Reader comments · Parliament inquiry to be held on religious rights · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Parliament inquiry to be held on religious rights

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. so lets ignore the fear that homosexuals face from bigots because they choose to believe an interpretation of some book

    1. “Mr Streeter, speaking to the Guardian earlier this month, said there was a “fear” among Christians about their rights to express their beliefs.”

      Actually they not only want to express their beliefs but to manifest them also especially in the recent test cases involving blatant discrimination against gay men and lesbian women in the provision of goods and services.

      “He (Mr Streeter) said: “That fear is growing, that voice is growing. There is a particular problem. In the last 12 months, we have had legal cases that provoked concern. These now need to be tackled.”

      A fear enitrely fabricated and stoked up by the Christian Legal Centre, Christian Voice and the Christian Institute, the cases involving anti-gay discrimination that these groups have unsuccessfully defended in court in some instances repeatedly and that have already been found to be without , they do not require further consideration, they have been dealt with fairly and adequately.

      1. Typo last paragraph, should read “found to be without merit”

        1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 3:19pm

          Here! Here! Pavlos, well said!

          Totally agree. The Christian Legal Centre, Christian Voice and the Christian Institute are just trying to whip up hysteria to suit their own ends, not gains. Trouble is they end up making themselves look like the fruitloops they are so here’s hoping no-one actually takes them seriously enough.

          However I hope they are prepared for the consequences though if they do get this anywhere.

      2. What you fail to understand is that all of this bru-haha could have been avoided if instead of preaching “equality” we would just advocate gay acceptance… but nooo… you had to do the equality high ground and now you are pissed off because christians are doing the same thing you are doing. And by denying them this opportunity you are therefore denying them their equal rights as well under the guise of “runaway equality” that gay activists proclaim.

        I would go further and say that this is the making of your own doing. You made your bed and now you have to lie on it. Tough cookies.

        By now if I were you would be the first one to denounce equality. There are things that are definitely not equal (majorities as in straight christians, and minorities as in gays are NOT equal nor the same thing).

        1. idiot.

          1. As a gay man I hereby denounce equality, like this man recommends… and on that basis… I also suggest we delete his post as he is Christian and now equality doesn’t exist so we can do these things!!! Yay!!! Non equality rules!!! (note the sarcasm and joking tone from my comment for anyone who thinks I might actually be being genuine for a moment there)

        2. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 10:58am

          I would say mind you don’t blow your brains out but I see someone already has!

        3. Equalities are not about democracy (although respecting and ensuring they are respected is a cornerstone of a reputable and established democracy).

          No one on here has suggested that gays are a majority – merely that there is no reason that gay people should not be treated equally and appropriately as human beings (in a similar way to which heterosexual Christians are … if one has to choose a minority to compare with) …

          Yes, a minority – the number of Christians in the UK is in steady decline ….

          1. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 12:54pm

            WooHoo – Amen to that!! :)

          2. you didn’t read my comment correctly stu,

            I’m saying that being gay is NOT equal to be being a straight christian, so WHY do they have to be treated equally? Sure we are all humans, but as humans were DIFFERENT, as in gays have sex with members of their own sex and straights with members of the opposite sex as well as other varying differences. Some straights who are christians view homosexuality differently, mostly in a negative way… so why again do YOU want them to be equally the same?

            If you want gays to be accepted everywhere even in people’s homes as B&B’s then fine, make a law that states that. But don’t make a fool out of yourself and Jockstrap pretending you are for equality for all when clearly you are NOT. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

          3. @Pepa

            Perhaps you didnt like my comments, but the reality is that I did read your comment fully, and I believe I fully and completely understood it. I agree all human beings are different, some of those differences include faith differences, sexuality differences, ability or not to reason an argument, standards of what is acceptable or not, sense of humour, political views, tastes in food etc etc. Nonetheless we are all humans and all deserve equality. That does not mean that we should be treated identically. It means each indiivdual should be afforded the same level of respect and value as another. The suggestions of this EDM (and a lot of your personal hyperbole) is that Christians are of more value than others. If you don’t intend saying this and you are being misinterpreted – can I suggest you find find some more clarity in what you say.

        4. I agree with you pepa

        5. YAWN! Go away you troll!

      3. The other point that needs to be made is that why do want to give any business to christians who are homophobic? Why do you want to give them your money and force them to do business with you knowing that that money might likely be sent to the “Christian” Institute and et al?

        If they don’t want to give us “goods and services” so what? Do we actually need to give them our business. Besides when you look at it, it is THEY that needs our business not the other way around as there are substantial places that gay people are accepted and even encouraged to patronize.

        As far as the registrars not wanting to “officiate” civil “partnerships” again so what? All you are doing by fighting this is actually validating any prejudices they have about gay people. There are plenty of registrars that would be happy do validate your “partnership” and recognize your corporation. Just because a couple of defectors do not want to preform CPs is not the end of the world.

        1. @Pepe
          You are missing the point.
          Moreover, If you take your argument to the nth degree, then the “Christian doctor specialist” would be allowed to refuse LGBT people medical treatment.
          In this situation, is it morally justifable that a situation might be allowed to emerge in which an LGBT has no alternative medical specialist to turn to?

        2. Pepa wrote
          “I’m saying that being gay is NOT equal to be being a straight christian, so WHY do they have to be treated equally?”
          Why do you want to be a second class citizen?

          1. Look like pepa is muddling up ‘equal’ with ‘the same’. Or else he’s advocating the right to discriminate (for everyone, not just Christians).

        3. pepa, are you gay? because the way you write on here, you’re not. In which case, why do you keep referring to ‘us’ as if you were gay?

          Which of the 10 commandments says ‘thou shalt not be gay’?
          Where does Jesus slip in a bit about being vile to gay people when He says treat you neighbour as yourself?
          Get real, the 7 out of 1,000,000 verses in the bible that mention same sex intercourse are not going on about what we know as gay adult sex. The many more verses denigrating divorced people remarrying are all about straight people! Hello? Anybody in there?
          You use a pitiful amount of misinformation to spread your vile and putrid hatred of other people because you’re scared of your own sexuality.

  2. Jennie Kermode 29 Jul 2011, 11:24am

    There are actually only four cases under consideration here.

    Some MPs who signed the Early Day Motion calling for this discussion have since retracted their names, saying that they were misled by its wording and hadn’t understood what its consequences might be for lgbt people.

    1. No Jennie you’re wrong about this only concerning the 4 cases that are currently going to Europe, there is nothing in what Gary Streeter is saying that restricts the inquiry to those 4.

      Obviously some of these extreme “christians” would roll back all our rights if they could and put us back pre-1967; plainly they will start little by little and try toappear very reasonable but if they get away with one thing then they’ll move on to the next and then the next

      1. “Obviously some of these extreme “gays” would roll back all our Christian beliefs and rights if they could …”

        You see, it works both ways. Whatever we may think of Christians, we have now ridden roughshod over their beliefs – however intolerant they may be of us as people – enshrined over centuries. There needs to be a fairer balance that takes both opposing viewpoints into consideration. At the moment it has become way too one-sided way too quickly if considered objectively and with a fair and open mind. Our open and vitriolic persecution of Christianity today is verging on the intolerance we ourselves have suffered from. Playing fire with fire is not the way forward. We need to recognise that they are not simply going to disappear but that we must, in a free and open society, live alongside those whose views do not correspond with our own. Policing them and criminalising them into silence makes us no better than our agitators. It is police state totalitarianism, period.

        1. Are you saying society should listen to and consider racist views as well, if they’re being justified as religious?

          1. That’s what the islamists want…

        2. Religious people are not being ‘persecuted’ as you say.

          That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

          They are free to believe whatever they like.

          However in matters of employment they are required by law to obey the law.

          The law states that it is illegal to discrminate against someone based on their sexual orientation.

          Therefore if a christian registrar refuses to carry out his job because of his homophobia he needs to be reprimanded.

          Likewise a hotel owner who is providing goods and services to the public cannot discriminate because ot their religious homophobia.

          Religious belief is freely chosen. These ‘accommodations’ being requested by religious people are merely requests to dismantle our equality legislation.

          It must be fought tooth and nail.

          People’s freely chosen, voluntary religious belief must NEVER be an excuse to be allowed to be a bigot.

          And the EHRC has betrayed its charter to defend human rights.

          It should be closed.

          1. It is ridiculous that the Christians are now whining about being “persecuted”. If they couldn’t have worship services, or their chidren were being taken away from them, etc., THAT would be persecution. They’re upset that they are now supposed to treat GLBT people the same as straights.

            They can believe whatever sort of twaddle they wish, but when they want to use that belief to trample on the rights of others, that belief must not be allowed to be used as a basis for bigotry.

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

          Samuel B

          No it doesn’t work both ways actually!

          You lot just don’t get it do you.

          The Equality Bill is there for Everyone to be treated Equality whether Gay, Straight, Lesbian, Christian.

          The LGBTQ community aren’t fighting for more or better treatment just the same but Christians here however are fighting to be above the law, asking in effect to be treated differently, above Equality.

          So, no, switching Christians for Gay most certainly does Not work because it is not us asking for preferential treatment it is these extremist Christians.

          Nobody has run ‘roughshod’ over anybody. Again Christians want to be treated above the law, above Equality.

          This, if it comes in, will come at a price and one almighty backlash which will leave all Christians, including sadly, those who disagree with the extremist Christian groups worse than they could ever have imagined.

        4. Samuel B wrote
          “You see, it works both ways. Whatever we may think of Christians, we have now ridden roughshod over their beliefs – however intolerant they may be of us as people – enshrined over centuries.”
          Samuel, there are many Christian beliefs as there are branches of Christianity, but the central belief which appears to link all Christian Churches is the belief in Christs Divinity or importance as a spirtual teacher.
          Samuel in what way are LGBT people a threat to this what one might call a core Christian belief?.
          Samuel, where in the Bible does Christ say homosexuals are to be actively discriminated against in terms of good and services?

        5. What are these beliefs we ‘ride roughshod’ over? Let’s see…

          That the Earth was given to chosen men, setting them to rule over beast, woman and child, with the duty to torture, mutilate, burn, rape, disembowel, dismember, stone to death any who do not respect their gods’ will;
          that they may conduct systematic genocide of those who do not submit to their god… and all in the name of Divine Love!!!

          These men alone, repositories of all godly knowledge, may interpret the will of these invisible gods: that young women must marry old men; that the best land be given to them.

          FYI, Sam:

          When water has failed, ONLY fire can fight fire.

          These people would have killed us and in some Countries still do.

          Their beliefs are death, hate, violence, blood, money, power.

          Hilariously, the Hindus would say this is Karma.

          Muslims might say: ‘Ma’ achtoob!’: “It is written”

          Religion is a form of terrorism of the soul, the body and the mind.

          I say: outlaw ALL religion NOW!


        6. Homophobia is not enshrined in Biblical law.
          Paedophilia and gang rape is however.
          David and Solomon had a close and intimate relationship, and David (who is at the head of Jesus’ human line) was gay.
          Get over it, Samuel B.
          God made me the way I am. I didn’t choose it. I do choose to believe in a loving and forgiving Father who loves me for being the loving caring gay person I am.

