Reader comments · Christian campaigners claim ‘massive support’ for compromises for anti-gay workers · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Christian campaigners claim ‘massive support’ for compromises for anti-gay workers

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Sometimes I wonder which side Pink News supports!

  2. the day I see christian registrars refusing to marry people who have been previously married or who already have children or have criminal records for theft etc (or any of the other hundreds of things the bible lists as sinful that aren’t being gay) then I shall agree with this. Until that point no dice I’m afraid.

    I’m an ex-christian but I had christian friends and family at my civil partnership (including my grandfather who is a vicar). If you don’t want to perform the functions of your role then don’t have the job. Simple as

    1. Indeed, they shoulddo the job they signed on for to the full legal extend of it, or go and find something else to do..

    2. Couldn’t agree more Charley!

  3. Paul Clevett 21 Jul 2011, 1:23pm

    How would they know?

  4. the undeniable 21 Jul 2011, 1:25pm

    so a BLACK woman doesn’t want to serve a gay person? really? hmmm? wonder how she would feel about a white/black hetero couple? afterall, two people of two different races joining together is biblically wrong. christians used that argument to keep blacks and whites from marrying at one time. any gay people working as a resistrars should refuse service to white/black couples and just see what happens. this is truly disgusting.

    1. Totally agree,,,since when did oppression become a minority hand-me-down?

    2. Staircase2 21 Jul 2011, 5:43pm

      I don’t think you’ll find there’s anything in the Bible to suggest that black people and white people shouldn’t marry…
      what makes you think that?

      1. Because the Bible was used to try to claim that interracial marriages were wrong. There’s a bit on the OT about races not mixing.

      2. Rashid Karapiet 21 Jul 2011, 11:29pm

        What bit of what translation of the Bible are you thinking of? As I’ve posted before, as civil society has developed a more rational approach to homosexuality, the bigots have flcocked to the churches in order to live out their ugly practices. The evangelicals, who were passionate supporters of slavery and apartheid, are relishing this return to the dark hours of Christianity and the irony of this return being spearheaded by black Christians will not be lost on the rest of the civilised world.

      3. Staircase2, If you read the Mormon bible you will discover at least one entire chapter dedicated to colour and race. Laws in the US have tried to prevent the Mormons from preaching those chapters, but apparently they are still taught behind closed temple doors.

  5. There was a time too, when interracial marriages were considered ‘sinful’.
    This is ridiculous and in Canada, it was upheld that those in the public service are to do their job in accordance with the law of the land, or lose it

  6. Paula Thomas 21 Jul 2011, 1:25pm

    Christians claim ‘massive support’ well they would wouldn’t they? Do they have any actual, you know, scientific data in the form of randomised sample polling? No thought not. Must try harder.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 21 Jul 2011, 1:36pm

      Christians don’t “Do” scientific evidence.

      1. Paula Thomas 21 Jul 2011, 1:39pm

        True but that is no reason not to ask them for it.

      2. Saying you do not do “Scientific Evidence” is like saying you to not value logic and reason, but prefer to base your judgement on the irrational premise of superstition and fairy stories!

        1. you mean like religion :P

        2. That’s what is called religion…..

        3. Staircase2 21 Jul 2011, 5:48pm

          Actually John – thats not the same thing.
          Logic and reason pre-date ‘scientific evidence’ – scientific evidence comes FROM them….
          Similarly calling a religion ‘superstition and fairy stories’ is a nonsense.
          Most of the English Christian missionaries who went out into the world claimed the very same thing as you do to justify converting the local peoples. They claimed that Christianity would wipe away the ‘superstition and fairy stories’ of the locals.
          The reason this is a problem has nothing to do with ‘superstition’ and everything to do with DOGMA. Which, unfortunately, Christians do not have a monopoly on…

          1. It is just special pleading to claim that Christianity is not a superstition. Superstitionem (nom. superstitio) “prophecy, soothsaying, excessive fear of the gods”.
            The missionaries could have been right about the beliefs of those they wished to convert while suffering under the delusion of the truth of their own beliefs. They just didn’t go far enough.

          2. “Actually John – thats not the same thing. Logic and reason pre-date ‘scientific evidence’ – scientific evidence comes FROM them….”
            I agree that logic and reason does not need to be worked out emprically.
            However, self-referential arugments developed theologically, cannot be measured against the logic and reason of ancient logic or contemporary analytic philosophy

          3. Just beacuse the Large Hardon Collider, the microscope or CT scanner did not exist in ancient times, does not mean science could not flourish.
            Was emprical sceince always thrawted by the techological sophisitication of the day?
            I do not think so, after all the founder of modern Genetics was a monk

          4. Rudehamster 22 Jul 2011, 2:32pm

            Actually, religious drivel supporting a sky fairy, are nothing more than fairy stories, Staircase.
            You know, the Romans had an excellent idea…it’s a shame they ran out of wood and nails.

  7. I think it’s about time that the state removed the right of religious ministers to perform legal marriages. They could bless, chant and pray if they like but it should have no legal relevance.

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 21 Jul 2011, 2:02pm

      Yes. Everyone goes to the town hall to sign a civil contract of marriage and then, if they want one, goes on to the ceremony, religious or non-religious, of their choice.

