Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Former Tory Lord Chancellor says Christians must have the right to bar gays

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. He is incorredt. NO religion should come before the law of the land.
    The rights of the people “that believe” should not come before the rights of the people “who are”.

    Otherwise should I be able to bar black people if I “believe” they are no equal?

  2. Nick Lowe 2 Feb 2011, 5:18pm

    The argument used by Lord Mackay is demonstrably faulty.

    As I’ve said before… And I’ll say it again…

    For all the rhetoric, misappropriation and association fallacy seen in this area, the equality legislation only ensures that the private, moral views of others, no matter how sincerely held, cannot be used to deny such dispensation of goods and services by a business based on immutable characteristics, such as sexuality. (In contrast to being a Christian, nobody chooses to be gay.)

  3. do non Christians get no right to conscience and get to break the law because it doesn’t fit with what we think?

    if his ideas ever become law i think every business owned by someone opposed to that line of thinking should ban christians. force them to face the reality of their convictions.

    its easy to advocate for the right to see others suffer and be discriminated against.

  4. He is wrong. People may believe whatever they wish in their own home. But the moment that they elect to open a business they are subject to ALL the laws of the land.

    They are not allowed to cherry-pick health and safety laws they don’t like, they cannot amend licensing regulations and they are not allowed to discriminate. If you want to be exempt, close your business and go back to being a private citizen.

    We don’t allow people to put “No Blacks” in the window. We don’t allow people to put “No Jews” in the window and we do not allow peope to say “No Gays”. That is the law of the land and the only law that matters.

  5. Steve Sampson 2 Feb 2011, 5:22pm

    Superstitious nonesense.

  6. Another ‘out of touch’ dinosaur. All the evidence, including the British Social Attitudes survey, shows that the majority of ‘Christian’ adherents support same-sex unions. What Lord Mackay is advocating is for a ‘minority’ view amongst Christians to be supported by law.
    The conscientious argument is extremely flawed. This would permit anyone subscribing to any ‘supernatural’ belief to decline anyone they perceived to be at odds with their belief.
    As for the B&B cases, they chose to run a business providing a public service, not to run a Christian monastery. Will we see a return of the signs outside B&B’s of ‘No coloureds’ with perhaps the addition of a new sign ‘no gays’.
    This has nothing to do with ‘Christianity’, just an excuse to vent homophobic attitudes.

  7. If a follower of the Aztec religion wanted to ritually excoriate people would we allow him the “religious liberty” to ignore our murder laws? If a committed muslim wanted to kill apostates, would his “religious liberty” trump our laws? Obviously not. It’s the same principle.

    But more importantly, why single out “religious” ideas (i.e. traditional and irrational ideas unsupported by any evidence) as being more worthy of respect than other ideas? Why should a homophobe hiding behind religion be allowed to discriminate, but not one hiding behind personal dislike?

  8. What do ‘christians’ not understand about having to follow the law?

    Note to ‘christians:’
    You will have all of eternity to follow heavenly law. Ya know, when you’re in heaven with the baby jesus and all that.

    For now, like the rest of us heathens, you will have to follow earthly law.

    Cuz you’re on planet earth and all.

    Once again, to sum up:

    While on Earth: you must follow earthly law.

    While in heaven: (LOL) You may follow heavenly law.

    That’s all.

  9. Can you imagine if I could start to refuse to provide medical care to Christians and other people I sincerely dislike?

    Can you see where this would lead?!!

  10. The Christian Mackay is an arrogant, bigoted man, and, like the Jewess Phillips, is suffering from religious mania – religious faith is a mental illness. Neither the Christian Mackay nor the Jewess Phillips seems to understand the Provision of Goods and Services legislation, in that no one can discriminate against anyone else for any reason where a business is concerned.
    I find it odd, in the case of the guest house owners in Cornwall, that the judge permitted an appeal. There is no doubt that the Christian, guest- house owners discriminated against the two gay men who are in a civil partnership.. The judge said so. Therefore, why did the judge grant permission for an appeal? Whatever the Christian Mackay and the Jewess Phillips think of civil partnerships, their bigoted opinions do not affect one iota the parity of the two institutions, namely marriage and civil partnerships.

