Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Updated: 14 MPs back ‘compromise’ plans for anti-gay Christians

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Bigotry is a choice. Discrimination is a choice. Religion is a choice. These days, those three things are all synonymous. Permitting people to be discriminatory bigots based on the collected campfire tales of bronze age nomads is NO DIFFERENT then permitting people to discriminate against other innate characteristics like eye colour, hair colour and skin colour. We must call these people out over and over again and accuse those who would CHOOSE to discriminate against us as being nothing more than Britain’s own KKK.

    1. Here’s a report from a Christian journalist who thinks this is a very foolish course of action.

      http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/15119

      “To try to make out that respect for Christianity means that employees should be allowed to practice discrimination on supposedly faith-based grounds is highly misleading… It would also open the door to other types of discrimination, e.g. on grounds of gender. And, indeed, it could be turned against Christians…

      If the EHRC were to succeed, Christianity’s reputation would be further damaged among those who come to associate it with institutionalised prejudice and abuse of power.”

      Perhaps Christian Voice should think on.

      1. herewegoherewegoherewego 21 Jul 2011, 8:18am

        thanks for the link to this articles.
        I think it just goes to show that the christians should be careful what you wish for , as it might just bite them in the backside.

      2. Jock S. Trap 21 Jul 2011, 8:46am

        In other words Christian will are worse than the BNP?

        Blimey who would have thought it? Oh me!!

        1. Jock S. Trap 21 Jul 2011, 8:47am

          Sorry was meant to put will BE worse…

  2. Graeme Robertson 20 Jul 2011, 1:35pm

    names of MPs would be good

    1. They are in the article

  3. Actually, this is wrong.

    People do not have the right to discriminiate regarding the provision of services on the ground of gender, race or sexual orientation. End off.

    If I were to refuse to deal with anyone based on the above I would expect to get punished and rightly so.

    Christians are entitled to their view. However, when it caused upset or harm to another person unfairly then there should be no compromise.

    1. Miguel Sanchez 20 Jul 2011, 3:28pm

      I agree totally with you mate. These people are CHOOSING to work in the public sector and as such are bound by the law to serve everyone equally. If these biggotted individuals have a problem with gays, then they can quit and find work elsewhere.

      Giving these people special treatment is a slap in the face to equality.

  4. Benton, Joe Labour Party
    Bottomley, Peter Conservative Party
    Coffey, Therese Conservative Party
    Crausby, David Labour Party
    Dobbin, Jim Labour Party
    Donaldson, Jeffrey Democratic Unionist Party Durkan, Mark Social Democratic and Labour Party
    Glindon, Mary Labour Party
    Hancock, Mike Liberal Democrats
    Hemming, John Liberal Democrats
    Meale, Alan Labour Party
    Shannon, Jim Democratic Unionist Party
    Sheridan, Jim Labour Party
    Streeter, Gary Conservative Party

    I wonder if I write to them I’ll get an answer telling me why on earth they are supporting this???? I doubt it, are they are Catholics???

    1. Most actual Catholics are as socially liberal (if not more so) than their protestant counterparts – it’s more the upper catholic clergy that like to rail on about things.

      And they are obviously not all Catholics – two are from the DUP which as a general rule of thumb despise all things catholic.

      1. Damien, there is nothing general about it !!

    2. @John

      My experience is that if you do write and they are not your constituency MP they will respond with a standard response stating they are not permitted to respond to non-constituents

      1. Robert J Brown 20 Jul 2011, 4:06pm

        That’s why I and others who are members of a political party are already on the case and making sure that this is NOT acceptable.

        1. ….”members” of ALL ???? the political parties involved? plus all the LGBT lobbying organisations who unlike us don’t have the ear of these MPs???? …while you’re at it, can we please get a date in July when the consultation on marriage equality is going to be produced!!!

          1. Robert J Brown 20 Jul 2011, 4:29pm

            Hey well why not simply drop Lynne Featherstone a message? I’m glad you raised that as if it wasn’t for Labour and Stonewall giving religious organisations and opt out when Labour were in Government then we would have marriage equality already and I would be able to get married in my Head Buddhist Centre . . . because it’s classed as a religious institution I can’t.