    2. I’m all in favour.
      BTW, that is the Dutch way. The legal marriage is in the town hall, or other approved venue, performed by a concil registrar.
      After that people can have a religious ceremony if they want.
      BTW, the ‘weigerambtenaar’ is obviously not a thing from the past, and there is quite a lot to do about it.
      But then, there is a christian minister on the job….

    3. Staircase2 21 Jul 2011, 5:51pm

      Just just bloody daft
      Why shouldn’t someone who believes in a particular faith have the opportunity to have their wedding in a church/synagogue/mosque etc?
      The process of a marriage is already a two-step process – thats why you have to go in and ‘sign’ afterwards.

      1. Mumbo Jumbo 21 Jul 2011, 7:50pm

        They can have a religious wedding but only after they have completed the legal procedures by attending the Registrar’s office to sign the civil marriage contract.

        1. Jane Clare Pawling 21 Jul 2011, 8:47pm

          A “religious marriage” could be done at any time, and for any reason, and for any parties approved by that religion / religious official. Even for three men, two women, 9 years old, a pig (but not in a Jewish or Muslim or vegetarian wedding), and/or a stone. True separation of religion and State would have the “marriages” be totally separate. But only the civil arrangement would be regarded as legal “marriage” and called by that name. Take that, Religion!

    4. johnny33308 21 Jul 2011, 7:16pm

      This would solve the “problem” of their bigotry, legally and for good! YES! No more ‘religious’ marriages that equal civil marriage. Religion is used only for evil purposes and has always been used to persecute others. It is evil and supid. It is after all, just another business and should be regulated as such-and taxed like all other businesses are done.

      1. Jane Clare Pawling 21 Jul 2011, 8:49pm


      2. Rubbish, religion CAN be used for “evil purposes” but the idea that it only is is just plain ridiculous and lacking in any real basis. I know lots of Christians doing fantastic, non-judgemental work for others, far more than I see non-religious people doing it to be honest.

  8. martyn notman 21 Jul 2011, 1:25pm

    intolerance and coercion?? sounds like most christians idea of heaven, lets face it thats what they have been guilty of for last 2000 years. Totally appaling, i hope they get hauled through the European courts.

  9. That is absolute c**p

  10. The weight of evidence is increasingly that many gay people do not have a choice about their sexuality, just as black ( or white ) people do not have a choice about their colour.

    However, if you apply the lady’s logic….that being gay is a lifestyle or behavioural choice….and that, therefore, Christians shouldn’t have to serve gays…then Atheists shouldn’t have to serve Christians ( or Muslims or Jews or Hindus) either….since religion is a choice…a rather foolish one, in my opinion.

    Yes, I know that it’s a riduluous argument…that’s the point. Once you allow people to interpret the law as they see fit, through the prism of their personal prejudice, then there is no law.

    1. Staircase2 21 Jul 2011, 5:54pm

      No, David – its not a ridiculous argument – you’ve hit the nail right smack bang on the head.
      Its a very good example – does that mean that Atheists should therefore be allowed to not serve Religious people on the grounds that they believe it to be against their own set of beliefs? Or a Muslim to not serve a Christian couple, or a Jew to not serve a Muslim etc etc etc
      Its a ill-thought-thru quagmire…

      1. Rudehamster 22 Jul 2011, 2:47pm

        I’m only too happy to serve religious people a healthy dose of their own medicine. The number of times I’ve had to read of homophobic attacks, threats and violence perpetrated by the idiots using their ‘god’ as an excuse, sickens and angers me.
        I am sick to death of listening to their whining about their poxy, bigoted set of mental-health issues and why my mere existence upsets their pet sky fairy. Some of my patients hear voices and they are given medication for it, so I really can’t see why there’s any difference in the behaviour of Christians and Muslims obsessives.
        If the evangelical fools are so horrified by gay people in the UK, why can’t they sod off onto their own little island where they won’t be offended.
        In the meantime, they should be banned from trying to drag us back in the dark ages.

    2. johnny33308 21 Jul 2011, 7:17pm

      bravo! how very true!

  11. Mary Huenig 21 Jul 2011, 1:28pm

    I guess it’s just like South Africa with the Dutch reformist religion (I think). They believed that the darker skin people were the ones damned and marked by god as in reference to the bible and the brother killing the brother. So I guess they too could religiously object and not perform interracial marriages. At what point do you say some religions can descriminate and others can’t?

  12. So Jesus would discriminate against LGBT people?
    Jesus who mixed with the leapers and marginalised of the day.
    I think some christians need to read their bibles!!!

  13. “Where there is a magistrate who believes children should have a mother and a father, he should be rostered off cases [involving gay or lesbian adoption].”

    Ms Minichiello-Williams has got a bloody cheek!!! Magistrates are there to apply the law of the land and have to receive full training for their role. The govt states that magistrates need to show the right personal qualities. One of them is the ability to hear all sides of an argument and reach a fair decision whilst upholding the law. They are not there to exert their OWN subjective feelings on cases!

    Do not give these “Christian” rights an inch, they will take a mile!!!