      2. Here is a rogues gallery of most of the recnt cases the CLC have represented. and involving blatant anti-gay prejudice & discrimination
        *Eunice & Owen Johns
        (foster carers who said they would try to turn a gay child straight)
        *Lesley Pilkington
        (who quotes junk research from anti-gay NARTH to justify her dangerous and useless “gay cure therapy”)
        *Gary McFarlane
        (sex counseller who clearly has no understanding of human sexuality and bases his counselling and conduct on anti-gay religious ideology rather than sound research)
        *Dr Sheila Matthews
        (unpaid position as advisor on an adoption panel who was unable to recommend same sex couples as suitable adoptive parents citing unspecified “lots of research” that supposedly backed up her anti-gay opinions.)
        *Kwabena Peat,
        (I am unfamiliar with his case , a teacher, he appears to have strongly objected to homosexual rights material used on a staff training day)
        *Theresa Davies,
        ( Lillian Ladele copycat)

        1. Cont’d:

          Andrew McClintock.
          (Christian magistrate siting on an adoption panel who believed homosexuals unsuitable to care for children and for that reason did not want to deal with their cases.)

          1. At the Christian Institute
            Peter and Hazelmary Bull are still being presented as Christian martyrs after being prosecuted and found guilty of discrimination for refusing to let a pre-booked double-room to a mature same sex couple in a civil partnership and who were turned away by the Bulls.

          2. *Lillian Ladele
            ( Ms Ladele, registrar who refused to do her job and would not provide a public service for same sex couples at their civil parnership ceremony’s, Ms Ladele claimed that her rights had been “trampled” by gay couples because she was not permitted to discriminate against them in this way.)

          3. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 1:22pm

            If I may Pavlos Ex government drug adviser GP Hans-Christian Raabe who co-authored study linking homosexuality to paedophilia and other barbaric views in which he lied to his employer about.

          4. Yes JST, thanks for adding Hans Christian Raabe. Obviously this list isn’t exhaustive but these are some of the recent cases that have clearly involved blatant anti-gay discrimination and that might yet resurface.

      3. Paddyswurds 30 Jul 2011, 10:54am

        I assume that Streeter isn’t happy in Parliament. If I were he I wouldn’t spend any money tarting up my office. He won’t be needing it after the next Election as he will be joining the dole queue hopefully along with the rest of the Law and Justice Tories and their ass lick Lib Dem cronies..

        1. That’s all very well Paddy dear, but there are more Labour MPs still on the list of supporters of Streeters EDM than any other single party.
          Who’s that lovely gay MP who occasionally goes on Have I Got News For You? He’s a Tory!

    2. As many on here will know from my previous postings, I believe very strongly in those who have faith having rights including those from freedom of religion. I do not feel it is incompatible for those who exercise their freedom of religion to be expected to comply with human rights legislation and fairness and equality by respecting the rights of others (whether gay or not) to have equal access to services, to be treated fairly, equally and honestly and to receive the same level of decency and humanity that those with faith wopuld expect to receive from a gay businessness offering services.
      I am aware that a number of the MPs who signed the EDM were not given the full information in terms of implications of the EDM and have now withdrawn their support.
      I find it hugely concerning that some extremist Christians in the UK feel it is justified to allow them to amend the law to enable them to legally discriminate against LGBT people in terms of service provision.

      1. We supposedly live in a democracy, which means fairness and equality.
        Its telling that such fundamentalist Christians feel these actions are legitimate, yet in a country facing horrific horrendous attacks by a man purporting to be a Christian fundamentalist the response of the government has been to seek more democracy – not draconian, backward restrictive legislation that legitimizes prejudice and hatred.
        We should relish the rights of people to have freedom of religion in this country – they should relish the fact that the freedoms we have ensure that all are seen equally, fairly and without prejudice. If they do not relish that, it speaks volumes of their intent.

        1. Paddyswurds 30 Jul 2011, 11:10am

          Hopefully this clamour to be able to discriminate by religious fantasists will spell the death knell for their deluded fiction. It is 2011 and time to consign this shyte to the dustbin of history where it belongs. Many people are beginning to think this way and the religious freaks are not helping themselves and for that I am very glad. Here in ireland we have particular reason to want rid of this parasitic nonsense as those who claim to be above all of us and be holier than holy have sexually and physically abused the children of Ireland for centuries.Every month we are more and more shocked by the deparvity of the so called clerics of Christianity who lorded it over us for so long, only for us to discover that the Emperor had no clothes!
          Religion has contributed little to the advancement of man except maybe to curtail the world population by all the death an destruction caused in the name of Religion.
          The end is nigh for this nonsense and yesterday wouldn’t be a moment too soon.

          1. @Paddyswurds

            Whilst I agree with some of what you say. I do think there is little (if any) evidence to substantiate the core principles of the Christian (or other religious) ideologies.

            However, I passionately believe in the right for people to believe whatever they believe in. Be that a religious, political or ideological basis. When actions carried out in conenction with those beliefs impinge on others either in terms of restricting others freedoms and rights or in terms of actual harm then that is wrong.

            You are entitled to your belief that it is time for religion to go. Its a fruitless hope for you I am afraid – there will ALWAYS I suspect be those who have relgiious faith of one sort or another. Depending how you pursue your belief that religion should end, then your actions could be discriminatory and damaging and detrimental to true democracy.

            I support the rights of people to hold views which we believe to be unpalatable but not to act on them.

          2. Paddyswurds 30 Jul 2011, 6:19pm

            …..I agree that perhaps it will take a long time to eradicate this nonsense, but it would be easy enough to require that it be totally a private matter until such time as it is no more and is seen as a curious human notion akin to witchcraft or dare I venture cannabalism. It certainly does seem to have a pathelogical need to impinge on the rights of others and as such has NO place in modern society and thankfully this notion is becoming main stream rather more rapidly, in the west anyway, than would heretofore been imagined.
            I note that you didn’t disagree as to the detrimental effect faith in general has had on the progress of man, altho i would cede that perhaps renaissance Christianity may have had some influence on western culture, but that influence is now long since dead

          3. @Paddyswurds

            I doubt it will ever be eradicated- you may hope that but the hope and “power” related to faith ideology will capture the imagination of many.

            I can not agree that it should be totally private because enforcing such legislation could lead to draconian measures by some in the future (whether intended by legislators or not) whereby public acts of worship, and discussion of faith matters between those who copnsent to hold such conversations were prohibited. That can not be right – eually, harassment by those of faith owards those who are not interetsed and do not wish to discuss or heckling in a public place should also be unacceptable

  3. Simple as this – Innate personal characteristic versus conscious choice. And even those who consciously choose to engage in discriminatory behaviour do not speak for everyone of their denomination. For example the very nature of “christian” is so diverse that it simply cannot be given protected. One christian might refuse to perform a CP, another might welcome you with open loving arms. BOTH are christians and there is no such thing as the “true” sort.

    1. Which is why I think this has nothing to do with their religious rites/rituals/beliefs or liturgy but just simple homophobia.

      If only gay activists can realize this and just respect christian’s religious beliefs a lot can be done.

      1. Poor deluded troll.

        1. LOL… poor you who can’t even pass gay marriage whenever it is voted upon by voters.
          Poor you that now you have to give equal rights to homophobic christians thanks to your persistence on equality for all. Poor you who support politicians like Obama who are against gay marriage, poor you who refuse to take on the murderous homophobia of islamofascists, poor you who wants to sexualize children and make them sing sexually motivated lyrics in operas, poor you indeed…

          I think “deluded” really applies to those who fail to see the error of their own ways and their utter hypocrisy.

          1. Poor you, I’d say, who have to troll the web to get any kicks… while others debate, you slaver…


            You are so clearly BNPutrid!

      2. Which ones are they this time gay activists, gay sex activists or Kool-Aid drinkers … or rapists ….

        You seem to fabricate different labels to mean the same thing, nothing …

        1. I mean gay people like you Stu… I never called you personally an outright rapist, but if you say you are, well that isn’t quite far fetched to me.

          1. And when I mean gay people like you and I don’t want to insult the general gay population as you and your ilk only represent a very very very small minority of loud whiny bigoted gay activists, gay sex activists, child rapists, kool-aid drinkers, or whatever suits you… for me any would do.

          2. @Pepa
            If you dislike LGBT people so much, why do you post frequently on PinkNews?

          3. Jock S. Trap 31 Jul 2011, 11:50am

            Me thinks to satisfy his own closeted feelings, JohnK.

          4. I love the way pepa seems to ‘know’ us all. He assumes everyone who posts here is liberal/Kool Aid drinker/blah blah yet – miraculously – he excludes himself from that.
            Presumably that’s because he’s ‘the only one who knows the truth’ – about governments, about religions, about you, about me, about, well, everything in the whole wide world, it seems. And when he’s corrected, when he makes factula errors or incorrect assumptions, he refuses to accept the truth and uses that as ‘evidence’ of his being right, of him being the sole purveyor of The Truth.
            You might not be religious, pepa, but you certainly seem to be in thrall to a dogma every bit as strong, and a worrying paranoia.
            Sad – geuninely.

          5. Jock, Iris, very well summarised with regards Mr Pepa

          6. Pepa

            Wrong you specifically called me a rapist.

            Its in the historical threads on PN for all to see should they wish to and numerous others on PN were alarmed by your accusations without any reason or cause.

            I find your comments continuing to be offensive. I have not admitted to being a rapist because I am not one, and your suggestion that you find it “isn’t quite far fetched” that I may be a rapist is risible, arrogant and outrageous for someone who has no knowledge of my standards of propriety etc. As a survivor of rape – iot is one of the most hurtful attacks you could make to me, and I personally think your moral standards are such that you did that deliberately to hurt and offend me.

            If you are a so called Christian – I hope you look forward to judgement day for your standards of behaviour.

            You have been reported to PN

      3. pepa… you’re completely going against what you said earlier. Are you schizophrenic?
        Hilarious, I’ve not laughed ot one idiot so much in ages!

  4. Chris Hadfield 29 Jul 2011, 11:31am

    Under the law Christians have the same rights as anyone else. While I don’t agree with their views, i respect their rights to hold their views. However, this does not give them the right to withold services or promote bigoted hatred. Most Christians are hypocrites and do not follow Christ’s teachings. Christ never condemned homosexuality. In his life he met with prostitutes and sinners. Christ condemned the self righteous biggots. If Christ hadn’t resurrected he would be turning I’n his tomb at the actions of these so called followers

    1. mary libcke 29 Jul 2011, 12:40pm

      Actually, there are quite a few bible passages condemning homosexuality. According to Christ we are all sinners, even the most puritanical who has had lustful thoughts. Personally, I disagree with being told that i’m wrong for my personal life when there are plenty of others out there committing horrendous crimes. And the stupidity of the religious right just shows me who’s wrong.