    3. I am surprised to see Mark Durkan on the list, I never took him for a social conservative. The DUP ones don’t surprise me at all although it is unusual to see wee Jeffrey putting his name to anything moral at the moment as he seems to have been quiet on that area recently.

      On a different matter I wonder who has the 4 super injunctions in Northern Ireland ? or are we not allowed to even speculate.

  5. The EHRC should ONLY be regarded as a human rights group when it’s an issue of race and religion.

    It is clearly not an organisation that cares 1 bit about gay human rights.

    Remember that this is the group that appointed religious extremist homophobe Joel Edwards as commissioner.

    I think some enterprising gay employee should deny goods or services to some random christians and then ask that the EHRC defend them when they are taken to court.

    The EHRC is clearly headed by extremist homophobic scum like Trevor Phillips and Joel Edwards.

  6. It’s the thin end of the wedge.

  7. So what next, the EHRC will then support a continued ban on same-sex marriage to accommodate religious beliefs? As long as registrars and any other so called “christian” are paid by the taxpayers, our tax pounds, then they should NOT be allowed to discriminate. I assume these same “christians” will be allowed to discriminate against heterosexual adulterers and divorced couples who enter into a civil marriage? Religion is learned behaviour and is not innate, whereas sexual orientation is. End of.

    Will we too be accommodated in discriminating against “christians” in the delivery of goods and services that are in conflict with our beliefs that these people are wrong? If not, why not?

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 20 Jul 2011, 2:01pm

      Indeed, following their “logic” of putting mere belief on a par with or even above intrinsic human qualities, a white racist registrar could refuse to marry Trevor Phillips.

      Of course, that would never happen because when it comes to belief, religion, is regarded as special and worthy of unquestioned respect and its practitioners, such as Trevor Phillips himself, are above the law.

      1. Robert J Brown 20 Jul 2011, 4:08pm

        That’s exactly what Amnesty International said when supporting us in this a few years ago. This is also what I’ve said to my fellow LibDems who are now campaigning to get those two MPs to retract what they’ve signed. I have a Jamaican brother-in-law and a Zambian aunt . . . can you just imagine the outcry if they were not allowed to get married thanks to someone’s ‘belief’ that mixed marriages are not part of God’s way . . . which is what many right-wing (and believe it or not a few non-white people) actually believe.

        1. “and believe it or not a few non-white people”

          Quite a lot of non-white people are against mixed marriages probably just as many as white people.

  8. So how many MPs have criticised the compromise plans for anti-gay Christians?

    I wonder if these same MPs ,from parties who we are told are pro-gay, will fight tooth and nail when it comes to debating marriage equality. The amazing thing here is that there are comparitively few tories who have signed the EDM….look at how many lab MPs have signed it and 2 lib dems, a party that is supposed to give us marriage equality by 2015!

  9. Music to the ears of Christian or Muslim homophobic B&B owners and foster carers.
    What’s now to stop them putting a sign up saying ‘Gays not welcome’?
    The EHRC is not worth a w*nk!

  10. To be blunt, the title of this should read “14 MPs back ‘compromise’ plans to allow discrimination”, because that’s what it is.

    The so called term “religious freedom” to discriminate is actually an oxymoron.

    1. “The so called term “religious freedom” to discriminate is actually an oxymoron.”
      .
      I know, how do they sleep at night having massively undermined and perverted the concept of discrimination to suit thier bigotry.
      .
      Presumably religious bigotry?

    2. Jock S. Trap 20 Jul 2011, 3:00pm

      Agreed Will.

      This is MP’s allowing religion a compromise on the law so they are above it.

      Just wrong.

    3. Absolutely this is seeking agreement that distinction can be made on theological view point bases that results in discrimination (permitted by legal distinction).

      Such discrimination must remain unlawful

  11. dave wainwright 20 Jul 2011, 2:40pm

    This is the most outrageous piece of news I have come across all year , what part of discrimination and prejudice on civil and human rights does this ineffectual quango not understand ? These sort of compromises would not be tolerated or given license if the subject were EDL , BNP and persons of colour, race or faith , this is OUTRAGEOUS truly.

  12. What I find most interesting is that it’s a Conservative MP who was proposed the early day motion yet the majority of his support has come from the Labour benches – obviously those who know him best (his own party’s MPs) aren’t too fond of him… I wonder why!