  14. The black community swallowed the Christian agenda hook line and sinker. I pity them, they were totally exploited and manipulated by Christian missioners and generations later we’re all paying the price. Any time there’s a story on Pink News about militant Christians and their bigotry towards the LGBT community in the UK its accompanied by a photo of a black Christian. Coincidence?

    1. seems the indoctrination of religion has worked perfectly well…..

      1. Ooer missus 23 Jul 2011, 2:01pm

        That’s totally untrue. All the hotel owners being sued? None black. Andrea whatshername? Not black. You simply see black because you are starting from a racist perspective. You conveniently forget the others.

  15. Deeside Will 21 Jul 2011, 1:49pm

    Ms Minichiello-Williams said:

    “It’s very different, it is about behaviour, not the person.”

    So is she saying that a “Christian” worker, before providing normal services to two men or two women who look as though they might be a gay or lesbian couple, should question them about whether they have sex together?

    1. Exactly what I thought. What business is it of anyone’s what other people do in their bedrooms? Will she be questioning straight couples about what sex acts they’re planning to take part in before she agrees to marry them?

  16. To do what EHRC suggests would require gay & lesbian people to suffer inevitable discrimination. Services will be less available or take longer and there are bound to be situations where they suffer the humiliation of being initially refused services and then waiting while another staff member is found
    •In small organisations there will often be only one or two people doing a particular task. – For example a small council may only have one person dealing with adoption or a local sports club may only have one person on duty at any time. This is bound to lead to confrontations where a gay or lesbian person is inevitably humiliated.
    •The EHRC idea also depends on there only being a small minority of staff who refuse to perform any particular task. If any significant number of registrars, for example, refused to deal with civil partnerships, the whole system would become unworkable.
    •And what if a person refuses to work with colleagues who are openly gay? Must that be accommodated?

  17. Christians demand compromises – is like sending GLBTQ people to the back of the bus. These christofascists, who BY CHOICE select to indulge in bigotry and discrimination, are nothing but hate groups.

    1. Johnny33308 21 Jul 2011, 7:30pm

      Indeed, this is quite true. They are indeed Hate Groups and we see over 100 such KKKristian Hate Groups in the US working toward their hatred becoming law of the land. And the RepubliKKKans are encouraqing and assisting them. By the way, the KKK is a KKKristian group as well-make no mistake, religion is is all about controlling others, not about anything spiritual. Hence child molesting priests, the Vatican adorned with gold and jewels, KKKristian bigotry and judgment of others-these are not spiritual pursuits in the least. They are evil and prey upon the innocent. Religion should be eradicated all over the world forever-it has held mankind back for millenia, and is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people-worse than any disease or epidemic could ever be. It is directly responsible for more human deaths than any other cause through out history.

  18. Mumbo Jumbo 21 Jul 2011, 1:59pm

    “It’s very different, it is about behaviour, not the person.”

    So, you want to question couples on their sex lives and you’d marry a couple who told you they did not intend to indulge in rumpy pumpy?

  19. I assume this means that loony christians can pick and choose at will what each individual considers sinful… this is madness.

  20. LGBT people need to realise that the EHRC contains several homophobic religious extremists as commissioners.

    The EHRC does not and will not defend gay rights.

    At least we all know this now.

  21. So, behaviours, then. Getting married is a behaviour. If a black person wishes to marry a white person a racist can refuse to carry out this ceremony, according to what Master Minichiello-Williams says. (Ms, Pink News, is the abrievation of ‘master’)

    1. I guess you might want to have another look at your comment…..

  22. When will these barm-pots realise that their conscientiously held “beliefs” about me burning in their hell are matched equally by my conscientiously held belief that I am absolutely entitled to the same protection and freedoms…… which means that unmarried fornicating single mothers with religious delusions employed as Registrars with no sense of hypocrisy cannot pick and choose who gets human rights or not…..

  23. If the EHRC doesn’t guarantee the right of gay people to discriminate against “christians”, because they violate our beliefs, then this is clearly legitimising homophobia based on a chosen belief system. We too should be accorded the same right. Why isn’t anyone posing that to the EHRC?

  24. Civil marriages/partnerships are 100% secular and by law must be non religious – this means that there is no legal remit for a religious registrar to opt not to legally join a couple on their personal religious group.

    This opens up a hornets nest of oppression and prejudice. Once you condone one type of discrimination you condone them all.

    1. Yes, so what is this holier than thou registrar doing performing ANY civil marriage at all? She’s enabling adultery, according to her religion (as civil marriages don’t count, not being marriages ‘under god’).

      1. Iris, exactly, also is she not a divorcee herself, or had a child out of wedlock so to speak.

        1. Yep. Some might suggest that she’s transferring her own personal guilt onto others, like so many homophobes.
          Bullies often suffer from low self-esteem and self-hate, yet choose to block that out by pointing the finger at other people inorder to distract themselves from their own failings.

          1. Thought as much, looking very much like a one way ticket to Eygpt and an extensive tour down “De-nile”

  25. As a gay women I find this offensive and frankly ridiculous. However, more to the point, regardless of their “conscience” they get paid to serve you. They have to do their job. Honestly it’s pathetic that this debate is even going on.

