Reader comments · Tory MP defends religious rights motion · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Tory MP defends religious rights motion

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Mr Streeter denied that the motion supports discrimination against gay people, adding: “I don’t have a homophobic bone in my body. ….”

    No just a homophobic brain…

    I’d like to say typical Tory but the majority of MPs who signed the EDM are labour!. Has LGBT labour commented on that fact?

    1. de Villiers 28 Jul 2011, 1:52pm

      Or perhaps a non-typical Tory since hardly any of the other MPs have supported the motion.

      1. Here’s the thing,

        Why do you deny the same ability for christians to whine, bitch, and complain about their “equal rights?”

        “Equality” is that everybody has the same thing as everybody else, meaning if gays have a right to bitch and complain, so do their adversaries, under the “equality” fallacy christians must also as a group, not be denied their opportunity to have their beliefs, lifestyle, and philosophy ingrained in law and sanctified by the state, much like gays have been able to do. This is what happens under what I call runaway equality.

        Equality is nothing but asking for trouble. Just be pro-gay and get it over with. You all need to be honest about your intentions, you people are NOT for equality. That’s fine, because I’m not either.

        1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 9:01am

          We know your not but being that you completely missed what this story is about, may I suggest you yet again stop judging all but your own weak and feeble attitudes and (lack of) standards.

        2. They can to use your venacular, “Bitch and complain” all they want …

          What they can not and must not do is allow dilution of human rights of others, including a duty under the Equality Act to equal provision of goods and services to all without prejudice by all businesses (its law – you may not have such liberty in Arizona but we do in the UK).

          If we start to go down a slippery slope where we can pick and choose which rights we adhere to then we end up appeasing the bigots and fundamentalists such as those linked to the EDL and fascists such as certain notorious Norwegians.

    2. Dan Filson 28 Jul 2011, 2:18pm

      I expect a number of LGBT Labour members have contacted the Labour signatories seeking clarification.

      1. I know one of the Conservative signatories is considering some of the information as was made to believe the EDM was about wearing of religious symbols eg crucifix etc – clearly it is much more than that

    3. Religion and the religious are mostly enemies of the truth.

      1. de Villiers 28 Jul 2011, 6:26pm

        It might be better to say that some elements of religion and some of the religious are enemies of truth. It might also be true to say that atheist members of the Chinese Communist Party are and atheist Russian Communists were enemies of truth.

        1. I’d rather say that in my opinion religion is largely the enemy of the truth, communist ideology is not attributable to atheism.

          1. de Villiers 29 Jul 2011, 8:24am

            No, but communism requires atheism to suppress independent thought or following and its ideology requires truth to be suppressed.

          2. de Villiers 29 Jul 2011, 11:42am

            Pavlos, I cannot agree. Atheism has a definite ideology – a Christian one. It is parasitical upon a particular concept of monotheistic religion positing the existence of one supreme god.
            The atheism seen on these boards is evaneglical. Such evangelical atheists believe that we can all progress to a higher form of living if only we agree with their view. It demonstrates a total conviction that their view of complete secularity, political and personal, is correct for all of us.
            What I could agree with is, is that atheism need not have such missionary zeal. It is perfectly possible to have no religious belief and yet be on good terms with religion. It is a contradiction that evangelical atheists, who want to elevate humanity, attack what is a fundamental human need – to hold to some form of myth. They attack religion but merely substitute this with other myths, be this the inevitable progress of democracy, equality, progress or positivism.

        2. Now you are talking about communist ideology not atheism.
          Atheism is not an ideology it is just not having a belief in a god or gods, atheism doesn’t even have to be a belief that god or gods don;’t exist, it’s simply the absence of belief in god or gods.

          1. de Villiers 29 Jul 2011, 11:42am

            Pavlos, I cannot agree. Atheism has a definite ideology – a Christian one. It is parasitical upon a particular concept of monotheistic religion positing the existence of one supreme god.
            The atheism seen on these boards is evaneglical. Such evangelical atheists believe that we can all progress to a higher form of living if only we agree with their view. It demonstrates a total conviction that their view of complete secularity, political and personal, is correct for all of us.
            What I could agree with is, is that atheism need not have such missionary zeal. It is perfectly possible to have no religious belief and yet be on good terms with religion. It is a contradiction that evangelical atheists, who want to elevate humanity, attack what is a fundamental human need – to hold to some form of myth. They attack religion but merely substitute this with other myths, be this the inevitable progress of democracy, equality, progress or positivism.

          2. I think you are wrong de Villiers but you are free to disagree, I say there is no Atheist ideology.
            Atheism is the absence of belief in god or gods and it is not even necessary to believe that god or gods do not exist, the god hypothesis strikes many atheists as too ridiculous to even consider it worthy of further attention, it is actually very different to claiming a belief that god or gods do not exist.

            That’s not to say that individual atheists do not see religion as a dangerous negative force and one set firmly against reason and rationality, incompatible and unreconcilable with both.

        3. I go with de Villiers on this one.

          Some elements of relgion and some religious people and ideologies are opponents and enemies of truth.

