Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


EHRC commissioner Angela Mason: ‘We won’t seek ‘reasonable adjustments’ for anti-gay workers’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Christine Beckett 4 Aug 2011, 1:20pm

    So who was off-message enough to allow the initial stance to be presented as “policy”?

    That place is a total mess, and the sooner Philips and his deputy go, the better.


    1. Again this is the creation of the gay activists’ own doing, they have nobody else to blame but themselves.

      Under runaway “equality for all” it only makes reasonable sense to extend accommodation to Christians who are at the opposite side of the issue. Its that simple.

      Gayrea 51
      Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      1. Illiterate rubbish – like your websites. No gay person is demanding the right not to marry christians. If that person did he or she would be sacked.

        The point about equality is that there is one law for all, and that is all there is to be said. It seems, you, as an apologist for bigots, want to give Christian beliefs privilege in law, over the rights and dignity of people.

        Ms Ladele, who is not forced to change her beliefs, but merely prevented from imposing herself on others, is not marrying anyone in the eyes of god in anycase.

        1. Ms Ladele, who is not forced to change her beliefs, but merely prevented from imposing herself on others,

          Not good enough. Gays are no forced to change their beliefs either, but merely preventing others impose beliefs on her by officiating something she believes to be wrong.

          Question: Would you do something that would sanction homophobia? Of course not.

          Gayrea 51
          Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          1. (Not good enough for whom?)
            The law says gay people can join in civil partnerships. And that gay people have equal access to public goods and services.

            To hell with what she believes. It doesn’t count. That she is forced to do her job (which she chooses to do), does not force her to change her ludicrous beliefs. We do not afford rights to beliefs, which is what you are advocating.

            Obviously you think other people have a right to interfere and pass judgment on the private lives of gay people (not, e.g. divorcees, unmarriwed mothers, non-christians etc). You think uniquely, gay people should ask the permission of others.

            Many hardline loons are creationists (another sign of idiocy), especially in your country. Should we teach nonsense like intelligent design in classrooms because some ‘believe’ evolution is the root of evil?

          2. The law says gay people can join in civil partnerships.

            So what? Is there a law that says one must approve of said unions? Is there a law that says you must agree to the law?

            In Uganda there is also a law against homosexuality, and guess what? Civil servants have to OBEY it. Does that mean it makes such law just because it exist? Of course not. But it is the law. And people have the right to disagree with it and ask the government for protections from it. Just like how YOU would demand such protections for Gay Ugandans.

            Gayrea 51
            Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          3. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 8:58am

            Exactly Adrian. Lets not forget the LGBTQI community DO pay taxes as well, just as equally as everyone else.

          4. To hell with what she believes.

            Yet I AM the bigot around here… lol. Okay then if that is your game, to hell with what YOU believe. But if somebody were to actually say that to YOU, you and the PN posse (Stu, Will, Dan, Iris, Jockstrap) would go crazy and demand that such person be banned. Why the double standard?

            Obviously you think other people have a right to interfere and pass judgment on the private lives of gay people

            But yet that is what you are doing to Christians:

            her ludicrous beliefs”
            Many hardline loons are creationists (another sign of idiocy), especially in your country.

            Gayrea 51
            Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          5. Exactly Adrian. Lets not forget the LGBTQI community DO pay taxes as well,

            Yawn… Christians do AS WELL. So again where are THEIR equal rights to demand what THEY want…

            Silly argument.

            Gayrea 51
            Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          6. You think uniquely, gay people should ask the permission of others.

            Hm. Yes I do think uniquely, meaning I ACTUALLY analyze things carefully and not regurgitate things because they are popular.

            Permission? Well you do need permission to get a civil partnership last I checked. You have to go the registrar’s office and APPLY to see if you QUALIFY for one and wait the mandatory waiting period. You see life is all about “permission.” Waiting for the red light to change green, asking your partner if he is okay to have sex with you… Darn those permissions!

            LOL. Now thinking about it, that was a very silly statement you made.


            Gayrea 51
            Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          7. Pepa, your new website is fukced up. You have serious anti gay christian extremist problems.

          8. Pepa, your new website is fukced up. You have serious anti gay christian extremist problems.

            It exist because you extremists exist. If gay sex activists can only see how extremist they really are and how they are no better than the westboro baptist church, but you can’t because you are caught up in your extremism.

            Gayrea 51
            Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          9. These arguments from ‘Pepa’ – an apologist for extremists – are frankly childish.

            You’re mixing beliefs with actions. A civil servant works to uphold the law, whether she believes in it or not. If she doesn’t like it, she is free to find another job.

            To repeat, I don’t force anyone to change their babyish, ludicrous beliefs. They are free to believe and do what they like provided it harms no one.

            It’s not bigotry to ridicule stupid beliefs based on no evidence. People who claim to know a god exists in the cosmos (when evidence suggests the contrary), to know which, of all the thousands of gods that have ever existed in people’s minds is the true one, and then claim to be on such intimate terms with this god, as to know its mind on who we should go to bed with – these beliefs should be suspected, and ridiculed, as per Matt 10:22. However, you seek to privilege and respect these beliefs.

          10. Pepa,

            You sure need to go to school.
            Human rights are based on protections for innate characteristics: race, sex, sexuality, ethnicity etc. and the freedoms of association, enquiry, expression, self determination that go with it, and with the proviso that liberties stop when they are to the detriment of others.

            THey should not include ‘beliefs’ – which deserve no protection. People can hold beliefs, but they have no right to make them count in the public sphere, especially if they are incoherent and based on nothing but ‘faith’. We challenge beliefs by the light of reason, evidence, logic. That is how humanity has gained its freedoms since the time of Copernicus.

            It really is an obligation to ridicule people who believe the earth is 5,000 years old. And pretend Evolution didn’t happen.

          11. Folks – just for a laugh – Pepa actually thinks creationism is fine and people who think man and dinosaurs existed at the same time should have their beliefs respected. It is ‘bigotry’ to call such people ‘loons’ according to Pepa.

            Pepa – I’ll ask again, do you believe Creationism should be taught in schools? Come on, give us another laugh.

          12. @Pepa
            Come on then Pepa, tells us all about creationism
            You mindless muppet

          13. “You mindless muppet”
            “To repeat, I don’t force anyone to change their babyish, ludicrous beliefs.”
            “You sure need to go to school.”

            *shakes head in shame*

            Do you really think that you people warrant a serious debate with regard to serious issues when you use bigoted childish language like that?

            Of course If I use the same tactics, I am the bad guy… lol. Hypocrites.

            To answer your question @Adrian @JohnK, No I do not believe in creationism as theorized by certain christians. I have no opinion on it, I just don’t believe in it.

            JohnK, in another post you accuse people who are “obsessed” with an issue to be hiding something. Hence you are a closeted creationist since you are obsessed with it and I didn’t even bring it up, according to your logic.