  11. Is this old fart in the House of Lords?

    If so then he’s a prime example why the House of Lords needs to be abolished and replaced with a democratic Upper House

  12. michael, liverpool 2 Feb 2011, 6:05pm

    Yet another religious aristocrat thinking his fellow God botherers are above the law. The gall of these so called Lords whingeing for more and more special priveleges when all the while their status is by pure accident of birth, is sickening!

    When is this country going to abolish the monarchy and all the rest of these medieval hangers on?

    These people are keeping Britain in the dark ages!

  13. Christine Beckett 2 Feb 2011, 6:11pm

    The man is an arse….

    chrissie

  14. dave wainwright 2 Feb 2011, 6:14pm

    Cornwall benefits extensively from European Union grants it is only right that they should adhere to European Equality laws

  15. This man couldnt argue his way out of a paper bag.

    The NSS response shows him for what he is: irrational and paranoid

  16. So if I decide to run a restaurant and deny black people to eat there, that’s okay, too since it’s my own personal view? What a big load of BS!!!

  17. where are all those people gone that were on here before the election ranting and raving about how the tories had changed. Dot see hide of hair of them now do we

  18. He was stripped of his Eldership in the Wee Frees in the 80s just for attending the Requiem Masses of two dead Catholic friends.
    You’d think with that experience of petty bigotry he’d know better.

  19. I have today re-read the Equality Act – and I very much doubt this old git has even read the contents page – let alone be familiar enough with it to quote the paragraphs – Someone’s religious bigotry has got away with him Tut Tut -

  20. westcoastkid 2 Feb 2011, 7:20pm

    A scenario for Mr. Lord MacKay to ponder…

    MY BIBLE says I can have slaves. If I want to I WILL have slaves as a god fearing Christian! It’s my privilege as a christian. The government and their anti-christian laws can go to HE*L!

    I bow only to gods law.

  21. Indeed, westcoastkid. I wonder if all those black folks in Africa who are advocating the deaths of homosexuals on religious grounds also realize that the taking of their forefathers as slaves was in accordance without he bibles guidelines. So what’s the problem in that? No harm, no foul!!

  22. Unfortunately there is still a tiny minority of extremist (so-called) christians who believe that gays are not entitled to any rights whatsoever. What the likes of Lord Mackay would like is for the law to revert back to pre-1967 and that every homosexual in the country be sent to jail. THAT, I suspect is his real agenda.

  23. Galatians 3:28
    “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

    Sounds like the Bible is saying we are all equal.

    “insisting that Christians abide by equality laws – such as in the case of hotel owners – was “Orwellian”.”

    Or maybe just Biblical?

  24. Mumbo Jumbo 2 Feb 2011, 7:34pm

    “I am a Christian. I am special. Your laws do not apply to me.”

    Lord Mackay is 102.

  25. Lord Mackay is a Christianist, a religious zealot and extremist who thinks Christianists like himself should be given an opt-out from the law to persecute gay and lesbian people.

    persecute
    1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
    2. To annoy persistently; bother.

  26. What a joke 2 Feb 2011, 7:35pm

    Not to worry. He’s 83. He’ll be dead soon.

  27. Lord Mackay is not just a Christian he is a Christianist zealot, evidenced by the fact that he would impose the laws of his religion on others

    “One of the most prestigious figures in Scots law is calling on the country’s courts to take biblical teachings into account when administering justice.”

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/law-chief-urges-scots-courts-consult-the-bible-in-judgments-1.1048316

  28. What happened to ” Render unto Caeser what is Caeser’s.” ?

    Sounds like strong encouragement to follow the law of the land from no less a personage than the founder of Christianity; well to be fair, he, if he actually existed didn’t found it, his followers did.

    How easily Jesus’s “teachings” are dismissed/ignored when they don’t line up with one’s personal beliefs despite naming oneself a follower.

  29. Sarah Hardman 2 Feb 2011, 7:57pm

    Lord Mackay is a member of an extreme “christian” sect and frankly should never have been appointed Lord Chancellor but in the spirit of diversity, it was not held against him and he did a good job and did not allow his extreme views to affect the quality of his judgments. He should therefore apply the same learned wisdom to this situation and recognise that freedom of belief and conscience is fine but at times the law takes precedence. No one has the right to discriminate unfairly on any ground. Refusing this gay couple accommodation is no different from a barrister refusing to represent a black client in court if both claimed freedom of conscience and the right to act on it. His words and conclusions do not actually follow logically as quoted. Sadly it seems he has finally and totally lost the plot.