          There are aspects of truth in all ideologies if we look hard enough – whether we agree with the bigger picture or not

          1. If you think that not collecting butterflies is a hobby then you’ll probably think that atheism is an ideology.

          2. @Pavlos

            I have no such thoughts about not collecting butterflies quite frankly

      2. Yes we get it already.

        You so tolerant individuals are very hostile, aggressive, and violent against people’s personal beliefs, and religious views. Tolerance for YOU and screw everybody else… and this is how we are going to convince the public? Yeah, right.

        1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 9:02am

          I question your use of the word “we”!

          What crap.

          1. Of course you are going to.

            Why do you need to tell me? Of course you don’t want gays to be independent and think on their own. Of course. LOL

          2. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 9:52am

            Projecting again pepa, how boring.

          3. Pepa

            If anyone on here would encourage independent thought – it would be JST, your disingenuity knows no limits …

          4. Pepa

            “Why do you need to tell me?”

            Perhaps for two reasons:

            1) To correct the incorrect assertions you repeatedly flaunt on this site
            2) For the same reason you feel the need to tell the world your biased views, others feel the need to add balance

    4. Perhaps I should say a typical member of the “Chrisitans in Parliament” which is chaired by Gary..

      Gary is also ” arranging for an inquiry to be held over the autumn looking at discrimination against Christians in the UK. The inquiry comes amidst increasing concern over the erosion of religious freedom in the UK and will examine how the law currently affects believers.

      Gary Streeter MP said that the panel would invite submissions from legal professionals, businesses, individuals and social policy groups from faith and non-faith backgrounds. They will be asked to evaluate hate crime and equality legislation in the light of the need to protect freedom of belief. The inquiry will be open to the public.”

      CANT’ WAIT FOR IT!!!!

      1. and as Mr Streeter points out from his forthcoming autumn enquiry:

        “The outcome of our inquiry might be that the law needs to be nudged back in certain areas and we won’t shy away from saying so,”

        This is the real agenda of Mr Streeter and those that have kept their names on the EDM! To roll back the equality law in favour of opt out for the Christians

    5. Erica Cart-Horse, QC 29 Jul 2011, 12:49am

      Count me in John!

    6. Mr Streeter denied that the motion supports discrimination against gay people,

      Mr Streeter you are a liar. In the recent cases of Lillian Ladele, Gary McFarlane , Eunice and Owen Johns, Lesley Pilkington and Dr Sheila Matthews it was all about anti-gay discrimination.
      Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane are two people who have prejudged all gay persons and who do not want to deal with any gay person purely on the basis of uninformed prejudice, shockingly the EHRC has said it will intervene in their cases has implied it believes that their blatant discrimination should be accommodated.

    7. “to avoid having to deal with gay avoid having to deal with gay avoid having to deal with gay avoid having to deal with gay avoid having to deal with gay avoid having to deal with gay avoid having to deal with gay avoid having to deal with gay avoid having to deal with gay people.”

    8. Rich (original) 29 Jul 2011, 12:17pm

      Soon, you, homosexual degenerate, die from ugly syphilis which you got after sucking syphilitic penis of another gay…. But Mr Streeter will live and enjoy life because he is normal person and doesn’t involved in abominable, disgusting sex practice as you do. That’s the difference…. :) !

      1. Oh, go away.

      2. Reported – again!

      3. No worries Rich, I won’t be sucking your syphilitic baby-sized dick any time soon and I dare say nobody else will be desperate enough to do so either…malakas!

  2. Christianity arrived in this country by conquest. So to say that this is a Christian country, or that it belongs to Christians, is like saying that America belongs to white Anglo-Saxon Protestants – and I think the indigenous peoples might have something to say about that.

    There is no automatic right to discriminate, and it’s not a core belief of Christianity anyway (despite what fundamentalists think). No-one is stopping them from practising their religion. If they don’t want to provide public services in the secular sphere because it conflicts with their “principles”, then get another job.

    Conscientious objectors who don’t want to kill people either leave the armed forces or don’t join the military in the first place. Sometimes they get imprisoned for acting on their conscience, and their position is 100% more reasonable than that of anti-LGBT Christians, who are just bigots.

    I have refrained from applying for jobs that might involve providing support for military activities.

    1. de Villiers 28 Jul 2011, 1:55pm

      Although I would prefer a secular country, the UK is demonstrably a Christian country. It has state religion, Anglicanism, where the Head of State is also the Head of the Church. To put forward clever historical arguments to show that the UK is not a Christian country is to sit at right-angles to reality. It is better to recognise that the UK is a Christian country and to support those moderate organisations that call for a secular state.

      1. Dan Filson 28 Jul 2011, 2:22pm

        The nature of the UK’s Christianity however is one of tolerance and decency (not in the prurient sense) i.e. reflecting the values and teaching of Jesus as reported in the Gospels. This is quite different from swallowing all the nonsense uttered by Christian fundamentalists who believe the Old Testament hook line and sinker and some of the less savoury parts of the Epistles of St Paul (he of the stoning of St.James).

        1. Martin Lawrence 28 Jul 2011, 2:30pm

          As a gay Christian priest, what worries me most about this motion is the potential repercussions. If it is ok for a registrar, say to refuse to officiate at civil partnerships, then surely it must also be ok for a couple who run a hotel in, say, Cornwall (to pick a place at random!) to refuse to allow a gay couple to stay in their hotel. The logic of this has clearly not been thought through. Rather, it is just a vote-catching homophobic gesture. No point getting too excited about it though: it’s bound to fail.