            You people have a bone to pick, you don’t want hear about anything else, you are clearly closed minded bigots and “h8ters” (using your same tactics here).

            Your whole world view revolves around Pink News!!! LOL

          14. @Pepa, if you are not a mindless muppet, then why do you right mindless things on your website?

          15. PS – Why were you justifying your argument about breaking the law by comparing the plight of a marriage registrar with that of gays in Uganda (where the death penalty is proposed)?

            It is an obscene comparison.

            I did have a laugh when I discovered what Pepa meant in Spanish! How appropriate.

        2. Pepa’s opinion about creationism, including the hypothesis that the world is 5,000, as opposed to 4.7billion, years old tells us a lot about his attitude to truth, and the search for it:

          “I have no opinion on it, I just don’t believe in it.”

          It tells me that Pepa’s root problem, is he doesn’t care about the truth. All opinions are equally deserving of respect. I don’t ‘believe in’ truth – I ‘accept’ truth.

          But all opinions are just NOT worthy of equal respect. Some opinions are utterly, ignominiously wrong and bonkers. The fact someone passionately believes in nonsense (such as claiming, in the 21st century, to know god’s opinion on who we should sleep with – the most arrogant claim imaginable) does not make it more true.

          We don’t respect beliefs, because people can and do change their minds. Check out ‘Godless’ by former evangelical preacher Dan Barker, now president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and how he came to his senses.

          1. LOL.

            You arrogance really stinks to high heaven, So now your aim is not to have a meaningful discussion about runaway equality and the hypocrisy of gay sex activists, but now you are more interested in debating creationism.

            Well in that case go argue those points with the creationists.

            It is quite hypocritical that you people insist all the time in bringing up other subjects that have no connection to the article, but yet when I do it you loath, bitch whine.

            But all opinions are just NOT worthy of equal respect.

            This is the most disturbing statement you have made so far, so you mean that you justify homophobes having no respect for the opinions that ere expressed by gay people?

            Ulgh, your whole tirade is as transparent as a jelly fish. It is more reactionary than reasonable, more hateful than thoughtful.

          2. I’m thinking about using that silly quote on the site, to show the extremism and hatred of the gay sex activists.

            So don’t try to sue me for defamation again, I’m going to directly quote you.

            That statement was pretty incredible.

          3. Go for it, quote me by all means, Pepa – and make yourself look even more ignorant and illiterate. It pleases me to see you seething and ranting about what I say, with your incoherent diatribe. When evidence is on my side (e.g. for evolution) then, we can afford to be arrogant.

            Some opinions are stupid and idiotic, because they are based on nonsense instead of evidence.

            To repeat – civilised people do not respect beliefs. All opinions should be subject to the same level of suspicion, or interrogation. So, people who claim to be so intimate with the mind of god, that they know whom we shouild sleep with, should be forced to provide evidence for this claim, if they want to be taken seriously. Which, of course, can never happen. Such people should be treated with ridicule, and mockery, and if they won’t carry out their CIVIL function, then they can go do another job.

          4. PS I can tell a lot about you by the answer you give to your attitude towards Creationism. You made it clear, that in your opinion, nonsense beliefs and fairytales are just as worthy as the truth.

            In short, you don’t care about truth, or how to seek it.

        3. Well said, AdrianT

          Its strange how some purportedly gay people see that advancing equality for all (including LGBT people and non LGBT people) is a step which is negative

          Also strange that LGBT people can take steps which are professional but outside their sphere of beliefs eg a gay atheist registrar marrying a heterosexual Christian couple in a civil marriage (or indeed one with a religious content at certain churches where this is permitted but do not hold registrar rights). Of course, some Christians and people of other faiths recognise the difference between personal ethos and beliefs and professional responsibility, some apparently do not …

          Is it any different from a police officer who disagrees say with the law on recreational drugs but still enforces it?

      2. No Pepa. This is where your true ignorance to reality is completely tarnished by your determination to oppress homosexuals. Your ridiculous attempt to cloak your bigoted homophobic views under the banner ‘Gays Against Homosexual Extremism’ is both foolish and transparent.

        Your cause, honesty and integrity are all called into question by your failure to clearly state that you are a Christian fundamentalist with anti gay views.

        I and my friends have viewed your website and could not stop laughing at your stupidity. Hilarious!

        1. Your cause, honesty and integrity are all called into question by your failure to clearly state that you are a Christian fundamentalist with anti gay views.

          Hm. Okay if YOU say so.

          Gayrea 51
          Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          1. I entirely agree with him – and it is clear and obvious to most who read your inane comments

      3. Actually, I’ll have to reply to an idiotic argument of Pepa’s, on the issue of ‘permission’.

        Yes, permission is needed – couples have to meet certain criteria to get married. Heterosexual couples do not need to ask permission of others, to get married on account of their sexual orientation, or their sex. Gay people shouldn’t have to do this either.

        Fundamentalist bigots have the freedom of association, and to enforce their marriage rules in their church. The rules of the church should not have any privilege outside the church gate, (cf. Jefferson’s ‘Virginia Statute’). Otherwise, where does it end? Liquor stores employing muslims who refuse to serve alcohol? Jews who will not work on the Sabbath or handle pork? Vegetarians who will not serve meat? And why not extend exemptions to anyone who can’t stand queers period? Where do you draw the line Pepa? It is a recipe for anarchy, mob rule – and Sharia law.

        The only solution: One Law For All.

        1. The only solution: One Law For All.

          Again, you’re such a liar.

          You don’t want one law for all. You want one law for you and one law for everybody else.

          You preach equality but fail to give EQUAL time and accommodation to your enemies.

          Again why this equality nonsense?

          1. My, my, you behave like a little child. You clearly must hate your own Constitution and the Virginia Statute.

            One Law For All means everyone is given the same protections and rights irrespective of their sex, sexuality, race, religion.

            This tolerance does not apply to those who discriminate based on such traits listed above.

            The marriage registrar we are discussing, does infact discriminate against gay people. So, she has no right to to have beliefs like that ‘accommodated’. And indeed, we must not accommodate them.

            We don’t accommodate bigots and people who preach exclusion and intolerance.

            As I said – allowing religious people to override secular, civil law leads to sectarianism, for the reason I state above. I ask you to respond and you reply with petty insults. You have no answer. Again: where do you draw the line with respect to handling and selling pork, shellfish, alcohol, beef? Come on, Pepa, answer….

          2. @Pepa
            Why is it that you can only engage in sound bites, rather rise to the challange of an argument.

          3. What do you fear from equality, Pepa?

      4. Pepa – here is a good illustration about the inequality of opinion & belief:

        after years of stock market turmoil, and sub-prime fraud, many irrational, credulous people are realising that some beliefs are less worthy than others. On your blog, you (or your partner) report losing thousands this week, as prices start to reflect reality instead. Your opinion about the value of your portfolio, at its fantastic, over-inflated price, was literally, worth less than that of others, who profited from your poor judgment and gullibility. If all beliefs counted equally, there would be no market to make a profit on.