  13. Really dissapointed in the amount of Labour MPs who’ve supported this. I suppose I’ve been naive enough to think that party was a friend of the LGBT community … maybe not.

    1. Yes, we’ve all been naive.

      Obviously we know we have some friends in the Labour party but will they have the balls to produce their own EDM condemning the decision? Let’s see.

      And we’ve been equally naive about the Lib Dems – 2 (so far) out of 66 is a significant percentage

      1. Robert J Brown 21 Jul 2011, 9:34am

        and one LibDem MP has already taken his name off the EDM. The other one will follow.

        1. he will if Delga has any bloody say in the matter.

  14. Gavin Renwick 20 Jul 2011, 2:51pm

    It’s repulsive that every person who chooses to read the Bible in a homophobic discriminatory fashion is immediately awarded the title “Christian” when there is an equal or even greater number of people of faith who find using religious texts to discriminate abhorrent. Mr Streeter is not standing up for the Christian cause but for a group of closed minded Bigots with medieval views.

  15. Perhaps those of us who own businesses or provide services can also put up signs
    ‘NO CHRISTIANS’ would that be OK?

  16. Jock S. Trap 20 Jul 2011, 2:55pm

    Absolutely shameful that our lives are still up for debate

    Our Equal contributions to society aren’t mind just our Unequal lives.

    Clearly choice of lifestyle in Religion is deemed to trump how others are born.

    Ridiculous, it seems these people will go to any lengths to keep themselves bigots at the expenses of other human beings.

    Disgusting.

  17. I think we should all remember that he who pays the piper calls the tune. The EHRC’s funding, indeed it’s very existence, is under scrutiny & has been heavily criticised by the government. Obviously these people are going to listen to suggestions from influential people in the government & parliamnet generally about how they might “improve” & “justify” their continued existence.

    If someone important suggests that it would be only reasonable for them to defend “christians” as well as others then they might feel it would be “only reasonable”, as well as in their own personal interests, to listen. Nobody knows how these people got their lucrative jobs or what they think they need to do to get the next one.

    We all know that there are a lot of important people in the Tory party who are also big in the Church of England; obviously this story tells us that “sympathy” extends to the other parties as well.

  18. Mumbo jumbo, if they are willing to marry adulterers and divorced people, then it will prove it IS about accommodating homophobia. The EHRC along with the 14 MPs backing it are proof positive that they support discrimination while we are barred from discriminating against “christians” or any other religious nutters. There is something intrinsically wrong with this equation. Mark my words, the EHRC will be making noise against marriage equality if this is any indication using the same m.o.

    1. The EHRC is a bigotted organisation.

      in reality it is an organisation which fights for the human rights of racial groups.

      Why they were allowed to change their name to encompass gay rights (which they clearly do not support) is beyond me.

      There are quite a few christian extremist homophobes on the Commission of the EHRC.

      The EHRC is no friend of the LGBT community.

      Through this scummy action to allow religious people exemption from equality laws the EHRC has shown its hate-filled and bigotted true colours.

    2. Did I imagine it but didn’t the Scottsh equalites commission back marriage equality and make recommendation for the govt in Scotland to introduce it?

      If this is the case then it’s interesting that the English EHRC doesn’t do the same …..it instead choses to intervene in these cases, cases that are all different to eachother.. They still fail to tell us in what way each case was wrong and none of these MPs do as well. They all seem to know better than the British judges what is right.

      As for the MPs I can only think that their agenda is to get the equalites and diversity laws changed…I would love to know how close they are to the Catholic church and CofE….ie is their judgement really clouded by their religion?

      1. Tim Hopkins 21 Jul 2011, 8:09am

        Yes, the EHRC in Scotland does support equal marriage. The EHRC is a GB-wide organisation, but its policy on issues in Scotland that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, including marriage, is decided by its Scotland Committee.

        Anti-discrimination law is not devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so the EHRC’s policy on it is decided for the whole of GB, by its national board of Commissioners. The Equality Network has written to the three Commissioners who are responsible for Scotland, for sexual orientation issues, and for transgender issues, to call for immediate engagement with LGBT organisations about the EHRC’s position on cases like Ladele and McFarlane.

