Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Equality commission seeks views on gay vs religious rights cases

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. There is no excuse for homophobes to hide behind religion. Religion is a matter of choice, and so is homophobia. Choose a more liberal religion instead of a bigoted one that includes homophobic views.

    1. It is for people to decide for themselves thoughis it not. Most people that are accused of being homophobic are not since homophobia is defined as an aversion to homosexuals, not homosexuality.
      We rise above such ill-educated views however but realize this.
      Homophobia is not illegal as it is a thought process. It is the same with paedophilia. Therefore, unpleasant as it may be, homophobia cannot be regulated or socially engineered out of existence.

      1. Jock S. Trap 16 Aug 2011, 10:31am

        Actually homophobia is illegal, gets your facts right, perv!

        1. Judy Downing 16 Aug 2011, 11:06am

          The UK Public Order Act makes certain things an offense such as harassment and causing hatred and unrest which can lead to violence.

          Being a homophobe is NOT an arrestable offence, but acting on it and actively discriminating against someone who is gay IS an arrestable offence.

          1. Jock S. Trap 16 Aug 2011, 11:25am

            Yes, I know being a homophobe is not an offense but having lived through homophobia and racism that eventually forced me out of my home, thanks to religion I am aware that that level of discrimination is against the law.
            -
            It was the police and THT that helped me.
            -
            This is why there should never be any compromises to religion or we just make excuses for others to go through exact the same thing I did but with them religious fruitloops thinking it is their right.

          2. You are partially right (about homophobia being legal)but you cannot be arrested for discrimination. You can be sued in a civil case for discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

        2. What a pillock you are. Homophobia is not illegal and there is no such offence. if I walk into a police station and say I am a homophobe, they would laugh and kick me out. You know nothing of the law and less of morality.

          1. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 5:03pm

            No dear, they would have you sectioned and get you the help you so clearly need for your obsessive fears of homosexuality, germs and disease, fear of sex generally, and your religious mania. Before you harm someone.

          2. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:37pm

            I think learn to read is good advise… oh stuff it why not go the whole hog and get yaself a whole education.

          3. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:39pm

            Yep Dr Herbert… but he’s clearly already a danger to himself, you have to worry.

      2. @Keith
        .
        Why are you referring to Paedophilia in the context of discussing homosexuality.?
        .
        Why have you chosen this particular juxtaposition?

      3. @keith,
        Being the homophobic, pseudo-Christian, extremist troll you are, it’s unfortunate that you regularly come here like an infesting parasite to deposit your filthy outpourings, you are not welcome here.

        1. “Being the homophobic, pseudo-Christian, extremist troll you are, it’s unfortunate that you regularly come here like an infesting parasite to deposit your filthy outpourings, you are not welcome here”.

          Well that just about sums the attitude up doesn’t it? The whole damn world must either step in line with your viewpoint or suffer your abuse. There can be no exception. If you disagree then you are a lesser person and not fit to be around. You may be labeled with a perjarative tag such as ‘Homophobe’ or simply subject to abuse such as being called a parasite or a troll.

          @ Shellface
          Actually in the years I served in the force we would have laughed at him. Its hard enough getting someone sectioned when they have tried to kill themselves let alone when they appear sane.

          First and last visit here ends. I wanted to learn but I understand hate already and guys are you ever showing it…

          1. @Saddened,
            Not really, keith is a repeat troller, he has demonstrated quite clearly that he is homophobic and his intention in coming here is to flame, accuse and arouse anger or distress in other commentators on this board.
            I repeat keith and other hit and run trollers like yourself are not welcome here.

          2. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:41pm

            Exactly Pavlos. Not forgetting up to last week he was a Muslim telling us all how we were all degenerates… blah, blah
            -
            Guess thats the beauti of the simple name change scheme PinkNews has to offer.

    2. burningworm 19 Aug 2011, 10:29am

      When did choosing ones own sexuality become such a dirty word?