  30. michael, liverpool 2 Feb 2011, 8:22pm

    Orwellian? Orwellian? How much more Orwellian can it possibly be than to obey the every command of an invisible God that watches and judges your every move, and then punishes you for all eternity for simply living upto your original design?

    Is this man for real? Religion is the biggest man-made scam in history and the Bible belongs in the museum, along with this old bigot and his fellow Royal arse lickers!

  31. “Consider an atheist who seeks to work as a teacher in a state school in full knowledge that the law requires a daily act of religious worship. Do we say his beliefs should be left at home?”

    Yes, we do, you silly old fart! Teachers are not allowed to impse their personal religious/non-religious beliefs nor their political ones when they’re at work. I don’t believe in god but not ONE child I teach knows that because I remain wholly neutral and teach what I’m required to.

    This man is clearly a sandwich short of a picnic – or just ignorant. Maybe both, eh?

  32. How gaga do you have to be before you lose your vote in the house of lords?

    I guess he’s already said all this type of thing already when the bill was discussed?

    Anyway when’s the next couple going to book into the Chymorvah hotel and challenge that offensive booking policy of theirs…!

    Just noted they’ve lost their visitBritain logo!!!

  33. Michael, Liverpool….I totally concur. The House of Lords should be abolished, its undemocratic, not elected and yet it gets to say who does and who doesn’t get any rights. Its infested with the likes of this bigot, mostly all tories anyway and who else but a tory would spew this venom? We need a demonstration like what’s going in in Egypt to get rid of this anachronistic, useless, irrelevant, elitist institution and replace our outdated, unfair electoral system with proportional representation. I’m all for abolition of the monarchy too, its unnecessary and irrelevant in a modern 21st century society and a drain on the taxpayers. They all need to get real jobs and do a decent day’s work like the rest of us. Nothing more than parasites.

  34. “Just noted they’ve lost their visitBritain logo!!!”

    Excellent ! I dropped an email to Quality in Tourism last December, who confirmed the hotel wasn’t participating in the scheme, and that they’d write to them asking them to remove the signs.

    I notice they’ve still got their no gays text on the booking form though.

  35. I can’t even begin to explain how ridiculous that is. So you mean that catholic people are the only ones in the world? Only their opinion counts? That’s degrading and plain stupid. He cant say something like that, it will only trigger even more homophobia and violence. He can go and die now.

  36. Yes, I think to have the visitBritain logo on their website and not actually be part of it would probably be against trading standards as well. although I don’t know????

    We looked into BB ourelseves awhile ago and I think visitBritain and the AA do the star rating system,without being part of one of these it’s virtually impossible to advertise your accommodation in tourist boards, brochures etc….

    I wonder how many websites have them still adverstised ????

    I still can’t understand how they can get away with that booking policy on their website, is it becuase of the appeal? It’s a confusing case with this silly arguement over whether CP are marriages …. they don’t offer dble beds to 2 men, surley that was the discrimination

  37. Hurry up and die!

  38. I’m fairly certain everyone has to obey equality laws… That’s sort of what makes them equality…

  39. “To equate civil partnerships with marriage is a big step to take.”

    This why gays be allowed marry. Civil partnership second best.

    “Yes, but the right to liberty of conscience, freedom of expression and religious liberty is not restricted to the private realm.”

    The right of hating gays, expressing inequality of gays, religion saying gays bad, is be restricted private realm.

    No say hate these people because Bible say so! Not religious theocracy like Iran.

  40. Um, SO?

  41. Dan Filson 3 Feb 2011, 1:07am

    Little to add to the comments here – Lord Mackay is out of touch and unrepresentative of majority current opinion in the UK, though he may well be the bees’ knees amongst the Wee Frees.