      1. NONE of those six Bible verses that you reference come from the Gospels; NONE were said by Jesus. If people see Moses or Paul as the “Son of God” and want to worship them as their “Saviour” then let them call themselves what they are, Leviticans or Paulians, but if they want to call themselves CHRISTIANS then let them follow the teachings and examples of the CHRIST.

        1. Agreed.
          I dislike Paul’s letters with a vengeance. He’s a homophobic misogynist. As a woman, I’ve always objected to huge tracts of his writings, as a fag-hag I’ve objected to further tracts, and then on coming out as gay myself, I’ve found nothing has changed and I find him totally objectionable.

      2. Untrue, there are no Bible passages condemning homosexuality, homosexuality is nowhere clearly described in scripture. go back to the source and you will find nothing condemning homosexuality per se.
        You will find references to wrong forms of worship that included various ritual sexual activities that no longer exist today, these condemned as the wrong kind of worship (in Leviticus and in Romans). Elsewhere in the Bible things quite other than Homosexuality are condemned thoiugh are commonly wrongly attributed as condemned homosexual practice.
        Scripture does not support anti-gay Christian homophobia, only mistaken Christian tradition does.

        1. Pavlos

          I entirely agree there are no Biblical passages that condemn homosexuality.
          There are passages which may be used to criticise certain sexual behaviour eg sex outside of marriage or promiscuity (but that could be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual …).
          The Bible is very clear about not being judgemental, about welcoming others regardless of who they are or where they are from, hospitality, acceptance and tolerance – strangely none of these values seems to emulate the homophobia that some Christians seem is acceptable

          1. This has long been my understanding: that what is described is:
            1) being on the down-low
            2) various sexual practices connected with Pagan religious rites

            Nowhere does it look as if the authors are fulminating against loving same sex relationships (in fact some feel the story of the Centurion and his servant is one of two men who were in a gay relationship).

            And the bottom line is that Jesus never said ANYTHING about homosexuality.

      3. No, Mary, there are NO bible passages condemning homosexuality, only SPECIFIC practices eg temple se. To say that that somehow means god doesn’t like gay people at all is as daft as me suggesting that the Commandment banning adultery means god hates all straight people.

      4. @Mary,
        Interestingly, there are no Bible passages which refer to Christ ministry whereby he advocates the demonisation, discrimination or differential treatment of homosexuals compared with heterosexuals!

    2. mary libcke 29 Jul 2011, 8:17pm

      Oh, i must have read the wrong bible!

      1. @Mary, perhaps you would like to quote from your bible where Jesus condenms LGBT people!!!

        1. mary libcke 29 Jul 2011, 11:19pm

          Sarcasm was intended there. And it’s not MY bible either.

          1. Paddyswurds 30 Jul 2011, 11:20am

            …..yes mary, and sarcasm is the last refuge of the ignorant…….

      2. O rmaybe you just were drip fed a bigoted interpretation of it that has been shown by scholars to be totally wrong, Mary

  5. Gary Streeter is scum who needs to be fired from the Tory Party. He is more suited to be an MP for the BNP considering his bigotry.

    The idea that homophobic religious people should be exempt from equality legislation in the provision of goods and services to LGBT people is dangerous and abhorrent.

    If you are employed to do a certain job where the job requires you to perform certain duties, then the idea that your religion can exempt you from performing certain tasks is offensive and vaguely lunatic.

    The EHRC also needs to be shut down immediately.

    The legitimacy the EHRC is giving to homophobic bigotry is shameful and disgusting.

    The fact that Amgela Mason remains part of the bigotted quango shows her lack of integrity.

    1. Unfortunately your OTT bile reduces the strength of your third paragraph.

    2. Yet another pot shot at the EHRC and Angela Mason – who you could not spell correctly. Quite idiotic. Angela Mason did far more for LGB rights when at Stonewall than you ever will do in your lifetime, and the EHRC, for all its fault (which are numerous, not least its leadership), still does a stirling job under considerable fire.

      1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 12:25pm

        But we know what SteveC was saying Dan, so we all make mistakes, me more than most but so long as people get what the person is trying to say who cares? we’re all human after all. Lets not get all Paddys…on anyones ass by pointing out meaningless errors just to score points when you clearly have other things to say.

        Which makes a change for those who just use it coz they’ve got nothing to say.

        The fact remains Angela Mason is treading on thin ice by her silence when she should be speaking out.

        1. It is completely wrong to keep sniping at a single EHRC Commissioner when they operate as a body with collective decision-making.

          1. It doesn’t appear that they did act collectively in this instance, as the Board were not even informed of the decision according to an earlier PN report. Why not?

          2. It is perfectly acceptable to snipe at a lesbian EHRC Commissioner who is willingly betraying the LGBT community through her employment at a quango which wants to dismantle Britain’s equality legislation,

            She is a disgrace to our community.

          3. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 1:26pm

            But Dan, she is their in OUR interests.

            She should be piping up, she must know this is causing worry and unease within our community so she should be speaking out.

          4. Ok what we need to do is two things … target the entire EHRC as a body and condemn it for its arrogant and reprehensible actions which regress LGBT rights further than any of the advances of the last decade AND seek clarification of what Angela Masons personal views on this policy is. She was elected as a commissioner to represent all diversity strands but due to her LGBT experience – this is a matter with LGBT implications – what is her view, that is a reasonable question

      2. Angela Mason’s past achievements are 1 thing.

        She now works for a quango – the EHRC – which is assisting in the attempt to dismantle Britain’s equality legislation.

        I’m judging her on that.

        And she deserves loud condemnation for her willing betrayal of the LGBT population.

        1. de Villiers 31 Jul 2011, 9:30am

          > I’m judging her on that.

          And how quick to judge you always are – seemingly ready with your lordly chants, always available to condemn with your fire and brimstone. Had you been born straight, no doubt you would now be following the Rev Ian Paisley.

      3. Dan

        I think we can all excuse typos here and there – so that was a petty point.

        Secondly, I agree Angela Mason (spelt correctly) has been a significant force in providing movement in LGBT rights and I have no doubt continues to do so. However, that does not preclude her from criticism for her lack of courage and tacit support for the proposals from the EHRC which could be the most damaging move to LGBT rights in the UK for decades. She should stand up and be counted, and if she feels restricted by her role and unable to stand up for LGBT people without “compromising” her position then she should resign and take a public stand. We need to stand up and be counted on this.

        1. Apologies above post out of position

          1. Maybe not – Dan posted twice which confused me!

      4. I’m not disagreeing or agreeing to your arguments, however I will say pointing someones bad spelling as part of your argument is a very low blow and shows a lack of argument when you do use something like that. I would like to point out that they maybe dyslexic or a paraplegic using voice recognition or have many other reasons. Look at the wood not the trees, as it actually makes you look like the idiot.

      5. Paddyswurds 30 Jul 2011, 11:59am

        @Dan Filson…
        …. Really Dan? You are saying you can’t recognise an obvious Typo.Your own spelling isn’t exactly Oxford standard …”Stirling” ..really? Your mistake can hardly be passed off as typo.
        Being deliberately disingenuous belittles your argument, but then your argument has no merit anyway. The EHRC and the Mason bint have been thoroughly rendered irrelevant by their support, implicit or otherwise for this nefarious EDM. As for pot shots, they have left themselves completely without defense and should be shot down on sight. If, and that is debateable, Mason ever was worthy, her career seems to be more important nowadays. The EHRCs volte-fa’ce has rendered them completely useless for purpose and the only honorable thing left for them is to fall on their swords en masse.

    3. Yet another pot-shot at the EHRC and Angela Mason, whom you mis-spelt, for no clear reasons. It is very easy for you to assert the EHRC is bigoted but you cite no evidence, and it’s my belief that they do a sterling job despite coming under fire from the right. They are not without faults and have often been divided by internal tensions and not aided by variable quality leadership, but on the whole have been important in advancing and defending human rights (as has the Cabinet Office which played an important role in the Equality Act). Angela Mason did more for LGB rights whilst at Stonewall than you could ever do in your lifetime. It is completely wrong to keep sniping at a single EHRC Commissioner when they operate as a body with collective decision-making.

      1. Apologies for posting essentially the same comment twice, it did not appear for some time for some reason.

        1. ooer missus 29 Jul 2011, 12:50pm

          She is our unelected representative on the body. Is there another representative there to represent the gay community? If so, do advise. It’s not unreasonable to expect her to express a personal opinion on the matter to the constituency she represents.

        2. Interesting that Dan has not responded to the criticism of his comments

          1. Still no response from dan ….

          2. Jock S. Trap 3 Aug 2011, 9:32am

            I’m guessing there won’t be… ;)

          3. @Jock S Trap

            Disappointingly not ;-)

  6. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 11:32am

    “The public at large don’t care what we do” – So much for democracy then but them since when has religion really backed democracy.

    These Christians feel they know whats best for everyone, regardless if we want changes or not. They intend to smother us with their bigotry and call it their beliefs.

    This is wrong, this motion should not be happening. Christians are not above the law and their beliefs nor their Bible makes them exempt or superior to any law or person.

    They oppose Equality purely on grounds o discrimination.

    Parliament needs to be careful.

    Go along with this law and you open a whole load of problems.

    Go along with this law but make the right to discriminate only against the LGBTQI community and the whole load of problems will get bigger.

    Christians believe this is a win/win situation but they are so blinded by their beliefs in discrimination they don’t see the backlash is not far behind them.

    They will do more damage to their already fragile reputation.

    1. Erika Cart-Horse, QC 29 Jul 2011, 12:14pm

      Why not see it as an opportunity to expose the extremist religious groups?

      1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 12:20pm

        Is that a price worth paying?

        Legal discrimination just to out a few extremists?

        I don’t think so esp when we already know who they tend to be.

        1. Erika Cart-Horse, QC 29 Jul 2011, 1:09pm

          It’s an inquiry, not a Bill. That means people can give evidence from all sides, if the Inquiry is a fair one.
          The Inquiry is presumably going to happen anyway, most MPs and members of the the public are reasonable but have little idea of what’s really going on in these anti-gay cases, despite the judges pointing it out quite clearly, so best treat this as a great opportunity to explain the situation.

          1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 1:31pm

            I’m well aware of what it is but I must pick on one point.

            Knowing the Christians calling for this, dictating this, there is one thing we can be sure of… that they will do as much as possible to make sure there is nothing fair about this inquiry.

            Well only fair for them maybe but it will be full of prejudice and yet again who we are is up for debate, just to please them.

            And that there is nothing fair in. We are Human Beings too you know!

          2. Founder and now patron Iain Duncan Smith of the “Centre for Social Justice” and his Christian cronies including “pray the gay away” enthusiast Philippa Stroud will be contributing their 10 cents worth to this “inquiry” no doubt.

          3. Highly important that if this inquiry happens that full input is given by the LGBT population

  7. How come this is all happenning now, a parliamentary enquiry, EDMs, statements from the EHRC and quite recently according to Christian Concern there was a general Synod meeting where

    “Dr Philip Giddings, chairman of the Church of England’s public affairs council, warned that employers too often failed to respect religious rights. He said:“Some employers have interpreted the law in ways which seem to assume that reasonable and respectful expressions of faith are, almost by definition, offensive. This is a cause of great concern”.