    2. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 8:46am

      I have to agree Christine, there really must be better people to take his place who really, genuinely wish to improve Equality and Human Rights for all and not crumble when the few in the church feel they should be treated like disabled people.

      Not only is it an insult to genuinely disabled people but an insult to Equality and indeed democracy.

    3. Good news (the EHRC must take note).
      The American Psychological Association


      “WASHINGTON Advocates of marriage equality got a huge boost when the world’s largest and most respected psychology group on Wednesday voted unanimously to support same-sex marriage.

      The American Psychological Association (APA) policy-making panel voted 157-0 to approve a resolution to support marriage equality, citing an abundance of new studies that show that same-sex couples share the same goals as opposite-sex couples in building “stable, long-lasting and committed intimate relationships and are successful in doing so

  2. This shows that the EHRC is a mess and needs to be shaken out from the top down!

  3. About time Angela Mason addressed this puiblicly.
    Now Trevor Phillips must correct the misleading press statement.

    Also considering this
    “This autumn, a parliamentary committee is to examine whether changes should be made to discrimination laws after a raft of legal cases over Christian and gay rights.

    Public hearings will be held, with MPs and Lords invited to give their views on whether current laws are adequate.”

    The majority of these Christian activists legal cases were brought & represented by the CLC.(the Christian Legal Centre)

    1. How is the Christian Legal Centre funded?
      “Sunday’s Observer newspaper carried an article titled Christian Legal Centre fights more than 50 religious discrimination cases by Jamie Doward and Seb Wheeler which discusses how this organisation is funded:

      Questions have been asked about from where the centre – and its sister organisation, Christian Concern For Our Nation – obtain funding. Accounts show both organisations have little in the way of income.”

      Williams said all of the centre’s work was done on a pro bono basis by committed Christian lawyers and that what money it had came in small donations from more than 30,000 people who received its regular email updates. “We never ask clients for money,” she said. “Very often they fear losing their case and having to pay the costs of the other side. Part of our ministry is to ensure they are not burdened with that.” (Cont’d)

      1. (Cont’d from previous)
        Close observers of the centre believe it is adopting the tactics of wealthy US evangelical groups, notably the powerful Alliance Defence Fund, which, through its Blackstone Legal Fellowship, trains an army of Christian lawyers to defend religious freedom “through strategy, training, funding and direct litigation”.

        The ADF, which according to filings had an income of almost $40m last year, is funded by prominent benefactors including Erik Prince, founder of the Blackwater private security giant, the Covenant Foundation, which is financed by a leading member of the Texas Christian right, James Leininger, and the Bolthouse Foundation, a charity that rejects evolution, insisting “man was created by a direct act of God in His image, not from previously existing creatures”.

        1. (Cont’d from previous)
          “The ADF has joined forces with the Christian Legal Centre and Christian Concern For Our Nation to launch the Wilberforce Academy in the UK, which aims to train delegates “for servant-hearted, Christ-centred leadership in public life” having equipped them “with a robust biblical framework that guides their thinking, prayers and activity in addressing the issues facing our society”. Several of its delegates have already gone on to work for the legal centre and Christian Concern.

          1. Related article

            “The Christian Legal Centre should apologise

            The Christian Legal Centre (CLC) have lost all credibility. Following a High Court case about foster parents, they have made statements which are difficult to interpret as anything other than blatantly misleading.”
            More here:

          2. I think the Christian Legal centre epitomise “Lying for Jesus”

          3. Thanks for the links Pavlos. The hilarity of some modern evangelical type christians who, when asking themselves WWJD? Find that the answer is – pass by the needy, the homeless, the suffering, and pay to fight for the the right to treat other people as lesser humans while helping their lawyers to buy a new Bentley. I find them a pathetic joke. And as a woman, a lesbian and an atheist, I find the bleating of christians of how they are being mistreated to be laughable. It is only by virtue of time and history that some bloody christian wouldn’t have been burning me at the nearest stake. They have a debt to pay, an apology to society for the harm that was done and they need the decency and humility to accept the truth. The whining over the right to wear a cross (not a tenant of christian faith) just makes me laugh.

      2. Ooer missus 4 Aug 2011, 4:20pm

        Thanks Pavlos, it does sound like the American evangelical extremists are trying to bring their dreadful culture wars to our shores, as they have elsewhere.

        1. Ooer missus 4 Aug 2011, 5:18pm

          Also to be noted, the ADF, which Williams of the CLC is quoted as saying is a fantastic organisation, is allied, according to it’s website (see “allies” tab), to the Family Research Council and it’s sister organisation, Focus on the Family, and other extremely anti-gay organisations.

        2. LOL.

          What is this garbage?

          It would be like blaming London banks for the economic crisis, it would be like blaming all Africans for the HIV crisis, it would be like blaming all Germans today for the holocaust…

          Do you hold these grudges too hater?

          Gayrea 51
          Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          1. @Pepa

            How laughable – you disagree with something – so naturally it is “garbage” … cler demonstration of your lack of maturity when it comes to debate

        3. Religious fear and hate mongering has been one of the more prominent export articles from the US for several years now…..

          1. So what?

            The article is telling us that homophobic christians IN ENGLAND are demanding their equal rights as well to not partake or sanction homosexuality in any way. Good ole’ “tolerant” England. LOL. Rubbish.

            You remind me of the Ugandans who blame Americans for the homophobia and homosexuality there at the same time. You do know that the people of Uganda can just say “no, thank you”

            Why can;t you Brits say that as well? Or is homophobia only unique to America?

            Gayrea 51
            Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          2. Pepa seems to relish relgious gate mongering and fear. He fails to see the damage it does to both society in general and to those who religious themselves. Ignorance is apparently utopia and bliss

  4. Is this just PR

    Is the EHRC reversikng its revolting position?

    Will Mason quit if the EHRC does not reverse its position.

    Who in the EHRC formulated their disgusting position. Is that person going to continue formulating EHRC policy when he/she clearly has no understanding of human rights?

    1. Yeah they probably thought that gay brits would make a big fuss about it. Now it has comeback to bite them in the butt.

      Goes to show how silly all of this equality business really is.

      Gayrea 51
      Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      1. Sorry I meant they thought they WOULDN’T make a big fuss about it.

        Gayrea 51
        Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

        1. I’ve read your website Pepa.

          It’s very badly written, and makes no sense.

          Then again you are a christian.

          1. Thanks for the feedback.

            So comparing GAHE against PN whose writing is worse and doesn’t make sense?

          2. Childish retort

  5. And why the silence from Trevor Phillips?

    Is he away on some fact-finding mission with Ben Summerskill?