    3. Mumbo Jumbo 20 Jul 2011, 6:41pm

      Indeed, as I never tire of saying: “human rights are for human beings, not ideas”.

  19. as long as there’s an equal compromise plan for anti-christian gays …

  20. of course the archbishop of canterbury was the first to denounce this, pointing out that real christians would not discriminate?

    1. That interesting….do you have the link to that?

  21. Well then from now on i will refuse to serve muslims see how that goes down -

    1. Well seems a bit unfair. Of those 14 none are muslims, and all are probably christians. So please, stop serving christians.

  22. Labour, The conservatives and the Liberal democrats can go feck themselves now.
    I was a lifelong labour (or when in Ireland SDLP) but now they can screw themselves. Im backing Sinn Fein from now on.

  23. “PinkNews.co.uk understands Christian registrars could be permitted to swap shifts to avoid officiating at civil partnerships.”

    Scenario: A same sex couple want a civil partnership but all registrars are off sick on their wedding day, barring one “Christian”. What happens to the poor couple? Presumably they will be left out in the cold simply because they’re gay.

    This is not good enough, yet again we are second class citizens. I hope the bigots due to appear at the European Court of Human Rights are punished badly. The highest court in the continent will put an end to this with a bit of luck.

  24. Exchange the word ‘Gay’ with the word ‘Black’ and it becomes apparent how vile these opinions are.

    If any of these articles were in the mainstream press but rather than gay said ‘black’, ‘disabled’ or ‘Polish’ even, there would be an outcry and rightly so.

    Public sectors workers are not at liberty to be so biggoted. What’s next GP’s refusing to see gay patients, Police refusing to attend a Lesbian being beaten in the street? Fireman refusing to save a gay man stuck inside a burning house? Housing Associations refusing to house gays?

    The list goes on and gets more propesterous but the point is, once legal presedence has been set we are on dangerous ground.

    1. I recall reading, in an encyclopaedia of the holocaust, that from about the 2nd century until the 1930’s, the roman catholic church argued that the jews had a collective guilt for the murder of christ and used this theory to justify all kinds of discrimination and worse. With the rise of german fascism this finally became politically and morally unacceptable and they changed.

      All christians need to come to terms with the fact that people with a same sex orientation are a normal and routine part of humanity (what they would see as God’s creation) and that our relationships are to be witnessed & celebrated equally as those of others.

      1. Mumbo Jumbo 20 Jul 2011, 6:46pm

        Yes. This is the “Blood Libel” and was not finally expunged from the RC Church until 1965.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

      2. friday jones 20 Jul 2011, 11:22pm

        The 2nd century? The Catholic Church was COMPRISED of Jews at that time. The Apostles were Jews. I think the anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church began centuries later, in Europe.

        1. Whatever the precise historical dates, the point is that homophobia, and the associated persucution, is a second “blood libel” which continues to this day. Interestingly the german national socialist theories were very close to those of the RC church. Unfortunately, whilst anti-semitism has become taboo, the promotion and defence of homophobia is still subject of a concerted worldwide religious and political campaign, of which this present edm is one small part.

          Of course we all know it has no basis in the bible or the teachings of Jesus but that isn’t really the point. The point is that we must challenge and fight against it whenever and wherever it is encountered.

  25. It will come to a decision as to whether the right of gay people not to be discriminated against by bigots should be superseded in law by a religious person’s right to be a bigot. Let’s see which way it goes.

  26. this all boils down to either we are equal or not , you can’t say we ARE equal, OH BUT EXCEPT when you are in the presance of Christians. How would that have worked when saying that black people are equal to everyone else in the world oh but not when in the presance of white people. I will never enter into a civil partnerstip i want to get MARRIED can’t tell me i am equal cause i am now allowed the same LEGAL rights as a straight couple, I WANT THE SAME RIGHTS FULL STOP

  27. Christine Beckett 20 Jul 2011, 4:55pm

    Unlikely to get anywhere.

    We only need to worry if a government Minister or Permanent Private Sec. or the Speaker signs up to it, and my guess is It’s way too controversial for that.

    Interesting that no less than six Labour MP’s signed up for it, though…..