    Dr Giddings later told reporters that the Church wanted ministers to bring in new laws to protect religious freedoms”

    Is there something fishy going on here? I’m getting a bit worried, I don’t even think they are going to wait until the European courts to decide anything, I think it’s their intention to just go ahead and wind back these equality laws regardless of what Europe says.

    1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 11:43am

      The Equality and Human Rights commission needs to rethinks it’s name as it’s looking clearly it not really interested in Equality nor Human Rights, just Religious rights.

      1. Silly remark, quite without substance

        1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 12:26pm

          Is it though, Dan?

          They are wanting to make compromises on both Equality AND our Human Rights.

          Thought they are supposed to protect, not protect some and make excuses for others.

          1. No,I think what they – and possibly Stonewall too – are trying to do is find a way through the dilemma of protectingreligious rights and also LGB rights where people have conflicts arising from the two.

          2. Erika Cart-Horse, QC 29 Jul 2011, 1:16pm

            The judges, many of whom are Christian themselves, have analysed the situation quite fairly and rationally, underlining the right to hold religious views but not give the content of those views the force of law, which would result in a theocracy; the EHCR has totally failed to say precisely where the judgements are too narrow in their view.

          3. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 1:32pm

            Religious Rights are protected just like everyone elses Rights.

            What is Not protected and never should be is their bigotry.

          4. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 1:34pm

            The only reason this ‘inquiry’ is coming about is because some Christian Extremists want to be able to say they are above the law and treat people accordingly.

          5. Tim Hopkins 29 Jul 2011, 2:12pm

            The key question of course, Dan, is where the balance should lie. As the excellently named Erika Cart-Horse pointed out, the courts in the UK have considered that quite carefully already. Most LGBT organisations, including Stonewall and the Equality Network, think the courts have the balance about right. It appears, although it’s hard to tell, because they’re not communicating, that the EHRC want to change that balance.

          6. I agree. There’s no need for this inquiry. The courts acted fairly and gave proper consideration to the cases.
            This is all part of a campaign by Christian fundamentalists to gain exemptions from the law. I think a number of the cases we’ve heard about recently are ‘set-ups’ trying to prove that Christians are being victimised when they’re clearly not. That’s why the complainants persisted even when they were offered reasonable accommodations of their faith (eg the wearing of a cross). They didn’t want to work things out, they wanted the chance to get a court to rule them special.
            Disgusting. Everybody should abide by equality legislation.

          7. Agree with you 100& Iris.

          8. I agree with you 100% Iris.

          9. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 8:14am

            Oh well put Iris, I have thought for ages that there seems to be too many and somehow this was all being created to make Christians look victimized.

            The saddest thing is, it seems the majority of Christians do not agree with this ‘compromise’ but they are being dragged into these extremists point of view clearly without being consulted.

            What the EHRC are acting on is a minority of Christians like Stephen Green, David Skinner and their ike to make compromises, not the majority of Equality supporting Christians who would prefer to be kept out of this arguement mind, because they see the potential for problems with it.

        2. It is a gross and obsecene oxymoron, that any Christian should advocate discrimination agianst another, inlight of Christ ministry of equality and inclusivity.

          1. @JohnK

            Regardless of whether one subscribes to the Christian faith or not – such discrimination is not an action that fits with the portrayal of Christ that I have heard.

            I’m not a Christian, but those who wish to practice discrimination make me seem like a more tolerant, accepting and honest person than they are

          2. Stu, exactly

    2. Paddyswurds 30 Jul 2011, 12:09pm

      @john …
      … are you forgetting who is in government. The Law and Justice Tories and their toadies the LibDems is who. That is why all this pro xtian stuff is threatening our hard won rights. Next there will be talk of Section 28 part two and there will be cracking down on GLBs everywhere. Raids on Gay venues can’t be far away.
      Call me Daves weasle words before the election were just empty placebos in order to secure the Gay vote. Their association with the homophobic Polish Law and |Justice Party is beginning to raise it’s ugly head and we WILL suffer.

  8. How exactly does serving gay people offend?

    I say it’s just an excuse to be homophobic.

    1. Don Harrison 29 Jul 2011, 3:02pm

      Mary you said “Actually, there are quite a few bible passages condemning homosexuality.”
      Your bible must a different from the one I read,
      Jesus says nothing about same-sex behaviour.
      The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
      There are just five places in the Bible that homosexuality is mentioned.
      * Genesis 19 Sodom and Gomorrah
      * Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
      * Romans 1:26-27
      * 1 Corinthians 6::9-11
      * 1 Timothy 1:9-11

      1. No Don,
        *Gen 19 Sodom & Gommorah does not describe homosexuality at all, anywhere.
        *Lev 18:22 &20:13 certainly does not clearly describe homosexuality but possibly some form of wrong worship that no longer exists today, possibly involving same sex ritual sex al though what “lay lyings of a woman” actually means cannot be known today only that a Levite male with another male wasn’t supposed to lay one.
        *Romans describes otherwise heterosexual persons possibly engaging in ritual same sex activity as part of rites of worship that no longer exist today, Romans does not describe homosexuality per se.
        *1 Corinthians 6:9-11, is better translated as a message to all those who use and abuse sex, it would apply to a large percentage oif the world’s population. It is not clearly addressed to homosexuals, the words allegedly describing homosexuals here are ambiguous.
        *1Timothy:1:9-11 does not describe homosexuals it describes pedophiles and shockingly condemns both the abuser & the abused.

  9. I believe it was Gandhi who said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

    1. The words of Jesus Christ as reported in the Gospels provide a moral code that is admirable. The Epistles are often a collection of St Paul’s curious take on that code. The Christians who follow the moral code from the Gospels in their actions are invariably good people doing good work. Those so-called ‘Christian’ f’undamentalists often seem more driven by the Old Testament than the New and appear to have very little Christianity in their approaches to life. If Christianity is to survive as a moral compass then Christians should denounce the many evils done in the name of their faith.

      1. de Villiers 31 Jul 2011, 9:33am

        Another difficulty is that many take the testaments literally rather than mythically and create a unrealistic and near-blasphemous view of god as a supreme sky creator handing down laws from on high. Religion did not used to be taken so literally and it has suffered as a result.

  10. ooer missus 29 Jul 2011, 11:55am

    See the following article expressing the view from more moderate Christians than the CLC, opposing the intervention by the EHRC intervention:

    “An ill-judged intervention from the Equality and Human Rights Commission”.

    1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 12:16pm

      Thank you for that ooer missus… always good to know not all Christian think this is right.

      It’s just ashame that its the extremist minority that seem to be heard most and sadly MPs taking under their wing.

      1. Erika Cart-Horse, QC 29 Jul 2011, 1:23pm

        All the more reason that they be exposed before all MPs at the Inquiry.

    2. That is a fasntastic and nicely thought about article. Thank you for sharing.

  11. Kayleigh Swift 29 Jul 2011, 11:56am

    If religious nuts will be able to refuse to work with gay people, does this mean I can refuse to work with straight people?

    1. Erika Cart-Horse, QC 29 Jul 2011, 12:17pm

      Only on religious grounds.

    2. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 12:17pm

      If this law gets change then in effect… yes!

      Once you start on you cannot then restrict.

      1. Erika Cart-Horse, QC 29 Jul 2011, 12:21pm

        You could refuse as a registrar to carry out civil marriages for divorced or adulterous individuals, as a nurse refuse to be a party to blood transfusion or organ transplant, as a chef to cook pork or shellfish; as it’s all subjective interpretation of scripture, the list is potentially endless.

    3. As long as you can apply it to your sincere belief or conscience. It does not have to be religious grounds. Atheists will have the right to apply the conscience clause to not serve christians and gay people will have the right to refuse to serve their oppressors.

      1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 1:38pm

        What a horrible world these Christian fruitloops want for us all…. All nasty like them… hardly progress.

        The day religion dies a death and becomes something read in the History books, the day this world will shine in progress.

        Yes, I know it won’t happen soon but it is happening and I wish it would get a move on.

  12. I say that if such a motion is passed then there should also be one in which gay people can refuse to serve people being offensive to us – including homophobes. Keep it equal. Although if people cannot get on with one another surely it’s all a backward step.

    1. ooer missus 29 Jul 2011, 4:20pm

      From their website the CLC appear to find all equality legislation dangerous to their civil liberties (see their article on the NY marriage vote). Presumably this includes equality legislation for the disabled, other religions, races etc. So they would like to roll it all back I suppose.

      Incidentally in that article they praise in passing the gay hate group NOM – which has been campaigning for the removal of numerous judges that have found in favour of gay people in various States. It occurs to me now that perhaps this could also be the start of an attack on our judiciary similar to that in various States in the US by the extremely well funded NOM.

      Are they trying to bring their culture wars to the UK, and to intimidate our judges by targeting the EHRC and Parliament?

  13. Rich (original) 29 Jul 2011, 11:58am

    Christian believers now oppressed by political paederasts and their supporters in U.K., and Christian people shall come together and push homosexual degenerates away from the law and the government. Let’s not wait for another Anders Breivik appear in U.K.

    1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 12:18pm

      Go fvck yourself, perv!

      1. Erika Cart-Horse, QC 29 Jul 2011, 12:23pm

        No, call him to give evidence at the inquiry…give them enough rope they will hang themselves.

        1. Jock S. Trap 29 Jul 2011, 12:27pm

          Really wishing he’d do the latter of your comment.

    2. Yet another hatefull posting from this vile person, when are you going to ban Rich (original) and remove the postings? How many times must that person be reported for you to act?

    3. Don Harrison 29 Jul 2011, 3:08pm

      Jesus says nothing about same-sex behaviour.
      The Jewish prophets are silent about homosexuality.
      There are just five places in the Bible that homosexuality is mentioned.
      * Genesis 19 Sodom and Gomorrah
      * Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
      * Romans 1:26-27
      * 1 Corinthians 6::9-11
      * 1 Timothy 1:9-11

      With your Biblical Interpretation can you make one and one equal five too?

      1. The Bible doesn’t mention nor describe homosexuals nor homosexuality per se at all.

    4. can someone please tell me why Rich is allowed to post here?

      1. I can think of plenty of reasons why the material he posts should be seen as unacceptable and abhorrent

        1. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 8:18am

          Thats fine Stu so long as PinkNews don’t mind if every now and then people express Exactly how they feel back, we can’t have favouritism towards homophobes cause I for one is getting sick of it.

      2. Rich (original) 29 Jul 2011, 6:42pm

        Someone is me. I’ll tell you. Because of the freedom of opinion and the freedom of speech. Got it? Then shot up, please.

        1. so the freedom is opinion and speech are yours and yours alone?

          So don’t tell others to shut up if you expect them to listen to anything you have to say.

          1. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 8:19am

            He didn’t Mallin, he told us to shot up…. clearly they’ve upped his medication.

          2. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 8:21am

            I still think Rich (unoriginal) may well be pepa, there’s just something about it. It’s clearly to provoke and nothing else.