      Do you really need to see a genetic marker? Is it not that these small feats (marriage-which we do lag behind) are not really about our community but theirs.

      I find the entire debate a parody. We know how it is going to go, a million no’s. An eventual Yes. Law becomes mandate. Some fool gets away. We all complain. We start again.

  2. Would you allow a white supremacist to swap shifts to avoid people of colour?

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 15 Aug 2011, 6:45pm

      Quite. If the white supremacist were to word his objections in terms of his religion (and Christianity would offer him every opportunity to do just that) then, to be consistent, the EHRC would find themselves supporting such a ridiculous move. This is how stupid they are and I have absolutely no confidence in them whatsoever.

  3. So the homophobic EHRC is seeking feedback.

    What on earth for.

    Didn’t Angela Mason say that the ‘reasonable accommodation’ arguement would not be pursued?

    Was she lying?

    Or is the bigot scumbag Trevor Phillips insistent that religious people are exempt from equality laws.

    The EHRC is clearly not fit for purpose.

    It must close.

    1. Please read the information sheet linked to in the article before commenting, the EHRC state they will be supporting the courts decisions in the Ladele and McFarlane cases.

      Beyond that make sure you respond to the call for your views about making special accomodations for people who claim religious conscience in order to discriminate against others or refuse to deal with people they disapprove of.

      1. Christine Beckett 15 Aug 2011, 6:49pm

        “the EHRC state they will be supporting the courts decisions in the Ladele and McFarlane cases.”

        Yes. That is what Angela Mason said..

        But the question remains. If that is the case, then WHY are the EHRC still asking for views as to whether the courts were right in those decisions?

        You don’t work for the EHRC by any chance, Pavlos… ;-)

        chrissie

        1. “You don’t work for the EHRC by any chance, Pavlos…”

          No Christine I don’t.
          I guess the EHRC stuffed up badly when they first announced they would support special accommodations for religious conscience, they now have to climb down gently from the untenable position of pledging support for special privileges for the religious and suddenly they really want to appear to be engaging with everybody equally.

          I was surprised that the information download neglects to specifically mention sexual orientation when it lists the various protected groups.

        2. I can’t imagine what made you ask that Christine.

          I was a bit concerned that in the list of protected groups (in the download) sexual orientation is not mentioned specifically.
          “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. “

          1. Tim Hopkins 15 Aug 2011, 9:08pm

            The reason sexual orientation is not mentioned there is that that’s a quote from article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, written before sexual orientation was invented!

            Well, not quite, but a long time before it was an accepted equality category. The European Court of Human Rights has since ruled that article 14 covers sexual orientation as well. Of course it’s important to specifcally make that clear when article 14 is quoted.

          2. Thanks Tim.
            “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

            Nadia Eweida’s and the other cross-wearing womans rights may be limited when they conflict with the “interests of public safety, protection and public order and health” inasmuch as their crosses present either a grabbing/choking hazard or the possibility of carrying and spreading infection.

            Ladele’s and Mcfarlane’s rights may be limited where they conflict with the “protection of the rights and freedom of others” as when they refuse to deal with people they disapprove of (that’s LGBT’s apparently) or refuse to provide a service to them.

          3. Christine Beckett 16 Aug 2011, 12:21pm

            Just teasing a bit, Pavlos… ;-)

            The thing is that, to the best of my knowledge, the EHRC have not yet said officially that they will support the court’s decision in those two cases.

            Angela Mason has said it, but she is just one member of the committee and until there has been an official EHRC press release or statement, it is unsafe to take the view that the EHRC will take the same stance she does.

            And this consultation exercise certainly seems to suggest that the EHRC are still going ahead with their officially declared intent of asking for “reasonable adjustment” in such cases.

            I simply feel it is dangerous to trust Phillips on this issue.

            chrissie

          4. Chrissie, no problem.
            It does say this in the EHRC download

            “We propose to intervene in:
            • Eweida and Chaplin on the basis that the Courts may not have given sufficient weight to Article 9(2) of the Convention.
            • Ladele and Mcfarlane on the basis that the domestic courts came to the correct conclusions.”