    The party that supports LGBT rights? Pull the other one.

    chrissie

  28. It IS revealing to see there are more Labour MPs backing it. Ed Miliband has some explaining to do. To date, he has still not made marriage equality official party policy. Why? This latest EHRC development makes it even more urgent to address it.

    1. Robert J Brown 21 Jul 2011, 9:34am

      Labour have NEVER made full marriage equality a manifesto policy. There are too many homophobes within the Labour party. You just have to look at the horrific leaflets they produced during the election saying that the LibDems are ‘too’ gay friendly and want homosexual equality taught in schools.

      Also, someone I’ve known for over 20 years went through an horrific ‘outing’ thanks to Labour councillors. At the time he was the only ‘out’ black gay councillor in the UK. So whilst it wasn’t much of an outing, his picture appeared on the front page of a well known local London newspaper and he was vilified by many in the borough. That’s the reality of Labour.

      1. True there’s been a number of homophobes in the Labour party but the Lib Dems have been just as bad in the past – some of us still remember the disgusting homophobic campaign waged against Peter Tatchell by the Liberals in Bermonsey. Tatchell had some much muck thrown at him because he was gay by the liberals that Simon Hughes got elected instead. Ironic of course as Hughes finally came out himself and apologised to Tatchell about the Libs homophobic campaign

  29. Michael, I wouldn’t be too sure about the European Court. Look what it did when Celia Kitzinger and her wife tried to get their Canadian marriage recognised in the UK. Marriage equality is the one area it has refused to support, leaving it up to the respective member governments to decide and I wouldn’t mind betting it’s because of offending religious beliefs.

    1. Yes, I noticed this one as well, They’ve been trying hard to get the word insulting removed for ages and I’m slightly niffed that people like Thatchel have also said the word should be removed from the public order act (forgive me if I’m wrong on that!).

      Here’s the committee report:

      http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP11-54.pdf

      I think PN needs to report on this as well for those guys who say they are lobbying their mps to retract their from this EDM to also retract their support on this one as well….it’s seems we are going backwards rather than forwards nowadays!

  30. Isn’t this a result of the lobbying of MP’s from the likes of those at the Christian Institute, the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Concern with their Equalities and Conscience petition.

    These “Christians” are determined to undermine equalities legislation and to clkaw back their privileges to discriminate against gay men and lesbian women, religious conscience is mostly just code for extremist homophobia and the intention of these people to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
    See:
    http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/social/launch-of-equalities-and-conscience-petition

    1. See Eunice and Owen Johns as from the outset they defame gay men and lesbian women as they quote a completely fabricated Bible text, the earliest version of this scripture
      “A man with another man may not lay lyings of a woman”
      Nobody today can know exactly what is being described by the phrase “lyings of a woman”, it does not name homosexuals nor does it by any means clearly describe homosexuality and it certainly does not make any mention of lesbian couples.
      http://www.christianconcern.com/media/channel-4-4thought-tv-owen-and-eunice-johns-on-marriage

      1. Jock S. Trap 21 Jul 2011, 9:05am

        Yep proof there why the Johns should Never be around children.

      2. For clarity, what Eunice John recites from her special anti-gay Bible goes,
        “Two men lying together and two women lying together is an abomination”
        Whereas the earliest text without insertions reads.
        “A male with another male may not lay lyings of a woman” this has no clear nor obvious interpretation today, we do not know what “lay lyings of a woman means”
        Eunice Johns Bible has over-interpreted the original text to make a clear condemnation of homosexuality, there is no mention at all of women lying together in the earliest known scripture from Leviticus.
        I read somewhere that Bible translations that are not strong on the condemnation of homosexuals do not sell well.

  31. Some MPs may be confusing harmless religious observance with illegal discrimination.

    Currently, an employer can make a rule which inhibits manifestation of religion (e.g. asking all staff to work on Saturdays, including Jews), provided that it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate business objective. It’s quite hard for an employee to show that an employer’s policy is religiously discriminatory.

    If these MPs want to force employers to make reasonable accommodations for harmless religious observance, they would have an argument. (Personally I would oppose this: it would be expensive, and would give religious employees a right to self-expression not given to non-religious employees.)