        2. Funny how freedom only applies to you, Rich. Anything you want to do is fine but you dare to criticise others. Anyway, a numbre of your comments have been racist and/or inciting hatred or violence. That doesn’t count as ‘free speech’ and you well know it as you boasted about how you’d never be traced because you were using someone else’s IP.

        3. You have no freedom to incite hate or to condemn in the most disgusting way you do. How many times must you be told, go and get medical help for your problems, you are not well. Go away, you are not wanted here. Leave begone go. I will keep reporting your loathsome comments until you are banned.

        4. @Rich (Original)
          Freedom of speech is not a licence to abdicate an attitude of ethical responsibility

        5. Lost your grasp of English again, Rich?

          I dont agree with your argument about freedom of speech – because with freedoms come responsibilities which you fail to respect or endorse.

          However, if we were to accept your argument about freedom of speech and expression then the reactions in response to your hate filled missives and ridiculous comments also come under freedom of speech … so to use your words “Then shot up, please”

  14. Erika Cart-Horse, QC 29 Jul 2011, 12:07pm

    This debate is a golden opportunity to put the CLC/Christian Concern and similar organisations under both the spotlight and the microscope as to their real agenda and political goals. MPs need to be properly briefed about them, and appraised of what more moderate Christians think on these issues.

    1. Indeed – and I hope moderate Christians take every opportunity to condemn these fundies and their hatred. I’d also like their links with US groups brought to light too, and some of the offensive cr@p those groups say and write read out at the inquiry so MPs can see exactly what kind of ‘Christians’ they’re dealing with.

    2. That is a fair point – a good opportunity for scrutiny of CLC etc

      Expose them to rigorous evaluation.

      My rule of thumb for the moment is what is the fairest thing to do …. We have a lot to learn from Norways response over the last week … What would they do? .,.. They would allow the debate and seek to demonstrate that there is no incompatibility between freedom of belief and LGBT and other rights – and demonstrate that legalising prejudice and discrimination is abhorent in a democracy

  15. So, what price Equal Marriage & CP’s now? July has come and all but gone and not a word from our LibDem Equalities Minister or anyone else about the supposed Consultation promised this month.

    Instead we get this Tory (NB – from the senior governing coalition partner) announcing his quest to defend Christian rights.

    It’s a no-brainer that we’ll soon be being told that marriage is off the agenda because it would infringe the rights of traditional Christians.

    1. This is from the GEO Newsletter today:

      The Equalities spotlight on the Red Tape Challenge ran from 9 June – 30 June. As the Home Secretary made clear to Parliament, Government does not intend to scrap the Equality Act 2010. Fairness and opportunity for all remain at the heart of government. But we do want to know how the Act is working in practice and whether any parts of the Act could be simplified, better implemented, or if certain provisions should be dropped or amended, or indeed whether the Act should be kept exactly as it is.

  16. This enquiry, which may be rigged as I don’t know who will chair it and what MPs etc will be picked to sit on it, could be very important as it offers to have out in public the contradictions between the rights of those who profess faiths and those whose rights seems to run across the views of those who profess faiths. I sincerely hope that in protecting the rights of those who profess faiths to practice them, so long as they do not impinge on the rights of others, the fundamental rights of others, as enshrined in the Equality Act, are not curtailed. There are moves to abolish that Act and we must defend it.

    1. Dan Filson – seeing as you are defending the EHRC so much I need to ask you something.

      Would you support the right of gay employees to refuse to perform their jobs when it comes to the provision of goods and services to religious people.

      And do you think the EHRC should support such a position.

      if not then why not?

    2. And yet there is a clear threat/danger to us in Gary Streeter’s one line comment

      “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”

      I suspect Gary knows exactly what part of the law needs to be nudged back (I note there’s no nudging forward) …namely those parts of the law which ruled against the ladele and Mcfarlane cases and any others where gay rights, according to the Christians, trumped Christian rights..

    3. Tim Hopkins 29 Jul 2011, 2:18pm

      As I understood the original report, this discussion is going to be conducted by the Parliamentary cross-party Christian group, not by a formal select committee. Whether that cross-party group even reflects a full balance of Christian views (most of which are pro LGBT equality of course), let alone other views, I do not know.

      1. ooer missus 29 Jul 2011, 3:39pm

        If that’s the case then whats to stop another group of MPs having a parallel enquiry into the activities of the CLC, Daily Mail etc and their apparent efforts to undermine the concept of equality before the law?

  17. Erika Cart-Horse, QC 29 Jul 2011, 12:39pm

    For a proper appraisal you need look no farther than the Judge in the MacFarlne case, himself a devout Christian.
    ” the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion…
    We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

    1. de Villiers 31 Jul 2011, 9:37am

      Are you a real Queens’ Counsel? Sometimes when we have debated legal points here it would help to have the view of a senior lawyer as to what the law means.

      1. de Villiers 31 Jul 2011, 9:37am

        Queen’s Counsel – apostrophe in the wrong place.

  18. I can just hear Gary Streeter when the marriage equality discussion begins. He’ll use the same justification to make sure that same-sex marriage never happens simply because it offends a minority’s religious beliefs which means their beliefs must always trump civil rights and equality for gay people, but then he’s a “christian” tory isn’t he?

    1. He is bigotted scum that should be expelled from the Tories.

      Streeter and his ilk belong in the BNP.

      His opinion about LGBT people differs only very marginally frrom what the BNP think of black people and muslims.

      1. Again you use words like “scum” which is the language used by people like the BNP. Anger is understandable, but using these clichés is just a turn off that lessens your point.

      2. de Villiers 31 Jul 2011, 9:39am

        I posted this above but it is worth repeating here. It how quick SteveC, who seems much like the previous David, is quick to judge and inflame – seemingly ready with lordly chants, always available to condemn with fire and brimstone. Had he been born straight, no doubt he would now be following the Rev Ian Paisley.

    2. “When the marriage equality discussion begins..”….More like IF it begins!!

  19. Where is CallMeDave in all of this mess raging from his quarters? Dave Daveee Daaaave? Where are you? Oh well, he must be very busy organising his promised marriage equality consultation. He has 2 days left to launch it, but after all, why should he worry about the many bigots queuing behind him own the ladder?…Oh wait, perhaps he should worry because they are the ones who will ultimately decide the outcome of the consultation? Scratching heads…

    1. Ring Riiing Riiiiiiiiinnnng …
      Hello, Mr Dave, here is Rupert speaking, I need to talk to you.
      Oh hello, Mr Rupert. Can you please leave a message to my secretary, I cannot talk to you over the phone, you know the walls over here have ears, Not now, not here, meet me under the bridge…

      1. Can we meet behind the bushes Mr Dave? That place is more suitable to what we need to discuss.

    2. More obsessed wiottering from Beberts which bears no relevance to the subject

    3. Hopefully he’s busy sorting out the economy, though if he could do it without destroying our infrastructure and tertiary education that would obviously be a good thing.

  20. This will open the floodgates for legal discrimination on religious grounds. If this was racial discrimination on religious grounds there’s no way they would get away with it.

    1. Thats’s because the EHRC (and Dan Filson) believe that LGBT rights are less important that the human rights enjoyed by other minority groups.

      1. To be fair to Dan, I don’t think that is what he is saying. I do think it is the impression that the EHRC and he are giving though.

    2. Then I hope someone tries because that’d show these people up for the hateful individuals they are. Go on – try to excuse racism on religious grounds, bigots. Try to get exemptions. Let the whole thing collapse as it should do. You can’t have “All people are equal but some are more equal than others”.
      What kind of person would strive so hard for the right to treat another human being as inferior? Sick.

  21. Beberts, there will be NO marriage equality consultation beginning over the next couple of days, believe me. It was just a rumour, no substance. if it were about to happen, you can bet StonewallUK would have announced it.

  22. /sigh

    I’d love to toss an Old Testament in Aramaic/Hebrew and a New Testament in Greek at these so-called “christians”… please ,have a look inside, now, tell me WHERE in those books does it mention homosexuality?

    EVERY single part of the Bible that they quote is a translation+reinterpretation of the original text. NOTHING they quote was ever written in English. There is not a single reference to “homosexuality” anywhere in the Old Testament. Neither the word, nor the concept existed at the time.

    Come to think of it, there IS one part of the New Testament where Christ heals the male lover of a Roman Centurion. So obviously, Christ himself couldn’t have found homosexuality SO “abominable”?

    Oh, but that’s true, the bigots have translated that part to mean the Centurion’s “slave”…. except that THAT is not the word used in Greek.

    Greek has IIRC a half dozen words for homosexuality – consensual relations between people of same-sex – and yet, none of those words are in the Bible.

    1. de Villiers 31 Jul 2011, 9:41am

      The testaments are not supposed to be taken as the full force of prescriptive law. Those who do so are very mistaken.

  23. Johnny33308 29 Jul 2011, 2:34pm

    A person’s religious rights cannot trump every other citizens’ right to full Civil Rights, full Human Rights, secular rights, against discrimination. No religious right to discriminate exists, nor should it. Is the UK becoming a theocracy? Beware of following the US in this discriminatory way against any citizen NOT a Christian-this could destroy your society by fragmenting it further, as has happened here in the US. Freeom to practice one’s religion does not mean AGAINST secular laws promoting equality. If some religion required its members to own slaves, would that also be allowed then? Or how about a religion that mandated nakeness, woulod that be allowed? Where is the line drawn? On the other side of gay peoples’ civil rights, excluding us YET AGAIN from full equality? Same old story then……..

    1. ooer missus 29 Jul 2011, 5:52pm

      Religious bodies actually do already have a right to discriminate to a certain extent against women and gays in employment law, as I understand it. Hence poor John Jeffrey keeps losing out on being a Bishop despite being more than qualified and despite being celibate, and women also are having such a struggle in that field.

  24. Where the hell is ANGELA?

    1. Nobody knows…

  25. Christine Beckett 29 Jul 2011, 4:30pm

    Which Parliamentary Committee?

    I see that Streeter has been careful not to actually name the Parliamentary Committee which he claims will examine this “issue”.

    I would guess that is because he has been unable to drum up support for a Parliamentary Committee to do so, and that he intends to form an unofficial “Committee” from his group “Christians in Parliament”, which will then invite people, mostly in vain, to come before them.

    If so, the fake committee will have no power, and less influence.


  26. As someone suggested, maybe it all does come down to a group of fundamentalists trying to intimidate our judges as they do in the USA?

    1. It could well do

      In a climate where there has been exposure of both Christian fundamentalism and Islamists as potential terror motivations – I think any right minding person that sensitively carries out a balanced evaluation of the facts would see that encouraging any form of prejudice against a minority to appease some fundamentalist religious bias is irrational and wrong.

      1. I wonder if and what the link with the Daily Mail is?

        1. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 8:30am

          Indeed, nothing there would surprise me.

  27. Andrea Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, commented:
    “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.”‘marriage’-approved-in-new-

    1. Christian Concern is of course the other limb of the Christian Law Centre, for those that are unaware.

    2. Perverse views, risible

      1. How dangerous equality is?

        1. I meant that suggesting that bringing equality curtails civil liberties … LGBT rights in no way restrict freedoms of religion or belief

    3. I knew that cow would come out of the woodwork! She was not let go but instead resigned because she wasnot willing to process both straight and same-sex marriage license applications. Boo-hoo on the Christians and their demand that everyone kowtow to their bibotry and ignorance.