    While the organisations they head, are collapsing due to the blatant lack of comprehension they share, on the meaning of equality?

  6. Mumbo Jumbo 4 Aug 2011, 1:40pm

    Peter Tatchell said: “This looks like a welcome climb down, but we need to have it confirmed by the head of the EHRC, Trevor Phillips. We should not assume anything until we get an official announcement.

    I would go further. We need to have it confirmed by the removal of the head of the EHRC,Trevor Phillips.

    Whilst appreciating the sterling work Angela is doing behind the scenes and in this pre-emptive strike today, the organisation under the leadership of Phillips is clearly dysfunctional and not fir for purpose.

    1. Christine Beckett 4 Aug 2011, 1:47pm


      EHRC policy is what Phillips says it is, not what the Commissioners say it is. That’s why so many of them walked out two years ago.

      The god-bothering duo at the top of the EHRC really do need to go, because by their words and actions they have made it clear that, under their control (it can’t be called leadership), the EHCR WILL sacrifice LGBT equal rights on the alter of religious bigotry.


      1. Christina 4 Aug 2011, 1:53pm

        Trevor Philips *is* a commissioner – he is Chair of the board of commissioners. Angela Mason is just as authoritative as him to clarify the EHRC’s position, especially on LGB issues.

        1. Which begs the question.

          How was the EHRC’s appalling position formulated?

        2. Christine Beckett 4 Aug 2011, 2:21pm

          Christina…. That’s a bit specious.

          Phillips is Chair, and that allows him to run the EHRC. The quango’s policies are dictated by Phillips. Always have been, always will be, until he goes.

          As for the idea that Mason and the other Commissioners have the same status as Phillips within the EHCR, the following would seem to indicate that is NOT the case.

          “When asked whether she had been consulted before the EHRC made its announcement, she said: “A press release is a press release. I don’t think it fully represented the opinion of the commission.”

          She was not even consulted before an official EHRC press release on a major subject that came under HER remit.

          And of course If the Commissioners were really all equally authoritative, then there would have been no need for the mass of resignations during 2009, would there?

          The reality is that Joel Edwards has more say in EHRC polices than the committee, and he’s not even a Commissioner anymore!


  7. I wish Pink News would report things properly. The two cases about crosses have been resolved and both “Ladies” are allowed to wear their crosses at work. Unfortunately that’s not good enough for them.

    Case 1 Nurse wants to wear cross round neck – Her bosses say no because no one is allowed to wear any jewellery round their neck as a patient may grab hold of it and injure the nurse. Blanket ban on necklaces so no discrimination. Her bosses also advised her that it would be perfectly acceptable to wear the cross as a broach. Not good enough – claim christian rights being trampled and off to Europe with the CLC.

    1. Case 2 – BA Lady told she could not wear her cross outside her tunic. In Line with BA policy of not allowing any religious symbols in the workplace. BA backed down and said she could and offered her £8,500 compensation. Not good enough as she wants a tribunal to find in her favour over religious discrimination. Tribunal finds no case for discrimination as it was a blanket ban covering all religions. In addition the tribunal heard and accepted testimony that the lady had several complaints against her for harassing colleagues whose “lifestyles” offended her by calling them sinners and quoting scripture at her. Not happy with outcome of tribunal off to Europe with the CLC more details http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/17/acrosstobear

      These cases have nothing to do with crosses and everthing to do with the wishes of the CLC to gain publicity and backing to allow christians to be above the rules.

      1. I completely agree, Dave G – excellent explanation of those two cases. I think the CLC and its associates are on a mission to obtain special privileges for Christians and they think that by constantly saying they’re being persecuted they’ll get public support. There is a political motive behind all this.

      2. de Villiers 5 Aug 2011, 2:18pm

        I understood that the BA complainant lost her case not because it was a rule that affected everybody (which could still amount to indirect discrimination) but that because wearing a cross was not a religious requirement, therefore prohibiting the wearing of one interfered with no religious rule.

    2. both “Ladies” are allowed to wear their crosses at work. Unfortunately that’s not good enough for them.

      Yeah well thats not good enough of an argument, same thing could be said about gays:

      “Gays are allowed to be gay and engage in homosexuality and live together. Unfortunately that’s not good enough for them.”

      Remember under the guise of runaway equality, whatever is good enough for one side it is also good enough for the other.

      Gayrea 51
      Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      1. ‘Runaway equality’.

        So do you support the right of christian nurses, not to tend to unwed mothers, when they are in hospitals?

        if not. Why not?

        1. I don’t because I don’t support runaway equality like YOU do.

          Gayrea 51
          Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      2. Again Pepa, your comment above smells of stupidity and poor education.

        It seems that you have not grasped the point of ‘equality’. Christians are not requesting equality, they are requesting the right to hate and oppress – I am sure that you can see the difference. Gay people are asking to be treated respectfully and equally. Christians are asking for the right not respect and treat equally whomever their church has a grudge against at any particular time. Do not forget the slave trade was fully justified by the christian church and it’s teachings for hundreds of years. The southern states of America used the bible as their legal defence to retain and continue trading in African slaves.

        1. Gay people are asking to be treated respectfully and equally.

          Here is where you contradict yourself with your ideology.

          You cannot extend respect and equal treatment to christians, you just wanted all to yourself.

          If only gays are allowed to shut others up, demand and whine, have a special contract “civil partnerships” just for them, having special events just for gays, ridicule and judge others then YOU are not for “equality for all.”

          You fail to see the fallacy of runaway equality.

          Gayrea 51
          Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          1. PePa,

            Here is the fundamental flaw in your argument. Christianity is a belief that you choose to adopt or follow. And within that faith there is a whole range of divided opinions on moral issues. It is also not proven that it is valid, correct or legitimate in any objective, logical way – indeed, religion has been the source of many of the evils we’ve witnessed throughout human history. Homosexuality in NOT a belief. It’s an innate, inescapable characteristic that can’t be denied or healthily repressed (nor should it be). It is necessarily more important then to protect a vulnerable minority who simply wish to live their lives with love as nature has made them, over the hardline, illogical and simply unfair stance taken by SOME religious denominations. If you can’t see the merit in this line of reasoning, then there’s not much point trying to convince you.

  8. Why can’t the EHRC split the 4 cases up and tell us exactly in what way they are going to intervene in each case and how exactly they think the British courts were wrong or right in each case.

    Having the 4 bundled up together is a mistake. Streeter’s EDM bundles them together and we now find that some of the MPs didn’t mean to include the ladele and mcfarlane case. It now seems that Mason thinks the same.

    The EHRC’s comments are useless without further clarification on what case were wrong, especially now after Mason’s intervention…

  9. Though I’m an atheist, I have no objection to people wearing religious symbols in the work place, private or government as long as they don’t force their beliefs on their colleagues.