    But employees cannot ask to be exempted from discrimination law (or any other law, for that matter). Do we want doctors refusing to treat drinkers? Police refusing to help women with uncovered heads? Bank clerks declining to serve divorcees? This is utterly daft and must be stopped.

  32. Piper Peter 20 Jul 2011, 5:56pm

    Floood your MPand the listed MPs with your views. Don’t let them think we just accept this introduction of bias again.

  33. Forgetting that religion is a choice and equality is the law. Law is above the church. These employees need to be fired unless they can learn to get over their prejudice. Simple.

  34. Religion has been used as a mechanism to control the people for hundreds of years. It seems that they still want to have a say on how folk should live their lives. The time has come to halt all of this and the first thing to do is to get the unelected bishops out of the House of Lords asap.

    1. johnny33308 20 Jul 2011, 10:48pm

      bravo!

    2. Jock S. Trap 21 Jul 2011, 9:06am

      Here! Here! Paula. Well Said.

  35. When my local Tory MP was elected I asked him personally if LGBT people would be safe with the Torys. He assured me that they would. Lying bastard!

    1. Jock S. Trap 21 Jul 2011, 9:07am

      Which one of the three is your MP Ian?

  36. This article is about religious medical staff not wanting to be involved in abortion or any other treatment that offends their stone age beliefs. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/18/doctors-abortion-views

  37. Well we now know what some of Labour really think ?

  38. Paula, the House of Lords needs to be abolished anyway. The entire body is anachronistic, undemocratic and irrelevant regardless of the religious bigot clerics therein.

    1. Jock S. Trap 21 Jul 2011, 9:08am

      The Second house should never be abolished it is important that in a democracy we have two houses but it should be an elected house like the Commons.

  39. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Jul 2011, 7:55pm

    I am a 45 year old GP.

    I “Civil Partnered” the love of my life in Feb 2011 as that is the only crumb under UK law I am allowed.

    We live a happy mundane life, paying taxes, cooking dinners, taking out the bins etc. but when I read this guff I was apoplectic.

    As a result, if this tripe goes through, and stuff the General Medical Council, I will refuse to treat anyone of a religious persuasion and I will ask them beforehand.

    I’m past caring.

    My entire life has been defending myself from these lunatics.

    Now they want discrimination enshrined in law.

    1. Jock S. Trap 21 Jul 2011, 9:12am

      Indeed, I don’t think these Christians campaigning for this are quite realising the can of worms they are really opening.

      They are leading a campaign which basically will decriminalise discrimination and not just homophobic.

      This could be the most damaging thing they ever do and if allowed I suspect it will backfire much more than the Christians backing this would ever have thought of.

      Hatred for them will increase and there will be consequences that if the Christians think it is bad now….it’ll be worse after there screw up.

  40. Pavlos, it’s funny you should mention the Christian Institute and their campaign to remove the word “insulting” from Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

    The slightest comments that “insult” Christians, insult God, insult the Christian Institute and insult their policies, are removed from their facebook page. This “charity” clearly does not like their religious beliefs to be insulted.

    I really wish people here would keep an eye on their facebook page. There are some very nasty comments about gay people there and no legitimate way to challenge them, given the slightest disagreement with the prevailing “Christian” Institute view is removed or censored.

    Please people, invade it en masse. I guarantee you will be banned eventually, but make them feel uncomfortable even just for a few hours! This Christian hypocrisy must be exposed!

  41. Search “The Christian Institute” on fb. This is a very influential charity, but clearly they are not practicing what they preach. Any evidence that undermines their public reputation can only be a good thing.

  42. spiritbody 20 Jul 2011, 8:34pm

    Actually, I think Im FOR this. Its not ideal, but I think its the fairest solution for now.
    Its important that we live in a world where people are free to beleive what they beleive and to act accordingly, even though I might disagree on said beleifs.
    A world where people are forced to go against their beleifs doesnt sit right with me.
    Dont get me wrong, I dont think this is the answer. Its got a strong air of segrigation and an attitude of “We wont bother with you, and you wont bother with us”, which isnt helpful if we’re wanting a world of equality. Which I do.
    But you know, battles like this are won over a large chunk of time.
    This seems to be an ok temporary solution

    1. johnny33308 20 Jul 2011, 10:46pm

      Jesus never ever discriminated against anyone, for any reason. And yet those who claim to be followers of Jesus, do EXACTLY that! Is this what Jesus would do? In your heart, you know the answer, and yet continue to do it anyway! You self-identified KKKristians will have much to answer for when you meet Jesus face to face. You’d better pray He’s not gay! Now, real Christians have nothing to worry about, but you KKKristians surely DO!

