Good on Adrian.
I am disgusted that parliament will be debating this, though.
Would they consider hearing a similar debate on the rights of white people to discriminate against black people ‘based on their beliefs’?
The BNP have pretty strong beliefs in that regard – and they’re no less sane than claiming that an imaginary friend wrote a book 4000 years ago which says he hates gays.
Dear Honourable Members
It has come to my attention that you, as a group of Labour MPs, are supporting the Early Day Motion #2081 ‘RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN PUBLIC LIFE’
This Early Day Motion effectively states that people who hold certain right-wing religious beliefs can discriminate against gay people and be allowed to not perform some of their public duties.
I’m a Christian, and I don’t see that being gay is against ‘Christian’ belief. This ideology comes from a cultural fear rather than a Christian tenet of faith.
Christians are supposed to adhere to the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20:3-17.
None of them refer to homosexuality in any shape or form.
The second option is to look at the two laws of Jesus Himself:
Matthew 22:37-40, “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
Again, no sign of homophobia.
Please think again about supporting a motion that suggests it’s ok for people to discriminate against others on grounds of a very dodgy religious ‘belief’. Homophobia is not in the Bible. Homophobia is in people’s heads. If they were serious about bringing their faith into their job, then ‘Christian fundamentalist’ registrars shouldn’t be marrying black people to white people as that is forbidden in the Old Testament :
You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.
neither should they be marrying divorced people as that is also in the Bible
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
So these ‘Christians’ are quite happy to break ‘Christian tenets of faith’ if they apply to straight people, but not if they apply to gay people.
Try applying a little thought to my last statement, as it really says it all.
What a perverse and surely deliberate twisting of scripture which sought to separate the morally clean Israelites from the child sacrificing , sodomy loving , pagan god worshipping Canaanites. Colour wqs not an issue nor was it mentioned.
By the way Acts 10:34-35 says that God is not partial and he accepts righteous people from ANY nation. Of course, that would mean turning from homosexual acts and repenting first.
Whilst I know I’m not your constituent, I am gay, I am Christian and I am a Labour voter. I am appalled that any Labour MP’s support such a right-wing motion, and I urge you to rescind your support on logical grounds and on grounds of equality as supported by the Labour Party.
I’ve sent this email today to the Labour MPs who still support this EDM 2081
I hope they see some logic in my statements.
So how do you account for Jude verse 7 then?
International Standard Version (2008)
7.Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire.
Christians are NOT bound by the Ten commandments as you assert or do you think that Christians are ‘bound’ to observe the Sabbath?
They probably will not be debating this. EDMs often do not get called. On the other hand Streeter’s DIY enquiry will probably proceed, using the cloak of Parliament to disguise what is probably a self-appointed hatchet job.
Does that mean all lib dem MPs are now going to remove their names after the recess…?. Only 1 labour MP though is going to, very disappointing.
It’s not whether the EDM gets “called” or not , it’s the principle behind it that’s important …When it was first raised I noticed that some of the Christians websites were declaring it as a victory that they had cross party support to discriminate..
Streeter replied to me about his inquiry (one line, if that!) and said the launch is in oct , details out then. He has made his intentions quite clear and threatend us with wanting to wind back the law. I hope Adrian Sanders and the others will now speak up and write to the EHRC and the govt…I hope they now all realise what this is all about!!
Perhaps she’s not “angry” enough, Jock… :-)
But then again, I seem to recall that she did try and block that public services anti-discrimination clause in the Equality Act in the first place, so what should we expect from her?
I hope it doesn’t get debated. The fact that a number of people have left after apparently being mislead over the content of this motion should be telling all concerned that this farse should be scrapped once and for all.
Trevor Phillips needs to amend or retract the statement that the EHRC will intervene and support special accommodations for Christians in the four vacuous cases due to be heard at ECHR. These Christian activists are really trying it on.
EHRC (Equality and Human Rights Commission)
ECHR (European Court of Human Rights)
Indeed and the ever so quiet in all this, Angela Mason, needs to be both seen and heard on the subject.
“Over-tolerant to some groups”. This is about discrimination over goods and services, nothing to do with forcing your sexuality on someone.
I’m sure particular Christian hotel owners wouldn’t like to know that the straight couple they have staying there aren’t in wedlock or are performing anal sex but tbh it isn’t any of their business if it’s not harming them.
So since it is not haming them, should they also be morally obligated to accept a consenting father and son incestuous couple, or is there a moral case not to allow such a couple to stay?
Good for Adrian. Now if we can do a few more this will hopefully put this ridiculous piece of a motion into chaos.
As for Mr. Streeter… When he says this isn’t about discrimination then states in another sentence and I quote “We have been over-tolerant to a number of groups” it’s clear that it is about nothing But discrimination.
Perhaps Mr Streeter would benefit from a grilling from Jeremy Paxman as to what exactly hi intentions are?
Yes, that I’d like to see if not for the flannel you can expect from the likes of Mr Streeter.
A message from Ben Summerskill, Chief Executive
Gay people contribute £40bn every year to fund Britain’s public services. As a Stonewall supporter, you’ll remember the hard battles we fought to ensure that every one of Britain’s 3.7 million lesbian, gay and bisexual citizens is now treated equally by each one of those services.
So imagine our surprise to find that the Equality and Human Rights Commission – publicly-funded itself – thinks that guaranteeing fair treatment for gay people doesn’t offer adequate ‘accommodation’ for those seeking to discriminate against us using the cloak of religious belief to disguise their prejudice. The Commission has applied to intervene in a European Court case involving, among others, Lillian Ladele and Gary McFarlane, and water down our hard-won protections.
(Cont’d from previous)
The Commission should be crystal clear that if it seeks to defend the claimed right of any public servant to turn away any user of a public service, it will face the strongest opposition from us. It would be unthinkable for it to support a religious nurse who wanted to refuse to treat an alcoholic or a social worker who declined to assist single mothers. It’s shocking that it should even be considering a dilution of a settled legal position that gay people have fought so hard for.
With best wishes,
£40 bn. Is that all. Nowhere near what the heterosexual community contribute is it?
Also, for Christians, God’s law trumps the law of the land every time!
Acts 3:29…New Living Translation (2007)
29.But Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than any human authority….
So you see the necessity to disregard laws that compromius ones moral standing with God?
Well I’ve been over tolerant of Christians and muslims time to show them who they’re dealing with
Who died and made Gary Streeter Arcbishop?
His views are as insulting to Christians as they are to aetheists. Does this man not realise that the CoE allows gay clergy as do an increasingly large number of Anglican churches. He appears as extraordinarily uneducated as he is out of touch.
This scares me. I thought we were moving forward but we are going back. I want to one day live here with my partner but this country is becoming very frightening.
Growing homophobia on the streets and growing in Westminster.
Christians’ rights? Seems they already have ALL their rights, but we don’t (think marriage equality), and that’s ok? Discriminating against someone isn’t a right last time I checked. If they want to discriminate against us, then we too should be allowed to disciminate against them based on our beliefs.
If this is allowed a debate in Parliament, then it will prove that the Tories don’t have our backs. Forget about marriage equality too. These same whining “christians” will try and pull a fast one on that too, and Streeter will support it, guaranteed.
As you go through life… rarely is there a politician who’s integrity is not questioned. Adrian clearly has a conscience… if he has a conscience he clearly knows between right and wrong. I would say a politician worthy of support and continued recognition few deserve.