          1. de Villiers 28 Jul 2011, 6:07pm

            I agree – at least the reasonable adjustments in relation to persons who are disabled are to mitigate the disparate impact of their disability. For what purpose are reasonable adjustments in relation to religious persons – to mitigate the disparate impact of their what?

          2. Christine Beckett 28 Jul 2011, 6:55pm

            On the contrary, Martin.

            The logic HAS been thought through, and the intent is to start rolling back the laws that prevent “religious” folk from discriminating against those they disapprove of, in any and all situations.

            Streeter is one of the most vehemently anti-gay MPs in parliament right now.

            His record speaks for itself; the only reason he does not have a 100% record of voting against LGBT equality legislation is that he was absent for a couple of votes.


    2. What I don’t get is all the anti-christian bigotry.

      The christain world has developed over the centuries the current tolerant western society you now live in and mostly despise.

      However, in the east and the rest of the world, this isn’t the case. Ask any african, arab, muslim, asian, Iranian, that is gay. He will tell you whats up.

      My view is that most of you do not care about changing people’s attitude, your main objective is to dehumanize christians and their beliefs, something only an authoritarian would do. Instead of working to get more inclusive churches and get the church of england and other denominations to change their dogma (because that is what it is, as s person who grew catholic can tell you, it all comes from DOGMA not religious rites, rituals or beliefs) you seem to focus on derailing their beliefs instead of winning them over to our side.

      This is why I have so much disdain for the gay atheist, scientific fascist, neo-darwinistic, corporatist establishment.

      1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 9:04am

        Yawn, you are really quite boring.

        Do you even know what your talking about?

        Again, stop judging all by your very warped standards, perv!

        1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 9:06am

          Notice people the differences in pepa’s comments…

          Up a bit I question pepa’s use of the word “we” when talking about us as a community.

          Yet in the above comment it is now “you”.

          pepa we All know you and who you are you child-sex-obsessed pervy fraud.

          You are so Busted.

          1. “Busted”

            LOL. Now this one laugh I wished you would have seen.

            You can “bust” me all you want jockstrap, but again I must correct you, YOU are the one that wants to teach kids about gay sex, YOU are the one that wants kids as young as five to learn about homosexuality, even though we all know that children are NOT sexual in any way at that age. And by the way last I heard YOU have children, I don’t.

            Yet I’m the ONE that is child sex obsessed? You need to rethink this babel.

          2. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 9:59am

            Well, I’m grateful people here know me and know what your saying is crap and also they remember you and all your passed child-sex-obsessive comments along with the how we’re all ‘Gay Activists’ & surrendering to some 1972 ‘Gay Agenda’ whilst accussing all others of being rapists and child abusers.

            We also remember the amount of times you constantly bring in the subject of what you think about children and sex for us all to know, even when nobody else has mentioned it, what kind of pervert you are and your balant excuse for a sour human being who insists on keep telling us all your friends are druggies and all your airport friends abuse children.

            Now stop projecting. None of us forget you, you know, you frackin perv!

          3. Wow.

            You are really a sour puss…

            My points were clear and I think I was clear enough. I am OPPOSED to sexualizing children. You on the other hand are in FAVOR of it.

            You are just angry that I pointed out that fact quite clearly and bluntly.

            You also confused the fact that I merely point out what gay activists have done in schools with children against the will of the parents with me being “obsessed.” Your beef is that I don’t sexualize children like you do. That is why you are very angry and disturbed. That you actually get to meet a gay man with some boundaries and limits.

          4. Oh and BTW, I saw you bitching an crying on another thread about a school not wanting to let an opera writer inject sexual innuendo in the lyrics.

            Clearly you want to sexualize kids at that age. I didn’t want to comment because I know how you would react, typically calling me the pedophile when in reality it is YOU that wants to sexualize innocent kids that don’t know any better. Shame on YOU.

          5. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 10:48am

            Yawn, you don’t stop projecting do you pepa.

            Typical Hypocrite.

            Your boring me now.

          6. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 10:52am

            LOL – you do make things up as you go along when people remember you and your passed perverted comment don’t ya pepa?

            As I said before people here don’t have the short memories you would wish them to have.

            Keep digging that hole all you want but We all remember you, you perv!!

          7. Pepa

            You again misrepresent what JST and others have said – it fiots your agenda to misrepresent it, I accept that, but the fact that you lie about what others say, guess what others think, and ridicule them by calling them rapists (when you have no idea of who they are or their history), call all child protection workers paedophiles and perverts, and have a distinct obsession with sex with children – its shows both the lack of integrity of your position and the abject lack of logic to your views;

          8. If anyone had any doubts that pepa was a nasty, dirty-minded troll here with the intent to insult, accuse, name call, and flame then then pepa’s comments here should finally convince you.

          9. He’s not just a troll, he’s also the kind that seeks to provoke a reaction. He doesn’t want debate, he wants dispute. If it’s not here, he strives to engineer it by using slurs or misrepresenting people’s word in order to make them respond. He reminds me of a very unhappy child.
            DON’T give him what he wants – ie attention and arguments.
            Ignore him.

          10. @Iris

            My only concern about not responding to Pepa is that whilst most contributors to PN are emotionally mature enough and aware enough to recognise the illegitimacy of most of what he says – if it is unchallenged some people may either out of ignorance or vulnerability accept what he is saying as true – and that thought horrifies me

  3. “I don’t have a homophobic bone in my body. I believe in ‘live and let live’.”