      If Ms Fotusky had been willing to discharge her duties and not refuse to deal with same-sex couples, she would still have her job.

    4. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 8:40am

      Interesting article, thanks arfur. Did PinkNews report this?

      I do think that this makes the bigots stand out and show themselves and if they have to resign then so be it. Make way for the fair minded people to take over and the bigots to crawl into their shallow pit of a life.

      It’s this attitude, similar to the one the adoption agencies took, if we have to deal with Gay people we’ll withdraw completely no matter who it is.
      Kinda cut your nose off to spite your face attitude which is very ugly and goes nowhere.

      It thankfully says more about those individuals that they would stoop so low to deny all just because they can’t get what they want which is to discriminate legally and be above the law.

      I suspect we’ll see more of this attitude in the UK but not for any good mind but just to proof to everyone they should be able to do what the hell they want and nobody should stop them.

      1. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 8:42am

        It’s a dangerous path and I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again they just don’t get the consequences.

        Is this the Christian way, Act first, suffer afterwards?

        Trouble is it’ll be all but mostly themselves that suffer.

  28. What about gay rights? Christian have “expressed” their rights for 2,000 years now by killing or destroying anybody who will not go along or agree with them any way they can can force them to agree with them and even kill them, like the Norway Christian terrorist.

    1. Quite often, yes. The ones that seem most upset are the ones who are afraid of losing their power to impose their religious beliefs on society as a whole.

      As for the claim that Christians are being “marginalised”, I understand it there are still around 30 unelected religious representatives, most of them C of E Bishops, in our legislative body. This is the embodiment of religious privilege in our society.

      1. Yes, and those unelected C of E Bishops, as members of the House of Lords will be very well placed to influence this inquiry to their own advantage.

        1. Are all of them in “Christians in Parliament”? If not why not?

        2. The CofE Bishops may choose to have nothing to do with “Christians in Parliament” which sounds like an internal pressure group; on the whole the current Bishops who sit in the House of Lords are good eggs and by no means aligned with the conservative peers, but they do not move far outside the frames set for them by the Synod.

          1. That the odious anti-gay Andrea Minichiello Williams of the Christian Legal Centre is now a lay member of the Anglican Synod might further inform your comment above Dan. A lot of the language being used to promote the fiction of persecuted Christians recently sounds suspiciously like it was penned by Andrea herself

    2. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 8:44am

      Indeed “Christians have “expressed” their rights for 2,000 years” but they seem to not get that ‘Homosexuality’ has been here since the birth of humanity.

      1. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 8:45am

        Before if we talk about the animal kingdom.

  29. Is this inquiry top secret or something? It’s very hard to get any details on the subject. I emailed a gay MP and a gay organisation and both knew nothing about this inquiry until today. Wouldn’t someone like Chris Bryant or Ben Bradshaw be part of the “Christians in Parliament” group, I always thought they were very pro Anglican. Can’t LGBT Labour get them to clarify what this committee is all about?

    If the inquiry/committee is going to be made up of Gary Streeter and his non gay Christian extremist friends then it’s going to be very one-sided and it’s recommendations are going to be a bit biased.

    I read somewhere that the

    “The inquiry, which will be held in public and will take about three months…”

    Yet, I can’t find anything public on the damn thing at all!!!

    1. It sounds a bit like trying to get info out of the EHRC. I wonder if the group includes the Archbishop of Canterbury. A bit ironic if not.

    2. Actually I think this is the list of MPs/peers in “christians in parliament”, perhpas we could email then and ask them for more details of the inquiry ?

      Gary Streeter
      Jeffrey M. Donaldson
      Tim Farron
      Lord Bates
      Gavin Shuker
      Stephen Timms
      Sharon Hodgson

      David Burrowes – Con
      Sir Peter Bottomley – Con
      Jeremy Lefroy – Con
      Nicola Blackwood – Con
      Baroness Cox – Con
      Baroness O’Cathain – Con
      Nicky Morgan – Con
      Fiona Bruce – Con
      Simon Hughes – LD
      Baroness Berridge – Con

      Meg Munn
      Jim Dobbin
      Lord Archer of Sandwell
      Kate Hoey
      Barry Sheerman
      Alun Michael

      Lord Hylton
      Lord Alton of Liverpool
      Lord Kilclooney
      Baroness Richardson of Calow

    3. I’m wondering if it is an inquiry set up by MPs in Parliament rather than by a decision of Parliament. If the former then it is little more than something that Mary Whitehouse might have set up using a tame MP and really of no value; it would be most unlikely to be balanced. If the latter, then whilst the whips might rig the composition of the inquiry panel and the chair might be highly selective as to witnesses, it would on the face of it be as searching as the Select Committees. Which is to say no better than the sum of its parts.

  30. I am worried that what they seek, seems like a christian version of sharia law. British law is based on logic and reason, NOT intrepretation of religious texts. And this is something I think that most people would support because it is the best answer to a multicultural society. Because whether people like it or not – we are a multicultural society.

    My other concern is that the person who proposed this idea is the one in charge of organising the committee? That seems horribly biased and a waste of my taxpayer’s money. Corrupt is the word that comes to mind actually. And is probably a word I shall include when I write to my MP.

  31. I am confused
    why is there any need when the christians we’re homophobic idiots? would there be such an inquiry if the christians were racist? I doubt it
    it’s about the christians wanting to be above the law and immune to it

  32. Surely these MPs are not representing their constituents but their own personal agenda. I would have thought that their party whips would or should have something to say. Vote these MPs out at the next election in your region.

  33. and will gay workers have the right not to serve Chrtistians? …

  34. Faith is used an excuse for a lot of things. If I used my faith to refuse to serve the left handed, black people or women, there would be national outcry and the lynch mob would swat me faster than you could say “fly”. Having gay people as the few exceptions to that rule, shows that we are far from equal at all. Laws allowing faith as a beacon to launch attacks and discriminate has to change. No compromise whatsoever, simple as that. Let the baby have its dummy and cry until it realises it can’t win.

  35. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, sex and sexual orientation are illegal in this country. At the same time, freedom of belief is protected. If a Muslim doctor in casualty refused to treat a Jewish patient because, as a particular flavour of Muslim, he believes all Jews should be put to death, then he would be sacked. If a white supremacist teacher who believed in racial segregation refused to teach black children because she believes black people to be unintelligent and incapable of learning, she would be sacked. You can have your views. You are entitled to express them, but only in certain places. When you are in a professional work environment, some views are valid for expression, some are not. If a person’s religious belief leads them to believe that another person should be deprived of their rights, whose rights take precedence?

    1. The claim by Christians that being denied the “right” to discriminate against gay people has changed the law so that it is now they who are oppressed is bogus. It is the equivalent of a rapist claiming that his desire to rape another person supersedes his potential victim’s right not to be raped.

  36. hope the christian brainwashed fruit loops are ready for a fight. bollocks to their outdated beliefs

  37. Rich (original) 30 Jul 2011, 2:09am

    Religious individual has a prime and foundamental right to criticize any abnormal sexual conduct on the basis of his Religion, and homosexuals are an exception in such case. Let me be very clear: I am religiously critical toward homosexual abnormalities from the point of view of Islam and Islamic jurisprudence. I do not accept modern Western legal philosophy because I am a man of Islam. I have the foundamental right to oppose any homosexual view and conduct which existed not only in U.K. but everywhere in the world. That’s the point which nobody have right to deny.

    1. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 8:55am

      Funny but I don’t believe a word of it Rich.
      Your not a Muslim but one massive big liar and all you talking is out of your ass coz all you talk is sh!t!

      You talk a whole lot of crazy in the hope someone will take pity on you but we all know your take big ‘sausage’ up your slack, greasy ass.

      Why else would you be here, if your were religious it would go against your teaching so stop lying perv and get nursey to give you some more medication.

      Seriously I have to question if people with such low IQ’s as Rich should have any rights to be here, he clearly doesn’t have the capacity to think or act for himself. A danger to other one would have thought.

    2. nutter.

    3. Off you go and play with your child rapist god you vile piece of filth.

    4. @Rich (Orginal)
      This thread is not about Islam or Islamic jurisprudence.
      Put your reading specs on!!!

    5. Rich

      Shariah law, whilst practiced in some Muslim communities with regards misdemeanours and family matters in the UK does not have the weight of civil law behind it and is subordinate to civil law.

      This discussion is about UK parliamentary matters which is UK civil law and thus your pontification on Islamic jurisprudence is (as ever) irrelevant and unnecessary

    6. Actually people do have the right to disagree with and oppose your primitive barbaric religion and your notion of a wierd, vindictive angry god, your racial and religious hatred, your threats of violence and physical harm and your offensive and aggressive language and remarks.

      1. What religion of mine? Since I have no faith – I think you must be projecting …

      2. Apologies Rick

        I misread and thought you had been Rich making the comment … I withdraw my comment above – will pay more attention in future!

  38. Rich (original) 30 Jul 2011, 3:14am

    Western people, in their great majority, thinking that only their governmental positions toward Arab and Afghan Muslims are correct. They are essentially very stupid because they does not understand that Islam is World’s Religion and Islam is not national religion, and Muslims are living all over the world and they practice very well established Religion and Philosophy. Western legalistic mentality is very primitive and absolutely unfair in relation to Muslim population of the world. Western nations cannot understand simple fact that Islamic jurisprudence based on fundamentally different principles then Roman Law or Common Law. Being ignorant of true nature of Islam, many stupid homosexual individuals cannot understand why Islam is superior to Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism. Homosexuals are condemned by Islam and if homosexuals will not comply with God’s Order, they will be punished by Muslims everywhere in the world, regardless national bodrers.

    1. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 8:56am

      Dunno what you put but there is a really strong stench of bullsh!t around here!

      1. Rich (original) 30 Jul 2011, 11:26am

        You are a hard core paederastic and alcoholic degenerate. You are destined to die in total marasmus and debility. You are the dead end of evolution and disgrace for your parents. Being filthy and degraded, you are incapable of decent thinking and coimmunicating with normal people. Your mind is distorted beyond the point of mental recovery. That’s why there no point to consider any prospect for anything productive in coexistence with you in the world. When you die, it will be releave for everybody in the world, and you not even will deserve any funeral but simple cremation, burning your filthy body in the stove and spreading the ashes somewhere on the junky yard…..

        1. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 1:02pm

          LOL – Hilarious – What an asshole! There again no surprise since you seem to speak so much bullsh!t out of it, fruitloop!

          Difference between you and me apart from the fact I clearly so much more happier and more forfilled than you?

          Knowing I am so much better than you in every way you can and cannot ever imagine.

          I live in peace and love, not your chaos and hatred.

          It’s knowing no matter how much you try, you’ll Never be better than any off us.

          I will always be whipping your sort off the bottom of my shoe.