    Just one thing on the very first post “NO religion should come before the law of the land. The rights of the people “that believe” should not come before the rights of the people “who are”. If the laws are those of a dictatorship was Paston Niemoller wrong, and were others of his faith wrong, to oppose them? We of course do not live in a Hitlerite dictatorship but a democracy, but sometimes conscience can override the need to obey laws. Not however in this case

  42. So sad that Britain still has a House of Old Farts! How many of these ‘ancient regime’ would be elected by the people, if your Upper House was elected with proportional representation? Old Mackay would be out of a job , me thinks!

  43. Andy Q : “He is incorrect. NO religion should come before the law of the land.”

    OK, I’m gonna get some stick for this, but I amgoing to say it anyway, and no, I’m not trolling, just playing Devil’s advocate:

    Let’s just get things in perspective here: Britain is a Christian country, whether you happen to be one or not. It’s fundamental precepts are based on Christian beliefs and the Bible.

    Now I quite appreciate times have moved on and many things have changed, but a a lot of the basic tenets of the Bible still hold true, and I think most decent people would still abide by the ten commandments, whether they know them or not. They are simply good moral ways in which to lead one’s life.

    The problem as I see it is everyone has rights, but what happens when my rights impinge on your rights? Who’s right is right? The big argument here is that homosexuality is not a chosen lifestyle, whereas a religion is, they can change their opinion, we can’t change our sexuality. That said, is it not possible to make an acceptable compromise? In the case of the B&B issue, you are likely to find many that say, accept dogs, and others that don’t; until the recent changes in the law, many accepted smokers, but some didn’t.
    Is it too difficult to check beforehand?

    It’s a very difficult area to cover, and I do thin that the situation is going to get a lot worse. One can see the reason for having human rights, but there are becoming so many of them, it is inevitable that they are going to conflict. Before the days of these bills, people just accepted the status quo, but now everyone demands what they think they are entitled to, and all it seems to do is exacerbate the situation and get people angry.

    I sometimes wonder if maybe the days of “No dogs, blacks or gypsies” may have been unfair and certainly politically incorrect, but at least everyone knew where they stood.

    Discuss.
    *ducks for cover*

  44. Top man, well said. People should have the right to refuse to serve regardless. If they dont want poofs in their establishment then so be it.

  45. “Only 68 of 200 Anglican priests polled could name all Ten Commandments, but half said they believed in space aliens.”

    “Concerning the Ten Commandments in courthouses and legislatures: You cannot post ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal,’ ‘Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,’ and ‘Thou Shall Not Lie’ in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians…It creates a hostile work nvironment.”

  46. @ Spanner,

    There are concerns about at least four of the commandments in a multi-faith culture which is dedicated to religious freedom, religious tolerance, personal responsibility and an end to sexism and racism:

    The first comandment prohibits worship of any deity other than Jehovah. It is in direct conflict with freedom of religious belief.

    The second commandment prohibits the use of religious statues, the taking of photographs, drawing of paintings. etc.Many religious groups and individuals use statues in various ways. Prohibiting or belittling these practices could also generate religious friction and even violence.

    The fourth commandment calls for people to not work on Saturday. This intrudes on the lives and practices of many people, particularly followers of faith groups that do not worship on Saturdays

    The tenth commandment treats women as objects that are owned by their husbands. It recognizes human slavery as a normal part of society. The commandment is sexist and has racist overtones.

  47. @ Spanner
    Commandments considered redundant

    1 – Worship of other Gods is allowed in a multi-faith culture.

    2 – Images (drawings, symbols, statues, photos) are acceptable.

    3 – Oaths to God are no longer sworn when signing legal contracts.

    4 – Saturday (sabbath) religious services are not widely practiced by Christians

    8 – People in North America are no longer kidnapped into slavery.

    10 – Our entire economy is based on coveting neighbor’s property. Slavery has been abolished. Women are no longer considered property, except by abusive boyfriends and husbands. Coveting a neighbor’s possessions is a feeling. Psychologists recognize that feelings are generally outside a person’s control and are thus not sinful.

  48. Excuse the cut and pastes above, they are for the troll Spanner who doesn’t warrant a personal reponse.

  49. Is this the same one that used to be in “Porridge”?

  50. Spanner who!

    I think there should be a time limit how tong people should stay in the house of lords, in the case of this guy perhpas it should have been 5 mins!