    Aye, right. His voting record on gay matters is appalling.

    1. Jock S. Trap 28 Jul 2011, 11:53am

      Yep, people who usually feel they have to justify themselves like that do tend to be the biggest hypocrites going.

      1. Or a closet case maybe.

        1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 8:05am


    2. Homophobia is fear of homosexuality and or homosexuals.

      Please give me an example of this MP being homophobic. I know that in the UK merely breathing is considered homophobic now.

      1. No, we just think he maybe protesting too much. Closet gays are like that.

      2. Homophobia can mean a fear of homosexuality or homosexuals. It can also relate to antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality – something which oozes from many of Mr Streeters public statements

  4. Gary Streeter is clearlty a bigot.

    Religious people have not been marginalised.

    They are simply required to obey equality legislation like the rest of us.

    1. Religious people have not been marginalised.

      May I suggest that you read a thread a few weeks back here on PN where the majority of the readers on here stated and agreed that religious people were “mentally retarded” and suffering from “mental illness” and were “child abusers” etc etc.

      Boy I must wonder what rock you must live under.

      1. Paddyswurds 29 Jul 2011, 8:55am

        ……are you saying that belief in an imaginary magic being who lives somewhere “up there” is rational or demonstrates mental stability? Seriously?
        However I have no problem letting those with these deluded beliefs get on with it so long as they don’t try using those same beliefs to circumvent the Law or to discriminate against me because I was born a certain way. If they do then they must be prepared for my wrath as well because that must surely be the result of such discrimination.

        1. “are you saying that belief in an imaginary magic being who lives somewhere “up there” is rational or demonstrates mental stability?”

          Not necessarily. Because in order to prove that god is imaginary you have to prove that he/she/it doesn’t exist, which of course is not possible.

          And also I think that believing in a higher power is a good thing, it means that a person has open mind and it just mere human curiosity.

          I view god like I how I view love, you cannot see love in a physical form in front of you or flying in the sky but it is very much real and most of us humans can feel it.

          I’ve also read an article not long ago about the CERN particle accelerator coming close to finding the “god particle.” It was quite interesting. See, I have an open mind. Though some of you paint me as a closed minded meany.

        2. However I have no problem letting those with these deluded beliefs get on with it

          No, I think you do have a problem. Which shows lack of tolerance, diversity and equality on your part. Wow, I’m starting to sound like a gay activist…

          If they do then they must be prepared for my wrath as well because that must surely be the result of such discrimination.

          Now here your not being genuine, you seem to despise discrimination yet you have no problem discriminating against people with different beliefs than yours.

      2. @ pepa: you might like to consider further in what real way religious people have been marginalised by the expression of opinions on Pink News threads.

  5. Is he going to be supporting marriage equality then or the rights of Christians to keep us “marginalised”?

    That’s assuming LF pulls her finger out ,either today or tomorrow , and keeps her promise of the consultation process starting in July..

    1. Dan Filson 28 Jul 2011, 2:24pm

      I thought the consultation on gay marriage had started – or perhaps Stonewall jumped the gun in sending in their views.

      1. Stonewall jumped the gun…..just ask the equalities office. I sincerely hope that there is a lot more noise than this if the consultation had started….

  6. Jock S. Trap 28 Jul 2011, 11:46am

    How do you defend giving priorty to a group that chooses beliefs that are crazy and discriminating and making them above the law?

    You don’t.

    There is no excuse for this motion, it is not needed nor necessary but surely just to give those poor hard done by Christian some news coverage… Yeah right!

    This motion = the collapse of discrimination laws and a whole lot of whoop-ass on Christian butt!

  7. THis subject is obviously getting a lot of coverage on here but I’ve not yet seen it register in any meaningful way in the mainstream media.

    Is this something that is going nowhere politically and it is just bigots trying to make a point? Or, is this something that could indeed be very dangerous to LGBT people?

    It certainly worries me a great deal but I am a bit clueless with politics so I don’t know if this is something that will very quickly die a political death.

    1. Most early day motions don’t go any further than a debate. They are purely a means to test parliamentary support for a particular cause and to draw attention to an issue.

      It looks like this motion has been introduced by a disgruntled religious MP, most likely in response to pressure from the likes of the Christian Institute. It’s most probably nothing more than hot air, but still a painful reminder that these bigots won’t give up.

    2. Strange that you should point that out.
      Usually the Daily Mail has noticed by now and is trying to rally people into a frenzy over anything to do with gay rights.
      Maybe they don’t want the attention with the Murdoch fiasco at the moment?

      1. Ooer missus 28 Jul 2011, 12:51pm

        Or maybe to do with the fact that Breivert quoted extensively from Melania Phillips’ column in his pamphlet, according to wikipaedia?

  8. OK so – someone is going to get “marginalised”. Should it be those who demonstrate an innate characteristic? Or those who make a conscious decision to follow a sect that believes in discrimination? It isn’t as simple as christian rights v gay rights when the christians THEMSELVES cannot agree what their collected campfire tales of bronze age nomads actually means. Those with innate characteristic come first, those who have made a conscious choice to treat their fellow human beings as second or lesser through no reason BUT choice need to sit down and be quiet.