        2. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 1:05pm

          Now, do us all a favour and get your vile stinking carcass out of here.

          Ta Ta sh!t for brains.

      2. de Villiers 31 Jul 2011, 9:45am

        JS, the best way to deal with him is to ignore his post – not to post a denunciation, not to disagree, not to insult. Just ignore it. If his posts attract no response, then he will stop being entertained by posting.

        1. Jock S. Trap 31 Jul 2011, 11:11am

          Like in life you can only ignore homophobes so much de Villiers.

          I’m a patient man but even I have my point where I bite back and will do.

          We have tried the no response but that just encourages just as ignoring it in life does.

          So if PinkNews don’t wish to sort it they can’t really be suprised at the comments and language that follow them.

          The fact Rich(unoriginal)/pepa and whoever else he calls himself clearly has sh!t for brains is of no interest but I don’t see why we should sit back and put up if the site responsible Chooses to do nothing to stop the abuser.

    2. zombie.

    3. @Rich (Orginal)
      This thread is not about Arabs, Afghans or Muslims
      You are on the wrong thread, put your reading specs on

      1. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 1:17pm

        I doubt he’s any of them JohnK – more your Tea Party Republican trying to be all controversial kissing dirty christian ass.

        They don’t call him brown nose Rich for nothing.

        1. de Villiers 31 Jul 2011, 9:45am

          JS, the best way to deal with him is to ignore his post – not to post a denunciation, not to disagree, not to insult. Just ignore it. If his posts attract no response, then he will stop being entertained by posting.

          1. Jock S. Trap 31 Jul 2011, 11:36am

            Was in repsonse to JohnK not Rich, de Villiers.

    4. The voices in Rich (original)’s head tell him this

      Its all lies

      1. de Villiers 31 Jul 2011, 9:44am

        I don’t know why people bother to reply to Rich. The best way to deal with him is to ignore his post – not to post a denunciation, not to disagree, not to insult. Just ignore it. If his posts attract no response, then he will stop being entertained by posting.

        1. Jock S. Trap 31 Jul 2011, 11:43am

          Ignoring it doesn’t work we have tried if anything it encourages.

          I spent too many years at the hands of homophobes, hoping ignoring them would make it go away and all I got was worse abuse, until I had to be moved, so fvck if I’ll ever put up with it again. If PinkNews choose not to deal with it you can’t blame people on how they react. Mostly I will ignore but every now and then I will retaliate too.

          Lets hope the numbskull is removed, planet or PinkNews whatever comes first, I couldn’t care less.

  39. hate groups of anykind or individidual has no right to act out hate and discrimination on anyone, they are dark souls of maliscousness not kindess, you as a false religious person have no right to take a public job of anykind nor go around in public around other families and mistreat them and not want to serve them or do your job concerning them as just people who pay your salary and help pay your paycheck because they do business, their like everyone else, if you dont like colored people or fat peopel or lgbt people the world is different , b;ut your have to be the same humanity and hulman rights and leave other alone, and do not try and harm them do your job and go home to your housse, with your own white or who ever biggoted familiey, and dont follow the other people around ,

  40. you dont find a real christian mistreating anyone, they are the opposite, the alms of love, they are charity meekness, and kindess and humble people, trying to keep peace and dont want to see anyone harmed, satan and his demons or malice, hate, vile, terrors, abusers assaulter everything that causes kaos and harm to others bad evil , a child would no some of this people, david karesh, had pastors degrees and had a religious church too, but the military had to go kill his ass for locking all those people in that church and rapping them and then he killed them all , their god, wake up people stop being brainwashed and screwed up in the head , get detoxed

  41. Let me preach to you people for just one minute , because im a real minister, love walks softly into the womb of a real christian provoking them to reach way out and then way down, to pick up , to lift up, to encourage, to you get me , it reaches out and hands a hankerchief, for trickling down tear drops of the suffering and the hurting, it attends charites, that can be fixed by its concerns of empathy and sympathy, it, seeps way down in the belly, and brings up time and time again, words of kindness, to passerbyers, and to those who look downtrodden and forgotton, it finds it way out to help lend a balm of solace to the aching of minid body and sould, it shines, with genuines like pure gold, it touches the young and the old, it spews, out goodness form day to day, in an most humane way, thas christian, do you get me, do you hear me, you better wake up people, its not in a man made steeple, it got to be in the heart, what beats like papulations of goodwill,

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 30 Jul 2011, 12:03pm

      What a crock of shyte.

    2. Where are you from (allegedly) Carrie …?

      You sound like a different form of Rich or Pepa … but trying to sound nice …. bizarre!

      1. Ooer missus 30 Jul 2011, 9:05pm

        Haven’t you seen the film?

    3. i hear you sister, gawd bless you dear child

      1. Excusing your poor punctuation, spelling and grammar you are a lyrical writer Carrie, it comes from your heart. You write terribly but really beautifully… If I take time to reread your posts, although you don’t seem to interact with anyone else here at all which is a shame.

    4. de Villiers 31 Jul 2011, 9:47am

      This is patronising – and I say that as someone who supports religion.

  42. Did somebody fail to hear and receive a real right now word , the real word, i said, reaches way out and then way down , and it lifts way up , encourages, , and it lends a balm of solace, of downtrodden faces and lilves, it lends a hankerscief to the hurting , it brings peace where their is war, it bonds people to gether with its kindness, it removes or evil blindess, the instigates and provokes, goodnees and goodwill , it makes the cold heart began to feel, it genuines, lend to healing of beastley maliced world , that would rather hurt women boys and girls , empathy and sympathy is is companions, reaching boundaries, just to save, instead of take lives , thats christian, do get , me do you feel, that s minisetriey that real

    1. really?

    2. I hear you Carrie, writing is not your best medium of expression but I bet you can talk the talk better than most here. I’m not christian but decidedly atheist and fully expect to remain that way .

    3. de Villiers 31 Jul 2011, 9:48am

      This is patronising – and I say that as someone who supports religion.

  43. Lord Justice Laws, said that religion was a matter of opinion that couldn’t be proved and therefore should not be used as the basis for making law. The courts also admonished the former Archbishop of Canterbury’s intervention, for goodness sake, so I doubt Streeter’s “fears” being taken seriously in a court of law ─ it is inevitable aspect of the law drawing the line what is permissible behaviour and what is not. And that line has been drawn.

    1. Paddyswurds 30 Jul 2011, 11:13am

      Hopefully this clamour to be able to discriminate by religious fantasists will spell the death knell for their deluded fiction. It is 2011 and time to consign this shyte to the dustbin of history where it belongs. Many people are beginning to think this way and the religious freaks are not helping themselves and for that I am very glad. Here in ireland we have particular reason to want rid of this parasitic nonsense as those who claim to be above all of us and be holier than holy have sexually and physically abused the children of Ireland for centuries.Every month we are more and more shocked by the deparvity of the so called clerics of Christianity who lorded it over us for so long, only for us to discover that the Emperor had no clothes!
      Religion has contributed little to the advancement of man except maybe to curtail the world population by all the death an destruction caused in the name of Religion.
      The end is nigh for this nonsense and yesterday wouldn’t be a moment too soon.

      1. Interesting how in Northern Ireland, local Christians have been allowed to protest at the Gay Pride march taking place to day, despite recents claims that their views are being marginalised!!!

        1. Jock S. Trap 30 Jul 2011, 1:19pm

          Thanks for that JohnK – ain’t that bloomin typical?!

        2. I celebrate that a democracy allows peaceful protest to be held including intolerant and reprehensible views – they are seen by the vast majority for what they are.
          It is important that we continue to assert the rights to free speech (provided it is not offensive, violent or leading to action which damages others)
          I disagree entirely and wholeheartedly with the Sandown church and their protests – but I endorse their right to protest (although it is disappointing they have not gone through the usual parades commission process).

          1. Rich (original) 30 Jul 2011, 6:51pm

            You are a hypocrite. As much as Peter Tatchell are.

          2. rich have wank mate and relax

          3. @Rich (original)

            Where is my hypocracy? … please elucidate … I have been very consistent in what I have said, if I have lacked clarity please explain where and I willclarify

  44. How will they know who is homosexual anyway? Will bisexuals be discriminated against too ?
    Will we be forced to wear a pink triangle like they did in Germany during the war so they can identify us!?
    Streeter is using this motion purely to verbalise his own homophobic views.

  45. Out of the 650 MPs in the House of Commons only 19 are (currently) supporting it.

    Surely this should be rejected – talk about wasting taxpayers money.

  46. I think I’d like to be excused from serving Black people! The fact that I should treat Black people as if their looks and behaviour is normal is completely against my religious beliefs…

    I’d also like to be excused from serving Muslims, their beliefs clearly clash with my own…

    I think I’ll add anyone who doesn’t have Blonde Hair and Blue eyes either… It’s my religion don’t you know?

    ^ The above is the ridiculous situation this new Legislation could bring. Completely UNACCEPTABLE!! I really do not understand why discrimination against minorities is abhorrent until it comes to Homosexuality, where now it appears to be activley encouraged?!

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 30 Jul 2011, 8:46pm

      How dare you.

      I reserve the right NOT to offer you help in my NHS clinic because you said that.

      Common Flu.

      Tough. My faith says no, you are sinful.

      Heart attack. No luck. Cant help here. Your not like us.

      Seriously though.

      What would happen when someone calls for an ambulance and a religious objection at bothering with us gay people came into place.

      As a GP. I do not care one iota who comes for help.

      However if this bull amendment goes through, I WILL give as good as this crap law will allow.

      “Sorry. Religious are we. Then stop wasting NHS and tax payers money and ask your F.ING GOD to sort it out.”

  47. At the end of the day,there shouldnt be someone that feels like their rights are being violated,period.But Christians are like spoilt brats who are used to everything going their way.Perhaps they should be reminded that they use to hang and burn people who were opposed to the cult not so long ago.In enforcing their ‘rights’,they go as far as gathering at funerals of gay people and preaching that God hates them.I am just amused that they are now advocating for their rights before the return of Christ.

  48. Michaelangelo 30 Jul 2011, 10:13pm

    One commentator wrote, “In what way does serving gay people offend”.

    Christians, and I should think most people, wouldn’t be offended in the least by serving gay people. St Paul said that Christians have to deal with every sort of person in order to live in the world – even if those people might not be living moral lives.

    But things are different when Christians (or others) with deeply held moral convictions are asked to commit a sin. It is horrific to ask someone to do something they believe that they could end up going to hell for doing, or would bring about another soul’s destruction.

    By having to provide a bed for unmarried couples to sleep in B&B owners could feel that they are being asked to help another commit a sin. Likewise with a registrar who cannot having to register a civil partnership. Doctors can conscientiously opt out of providing abortion services.

    Personal morality doesn’t end because one works in medicine, hospitality or the civil service!

    1. Michaelangelo 30 Jul 2011, 10:15pm

      * should read “a registrar having to register…”

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 30 Jul 2011, 10:24pm

        Christian arrogance yet again.

        Look. If you define the fact that I as an Aithiest perform surgery on the Hearts of Children with heart defects is sinful then so be it. You can think it. But that is as far as you and you’re religious guff comes near to it.