            That seems like a clear statement to me and I’m quite happy with what they say they intend to do.

  4. Paddyswurds 15 Aug 2011, 5:48pm

    The EHRC needs to be very aware that any attempt to roll back or soft focus our rights in favour of any discriminating religious cult group will find themselves in court and they will find it a very costly affair.

  5. The EHRC is still proposing ‘reasonable accommodations’, but their suggestion is that no accommodation should be made which discriminates against another person. A registrar would still have to conduct civil partnerships, but a nurse could demand to wear a crucifix.

    The EHRC’s position seems to me both unworkable and discriminatory against those whose moral views are equally strongly held but non-religious.

    Leaving that aside, this ‘consultation’ is scandalous. The timetable is very tight, and it seems doubtful that they will have time to do much more than count ‘yes’s and ‘no’s. Why is the EHRC running a straw poll on equality?

    I’ll be gritting my teeth and writing in, though. You can bet that the supporters of Ms Ladele (the registrar) will write in droves. This isn’t over until the EHRC makes a final announcement of the view it will be presenting to the European Court.

    1. “The EHRC’s position seems to me both unworkable and discriminatory against those whose moral views are equally strongly held but non-religious.”

      Agreed. For example, why should a nurse be permitted to wear a cross simply because it has special value for her, yet another nurse not be allowed to wear jewellery with equally special, yet non-religious, sentimental value to her? What’ll happen is that people will just make up some religious justification – and understandably too.

      Why should religious views be treated as special? Treat everyone the same. I don’t want people to be victimised for their religious views, but, equally, I don’t want them to be raised up above everyone else and given special rights. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

  6. i don’t know why they are bothering asking the question if the courts came to the rghts decision in the ladele case, they’ve already admitted they had. I had a letter from the equalities office and they said the same. Are we all supposed to be qualified judges now!. The courts have come to the right decision, eveybody is agreed, leave it at that, why bother asking the public….

    As for the reasonable adjustment consultation (which they say they are not going to bother with anyway) , what’s the point of them having a consultation. Surely this something for the future, to disucss with parliament etc, not with the public now..

    What incompetent fools they appear, Messing everyone around….

  7. Why are they still in doubt about sexual orientation equality? They should be looking into the homophobic Tories plans to extinguish their organisation, and spend more time looking for another job.

  8. Johnny33308 15 Aug 2011, 10:50pm

    Bigotry is NOT a religious right. In fact, Jesus never rejected anyone so the bigotry shown by ‘religious’ people is just that”bigotry’. In a civil, secular society, human rights take precenence over any so-called ‘religious’ rights. Religious rights should be kept at church or at home-they have no place in a secualr society AT ALL. Or would you rather end up like us in America?? Do you want that? It is very NASTY!

    1. You obviously have not read Jesus words at Matthew 7:13…
      New Living Translation (2007)
      “You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way.”

      1. Oh wait when was that translated, 2007, so not the one originally written by the people who knew jesus. In fact I don’t think that language exists any more so not exactly a brilliant excuse for bigotry.

        1. Which translation do you use to support your view that “Jesus never rejected anyone” and I will quote that one if you like they all say the same thing in that verse and carry the same thought!
          Ps. Is there any chance of your lot making a post without employing the word bigot, especially since you are the most intolerant group against any opposing views there is, the ultimate bigots!

          1. I don’t believe Jesus was accepting I just believe that religion is no excuse for any sort of rationale thought such as how people want to act in the real world.

            You can believe whatever you want but lets keep it to your own lives not expect us to listen to your religion as an excuse for your BIGOTRY!!

          2. Oh and funnily enough when people are telling me I’m immoral and unnatural and I choose to be discriminated against I don’t have much time for those people, so yes I may seem intolerant but your argument is your own delusion, my sexuality is just me!

          3. @Keith
            .
            Are you from the Christian Institute?