    1. Jock S. Trap 21 Jul 2011, 2:34pm

      Yes exactly, don’t they get paid out of LGBT peoples taxes too?

  26. Jock S. Trap 21 Jul 2011, 2:19pm

    There is no ‘tolerance’ in discrimination.

    Also most discriminating comment:- “it is about behaviour, not the person”
    Er, excuse me you cheeky mare… It’s you can’t get your head out of the sewer choosing to see people via sex not as a person.

    How nasty can they get. They don’t understand they are potentally decriminalising discrimination whether it be homophobia, racism, sexist.

    How would Ms Ladele react if someone refused to treat her because of her colour? Not well one would expect.

    So how can she have principals when she wouldn’t want to be discriminated against, herself?

    These Christian don’t realise the can of worms they may unleash with the results being a major backlash from the majority of the public.

    This could possibly be another nail in the coffin of Christianity.

    1. It is impossible for them to police such a bill and ensure that lawful equality is being adhered to. For example a Muslim will be able to use the conscience clause to not provide services to another religion or a female or to a dog owner. A Hindu may refuse to provide services to a cattle farmer. A catholic may decide that they cannot provide services to a Jew. A Mormon may decide that they cannot provide services to particular race. Once this can of worms is open it will snowball out of control into an apartheid. We only need to look at religious countries in the Middle East and Africa to see oppression and apartheid begin with small changes to legislation like this and my oh my what a result – countries once prosperous with low crime reduced to national poverty and war-torn.

      1. Indeed!

  27. Of course this means that LGBT or atheist registrars and counsellors could refuse to provide a service to the religious based on their beliefs and of course their conscience.

    It is my belief and deeply ingrained into my conscience that I should not equally serve my insanely religious oppressors!

    What if a Muslim registrars conscience prevents them from providing a service to a Jew or a Hindu or even a Christian. The EHRC will have to request that the person be allowed to refrain from serving them.

    I think the Christian Institute has just quite literally scored a home goal. A more apt expression maybe that it has shot itself in the foot and be assured this wound will become gangrenous.

  28. Jock S. Trap 21 Jul 2011, 2:31pm

    Are we about to see a return to the signs in the windows – No Black, No Irish, No Gays?

    1. Quite possibly. The EHRC will have to respect that those decisions whether they be sexist, racist, homophobic may have been based on individuals belief and that they have simply applied the conscience clause. The conscience clause must apply equally across the board to all religions, races, sexualities and genders. It appears that the EHRC are suggesting that we all have the equal right to discriminate against any group as long as it is because of our belief and conscience.

  29. Does this now mean that when I have a customer who is a Christian, I can now ask are you Christian? And then say hold on while I find someone who is able to deal with you. This is ludicrous. Where does it end – racists reusing to serve non whites, Muslims refusing to serve non Muslims, etc.

    1. Yes. It absolutely means you could do this – as long as your actions are specific to your belief and your conscience.

  30. “What they [Christians] find difficult is to be involved in things they find sinful”

    Then why are they even supporting the registrar case. This woman is performing marriage ceremonies outwith the church. She is marrying non believers, sinners every single day just by doing her job.

    If she wants to disregard Race discrimination being in any way similar to LGBT in terms of discrimination then good luck with that, but if she wants to argue that these Christians just want to avoid “sinful” activities, can they please comment on why this woman was in her job in the first place?

    1. Jock S. Trap 21 Jul 2011, 2:36pm

      Excellent point!

    2. It is an excellent point Kris. Further to the registrars case – she had a child out of wedlock and was in a casual sexual relationship with a chap that she was not married to. Not the actions that I would credit to someone claiming to take the moral high ground based on her belief. Further – the contract she signed with the council does state that she must not discriminate either colleagues or members of the public based on their sexuality.

      In Ladelle’s case I think the entire thing was premeditated in order to get some free money. She was simply too lazy to keep a job. The christian institute are too stupid to realise that she has simply played them.

      1. herewegoherewegoherewego 21 Jul 2011, 4:06pm

        I agree with all this , that is why I cannot understand why in a court of law they have to prove their beliefs, by the way they live their lives. How can you say it offends you when you only pick and choose what you want to take form the bible. Thats what makes it bigotry. How can some one who does not want to wed gay people still perfom services for divorced couples. I tihnk the law will still be there to portects us , but it will just be fought from a different angel, and prove that these people are bigots after all.

  31. The United Kingdom shall now be known as GHANA.

    Problem solved.

    Now Christians can clap and cheer that they have the right to exterminate all gay people from the face of the planet, just to keep them happy.

    Anyone else in in favour of petitioning the government to get rid of that tax sponging black hole of discrimination the EHRC?

  32. The BBC has a christian chairman and a christian director-general. Can we say it’s against our conscience to pay the licence fee?

    1. Robert J Brown 21 Jul 2011, 3:48pm

      Indeed, I’ve said for years that we should stop paying our fee until we get representation and equality. We should also stop paying our taxes as a matter of conscience.