    However, I strongly object to allowing religious people receiving their wages at the local government level people such as registrars being allowed to change shifts to avoid serving the needs of gay people. If gay people were permitted to discriminate against those with strongly held religious beliefs in the delivery of goods and services, then I would concede. Until that happens, I’m vigorously opposed to any accommodation or changes of any kind.

    1. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 9:11am

      If Gay people were permitted to discriminate against those with strongly held religious beliefs it would be a far worse case of never hearing the last of it.

      1. makes perfect sense under the guise of runaway equality — what you do to me I do to you, what I do to you, you do to me. What I do, You do. What you do, I do.

        Tit for Tat.

        Gayrea 51
        Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

        1. Now you are just sounding like a crazy fool. I have no doubt that you are probably dancing around the street in your socks and underwear babbling incoherently as I type.

          1. Hm.

            Attacks on person = person being attacked has won the debate.

            Sorry, nice try.

            Gayrea 51
            Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          2. “Attacks on person = person being attacked has won the debate.”
            Pepa, you appear to have a short memory.
            Remember your tirade on the Norris thread against Stu, in which you accused him of being a Paedophile

          3. Remember your tirade on the Norris thread against Stu, in which you accused him of being a Paedophile

            Yes. In fact I went to great lengths to explain why I feel that Stu might be a pedophile.

            Did I just come on PN and saw Stu and accused him of a pedophile out of the blue?

            Nope. I read almost all his posts. It took time and information gathering to realize what this creep was really up to.

            The Norris comment was the straw that broke the camel’s back. And since then my view of Stu has dramatically changed.

            I pointed out the evidence, the warning signs, and everything else.

            That’s all I have to say about that. If I were Stu’s employer and have read all of his wild creepy comments about children and sex I would fire him ASAP.

          4. @Pepa

            I did not have the joy of reading your comments on the Norris thread because due to your offensive and libellous comments, PN legitimately took them down.

            I am not a paedophile and nothing I said on the Norris thread in any way suggested that I am. In fact, if you read it properly you would have read that I abhor paedophilia and rape.

            I strongly suggest that you know that my achilles heel of what offends me most is connected with rape and child abuse. I am a survivor of rape and former child protection officer who has been involved in protecting many children (regardless of your ignorant opinions of any child protection system – your comments on them on PN are in no way representative of what I practiced or experienced in the UK).

            If you persist in calling me either a rapist or a paedophile then two things will happen:
            i) I will seek action via PN to prevent your libel including access to your ISP
            ii) I will take legal advice to seek litigation for damages against you

  10. Deeside Will 4 Aug 2011, 2:17pm

    It seems to me that we have two things here which have been placed in the same category, although they are completely different. I would strongly support people’s right to wear Christian symbols such as crosses – and including gay Christian symbols – or, for that matter, Jewish, pagan or other religious symbols at work if they so desire. The “right” to discriminate against others because of their sexual orienation is another matter entirely. There can be no such right.

  11. 2 champers sips to being a diva 4 Aug 2011, 2:27pm

    Ms Mason was selected to this quango as an LGB representative. The lack of timely action from her is both disingenuous and dangerous. We expect more from someone like this, but then again we to tolerate it. Perhaps we need to individually deal with our MPs on these matters. LGBTs in a single lobby has power. No more weak link laziness please.

    1. She certainly took her own sweet time.
      Has Angela Mason just simply been too busy to address the very grave concern LGBTpeople have around this very misleading matter?
      Has she been too busy to issue a statement of calrification until now?…
      If so, I wonder what on earth has she been busy doing that obviously took such precedence over this sneaky, cheeky and outrageously misleading attack from Christian activists on the equal rights of LGBT’s?

      1. Ooer missus 4 Aug 2011, 3:43pm

        If it all happened behind her back, maybe she had to spend time pressing to get some answers and a change of stance from some of her colleagues?

  12. Phillips is and always has been a dead loss.Angela Mason ( I hope) knows better.
    People can wear what they like (as long as I can see their face) There is no ” right” for orientation discrimination.Period.

    1. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 9:16am

      To be honest I think Trevor Phillips wasn’t banking on such a backlash from so many other groups like the unions etc.

      I suspect he thought maybe a few LGBT people might make a bit of a noise but that would be it and he could change the discrimination laws on the quiet.

    2. There is no ” right” for orientation discrimination.Period.
      Pat Robertson said something similar:
      “There is no “right” for gay marriage. Period.”

      Yet he is labeled a bigot, and your denial of “equal rights” is not because of the targeted group. What gives the high moral ground like Robertson to deny anybody their “equal rights” too? Are you a bigot as well?

      If not, why not?

      Gayrea 51
      Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      1. Pepa. I find it difficult to believe that someone can truly be as uneducated as your comments ‘out’ you to be.

        Your first quoted comment is stating that discrimination is wrong (Correct – it is). Your second quoted comment is clearly stating that one group should not have the same equal rights as another group and that is bigoted discrimination.

        So again your attempted point has been mooted.

        1. No.

          You demand that one group have sole access to equal rights and complain and whine and to demand special treatment.

          That is not “equal.”

          Gayrea 51
          Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          1. Nor can you have sole rights to equal rights

            No one is askig for special treatment – jus equal value of treatment

      2. Pepa
        Please do keep taking the tablets. You badly need them.

        1. Nice try Roger…

          Do you know what a discussion is? Or are you that desperate and extreme to insult others?


          Gayrea 51
          Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

          1. @Pepa
            So in what way are your extremist Fundamentalist Christian beliefs, worthy of respect, rather than ridicule?

          2. In what way are my views extremist Fundamentalist Christian Beliefs?

            The plaintiff in the case could have been Muslims, Jews, etc. I still would call out the plain stupid arguments and hypocritical double standards of the gay left who cannot see how hypocritical and now silly, they really look.

          3. ” I still would call out the plain stupid arguments and hypocritical double standards of the gay left who cannot see how hypocritical and now silly, they really look.”
            Pepa why can you only think interms of Left and Right, in your world are there no grey areas.

          4. @Pepa

            Name calling again, Freak

            Such grown up debating

            You clearly dont know what debate or discussion is

  13. edwarddwoodjr 4 Aug 2011, 2:42pm

    Right, because everyone I work with knows I’m gay… This is like trying to avoid working with people that pick their nose. Idiotic. It still comes down to discriminating against a certain group of people for reasons that not everyone shares. So I guess the next person could say they don’t want to work with unwed mothers. You know, for religious reasons.

  14. Ooer missus 4 Aug 2011, 3:34pm

    Many thanks to Angela for stepping in in response to all the worries raised by John Wadham’s announcement. I hope they are careful about the nature and clarity of instructions to counsel, after the debacle of the UK’s homophobic intervention in the Austria gay marriage case at the European Court.

    1. She should not deserve ‘thanks’ simply for doing the job she is paid to do – to represent the LGBT community in the quango.