    2. Dr Robin Guthrie 30 Jul 2011, 10:38pm

      Sin, is a religious concept.

      Your lesser educated parents were indoctrinated in it by indoctrinated priests.

      You are typing your message on a computer designed mostly by the work of gay people. ( Turing )

      Historical religious Art was mostly painted and designed by Gay people. Leonardo Da Vinci. Gallileo. etc.

      All of the Christ images you deign so important were painted by Gays.

      I can guarantee that I have 1000% more morals than you sir as do not denigrate anyone EVER..

      1. de Villiers 1 Aug 2011, 3:20pm

        That’s a bit vain, Dr Gutherie, and as supremacist as the ideologies you are seeking to bash.

    3. Erika Cart-Horse QC 2 Aug 2011, 1:48pm

      Since when is two men sharing a room or even a bed considered a sin in any religion?

      1. Except in cases such as the WBC, I am not aware of any ..

        but they are not a religion in my view but more a working mens club of bigots set in a remote part of the US that has little relevance to the real world

      2. @EC-HQC, wrote “Since when is two men sharing a room or even a bed considered a sin in any religion?”

        Well it’s not, it was only sin when a Levite “male with another male lays lyings of a woman” a phrase who’s meaning is now lost and which has no obvious interpretation today, perhaps it is condemning two males having sex with one woman, as in a menage a trois.

        1. Jock S. Trap 3 Aug 2011, 2:52pm

          Who can say but I’m pretty sure some will make it up as they go along.

  49. People with acquired beliefs (mind-raped into them as children) discriminating against people with immutable characteristics. How can anyone look at this situation rationally and not find it insane? If anything, it should be the other way round! Engage in willful ignorance all you like, but prepare to suffer the consequences (like paying extra tax for wasting oxygen or something).

    1. Unfortunately the “Mind Raped” are incapable of seeing anything other.

      My own partner, still, despite my utterances, finds the whole mind rape, so 100% belief that no matter what I say, and I have been told
      to SHUT UP, believable,

      I allow this. Cause I love the bugger. However I can see the potential mess that may occur.

    2. You are so right about religion mind-raping children… there’s the ongoing cycle of abuse that continues as those already mind-raped by religion offer up their own children in turn to also be mind-raped into religious compliance just as they themselves were..

  50. Stupid homophobe needs tone booted by parliament and his constituents.

    1. Rich (original) 31 Jul 2011, 12:47am

      Hahaha…. Only filthy hoimosexuals are intelligent in their degenerated and stinking way of existence….

      1. Jock S. Trap 31 Jul 2011, 8:08am

        There’s only one thing that stinks round here, eh Rich!

        1. Jock S. Trap 31 Jul 2011, 8:09am

          Rich, you always stink of Bullsh!t!

          1. Jock, pass me the can of air freshner

          2. Jock S. Trap 31 Jul 2011, 11:48am

            Sure, be careful though it’s industrial strength. It’s the only stuff that tries to work.

  51. Not all Christians are opposed to gay people or gay relationships. Hence, it is difficult to argue that being allowed to actively discriminate against gay people is a necessary tenet of the Christian faith. As pointed out elsewhere Jesus himself did not do so, and if we are to read the Gospel story regarding the Centurion and his `pais’ – quite possibly `boy friend’, correctly then we are on dangerous ground.
    Those who feel that gay relationships are wrong, feel it is wrong for them and indeed, no-one is compelling them to `be gay’. That is quite different from imposing their beliefs on others. After all, some of these fringe christians are also totally opposed to abortion, sex before marriage, divorce (although they seem to have changed their views on this despite Jesus’ explicit statements) etc and yet they do not say they wish to actively discriminate against people who fall into this category – it is only bigotry that makes the `gay issue’ different.

  52. “I find it very worrying that individual beliefs and opinions (religious or not) should be grounds for exemption from the law.

    An extreme example would be me arguing that I didn’t believe in property so was entitled to take whatever I liked.

    But in this case one doesn’t even need an extreme example, an exactly comparative example is just as shocking – The Ladele’s case argues that if a person interprets the bible as being pro-aparthide they should be able to refuse to marry a mixed race couple.” tonkatsu

    ” But…I am not convinced that it (the EHRC) any longer has any credibility, and under Mr Phillips I don’t believe it can ever have it again.

    What point, after all, is an Equality and Human Rights Commission which doesn’t appear to believe in equality, but instead in special dispensation for some at the expense of others?

    The EHRC, with Mr Phillips at the helm, is yet another organisation which is not fit for purpose.” Soarer

  53. “As a gay man I am horrified that the EHRC is taking this stance. I now have no confidence in them to represent the interests of gay people.
    While some religious people continue to express a desire to attack lesbian and gay people and lobby against our rights and opportunities it cannot be right for them to express their beliefs in terms of discrimination. Especially when there is a public duty to not discriminate in relation to providing goods and services.

    This is very depressing it boils down to priveleging religious beliefs above all others and allowing believers to justify intimidation, bullying, prostletising, discrimination and bad behaviour. The EHRC has muddied the waters of legal precedent and abadoned gay and lesbian people to placate the demands and desires of some to express dissaproval or persecute others.” Cont’d

    1. “Religious people surely do not have carte blanche on religious expression, there are many laws which regulate expression because that expression would harm others. You cannot murder or stone to death others, you cannot take a rod to a child, you cannot carry out circumcision on female children etc. no matter how much you justify it on religious grounds. Where does the line between allowing religious accomodations and harming others stop. The EHRC flippantly gives a relatively uncontroversial example and suggests that work rotas can just be changed, however in some businesses one person always getting Saturdays off might mean that others always have to work Saturdays. It’s not that simple. In some small reegistry offices the refusal of one or more registrars to conduct a civil partnerhsip might mean that people seeking civil partnerships have a very limited service.” Vauxhalldave

  54. Seperate issue but should be a headline news is the MISSED DEADLINE ON MARRIAGE EQULITY CONSULTATION

    “Work with all those who have an interest in equal civil marriage and partnerships, on how legislation can develop.”


    Plus reply by LF about talks over the summer on it

    May 5th – Lynne Featherstone: Yes, I agree that “equal rights” means “equal rights”, not “similar rights” or “nearly but not quite as good” rights. Having listened to stakeholders, it is clear that there is a genuine desire among many of them to move forward to equality between marriage and civil partnerships. Over the summer we shall start a discussion with all those with an interest in the matter on how legislation can develop


    Hope PN is following up on this missed deadline!

    1. I agree with you. I hope Pink News starts asking questions about this issue.

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 31 Jul 2011, 6:50pm

        Don’t bet your life on it. PinkNews are only interested in their bottom line. ( Cash )

        I have E-Mailed them continually asking them to remove\moderate this RICH person.

        Young gay people come onto this forum and all they see is religious hatred.

        No wonder some of them bugger off and kill themselves. All allowed by the editors of this

        I have asked my local MP who is big on this subject to bring up this subject in parliament, particularly asking
        the editors and owners of this alleged gay publication just where their interests lie.

        It will be curious to see if they eventually get it, when they are exposed as the homophobic editors that they have
        become and the press council sues them all out of business.

    2. Yes, what has happened to the marriage equality consultations,

      Marriage equality is not totally unrelated to this thread, while some Christians are intent to promote the daft fiction that they are being sidelined, gay men and lesbian women really are being sidelined and discriminated against by being denied equal access to marriage. Weare not asking to discrimijnate Christians nor for any special privileges but we are asking for an equal right to marry the person we love.
      Momentum needs to be kept up, any chance of some coverage on marriage equality consultations Jessica Green?

      1. Why is Rich (whoever he is under his many guises) allowed to post on here? It’s simply outrageous!!

  55. Christian, Atheist
    Gay, straight
    Black, white
    Man, woman
    Up, down
    On, off
    Heaven, hell

    Every action, every thought, every race, every sex, everything in this world has an opposite in some form whether it be directly or indirectly… the point of it is, accept this fact and understand that both need to exist…

    As a gay, white, atheist who generally only believes what he can see, touch, feel, taste, smell, witness, acknowledge and trust… I say lets live our short lives to our very best, in the way we want to live them, without hurting or causing harm to others…
    Love and be loved…

    1. Erika Cart-Horse QC 2 Aug 2011, 1:57pm

      Your conclusion is admirable, but your premise is faulty. The opposites you list are merely items from a graduated range of possibilities in each case. The world is in colour, not black and white.

      1. There’s not really an opposite of a Christian at all but that said there are also agnostics & all the other religions to consider.
        Gays are not really the opposite of anything at all, there is a spectrum of normal human sexualities ranging from extreme heterosexuality to extreme homosexuality (both extremes being rare) between these extremes of orientation there are those who are mostly heterosexual, there are bisexuals, & those who are mostly homosexual there are also asexuals and nonsexuals.
        Black absorbs all colours & white reflects all colours plus there are greys, the spectrum of colours with various tints, shades of.
        A man is not the opposite of a woman they are complementary & of the same human species with individual differences as are transpersons.
        There’s the space between up & down.
        There’s standby, between on & off.
        There’s purgatory, a fictional place between the fictional heaven & hell but all are Christian inventions including the now terminated limbo.

        1. aww Pavlos I love a good limbo… get that steel band playing, I’m getting down!!

  56. I daresay Streeter will use the same argument to justify a ban on same-sex marriage whenever the phantom consultation begins. I can just hear these nutters ranting. Rowan Williams et all will have a field day.

    1. Erika Cart-Horse QC 2 Aug 2011, 2:00pm

      The CLC/Christian Concern already did, see the article on New York marriage linked by arfur above.

  57. They should rather hold an inquiry on the marriage equality rights in the UK. :)

  58. Not surprisingly, this thread now has over 300 entries. As a Christian, I am well aware of the depth of feeling amongst other fellow Christians that societal shifts means Christian viewpoints are being increasingly marginalised, including Christians losing their jobs for falling out of line with those promoting anti-Christian ifeas. The issue is not one of bigotory but doing what is right. Mr Streeter’s motion is right. I am disappointed that some of his fellow MPs don’t have the courage to support this.

    1. John, I’m a Christian too. The idea of same-sex marriage is not anti-Christian. same sex relationships as we know them are not mentioned in the Bible, not even in the Old Testament.
      Go and do some learning and some theology. The Bible has been mistranslated for centuries, evidently meanings have been lost and changed. Christ’s forebear David was gay! Get over your own homophobia and follow Christ’s teachings to love your neighbour as yourself.

      1. eleison: I am a bit baffled – you say on one hand that same sex relationships are not mentioned in the Bible (in fact they are but generally in a disapproving sense) and that David was gay. We only know about David’s life from the Bible so how can you say this? True David had a v.close relationship with Jonathan but no exigesis would lead me to conclude they were gay. As for theology, it is something I study and agonise over, even to the extent of accepting the Bible might not condemn gay relationships. However, from Geneisis 2 and as affirmed by Jesus and Paul, the only relationships commended are straight ones! And amen to loving our neighbours – be they straight or gay!

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.