    There was a case like the Bulls a few yrs ago, Earl Devon v CP registrations in his castle – in that case he gave up the business and kept on with his homophobic opinons, the Bulls could do the same – give up and retire – no discrimaintion in business , no-one’s stopping them let rip in their own poxy living room!

  51. stan James 3 Feb 2011, 5:13am

    LORD huh – from the days of Lord and Serf. someone should put him in abox deep underground, surrounded by 10 feet of armor plate and concrete.

    Lest this dinosaur clone more of himself.

    prob has a fat chance. He’s one of hte good old boys who prob went to those fancy boy only schools.

    Where young teens has a hell of a time plying gay. He just is in denial. Someone F#ck him to remind him who he is. He can wife his rear with a page out of hte bible. the beginning of making amends for the greatest lies ever told that go into a book that is history’s largest seller.

    Or given that, maybe most of us are the animals and evolution to human is still in the future

  52. stan James 3 Feb 2011, 5:25am

    “Religious faith is a mental illness” Almost. Absolutist religious faith, no grey areas etc is actually a sign of Obsessive compulsive personality disorder. see wikipedia.

    characterized by black and white beliefs, no give or take etc. A product of endless building of anxiety and paranoia by the churches .

    the guy really belongs in an institution though I give him a break and have them put him in a nursing home. Hopefully sharing a room with an old guy named spike, who cant remember the difference between men and women.
    ——————————————
    One of the most prestigious figures in Scots law is calling on the country’s courts to take biblical teachings into account when administering justice.”…

    Thats how they do it in saudi arabia. tjhe judge decides what god wants.

    No wonder they dont have any rapes there- it had to be the womans fault

    I thought all these people died out or murdered each other a 1000 years ago.

    Time will heal this wound. the maggots will finish the job. If only we could put his rotting body on a post and stream it on youtube.

    to teach the people the true meaning of life after death for christian freaks. Life for the bugs.

  53. Jock S. Trap 3 Feb 2011, 8:06am

    He’s old and past it what do you expect?

    Why don’t these people see the damage they do? They are nothing but hypocrites.

    The Equality Laws are there for Everyone. They are there to help society to progress. Christians,or any other religion, do not have the right to ‘opt-out’.

    All these people do is show they don’t believe in opportunity or fairness. They would rather stay oppressing and fight for their right to discriminate.

    They’ve had 2,ooo years of getting their own way and are just behaving like a child having a tantrum.

    The law is there even for them but they’re too bigotted to see it because they truely believe they are above any laws made.

    Maybe when the likes of this idiot are dead and buried may we finally progress but until then it’ll be a hell of a ride.

  54. Jock S. Trap 3 Feb 2011, 8:10am

    The funny thing is they say they should have the right to ‘bar Gays’ but dare anyone ‘bar christians’ and almighty hell would break loose.

    No doubt then it would be a moral case.

    They are nothing but two-faced _ _ _ _s. (Add the word you feel is appropiate!)

  55. Render unto Caesar, eh? I can’t find this story anywhere but ConservativeHome. But, he’s entitled to his opinion. But personally I couldn’t think of a worse way to live in the 21st century than to stick to a Bronze Age book of Jewish rules and regulations. Imagine walking down Bethnal Green Road and having to sidestep the blood from all those stonings, or not being able to eat sweet and sour pork, or prawn cocktails. Poor, poor old fella.

  56. Christine Beckett 3 Feb 2011, 9:04am

    So that means my “conscience” as an atheist gives me the right to discriminate against christians and other religious folk.

    It’s only fair.

    chrissie

  57. As someone pointed out in another article, the right for gays not to be discriminated against, cannot be balanced against someone’s claimed right to discriminate. Telling someone they cannot discriminate against a minority group is not discrimination.

    Discrimination by some Christians is an attempt to control other peoples’ behaviour, which is non of their business, but which of course is the fundamentalist way.

  58. The bible is the word of man, not the word of god, connection with source is an entierly internal process! The bible is a deliberate decoy to hide the truth about the true nature of human reality! Infinate love is the only truth!