      1. Im not a Christian. Or a KKKristian

        1. No you are not,

          Just yet another person. Battering the book into peoples faces.

          Not having had your life ruined by people like you you cannot see the harm.

          1. Spiritbody 21 Jul 2011, 2:12pm

            I have no idea what your talking about (?)
            Battering the book? Not having my life ruined by people like me? I dont know what you mean (?) Can you explain better?
            Please bare in mind that, as I said, I am NOT a Christian and I have no connection to the Christian faith. I am not a great fan of the Bible or the Church. I have been affected by these things too. We all have

      2. friday jones 20 Jul 2011, 11:38pm

        Jesus discriminated against money changers and loan sharks! With a scourge!

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Jul 2011, 10:51pm

      My head fairy told me to shoot poofs black people and Jews. It’s all OK and legal cause GOD said so in his book.

      Just where does this compute with you.

      You want this in law.

      Perhaps Pink triangles all round.

    3. Fair. Where is it fair.

      Belief in gods and books written by 2000 year old sand dwellers is no excuse at all.

      Use your God excuse in Somalia. Can you feed them with your god. NO.

      They, having been crapped on by the Vatican believing help is coming from the
      your corrupt Church

      1. hang on a cotton picking minute lol. I am not a Christian! I have no beleif the Christian faith. I do not attend church. I do not beleive in God. And I absolutly agree that many people use the Bible as a shield for their own predjudices and bigotry.

        But I cant make my point any clearer or try to make it better, than i did in my original post.

        1. Dr Robin Guthrie 20 Jul 2011, 11:26pm

          Apologies. If I picked you up wrong. I’m just so often on the defensive having been beaten black and blue in the past.

  43. johnny33308 20 Jul 2011, 10:41pm

    There is no role in civil, or public life for ‘faith’. Civil society is just that, civil. Religion and religious beliefs should have no part whatsoever in any sort of civil society. Religion has been used forever to persecute, torture and murder those who happen not to be of the same religious affiliation as those who are in power. Should ‘religious’ people be exempt from the rules of civil society? Absolutely not! Look at what has happened in America due to allowing religious people into the government-legalized bigotry, persecution, suspension of civil liberties GUARANTEED to ALL citizens equally, the passage of laws against sections of society, gays in particular, disallowing equality, fairness and full civil participation in our own government. Is this how the UK should be, like America? Is this the real will of The People? In the US, yes, it was the will of The People? It was allowed to lynch blacks simply because they happened to be black-this is the same thing.

  44. John Hemming has removed his name from this EDM.

    1. Robert J Brown 21 Jul 2011, 9:29am

      Indeed . . . this was due to the campaigning of us LibDem members who contacted him and other LibDem MPs and highlighted the inequality of it. One more LibDem MP to remind about his commitment to equality.

      1. one more lib dem has added his signature, so you are now back to 2 lib dems!!!

        Adrian Sanders

        1. Robert J Brown 21 Jul 2011, 12:32pm

          Thanks for informing me.

          Will get onto it.

          1. Robert …as Dave points out below there is another EDM 2109 , can’t we get all the lib dems to start signing this one or at least get more sigs than the other EDM 2081…it’s a bit symbolic to me and I’ve seen some Christian websites suggesting this is a bit of a victory for them…

      2. No-one has removed their name according to the EDM website.

  45. This is excelent news. Now everyone has the right to decide who they serve have in the Bed and Breakfast. Everyone has a equal say.

  46. David Myers 21 Jul 2011, 7:10am

    Not Religious Freedom – Religious Facism. “Our way or the highway!”

  47. The problem is that christians appear to select what ‘beliefs’ they choose to follow. They take bits of the Old Testament that do not impact themselves (eg discriminating against LGBT folk) but ignore other aspects (the wearing of clothes of mixed fibers, the eating of shellfish etc). They are also supposed to smite naughty children but this would today be unlawful!.