    2. soapbubblequeen 21 Jul 2011, 5:14pm

      And every time I hear that bloody theme tune to ‘The One Show’ (one what, one God?) I want to scream!! They’ll be having the hunky Matt Baker in Jesus sandals banging a tambourine next

      1. It’s just BBC One dear.

        1. soapbubblequeen 25 Jul 2011, 8:44pm

          I know but it still gets on my nerves!

  33. But she said: “Where there are 18 registrars and two have a homophobic objection to carrying out civil partnerships, they should have their homophobia respected.

    “In terms of a counsellor who doesn’t want to treat two men because he is homophobic, he simply wouldn’t be given that sort of case.

    “Where there is a homophobic magistrate who believes children should have a mother and a father, he should be rostered off cases [involving gay or lesbian adoption].

    “These are not difficult things to do in a world which respects homophobia.”

    1. Of course in some religious countries where this judgement would also apply they conveniently wouldn’t be able to find anyone to perform their job for gay couples.

  34. EHRC is indeed opening a can of worms on this one. It can’t possibly believe that allowing just one group to discriminate against another based on religious beliefs won’t impact other areas of discrimination. Once you allow one group carte blanche, you have to allow everybody else. Imagine employers and businesses having the choice to not employ or serve non-white applicants. This is where it will lead. As I said once before, accommodation must be made to allow gay people to discriminate against religious people if this amendment is passed into law.

  35. waste of money by EHCR, european court will agree with british courts in this matter, the outcome will embarass EHCR

  36. Robert J Brown 21 Jul 2011, 3:47pm

    So does that now allow the LGBT community and their friends to be able to not serve those who are not LGBT or friends of the LGBT community out of conscience?

    SUCH a dangerous precedent.

  37. Yes, the behaviour of two committed same-gender people who want to celebrate their love for one another should never be allowed. Seriously, that “practice” needs to stop. The fantastical Man in the sky would be so severley offended that those He created in His image are so bold as to be in love. For shame.

  38. Exactly which denomination do these “Christians” claim to be representing?

    “It’s very different, it is about behavior, not the person” is a lie. It IS about the person – and about the Christianist’s assumption as to WHAT behavior people may or may not “do.” With Christianists, it tends to almost always be their assumptions and presumptions that hold sway.

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 21 Jul 2011, 4:34pm

      Susan B. Anthony – I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 21 Jul 2011, 5:13pm

      George Bernard Shaw :-

      No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means.

  39. Andrew Woodman 21 Jul 2011, 3:53pm

    Good to see the Tories are protecting our rights. There not, you say? Same old Tories. Use your vote!

    1. Of course, the fact that the Equalities & Human Rights Commission is a non-Governmental body, set up by Labour, won’t stop a knee-jerk reaction…

      I’m no fan of the Tories, and would be a lot more worried for LGBT people if not for the Lib Dems in the Coalition (the only major party supporting equal marriage), but at least attack them for things they do, not things which are completely unrelated.

      1. Jock S. Trap 24 Jul 2011, 9:00am


  40. dave wainwright 21 Jul 2011, 3:54pm

    And how do Christian registrars know whether the gay couples marrying are PRACTISING SIN? do they ASK THEM ? For many gay couples I know are celibate and not PRACTISING and are therefore NOT SINNERS , not that it is anyones business , if employed to do a job and provide a service they must be prepared to do the work they are contracted to do , without practising discrimination and prejudice .

  41. It’s not about the right to religious conscience, religious persons are free to believe that homosexuality is sinful but it is about their claim they should have a legal right to manifest their belief that homosexuality is sinful via a display homophobic behaviour.

    1. Typo “a display of homophobic behaviour”

  42. i think i could scream, i’m so angry about this.

    1. Don’t get mad, get glitter, lol

  43. I think the whole thing stems from Cameron’s ‘compromise’ comment during the Catholic Care adoption scenario. Of course, Cameron’s credibility is now rock bottom, so I imagine whole ‘compromise’ thing will come to nothing if he has to resign. Even that god-gobbler Minichiello-Williams admits, compromises, what compromises exactly?

    1. Well I don’t think we want Theresa as PM in his stead. BTW, to be totally off topic, in the parliament debate on Murdoch, is it me or did she look exactly like the pope in a wig?

  44. Some kind vicar should give them a job looking after the church – flower arranging and polishing the pews and hymn boards etc. If you cant do the job you are paid for then I’m afraid there is no alternative but the sack! It applies to everyone – religious or otherwise.

  45. These people claim that gays want special treatment then turn around and demand special treatment for themselves. Apparently, tolerance is only a one-way street as they sure aren’t tolerant of gays.

  46. Miguel Sanchez 21 Jul 2011, 4:06pm

    “What they [Christians] find difficult is to be involved in things they find sinful.

    “It’s very different, it is about behaviour, not the person.”

    Since whendid they become judge, jury and excutioner

    If theydon’t want to do the job they should find work elsewhere.

    1. I am so sorry for the lady as she is still living in the dark ages. If I follow her argument based on the bible then it is not a sin to discriminate women or to have slavery after all this is the norm during the biblical times.

      1. what lady?
        A lady is a woman who knows how to behave in polite society.
        Can’t see this woman as behaving properly in polite society!!

    2. Has everyone forgotten she reportedly was an unmarried mother, and that was one reason why her claims rang a bit shallow.