  59. What he suggests is a dangerous return to the No Blacks, No Jews, No Gays policy of less-enlightened days.
    I don’t think that in this day and age a B&B should be run on a belief system.
    The B&B owners have the right to their bigoted beliefs but they do not have the right to impose it on others

  60. Lord Mackay, what part of… “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his only prophet”… don’t you understand?

  61. Since no less a figure than Jesus Christ instructed that we “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s” [note the order in which he said it] Christians CANNOT argue that the law of the land should not apply to them.
    They accept a responsibility to their faith and if the law is, in their understanding, contrary to their faith and their activities then they have a responsibility to question whether or not they continue those activities; they have absolutely no right to break the law!

  62. Typical Tory tw*t, stuck in the past as always,

  63. I wasn’t aware until now that Christianity was a sex technique. I always thought it was about Jesus, but you live and learn.

    People have the right to practice their religion. They do not have a right to impose their religion on others. They are free to bar gay people from their homes. They are not free to bar the public from a public accommodation. They can freely choose whether they live in a private home or a public accommodation, but they have to choose which one. They can’t have it both ways, just because they are narcissists.

    Seems fair to me.

  64. And what would happen if I chucked a Christian out of my pub tonight? Because Christianity sure as Hell doesn’t fit in with my beliefs.

  65. The Rev JRB 3 Feb 2011, 6:00pm

    I’d thought that the last of the Thatcherites had been staked through the heart long ago.
    “Wrackfern” sounds straight out of a bad Gothic. Appropriate, however, for one of the “minions of Maggie.”

  66. Bill Perdue 3 Feb 2011, 7:31pm

    On the contrary, GLBT folks should have the right to campaign to abolish the Lords and confiscate, without compensation, their assets as reparations for their injuries to ourselves and others.

  67. If you want to believe a load of stupid fantasy twaddle, do it on your OWN time without imposing it on others because it’s not professional to promote the supernatural or let demons, angels and other phantasms run your business.

  68. Craig Young 4 Feb 2011, 6:25am

    What a wonderful case for the House of Lords and its replacement with a Senate this presents…

  69. Craig Young 4 Feb 2011, 6:31am

    Incidentally, if expecting Christians not to have special rights is Orwellian, then his argument is Atwoodian (qv Margaret Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”, a classic of feminist SF related to a dystopian theocracy).

  70. Bill Perdue: “GLBT folks should have the right to campaign to abolish the Lords and confiscate, without compensation, their assets as reparations for their injuries to ourselves and others.”

    And as a Yank, what the fcuk would you know about British constitutional process? Considering your own country has fifty different sets of laws, that nobody can ever agree on, I suggest you get your own house in order first before criticising ours.

    The words “Glass houses” and “stones” spring to mind.

  71. What a Joke 7 Feb 2011, 8:07pm

    I agree with Bill. And I’m from the UK.

  72. Ah another misguided bigot believing that one person, in the name of religion, should have the right to persecute another.

    When the UK finally moves towards a secular attitude similar to other European countries, then the UK will finally be free of this yoke of intolerance that holds it firmly in the dark ages.

    This whole “gay marriage is evil” thing trotted out by the Christians is a little tiresome. Jesus had two fathers and seemed to turn out OK according to the bible…

  73. ooer missus 10 Feb 2011, 5:05pm

    Exam Question:

    ” I, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a member of subgroup C, am opposed to subgroup G being treated as an equal part of society (S). This is because some members (mC) of C believe that to do so is contrary to the beliefs of C and that he beliefs of mC are of greater value than the value of G, because they are part of C. To give G equal value to C would diminish the value C.

    Furthermore group S should use the rules of subgroup C, when deciding the value of not only G, but of all other subgroups in group S.”

    If S = C+G + X, and
    C = Cm + Cx, and
    C = G

    Then,

    1) Calculate the values of G and X required so that Cm > G, and S = Cm

    Answer: G = 0 , X = 0

  74. ooer missus 10 Feb 2011, 5:09pm

    P.S. X = All other subgroups in S (Muslims, women, etc etc)

  75. Teacher Will 11 Feb 2011, 4:09pm

    As a teacher, I’d like to dispute any idea that most state schools require teachers to engage with a daily act of worship.

    While we are all aware of this anachronistic provision in law, most schools sensibly disregard such nonsense. Many schools actively commit to providing an inclusive secular education.

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