense?

    How pathetic.

  44. Good to see this happen. When are fundies going to learn that if they have a business open to the public, they don’t get to discriminate?

  45. You may bring a guest back to the Hotel but YOU will be responsible for their
    conduct and behaviour.
    Guyz is a GENUINE Gay Hotel.
    That means it is a hotel owned and run BY gay people FOR gay people,
    but beware there are some straight owned ‘Pink Pound’ friendly Hotels
    locally that display the pride flag trying to cash in on gay money,
    and it isn’t until you check in that you discover they may be mixed, or even have
    STAG & HEN parties staying.!!!
    If you are specifically looking for a Gay Hotel be sure to ask if it is exclusively
    gay when booking to avoid possible disappointment

    “That means it is a hotel owned and run BY gay people FOR gay people”

    I suppose they wont be geting a letter from Stonewall?

  46. Check out the following views of Christiain Institute (CI) members, in dialogue with LGBT people on “Banned and Censored from the Christian Institute facebook”

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=120859687957594#!/permalink.php?story_fbid=179555825410885&id=120859687957594

    It is interesting to see how CI members are using Peters words to support there own homophobic bigotry.

    Come and contribute to these dialogues, and you will have a real experience of why we are arguing against Mr T.

  47. Really Iain? How interesting. Nearly as interesting as you posting under another different name on the other tread.

    David is right, how pathetic that is. Do you think it makes your case any less ridiculous when you post under many name?

  48. Susie Q

    “Adrian T, re your really hurtful comment to Lisa, you should be ashamed of yourself! From the little photo that accompanies your post you look like a muscleman. And from the aggression you have shown towards Lisa I expect you’ve got a strong mouth on you too. That would be right, wouldn’t it?”

    Umm, wasn’t Lisa born a man? So technically, they are quite equal? Not to mention that thing called GENDER equality. And even then, there was nothing hurtful about it, he was just telling her what the situation is with free speech in this country. If you are that precious don’t come on here and express an opinion, it’s that simple.

    “So can you see how bullying, MALE, and insensitive you are being in refusing to protect the vulnerable in society and in demanding that every gay and lesbian should put down their shopping bags and stand there and bark away in front of everybody?”

    Why is this being MALE? What a sexist cow you are! Not to mention you have made a HUGE deduction of his physical form from a miniscule photo. How do you even know it’s him? Jeez, speculation galore! Go and fight your own battles if this is how you show your gratitude for someone who is so active in political debate.

    “Good for you if you can do it. Maybe you even enjoy doing it. It would be fun to watch you sometime. (Time and place?) But, please, don’t speak with contempt towards the vast majority of people, who don’t wish to get involved in public fracas and should not have to do so, should not be insulted by religious people. OK? ”

    If you don’t get involved in the public fracas, that’s your choice, but don’t condemn those who do because they are doing it on YOUR behalf. Show a bit of respect for those who go that extra mile to maintain and further your rights. If we had a few more who put their lives literally on the line instead of cowering in the corner away from debate, we might already have equal marriage and a secular state!

    Some people!

  49. Ummmmm wrote: “If you are that precious don’t come on here and express an opinion, it’s that simple.”

    Who the hell are you to say something like that? You’re a bully, that’s what.

    Good for Adrian T, if he being the young energetic muscleman he is is up to barking back at Christian street-preachers in crowded public places. You in your arrogance failed to observe I did not condemn him for being able to do this. The point is that the greater number of people deserve shielding and protecting from such abuse.

    No doubt there will now be more of ridiculously overblown verbal diarhoea.

  50. Katie Murphy 24 Jan 2011, 12:35am

    Somewhere else I saw the bigots crying they would go out of biz.

    Make sure they are banned from the unemployment line.

    It would be so nice to have laws for a change that allowed people to discriminate against christians.

    But even then I doubt they would get it. Religion is the worlds greatest brainwasher.

    And think about it – religion – people in large groups saying the same things over and over, out loud. HYpnotizing themselves into a frenzy. And being told they will go to hell if they dont do as they are told and will have and life everlasting life if they murder.

    How similar to military training – people walking in lock step singing cadence. Being told that they must kill others, and that if they reneg or are cowards they can be shot by their own people. And being offered “glory” and the chance to live again and kill some more if they do as they are told.

    In the roots of relgiion are most wars, and the psychology that makes them acceptable

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all