  47. herewegoherewegoherewego 21 Jul 2011, 4:08pm

    So will an elected MP have the right to not represent a gay person.

  48. Dear Christian “rights” campaigners. You’ve had the last 2000 years, you’ve messed it up, now move over. Frothing at the mouth does NOT count as massive support. There are only twelve of you left. Really, go home. The adults want to play now.

  49. Andrea Minichiello Williams said,”“What they [Christians] find difficult is to be involved in things they find sinful.

    Like Christians will be forced to engage in sexual acts with homosexuals if they have to deal with them just as they are forced to engage in sexual acts with all members of the public.

    “It’s very different, it is about behaviour, not the person.”

    But Christians are not confronted by homosexual “practice” behaviour, they only have to deal with homosexual persons when providing a public service so their consciences can remain clear.

    A Christian registrar will not have to witness a male with another male as they lay lyings of a woman, nor willa registrar have to witness or engage in similarly Biblically forbidden same sex orgiastic acts of ritual worship when providing a public service to same sex couples, I don’t see what their objection can be other than plain ol- fashioned homophobia.

  50. herewegoherewegoherewego 21 Jul 2011, 4:21pm

    0845 604 6610

    this the equily comissions phone number please call them and express your distate for this

    1. Count me in.

  51. Tut! Tut! “massive” support …. Christians really shouldn’t lie so blatantly!!!

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 21 Jul 2011, 4:38pm

      Why not.

      They have been lying for over 2000 years.

      They are masters at it

      When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.

      1. Collective delusions are always the most difficult to dispense with

  52. TOTALLY, ABSURDLY STUPID QUESTION about not marrying a black couple. Total strawman that completely missed an excellent opportunity to make a REAL comparison that would have resonated with the public.

    Instead of asking about race, WHICH HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RESEMBLANCE TO THIS ISSUE, the question should have been, “should Muslim registrars be allowed to refuse to officiate over Christian and Jewish “infidels”?”, or should Catholics be allowed to refuse to assist non Catholics or mixed faith couples, or divorced people, or non-virgins since their religion forbids marrying such couples?”, or “should Jewish or Muslim waiters be allowed to refuse to serve shrimp or pork at a restaurant where they work”, or “should a Buddhist or Hindu be allowed to refuse to work with or serve ANY meat at the steakhouse where they are employed as a cook or waiter?”

    THESE are relevant questions that would make the public think twice about what the real ramifications of such a “religious exemption” would be.

    1. The comparison is justifiable in that, like skin colour, gay people have no choice over their sexual orientation. To discriminate against gay people, therefore, is equally contemptible.

      1. No it’s not comparable. It’s comparing apples and oranges. These people are arguing that they should be allowed to discriminate for ONE reason only, because of religious beliefs. I haven’t heard anyone in 2011 saying that they want to deny service to black people based on their religious belief. Therefor the comparison will bounce right off as not applicable. On the other hand the examples I give above ARE direct challenges to the “religious exemption” argument and would resonate with the general public.

        1. Your examples are fine, but one argument is about the justification for behaving in a prejudiced way, the other is about the choice of victim of that prejudice. Race and sexual orientation are the same in terms of being inherent characteristics which have both been targets of religious prejudice. Interacial marriage was only legalised in the US in the 1960s, and the basis for the ban was biblical. It is a very close comparison.

  53. “That’s true tolerance”
    Oh, right, of course it is. Wanting to discriminate aginst others is true tolerance?
    Christians should obey the law like everyone else. This attempt to get an opt-out is only the thin edge of the wedge. There is a very definite push by some ‘christian’ groups to have political influence and be granted special rights.

  54. Lillian Ladele isn’t very fussy about many of the Biblical specifics though; officiating over the secular marriages of divorcees and people of different religions. It’s only the gays she’s got it in for, evidently. I wonder if she also eats bacon and shellfish. She’s produced a kid out of wedlock. Maybe she should remove the plank from her own eye…

  55. Don Harrison 21 Jul 2011, 5:04pm

    That is pure homophobia

  56. soapbubblequeen 21 Jul 2011, 5:09pm

    These so-called ‘Christians’ are simply a bunch of brainwashed fools, hypocrites and liars. They can’t have a very strong faith can they, if they’re so offended by us? She is clearly an extremely stupid woman.

  57. roger crouch 21 Jul 2011, 5:17pm

    As someone who has spent his entire working life in the public sector much of it at Director level I have a simple message to the bigots – if you are not prepared to serve all the public equally you are not fit to be a public servant. You are not paid from public funds to pick and choose who you serve.

  58. Anyone providing a public service should be required to conform with the law. If their conscience is offended they should work elsewhere. Why should others suffer for their prejudice?

  59. Rev Jim Brooking 21 Jul 2011, 5:27pm

    Someone who works in “public service” positions must be willing to serve all the public equally. Should the same exceptions be made for people who do not approve of racially mixed marriages? If people cannot comply with the requirements of a specific job perhaps they need to seek employment elsewhere.

  60. Daniel Bak 21 Jul 2011, 5:31pm

    If reasonable compromises are made, what effect does this have on gays anyway? By definition the compromises are reasonable and if another registrar or counsellor can provide a service I don’t really see a problem.