  9. Religious people have not been marginalized…..Discriminatory and reckless behavior have been marginalized, like they should be.

    1. Absolutely, it’s the likes of Andrea Minichiello Williams at CLC that have been busy creating the fiction of marginalised Christians when all that has happened is that they are being treated like everyone else and asked to abide by equality legislation. Some Christians can’t get used to being treated as merely equal after years of special treatment and they are fighting tooth and nail to claw back privileged status for themselves, unfortunately privilege always comes at the expense of others.

  10. this isnt about freedom of religion it is about freedom of conscience.

    Is it reasonable to say that you cannot, in good conscience, serve a person who belongs to an organisation with a history of murder, torture, bigotry, slavery, genocide, protecting paedophiles etc etc. I think it is.

    While we are at it, is it reasonable to say that you cannot, in good conscience, help fund these organisations and their activities via your taxes. I think it is.

    Maybe its time someone started to kick up a fuss about these people sucking up public funds to support their bigotry.

    1. Robert J Brown 28 Jul 2011, 6:00pm

      Hey well whilst I was out and about yesterday I was stopped by a chugger.

      I explained that I will not be giving to any charities that are christian in ethos and allow the prosecution of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans community.

      They were a bit shocked and the other chuggers nearby were listening intently with one of them broadly smiling.

      With that response they really had nothing else to say to me.

  11. i tried to find out about this on his web site, but I couldnt find it.

  12. another one who thinks christianity is the victim due to the fact that bigotry, lies and intolerance is unacceptable these days

  13. over tolerant?

    I don’t want to be tolerated I want to be wholly accepted.

    Mr Streeter, my family has been in this country for aty least 1000 years. By your arguments, don’t I have the right to live my life without being discriminated against?

    1. exactly what I was thinking, well put Ian

    2. de Villiers 28 Jul 2011, 1:57pm

      Living here for one thousand years ought to make no difference. I’ve lived in London for no more than ten years. I would hope to have the same protection against discrimination.

    3. Robert J Brown 28 Jul 2011, 6:02pm

      Ian darling we KNOW you are over 1000 years old.

      Though you don’t look a day over 1050


      Don’t worry everyone as Ian and I have known each other for years.

  14. If this nonsense ever gets put into effect, I will be requesting service by a non-christian whenever possible, as I find them morally repuganant. It’s the exact same principal.

    1. Absolutely Ewan,this is exactly what needs to happen if this motion was even slightly considered.As this can be used completely against the bigits. Lets see how long it again takes for them to cry victim when people start refusing to serve them.

  15. Exactly and you will be quite entitled to do so. You will be exercising your right to freedom of conscience

    1. Indeed. I’d love to see the christian legal centre worm its way out of that on.

      And of course, it would be a f-cking tory that’s supporting this crap.You know, over the last decade, I’d say that’s the thing that’s annoyed me most about the raised profile of the BNP. It’s made it socially acceptable to be a tory.

      “Look, we’re not as bad as them!”

      Aye, you are.

  16. “at least three have withdrawn their names ….”.

    All 3 lib dems who signed this have withdrawn their signatures, 1 lab, 1 Alliance and 1 other I think?…why do the others stiil think that the Ladele case was not correct? The EDM may not result in anything but why should a pro gay/anti-discimination party like labour have any MP supporting the Ladele case and why wouldn’t they be writing to the EHRC to complain?

  17. If your beliefs are against equality for all you need a big rethink about your beliefs. It i9s possible to be a Christian and accept homosexuality as a natural thing thats not anti-biblical. Using ‘religious freedom’ is a red herring, its about being free to be a bigot.

    1. Well said!

    2. Absolutely.

      Christians can be tolerant and accepting of homosexuality. In the same way Christians can be tolerant and accepting of people of all races.

      My reading of history tells me that there were similar arguments in the past about acceptance of race equality in certain strands of Christianity.

      I have to say, I do urge a little caution, as some of the anti religious rhetoric on this site can sometimes appear to be reactionary and as prejudiced (on anti religious grounds) as some of the hyperbole from those justifying their anti LGBT rhetoric on faith grounds. It does nothing to advance our cause to be bigoted on the opposing edge of the spectrum.

  18. From The Christian Institute website:
    (is it true? anyone know?)

    “According to a prominent homosexual news website the Labour MP (John McDonnell) has now tabled an amendment to the motion claiming that the EHRC should “ensure that religious belief cannot be used as an excuse for discrimination”.

    The amendment also claims that two of the religious liberty cases which the EHRC intends to intervene on are “not legitimate”. (Ladele & McFarlane)

    Liberal Democrat MPs Mike Hancock and John Hemming have both declared their intention to remove their names from the EDM.”

    1. 20 originally signed the EDM (not 19). All 3 lib dems have said they are going to remove their signature, 1 alliance, 1 lab and 1 other I think ie at least 6 so far.

      EDM 2109 set up by lib dem Julian Huppert “…notes that the Supreme Court has not found any evidence of discrimination against Christians by the operation of equality laws in the workplace; recognises the importance of the Ladele judgment …”

      Mcdonnel apparently has …”Now he has tabled an amendment to the original EDM saying that the cases involving that wretched registrar from Camden and the homophobic relationship counsellor from Bristol are ‘not legitimate’ and that the EHRC must ‘ensure that religious belief cannot be used as an excuse for discrimination.’