    Perhaps christians who wish to practice their discrimination should be allowed to do so if they pass a sincerity test and they can demonstrate that they genuinely follow all that their religion apparently teaches?

    Homosexuality was apparently ‘banned’ in the OT because tribe sizes were critically low and procreation was vital. Perhaps christians should move on from the values/rules of a desert-based religion?

    1. I want to see the likes of Eunice Johns doing a 4 Thought presentation condemning the eating of shellfish as an abomination and to see her likes protesting at the supermarket fish counters and bewailing the loss of Christian influence over what people eat together in restaurants… otherwise all I see is that she and her kind are entirely homophobic.
      IMO they are dead stupid and have never thought for themselves not r could they even if they tried, they need to be told what to do and the law should not befuddle them even further but should give them proper instruction in how to behave in a civil fashion towards others.

  48. Robert J Brown 21 Jul 2011, 9:27am

    Hey . . . just to let you know of some good news – thanks to the campaigning already of a few LibDem members, one of the LibDem MPs immediately took his name of this motion. The LibDems are the ONLY main party who have always campaigned for full marriage equality . . . even Labour have never had it within their manifesto. One down – one more to ensure he also takes his name off this motion.

    1. I think you’re mistaken. No names have been removed from the EDM

      1. There is, however, the new EDM 2109 to which Mike has put his name.

  49. Quite shocked this morning to see that John McDonnell has added his name to the EDM

    1. Also gay MP Gordon Marsden.

      1. The number of signatures now standing are 20 not 14!!!
        This is really depressing!!!

        Full list on – http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/2081

        Another lib dem for someone to work on Adrian Sanders!! and lots more Labour MP – I think the cons are actually looking the best of the lot on this one???

        Also really pissed off about the 50 MPs who are supporting the removal of the word “insulting” from the section 5 of the public order act.

        “An amendment to repeal the word “insulting” from the Section 5 offence has been signed by over 50 MPs. The amendment was tabled by Edward Leigh MP”

        The christian websites report it as

        “Britain finds cross-party support for decriminalizing saying ‘homosexuality is sinful’

        1. Jock S. Trap 21 Jul 2011, 2:52pm

          Very depressing!

  50. Here we go again. Trying to please everyone in an impossible situation. If people choose to practice religion it should be WITHIN the law. The LAW says it is illegal to discriminate against gay people in the provision of good and services or to incite hatred. End of story. If this exemption is permitted ANY homophobic nutter could use ‘religious reasons’ to discriminate: “I’m deeply religious – that’s why I turned them away”. It’s simple. Let gay people live their lives without fear of ANY discrimination and let religious people practice their religion where personal belief choices SHOULD be practised; in the home.

  51. Interestingly I tweeted all the MPs named for whom I could find twitter accounts for yesterday (about 8 or 9 of them) and sent a message explaining I was alarmed at their support for EHRC proposed discrimination being permitted on a faith basis being degrading to gay people. Have I received a response, have I buggery

    1. UPDATE – Have had a response from one of the MPs who states my interpretation of this Early Day Motion was not how it was presented to them, they have asked for some more information which I am going to email them (anyone who has anything particularly good on this please do let me know as it might be useful to include). Then they will consider it whilst making their decision about how to proceed.

      1. Stu, thanks for doing that, and all you hard work with regards this issue!!!

  52. Just come across this EDM which, oddly is signed by some of the same people as the other EDM

    http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2010-11/2109

    1. Excellent news …a counter attack finally…I presume the other EDM hasn’t been updated yet and these people will withdraw their signatures or at least clarify why they are signing both???

      What does the phrase “base any proposed changes to legislation on equality and non-discrimination ” mean? .there aren’t any proposals are there at the moment?

    2. I agree, this is confusing!!!

      1. I was told by Naomi Long that it would be difficult to get the signature removed from the old EDM during recess and also difficult to add her name to the new EDM in our favour…perhpas it’s becuase of the recess, signatures can’tbbe removed yet???

  53. Naomi Long – says she is going to withdraw her signature ..says he put it against the wrong EDM..

  54. Clearly a few MPs have got to pander to a certain conservative religious element in their constituency in order to get the block votes delivered. bastards

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

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all