      The delay in her response raises many questions about what is going on behind closed doors in the EHRC quango.

      Is Trevor Phillips responsible for the EHRC’s position. If so then either he should resign or be fired.

      1. Ooer missus 4 Aug 2011, 4:38pm

        She does. We don’t know what she’s had to do to be able to make this statement. Being paid never precludes thanks, it’s common amongst people with good manners.

      2. de Villiers 5 Aug 2011, 2:23pm

        My name is David. Angela Mason is a bigot. She is a bigot because the EHRC chose to discriminate in a disgusting way against gay people.

        She should be shot.

        She has betrayed gay people. Nothing less is suitable for this disgusting specimen of humanity. Unless, that is, she repents in public. With sackcloth and ashes.

        Some say that she was working behind the scenes.

        That is irrelevant.

        She should have opined on this already. What is important is not achievements. It is the noise one makes in public.

        He silence raises many questions. She is a homophobe. As is Ben Summerskill. They are lower than the lowest BNP members. There is no shade of grey. There is only black or white.

        They must follow our demands. Immediately. They must obey. They must OBEY. THEY MUST OBEY.

  15. dave wainwright 4 Aug 2011, 4:03pm

    A compromise which allows prejudice and discrimination on human and civil rights on religious grounds is not acceptable .

    1. And an organisation – such as the EHRC – which would enable prejudice and discrimination on human and civil rights on religious grounds is equally not acceptable .

      Trevor Phillips has to go.
      Just as Ben Summerskill has to go.
      Phillips’ position on this (and in Summerskill’s case – marriage equality) render them unfit for their positions.

    2. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 9:18am

      Exactly and a compromise which allows prejudice and discrimination means it cannot call itself a Equality and Human Rights commission when it is Equality and Human Rights it seeks to change as a compromise to allow others to discriminate.

    3. Gee, I wonder where all of these Christians got this idea of “equal rights?”

      Sounds rather suspicious. LOL

      Gayrea 51
      Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      1. pepa, why don’t you and jock just meet up and have a bare knuckle fight. Film it for youtube or something. It’d be even more entertaining than reading your posts. But I suppose cause you’re a christian you can’t fight, you just turn the other cheek, so jock’d win.

        1. You read his posts? More fool you. Such a waste of time.

          1. What is a real waste is comments like Uh Oh that promote violence against those who properly dissent. Wha Uh -Oh reminds me of is a 6th grade bully who wants to see another bully beat me up after school.

            Oh the memories.

            Gayrea 51
            Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      2. I do not think christians have quite understood ‘the idea of equal rights’. In fact it appears that christians do not understand much when it comes to human rights either. In fact I wonder if they even have the mental capacity to understand anything about anything…ever!

  16. This is good news but we should be cautious shouldn’t we? In government, as a very senior civil servant, Angela M campaigned against “good and services” protections because gay people were “asking for too much at once”.

    1. Well she did work for Stonewall before. So the idea that the needs and wishes of the population she purported to respresent, should be listened to, clearly means little to her. Stonewall, like the EHRC, are massively out of touch with reality.

      They’d rather compromise our rights and remain close to power, rather than actually do their jobs.

    2. You could always send this article to the EHRC and ask them whether they have “decided not to seek ‘reasonable adjustments’ to be made for homophobic workers who refuse to serve gay people.”

      and whether the commission has indeed “already decided not to put forward ‘reasonable adjustment’ arguments if” they continue with their intervention.”

      It’s not Mason call is it? Without the EHRC overriding it’s previous media release we’re still left in a complete state of utter confusion….

      and as for the Autumn inquiry , the Tories may be rolling back the law regardless of what the outcome of the European cases or what Mason’s or the EHRC’s opinions are…

      1. Ooer missus 4 Aug 2011, 4:45pm

        Didn’t the PM say after the court decisions on Ladele and Macfarlane that he agreed with them and was against discrimination?

        1. Don’t know, did he?

          Perhaps you could send the PMs statement on to the European courts and the “religion or belief equality law” team at the Home office. The European courts are still waiting for a response from our Govt on these case and the religion or belief equlaity team haven’t formulated a reply yet to the ECHR….so there’s plenty of time to search for this statement from our pro gay leader!

    3. Dan Filson 4 Aug 2011, 9:46pm

      @Serenity – what is your source of information that “In government, as a very senior civil servant, Angela M campaigned against “good and services” protections because gay people were “asking for too much at once””

      Were you privy to civil service discussions inside the Cabinet Office?

  17. Angela mason did right by not allowing the racists and bigots, to pursue their malicious attacks on people they persoanlly deem to dislike and they are many , you do not work in a public facility or private facility thats ecompasses different genders and races and be a biggot who hate half of the people and want to mistreat them, if people are not bothering you or harrassing you , your only right is to go about your business and leave them alone, and if in a place of business if they or customeers, you be courteous, and do your job with courtesy, and go home to your on familiy even if you are a bigot, you dont have to go home with other people and into their personal lives, but you have to treat people and their families right, and fair are be arrested and sued as a personal establishment also for even allowing people to mistreat others oout of their hate vincictiveness, you have to be a dark soul to carry hate for others who have done nothing to you, that make s the biggots dangerous

    1. Robert J Brown 4 Aug 2011, 5:21pm

      What do you mean Angela Mason did right?

      Where was she when this story was initially released?

      She declared full equality when we achieved an age of consent at 18 when it should have been 16.


  18. Do you see all of these horrific abuses happening in the hetersexual biggoted religions, these people are not real christians anyway, from sex assaults to physical assaults and murder, right in the churches, thats because they are religions of evil and darkness, not christian places promoting love and charity and kindness, like they are really suppose to be, the klux klan has a religion also, and they have klan churches , but they are not real christions of love , kindness, and charity , but they wear their own design of the cross, and robes and carry their version of some bible , but they still kill and rape and abuse minirities and women until they get caught, the slpc catches some and their organizations, like the christian network, that is tied into the klan investigators found out in the slpc and they also launch attacks against womens rights , they are not good people at all , but they still use the names for their evil sselves, you simpley do not allow people to mistreat others

  19. Robert J Brown 4 Aug 2011, 5:19pm

    Hey FINALLY Angela Mason has spoken out. It took her time.

    Maybe she is far too busy trying to be a Commissioner, a local Camden Council Councillor and trying to look good.

    1. Ooer missus 4 Aug 2011, 5:33pm

      Maybe you are too busy looking at the half of the glass that is empty, rather than the half that is full. The statement is a good one.

    2. Dan Filson 4 Aug 2011, 9:52pm

      And do you brush your hair in the morning. I’ve met Angela and, without sounding catty nor meaning to, she did not strike me as someone who invested time trying to look good. She is expected to put in 20 days a year as an EHRC Commissioner on a daily allowance rate and reasonable expenses. Being Deputy Leader of an inner London borough is a demanding role with cuts of 30% knocking around and requiring some work to minimise damage to services. I think the torrent of abuse she is getting is wholly undeserved.