      1. Thanks John, I ceratinly hope John McDonnell’s amendment is accepted, as it should be.

        1. Dan Filson 28 Jul 2011, 2:30pm

          It seems from what scraps I read here to strike the right balance between universal rights and the rights of people with faiths, the principle being that the exercise of one person’s faith should not harm others.

          1. I think you’ve finally got it Dan

          2. That is definitely the key principle that we should seek to assert ensuring that freedom to believe does not impinge on others freedoms. Lets learn from Norway who have said that nothing should prevent people holding extreme views, but that using such views to justify violence and horror is not acceptable in a true democracy

  19. John, I doubt if Streeter supports marriage equality especially since he’s defending the right of religious people to discriminate.

    If the EHRC wants to adjust the law, then we too should be given the right to discriminate against some religious people, villify and denigrate them just as they do us with impunity, just to level the playing field, and of course, based on OUR beliefs about them.

  20. Streeter is bigotted scum.

    The Law and Justice Tories need to sack him. The BNP is more his type of party, considering his horrific bigotry.

    The Law and Justice Tories need to exercise the party whip against moronic bigots like this odiously discriminatory MP.

    1. de Villiers 28 Jul 2011, 2:05pm

      That comment is stupid. It fails to recognise the danger that is the BNP and minimises its true agenda and politics. It is you, SteveC, that is in danger of being a bigot by making such bigoted statements about the Conservative party which is by European standards a very moderate party and which is to the left of the American Democrat party on most gay-rights issues.
      Although we all disagree with the immediate motion, it calls neither for discrimination against gay people not for them to be refused equal services rather than allowing religious people to abstain from being the service provider.
      That in itself is objectionable, but to equate the calling for an exemption for individual persons to be service providers with BNP policy which until recently, do not forget, called for the criminalisation of homosexuality and which now asserts that homosexuality is something that should take place in private and behind closed doors is extreme and blind.

      1. Dan Filson 28 Jul 2011, 2:32pm

        The Tory Party “to the left of the American Democrat party on most gay-rights issues” Wow, that’s a bold boast. Let’s have some instances?

        1. I wouldn’t say that bold, all politics in America is right wing just to varying degrees.

        2. de Villiers 28 Jul 2011, 6:11pm

          There is no way that the leader of the Democrat Party or Barack Obama before he became President would have addressed a Democratic Convention stating that family is equal whether it is a man and woman, two women or two men as did David Cameron to the Conservative Party.

      2. Streeter’s voting record is clearly homophobic.

        The BNP is a racist party.

        Streeter is a homophobe. I therefore regard them as being similar toi each other.

        Left to his own devices a grotesque bigot like Streeter would do to us, what the BNP want to do to black or muslim people in Britain.

        That is patently obvious when looking at Streeter’s record.

        Homophobia should be regarded as seriously as racism.

        Don’t criticise me for the fact that it is not.

        1. de Villiers 28 Jul 2011, 6:09pm

          > Streeter’s voting record is clearly homophobic. The BNP is a racist party. Streeter is a homophobe. I therefore regard them as being similar toi each other.
          That is very poor logic.

          1. How is it poor logic?

          2. de Villiers 28 Jul 2011, 8:43pm

            It is subjective and a non-sequitur.

  21. “We’ve been overly tolerant of certain groups.”

    Yes. CHRISTIANS primarily.

    This is what happens when you give one group, like Christians, or White people or men, special privileges and full run of the show for hundreds of years. When you finally start demanding that they have the same restrictions and demand that they abide by the same rules as everyone else, they scream FOUL, DISCRIMINATION, PERSECUTION, we’re having our traditional rights taken away.

    Well yes, because your “traditional rights” were always special rights only given to you and were always unjust.

    Welcome to the real world!

  22. Gavin Renwick 28 Jul 2011, 1:28pm

    The views expressed by Mr Streeter are entirely his own and do not represent those of the people of West Devon, the Church of England (that has homosexual priests and bishops) or any decent human being in the modern world.

    1. de Villiers 28 Jul 2011, 2:15pm

      Mr Streeter’s comments are, at best, misguided. However, to describe him as someone that lies outside of decent human beings is nearly as extreme as SteveC’s point above. It also reveals the view that you consider yourself entitled to define for all of us what is the meaning of a decent person in the whole of the modern world.
      This MP has not even called for the repeal of anti-discrimination laws that protect gay people – rather that religious people not to be the persons that provide the service. That, in itself, is nearly as objectionable as suggesting that people ought to be permitted to refuse to provide services on the grounds that the consumer is black or poor, although from reading this board, some might want to deny services to those who are Muslim, posh or Tory.
      When something such as this happens, there is such an outpouring of cold hate from gay people that I really wonder how, if they had not been born gay, they would have behaved towards us.