    Christians like me can act in accordance with their own conscience and gay people are not discriminated against.

    Win win.

    1. Staircase2 21 Jul 2011, 5:42pm

      ‘Gay’ like ‘black’ and ‘white’ are adjectives – they are not nouns! They need a word like ‘people’ after them to make sense…..

      1. Daniel Bak 21 Jul 2011, 6:42pm

        gay /gā/

        Adjective: (of a person, esp. a man) Homosexual.

        Noun: A homosexual, esp. a man.

        1. and?
          it doesn’t say ONLY a man.
          Some people think that homo in homosexual refers only to men, because the word homo means man and it means same, depending which ancient language it’s translated from (Greek or Latin).
          I’m a Gay Woman, and don’t identify as a lesbian. I object very strongly to certain sectors of society misappropriating a unisex word purely for one group.
          The concept of ‘man’ as seen in writings all over doesn’t only refer to the males of the human race, but to all of humanity.
          Being gay means being homosexual, whether male or female.

    2. marjangles 21 Jul 2011, 7:49pm

      What if there isn’t another registrar or counsellor? What if the registrar scheduled to perform my civil partnership is ill and only a christian one is available to cover? What if there is a town hall with only christian registrars and all refuse to perform civil partnerships? What if it’s a doctor refusing to treat a sick gay person in A&E. What does resaonable compromise mean? When does a compromise stop being reasonable and why are some christians going to be told that the compromise they insist on isn’t reasonable, aren’t their religious consciences as strong or important.

      You have to stop thinking of this as compromise too because it isn’t. That suggests some give and take on both sides. In this instance what is happening is that Christians are picking which bits of their jobs they don’t want to perform and insisting that their employers accomodate that. It will also mean that discrimination against gay people will become a protected right for Christians.

    3. marjangles 21 Jul 2011, 8:05pm

      Perhaps you can explain to me why they only seem to want to exercise their religious conscience when it comes to gay people too. Every marriage at which Ladele officiated was sinful because it was not in the presence of God. Some of those marrying will have been divorced and on their second or subsequent marriages. Perhaps you can explain why she exercises her conscience towards gay people but not all those others? Hipocrisy is ok but not homosexuality? The same applies to McFarlane who had no issue (and said so in court) with counselling unmarried couples but gay couples were just too much for him, more hypocrisy.

      Perhaps you can explain why public servants who draw salaries at least in part funded by gay people should be able to pick and choose which of their paymasters they serve.

    4. What sort of conscience allows some one to take money to perform a public service, and then choose which segments of the public they are prepared do that job for? What sort of conscience allows someone to behave in such a discriminatory way? What sort of conscience allows a person to judge another’s relationship?

      But I don’t believe this case is about religious conscience at all, it is about a dislike of gay people, and a desire to display her personal judgements and prejudices in a way that allows her to feel morally superior – despite having had a child out of wedlock herself!

    5. The point Daniel is that there is no reasonable compromise! Refusing to provide a public service to a group of individuals based on their sexuality is discriminatory – no excuses! Your chosen belief should never be a consideration. If you feel that you are unable to serve ALL members of the community equally then you simply should not seek employment in a position that requires you to provide service to the public. Further…Daniel, are you suggesting that Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Gays, Agnostics etc. should be able to accord their own conscience based on their belief and refuse to serve christians? I can only assume so. I think the christian institute and the EHRC has just shot itself in the foot with this one.

    6. “Christians like me can act in accordance with their own conscience”

      Which you can make up as you go along. I’m sure you don;t discriminate with equal voracity against people who cut their hair or eat prawns. This si a democracy. Practice what you want Dan, but do not let it inter fear with my life, and if you can’t do your job within reasonable expectation becuase of this self anointed “conscience”, then quit.

  61. Staircase2 21 Jul 2011, 5:41pm

    The point they’re missing is shown up when Andrea Minichiello-Williams says “What they [Christians] find difficult is to be involved in things they find sinful.”
    Serving gay people is NOT being involved in ‘sinning’ even if you believe that being gay is ‘sinful’.
    Simply because, if you believe that being gay is ‘sinful’ then it is the BEING GAY which is the ‘sinful’ part – not the serving a gay person when they buy a pound of potatoes!
    Just because someone is Christian should not stop them using their God-given brains to actually THINK about what they’re saying/doing. Their logic in this case has so many holes all over it that if it were a bucket it would do better to change career and become a sieve!
    Mind you, in the case of a magistrate who believes that gay people should not be able to adopt or raise a child: then it makes sense for the gay couple having their case heard that someone with that kind of narrow mindedness should not hear their case.

  62. Tough – if we allow PUBLIC SERVANTS to stop servicing GAY CITIZENS of the UK – we should at the same time allow people to STOP SERVICING BLACK and ASIAN – should they choose – why not?

    If we are going to allow discrimination then it should be equal surely?!!!