      1. de Villiers 4 Aug 2011, 10:44pm

        I agree.

      2. £500 a day is quite a generous “daily allowance rate”

  20. Disappointing it took so long for Angela Mason to comment

    It looks positive but it remains imperative that LGBT people continue to campaign to ensure rights are not diluted and fairness is protected in a transparent and unambiguous manner

    1. Ooer missus 4 Aug 2011, 5:35pm

      Absolutely, clearly we can’t always rely on the bodies that are there to represent us.

      1. Very disappointing, where was Angela Mason over the last few months?

        1. I suspect she had to conduct an internal investigation and go through the recorded minutes from Phillip’s meeting with the christian institute. It appears that the press release was premature and was based on an individuals unethical meeting with the christian institute.

    2. Disappointing it took so long for Angela Mason to comment

      You are not the only one that is disappointed with people’s timing of their comments.

      Gayrea 51
      Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      1. Meaning what, Pepa ….

    3. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 10:41am

      I agree Stu, it is disappointing as Ms Mason Should have been on the ball right from the start.

      It’s all very well saying she has to act within accordance of the EHRC but being that she is Our representative she should be visible with issues like this.

      However better late than never, I say and yes it remains positive but even more reason for us to be vigilant and make sure these people are held to account.

      As for using the bloody word “transparent”… Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! Most hated word at the mo, esp when all those people on the tellybox using it clearly have problems with what it actually means.

  21. Many people wear crosses that have little or nothing to do with religious beliefs. It is mostly just jewelry. As for the others. public workers are there to serve ALL of the public. If their religious beliefs interfere with serving all of the public, they should not be public workers. Serving all of the public goes with the territory.

    1. Ooer missus 4 Aug 2011, 5:47pm

      Where there is a uniform involved, or safety, or health concerns, why the sudden need to display religious jewellery now, when it has never been allowed before? Nurses were always forbidden to wear any jewellery, my mother even had to remove her wedding and engagement ring when on duty, for health and safety.And the point of a uniform is that everyone looks the same. I don’t think it is a case of Christians becoming marginalised, but of increased and aggressive religiosity by certain groups.

      1. Now that you mention it, though I long since ditched religion, in my formative years growing up as a christian I never once felt compelled to wear a rosary. It’s no more intrinsic to christian identity than unfashionable tank top sweaters and thick rimmed NHS glasses.
        Christianity is a belief, and unlike some other beliefs it doesn’t come with a strict dress code.

  22. Hopefully Trevor Philips will stand by the original proposal, and religious people will be granted accommodations to allow them to manifest their beliefs.

    1. its down to ECHR not EHRC to decide that, ECHR wont blink twice before rejecting that garbage proposal

  23. disappearing act seems like a standard practice at EHRC, first gay angela and now christian trevor, btw is he still swapping shifts to avoid working with gay angela

  24. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 8:38am

    Finally. I welcome Ms Mason’s comments, however late they may seem. She does need to be involved in this and been seen to be.

    We do need clarity from Trevor Phillips though. He cannot say he heads the Equality and Human Rights Commission, yet make changes to make exemptions for people because of a chosen religious belief From any Equality or Human Rights..

    Any changes to the discrimination laws to allow religious people the right to discriminate is a poorly chosen one I suggest they put this consideration on the scrap heap.

    Yet again, though, I don’t appreicate being the subject of debate just because some religious people cannot accept Equality laws that right protect them just as much as anyone else but who feel they should be treated as special cases and be exempt from this law.

    This does us no justice and it’s about time these few religious people, who I know a lot of other religious people disagree with, accepted the law as it stands and applied it to their daily lifes.

    1. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 8:40am

      We don’t live in the 16th century where they could do what the hell they liked, choosing who lived and died, those days are gone to make way for progress and better lifes for all. They clearly cannot cope with not having the power and that is what this is really all about.

      Enough already and deal with it.

      1. We need to go back to the 16th Century where people can do as they please, say what they like, serve who they wish, instead of having all this nonsense in place.

        This country is meant to have freedom of speech and thoughts.

        I do not serve homosexuals!

        1. Jmaie, If you provide a service to the public you will serve every gay person/group that requires your service. Either that or go bankrupt or to prison…your choice.

          If you colleagues whom happen to be gay you will work alongside them remaining professional and courteous at all times or be sacked. Your religious opinions will stay out of the work place. If your boss happened to be gay you will respect them and continue to take instruction, guidance and orders from him/her unless you choose to leave the company.

          Parliament would never pass legislation that allows religious people to discriminate.

          Never though Jamie, maybe you should just stick to claiming your jobseekers allowance.

          1. Jamie, If you provide a service to the public you will serve every gay person/group that requires your service. Either that or go bankrupt or get a criminal record…your choice.

            If you have colleagues whom happen to be gay you will work alongside them and remain professional and courteous at all times or be sacked.

            Your religious opinions will stay out of the work place!

            If your boss happened to be gay you will respect them and continue to take instruction, guidance and orders from them unless you choose to leave the company or get sacked for discrimination.

            Parliament would never pass legislation that allows religious people to discriminate.

            Never mind though Jamie, maybe you should just stick to claiming your jobseekers allowance!

  25. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 8:42am

    On another note peeps, I had a email from the Home Office, from Lynne Featherstone’s office regarding the marriage Equality consultation.

    It reads as follows:-

    Thank you for your e-mail of 29 July addressed to Lynne Featherstone about the marriage equality consultation. I am replying on behalf of the Minister.

    On 17 February this year we announced our intention to remove the ban in England and Wales on civil partnership registrations being held on religious premises, by implementing Section 202 of the Equality Act 2010.

    At the same time we also announced that having listened to stakeholders it is clear from many that there is a desire to move towards equal civil marriage and civil partnerships.

    We are at the early stages of this work and will be, from the Autumn, looking to discuss with a range of stakeholders how this work can move forward.

    Yours sincerely,

    Lee Ward

    1. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 10:10am

      Sorry I put this one Before I saw the later news item.

    2. So have they implemented s202 now?

      Just a thought but the quicker they implement marriage equality the quicker it will help the economy as those of us in CP’s will probably want to get remarried all over again.

      1. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 11:31am

        Indeed and also a far better position to be fighting bullying and homophobia.

      2. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 11:42am

        I belief the plan is to implement Section 202 by the end of the year which is when I guess they will start the rest on marriage Equality.

      3. “The Government is currently considering the responses to the consultation (on s202) and has said that it will publish its response in due course.” …that’s the official line, “due course” , whatever that means!

        I remember reading on the LGF website after they held a meeting with an official from the equalities office and other members of the public on the consultation that it wouldn’t be legal until early 2012.