      1. Dan Filson 28 Jul 2011, 2:35pm

        I agree we should be circumspect of whom we accuse of being bigots etc. and careful of the venom we utter. But it is fair comment to say someone is displaying signs of bigotry if they refuse to acknowledge the rights of loving people to form marriages for the rest of their lives and have conferred upon them the rights and responsibilities, no more and no less, that already accrue to married couples

        1. de Villiers 28 Jul 2011, 6:18pm

          Dan, you and I are clearly on different ends of the political spectrum and on many matters we may be unlikely to agree. I agree with you that we properly can say that persons display signs of bigotry or have made comments that are inappropriate on the grounds of race and/or sexuality. For me, however, that does not make them de facto bigots or racists. To say that they are is to ignore the range of different viewpoints and to fail to distinguish between those with whom it is worth engaging and those with whom it is not.
          In the same way that there are not pure Conservatives or pure Liberals but is a scale of politics, one can say the same in relation to those who hold far-right views. Regardless, I cannot agree that espousing views that are mildly bigoted in asking for religious persons to be exempted from providing services to gay people to be on a par with the far right and the FN.

        2. de Villiers 28 Jul 2011, 6:18pm

          sorry – in English, NF or BNP.

      2. Someone who is homophobic (like Streeter) SHOULD be viewed in the same manner as the BNP is.

        The BNP have modified their hate speech to appear more respectable.

        Bigots like Streeter have modified their hate speech as well.

        but don’;t kid yourself. Left to his own devices Streeter’s intentions towards LGBT people are as sinister as the BNP’s intentions towards black or muslim people.

        Or is it simply a matter that like the EHRC, you believe that homophobic bigotry should be acommodated in a manner that racist bigotry should not be.

        1. de Villiers 28 Jul 2011, 6:22pm

          Steve, I wonder what is the true ‘kidding myself’ – that Mr Streeter’s real and sinister desire is to treat us as the BNP would treat blacks or Muslim persons? If you re-read my posts above and on other articles, you will see that my position is not in support of the EHRC.

    2. No he doesn’t represent west devon. He is the elected representative of South West Devon.

  23. Given the number of people who’ve been e-mailing the MPs who signed the motion (including LGBT Lib Dems who contacted all our MPs asking them not to sign and to withdraw any existing signatures), I don’t think that the withdrawals can be necessarily credited to Stonewall and Peter Tatchell… there has been a big surge of feeling among LGBT people from all political backgrounds on this issue.

    1. Dan Filson 28 Jul 2011, 2:37pm

      I concur it is not all down to them though both Stonewall and Peter Tatchell can be very articulate and persuasive. Stonewall is very good at monitoring what goes on inside Westminster.

    2. @ Dave Page

      Do you know Lynne Featherstone’s position on the EHRC statement?

  24. Does this mean that Christians who strongly and sincerely believe that participating in interracial marriages will be allowed to opt out, and workplaces where a significant number of employees oppose equal rights for Roman Catholics will be able to discriminate against them? Or is this only about gays?

    1. Dan Filson 28 Jul 2011, 2:40pm

      I don’t follow your first point and suspect you omitted a negative somewhere. The law already covers the second point – it’s illegal to discriminate against someone in the provision of goods or services or in employment on the basis of faith.

      1. marjangles 28 Jul 2011, 2:59pm

        It is also illegal to discriminate against someone in the provision of goods and services or in employment on the basis of sexual orientation but the EHRC wants Christians to be able to opt out of this. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that if this concession is allowed for Christians in relation to gay people that other Christians or people of other faiths might try to do the same in respect of other religious denominations or in terms of those with no faith.

        1. Will christian registrars be allowed to opt out of performing civil marriages between Black people?

          The bible permits slavery after all and considering that the bible was used to justify slavery from Africa, surely a christian who believes the bible literally will be allowed to refuse to perform such ceremonies.

          After all if acommodations must be made for religious people in the performance of their jobs then the EHRC would support religious racism also.

  25. “There’s a lot of snarling anger if you do believe what the Bible says.”

    Maybe Christians should be suing Streeter for defamation?

    And have these people who “believe what the Bible says” read the Sermon on the Mount recently? Or did I miss the bit where Jesus says to turn the other cheek while snarling angrily?

  26. I would like to put a big motion on Mr Streeter’s parliamentary table.

  27. Hm, is considering whether to book an appointment at his next surgery to voice my outrage and absolute hatred for him.

    1. Do it.

      These bigotted scumbags must be called out on their bigotry.

      It’s time to start treating these homophobes in the same manner as we treat the BNP.

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 28 Jul 2011, 7:38pm

        Unfortunately you will need the Daily Mail, The Sun, The Guardian, The Telegraph, local rags etc etc, and lots of Politicians on your side to achieve that.

        Given that most of these businesses / politicians better themselves by denigrating minorities such as us, you will find it a hard slog.

        1. Not really, as hes my local MP I have every right to an appointment at his surgery no newspapers required. Why, oh why do I live in such a Tory stronghold!?

    2. Definitely do it!!!! Hope eveyone else has written to their own MPs asking them to write to the EHRC to defend the British court’s decision in both the gay cases..

  28. What I would be interested in, is how long the religious idiots take to want to bring back slavery, given that there is more exceptable reference to this then anything about gay people. I also would like to see how they would handle lesbians giving we’re not referred to in the bible at all. In fact gay men are condemned and the bible have many passages condemning hetero’s. Which obviously means God loves lesbains. Maybe I should start a bible organisation with a strap-on hanging of a cross,as we are his favourates :)

    1. I’m afraid even lesbians are singled out in Romans 1:26 “…Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.”

      1. That refers to straight women having gay sex and vice versa. The correct translation is “against their nature” NOT ‘against Nature’
        (not having a go at you – it’s a common misconception and very widely heard, and it pisses me off every time)

  29. Rev Jim Brooking 28 Jul 2011, 6:20pm

    Christians have for a very long time imposed their moral standards on others who have had no recourse or voice to respond back. They are very happle to trample on the rights of others but squeel loudly when they receive treatment in kind. Where will this end? What if they do not support inter-racial marriage or believe that divorced people committ adultry when they remarry? If they work serving the public then they must serve all the “public” or find another job.