  63. johnny33308 21 Jul 2011, 7:10pm

    Well, there was a time in the US when there was “massive support” for hanging black people-that did not make it right. There was support for limiting marriage to hetero people in California-that did not make it right. Prejudice is prejudice whatever the reason for it may be, it will remain prejudice and is entirely WRONG in a civil society. Its wrong even in a theocracy-prejudice is EVIL and destructive like murder, rape, anti inter-racial marriage, and other anti-social behaviors. It must be eradicated at any cost.

  64. Johnny33308 21 Jul 2011, 7:42pm

    It is time for Christianity and Islam for that matter, to be made illegal for obvious reasons-it invades our secular and civil society to the eternal detriment of ALL PEOPLE and promotes uncivilized and barbaric practices against innocent people. HAVEN’T WE SEEN ENOUGH OF BOTH OF THEM to see the real truth of both of them? Hatred and bigotry-this is the truth of both of these religions.

  65. Sincerely I hope that Christians realize that they may end with the short stick in their hands when they notice that non-christians (and there are a lot more of them than there are gays, will stop serving them at restaurants, health facilities, bars, airports, public facilities, government services etc. etc.

  66. I have joined the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society so that proper objections from united organisations can defend our rights and protest on our behalf fortrue equality. I would urge you all to do the same

    1. Rudehamster 22 Jul 2011, 3:00pm

      Kerry, welcome to the fold.

      1. Oh bugger.

  67. When asked what the difference is to allowing descrimination based on racism she said: “Race is totally different from sexual orientation practice, homosexual practice.”
    Ignoring her garbled attempts at describing homsexuality in such a way as to make it permissible to descriminate, I can’t help wondering why is it different when it comes to descriminating against someone based on their religion. That is just something you are either taught or based on your culture or even conversion. It can’t be described as in any way intrinsic. Can I quiz people on their beliefs and then choose not to do my job if their beliefs offend me, if I conscientiously object to them?

  68. Maggie Francis 21 Jul 2011, 11:41pm

    what would jesus do? i am lesbian. god does not discriminate against me. jesus died for me. are you withut sin? let him wh is without sin cast the first stone! I lve Jesus he does not judge me, jesus loves me, he does not judge me, why are you all judging me? you are all sinners. judgement is mine sayeth the lord. god made me as i am. Jesus loves me for who I am. jesus never said I should not be gay, why do i say to potter why did u make me as i am, god made me like this i lve jesus and ia am gay and pro
    ud of how God made me xxxxxxxxxxx#

    1. Rudehamster 22 Jul 2011, 2:48pm

      God doesn’t exist, Maggie.

      1. Oh yes I do.

  69. Well I’d agree that hate is a disabling condition, but its not disability.

    You don’t want to marry people because of your bigotry, as a public servant, then quit.

    Race, Sexuality or Gender Identity, its all the same hate.

  70. how would loony christians feel if i discrimated them cos there were christian for example in a shop if i was to say no sorry no christians allowed in here. the dummy would be chucked out of the pram. silly bigots you will have a fight on your hands

  71. there’s also massive support for the persecution of christians yet they don’t like that when it affects them, too many christians are stupid hypocrites,
    Would Lillian Ladele like it if laws we’re done so that racists didn’t serve her? this is so stupid on so many different levels and yet they’ll never see that

  72. As I white person, I feel it is my right under the bibles teachings that we should have the right to bring back slavery. Giving the bible supports slavery in a much bigger way then it condemns Gay people.
    Sad thing is black people have been enslaved twice, once by shackles the second time by Islam and Christianty. And now they are helping to oppress others using the same teachings…
    I’m disabled also and how dare they say that being thoughtful with the needs of disabled is the same as supporting prejudice of backward facing beliefs.

  73. Rudehamster 22 Jul 2011, 3:02pm

    I’m only too happy to serve religious people a healthy dose of their own medicine. The number of times I’ve had to read of homophobic attacks, threats and violence perpetrated by the idiots using their ‘god’ as an excuse, sickens and angers me.
    I am sick to death of listening to their whining about their poxy, bigoted set of mental-health issues and why my mere existence upsets their pet sky fairy. Some of my patients hear voices and they are given medication for it, so I really can’t see why there’s any difference in the behaviour of Christians and Muslims obsessives.
    If the evangelical fools are so horrified by gay people in the UK, why can’t they sod off onto their own little island where they won’t be offended.
    In the meantime, they should be banned from trying to drag us back in the dark ages.

  74. that black bible wh#@e should not be aloud to discriminate,

  75. Ooer missus 25 Jul 2011, 2:43pm

    See the following for the biblical arguments that were used to ban interracial marriage in the US:

  76. Ironic that many black christians support discrimination. They seem to be saying that as long as this particular bit of discrimination doesn’t affect me then I’m in favour of it. I assume that they don’t indulge in any of the other practises prohibited by the OT?

  77. Why on earth should workers be allowed to refuse their services to gay people? It’s like a return to the ‘no blacks, no Jews, no DSS’ days of old.

  78. I think we should fully let them, and let them feel the other side of the paddle…

    Let those who are pro-gay, create lists of people who are known to be anti gay, and flat out boycott them.

    Let the economy drive them out! They can fight forever about laws, but they cant FORCE people to use their services… As such, when they have no more demand, their supply will dry up, and they will float off into the distant past as the dust they are!

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.