        Unlike JST I don’t see any link with this and marriage equality..Marriage equality consultation was due to start in July , there wasn’t anything to say we get to do “relgious” cps first and then after that you can get marriage. They are seperate issues.

  26. Paddyswurds 5 Aug 2011, 11:22am

    WHY< WHY, are people debating with this pepa nut job aagain after his disgraceful behaviour on the thread that was disabled. Ignore him and let him stay on his weirdos site. Everything he says on this iste is utter rubbish so imagine what it's like over there. Illegible intellectually bereft rubbish. Please please send him to Coventry.

    1. Well said, Paddyswurds. And see how being ignored yesterday made him increase his posts – desperate for attention. Coventry’s the only place for him. Wise words.

      1. Jock S. Trap 5 Aug 2011, 1:01pm

        Poor old Coventy though! ;)

        1. Indeed :D

    2. I gave up reading his nonsensical drivel long ago. He’s just a wind up troll

    3. Absolutely, Paddyswurds – even when we have our most virulent disagreements we (generally) show respect to others views

  27. Why are people not allowed to serve who they wish? That is their right and their choice.

    Homosexuals have too many rights, they force their lifestyles into peoples faces, with pride and their DEMADS.

    There should be adjustments so that people can refuse to serve who they want.

    Oh and Lynne Featherstong, is a waste of space who is abusing her position, and myself and fellow counterparts have made official complaints about her using her position to promote this one sided matter.

    1. Because people are required to perform their jobs as their contract stipulates.

      CP’s are legal in Britain. Therefore if someone’s freely chosen, voluntary belief systems tell them not to perform CP’s, then quite simply they are not suitable to be employed in that capacity,

      1. Because people are required to perform their jobs as their contract stipulates.

        Not necessarily.

        If I go the department of motor vehicles to get a driver’s license and one of the clerks does not like how I do my hair for example, or my cologne, or if I use profanity etc etc… the clerk can get someone else to serve me and issue me the license. That’s perfectly reasonable.

        The institution is required to give you the CP or license, not CERTAIN individuals.

        Gayrea 51
        Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

        1. Maybe thats how it works in Arizona …

          1. Personally I think the UK is a more grown up and respectful society than Arizona if the expressions of Arizonan society that are perpetuated by Pepa are accurate and I feel no reassurance at his attempts to suggest the UK could adopt certain Arizonan approaches

    2. “Why are people not allowed to serve who they wish? ”

      Would you seriously like a chaotic, hate-driven society like that, Matthew? A society where people could refuse to serve someone because they were black or female or Muslim or old or disabled?
      If you can’t imagine how awful that would be then I’m surprised.

      1. Would you seriously like a chaotic, hate-driven society like that, Matthew?

        I thought that England was a perfect society so changing the law would not be a big deal and would not lead to hate driven society, unless of course the British have built up hatred of gays in which case this whole “Britain is the best nation for tolerance of gays” was nothing but a delusion. In fact I would support the repeal of the Equality act and see if Britain is actually as tolerant as you gay sex activists proclaim it to be.

        1. As a non-[anti-]gay-sex-activist, pepa, are you speaking of England or Britain? They’re not quite the same thing, though perhaps that’s a subtlety non-[anti-]gay-sex-activists wouldn’t understand.

          1. I apologize…

            Lets go with England and Wales.

            I know there are “problems” in N. Ireland.

            There. That better?

        2. “I thought that England was a perfect society so changing the law would not be a big deal and would not lead to hate driven society, unless of course the British English have built up hatred of gays in which case this whole “BritainEngland is the best nation for tolerance of gays” was nothing but a delusion. In fact I would support the repeal of the Equality act and see if BritainEngland is actually as tolerant as you gay sex activists proclaim it to be.”

          There fixed it for ya!

    3. And no, LGBT people do NOT have too many rights. You’re deluded to think that. Maybe what you really mean is that you’d like us to have less rights than other people. Nice – NOT. Who else would you presume to judge as less worthy of rights?

      1. de Villiers 5 Aug 2011, 2:25pm

        It’s not that we have too many rights. We want equal rights. No more than anyone else has.

        1. Exactly, de Villiers

      2. Who else would you presume to judge as less worthy of rights?

        That’s what you do. You think that Christians are less worthy of rights.

        1. Any one who believes humans existed at the time of the dinosuars, or that the world is a few 1000 years old, does not deserve respect only ridicule.
          Pepa, in what way do you believe these Christian beliefs command respect?

          1. Ignore him, JohnK. Notice his pathetic attempts to get a reaction and his transparent misrepresentations of mine and others’ views. He’s so needy, poor thing.

    4. “Why are people not allowed to serve who they wish? That is their right and their choice.”
      Sigh, here we go again.
      *speaking slowly and clearly*
      Not if they’re on the public payroll or are providing a service.

      1. Obviously this (Matthew) is the troll again. And its not just about the public payroll. Nobody wants a return to the days when there were signs in windows saying “no coloureds or Irish”, or whatever their particular prejudice was. If you are offering service or goods to the public you do it without unfair discrimination. End of story.

    5. Would be nice if Lynne FeatherstonG did say something on this immediate particular issue, her coalition govt haven’t responded yet..perhpas she’s on your side mate, who knows?

    6. Homosexuals have too many rights, they force their lifestyles into peoples faces, with pride and their DEMADS.

      I disagree, I think there are loud and obnoxious gay activists who think they represent other homosexuals, they are wrong, and you are wrong for going along with their stupidity. The loud ones of the PN readership are a very very very small percentage of the gay population (0.00001%).

      The average gay person is not an extremist like these people.

      Gayrea 51
      Gays Against Homosexual Extremism

      1. Do you consider yourself an example of an ‘average gay person’, pepa?

        1. Yes.

          I support gay marriage.
          I donate money to AIDS hospices in my area.
          I go to gay clubs.
          I have a boyfriend.
          I go to the gym.
          I play sports.
          I visit gay websites.
          I have two dogs.
          And I drive a mercury…

          Is that pretty average to you?


          1. No. Average suburban US gay male maybe.

      2. @Pepa
        In what way are you not an “Extremist Fundamentalist Christian Crackpot”

  28. Does anyone know how/why these particular four cases were chosen?

  29. Dan Filson 6 Aug 2011, 11:56pm

    Not for the first time a Pink News comments column has been hijacked by “Pepa” and his creationist so-called Libertarian ramblings. I suspect he is at heart really a Republican even though his site does not say so outright. Why Pink News tolerates him becoming practically the no 1 commenter with his endless diatribes I cannot think.

  30. Stewart William 7 Aug 2011, 12:01pm

    It’s interesting that the two homophobic public employees who refuse to perform their public duties are black.

    Is Trevor Philips embarrassed by this? Does he support equality for us?

  31. well done angela – wish you were still in charge at stonewall

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.