  30. Re man is q clear homophobe and needs to consider his position. His jaded views clearly stop him from accurately representing those of his constituents.

    He and those like him are a disgrace. Religion is something you choose your sexuality isn’t. Religion says only the deity may judge and humans do not have the rightto judge their creaked creations and should live and let live.

    Sadly religious people ignore this universal fact. So why should they be given protection above others ?

    It’s simple homophobia and nothing more.

    Pathetic man.

  31. Rich (original) 28 Jul 2011, 6:35pm


  32. I’ve been reading all this for days and quietly smiling to myself. The easy answer for all those ‘Christinas’ who object to serving all of us good folk is fairly simple – in my humble view.

    If they are as devout as they claim to be, and are a ‘good Christian’ who believes in the Bible as the implicit word of God, then they really ought to follow everything the book says. This being the case they should follow everything as laid down in Romans 13:1-7 – if they were to do that all our problems over this issue are solved.

    The key part of this is “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

    Simple really – God put the government there to write the laws, so therefore they must follow them.

  33. Mr Streeter speaks of his right to be a Christian in his own country, do non Christians have less of a stake in this country than he? Does he only represent his constituents if they are Christian?
    I might also add that I believe Mr Streeter is wrong to assert that religion has ANY place in public services or society other than in places of worship attended by those who choose to visit them. In all other areas of society, religion should be kept out. It is not for any public servant to deny a service to the public based on their faith, where they do, then all possible steps to performance manage them should be taken- should that include removal from post then so be it. Mr Streeter is failing in his role as an MP as he is imposing his views upon his constituents and the wider public. He should be removed from his post. Simple.

  34. And the silence from Angela Mason becomes deafening.

    Does she support the position now held by the EHRC quango?

    If so she supports the ‘right’ of people to engage in homophobic discrimination.

    She’s a disgrace to her community.

  35. Erica Cart-Horse, QC 29 Jul 2011, 1:29am

    From Andrea Williams on the CLC/Christian Concern website re the New York marriage law:

    ““Unfortunately, when the Government uses legislation to try and re-define marriage – as in New York – Christians are excluded from certain areas of public life and people like Mrs. Fotusky suffer as a result.
    “We have seen similar situations in the UK and will continue to do so across the West until people realise how dangerous equality laws are and how important freedom of belief is for a healthy society. When homosexual relationships are normalised and promoted by Governments then civil liberties end up being deeply curtailed.””

  36. the commission says there should be ‘compromises’ and ‘accommodations’ for these employees, such as allowing them to swap shifts to avoid having to deal with gay people. to avoid having to deal with gay people. to avoid having to deal with gay people. to avoid having to deal with gay people. to avoid having to deal with gay people. to avoid having to deal with gay people.

    1. Erica Cart-Horse, QC 29 Jul 2011, 10:22am

      Good emphasis pavlos. Let me repeat also point out again what the Christian Legal Centre’s real agenda revealed by the following statement:

      ” When homosexual relationships are normalised and promoted by Governments then civil liberties end up being deeply curtailed. ”

      They clearly oppose any acceptance of gay relationships by the state as it interferes with their claimed right to discriminate.

  37. ” I don’t have a homophobic bone in my body” well his voting record seems to be against equality legislation!

  38. Rich (original) 29 Jul 2011, 12:11pm

    Gary Streeter is Good Man! Congrats!

    1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 2:16pm

      Haven’t you got a busy freeway to play on?

      1. He can’t drag himself away from all the gay porn on the internet, Jock.

        1. Jock S. Trap 4 Aug 2011, 10:44am

          I know, didn’t his mother ever tell him he’ll go blind…

  39. les pilgrim 29 Jul 2011, 12:12pm

    Why is it bigots use the cloak of religion to express their views.The Bible is full of double standards and open to all sorts of interpretation,but the bottem line is if there are people who do not wish to offer goods and services to gay people then the same should apply in reverse but is that is not a society we should be looking to create.

  40. Does anyone know who the three MPs who have withdrawnt heir support are?

  41. Everybody knows what the 2.5 Billion Christians beliefs are, hate for gays and Muslims and anybody who is not Christian. The Gays need protection as a minority and need protection from hate and destruction openly and in hidden ways by the Christians who have proved in Norway that they can go insane and kill innocent people in the name of the Christian religion. It is nobodies business what sexual orientation a person chooses and how they want to love and who they want to love. Get the Christian out of our bed rooms and love life, the Christians have no business there and need to be kicked out once and for all. Stop forcing you beliefs on people who don’t need or want them.

  42. Don Harrison 30 Jul 2011, 12:46am

    It stinks just like Clause 28

  43. Don Harrison 4 Aug 2011, 6:21pm

    More and more MPs realised what a poisonous EDM Streeter had introduced and have withdrawn there support.

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.