          4. Tim Chapman 16 Aug 2011, 9:49pm

            When we’re talking about people like you, bigot is the ONLY word we can use.

          5. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:43pm

            I have a few more chose words I could use but I don’t think this software allows them.

        2. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 5:07pm

          Best not to indulge his religious mania.

    2. Well Jesus was a fictional character so who cares what he said or thought.

      I have no doubt that at some stage about 2000 years ago a jewish carpenter named Jesus lived in Jerusalem.

      He may even have been an insane street preacher.

      But the idea that he was ‘god’ is the most absurd notion ever.

      Even scientology makes more sense than that.

  9. HEY ARE WE BACK AT SYCHOLOGY 101 OR JUST COMMON SENSE, LISTEN WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT A FIFTY YEAR OLD MAN WATCHING ANOTHER GROWN MAN RAPE A LITTLE GIRL IN FRONT OF HIM AND THEN WALKING OVER TO A TWO YEAR OLD GIRL AND SAYING, WELL , I DONT KNOW, SHOULD I CALL THE COPS TO TRY AND STOP THE RAPE ARE DO ANYTHING TO TRY AND SAVE LIVES SO THAT THIS WANT HAPPEN AGAIN, OR SHOULD I JUST STAND HERE AND WATCH THIS HORROR WITH MY THUMB UP MY ASS, AND DO NOTHING , BECAUSE WHEN THE MONSTER FINISHES RAPPING THE GIRL HE WILL JUST GET UP AND GO OUT AND CONTINUE TO HORRIFICLY HURT OTHER CHILDREN THE SAME WAY, SHOULD I CARE ENOUGH TO TAKE ACTION ARE DO SOMETHING , WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU EC-COMMISSION , NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO HARM OR BE UNFAIR, AND INHUMANE TO OTHERS, THEY DO THEIR JOBS WITH COURTESY, IF THEY TAKE A PUBLIC JOB AROUND OTHERS AND TAKE THEIR ASSES HOME TO THEIR OWN FAMIILIES, ARE BE FIRED AND STAY OUT OF THE PUBLIC WHERE THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE OF ALL GENDERS AND RACES,

    1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:44pm

      Shhhh…

  10. DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT A RELIGION IS , IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING GOOD OR BAD, SOME PEOPLE WHICH ARE HETERSEXUAL HAVE BAD RELILGIONS , MEANING A SET SSCHEDUALE OF THE SAME LIKE RANDOM EVENTS, MEETING, ACTIONS , ETC, AND DO IT FERVERENTLY, WRONG OR RIGHT, WE ARE DEALING WITH PEOPLE BAD OR GOOD, ALL PEOPLE WILL TELL YOU THAT THEY ARE A RELIGIONS ARE CHSRITIAN FROM KKK, TO JEFF WARRENS TO DAVID KARESH, DO YOU THING THAT THEISE RELIGIONS, ALONG WITH CHARLS MANSION PASTORS DEGRREE TO DURGARD, THAT HIDIOUS FALSE PASTOR ACTIONS, DO YOU THINK YOU NEED TO WASSTE TIME TRYING TO DISECT, WETHER MONSTERS AND TERRORIST OF HATE AND ABUSE, MURDER AND RAPE AFFILIATED, HAS AS RIGHT TO ABUSE OTHER , THAT WHAT YOU ARE THERE TO STOP LIKE THE ACLU, AND SPLC WHO JUST FOUND OUT THE CHRISTIOAN NETWORK WAS LINKED TO THE KKK AND TOP BUSINESS PULLED AWAY FROM THE NETWORK , THEIR BAD PEOPLE SATAN HAS A RELIGION TOO, ITS HATE , ITS ABU;SE, IT TERROISM , ITS NOT PEACE AND HARMONY , AND SAFTEY, GOODWILL TO ALL

    1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:44pm

      Er….

  11. they are in error when they site Canada and “reasonable accommodations”.

    The entire concept of “Reasonable accommodations” has been a farce, with province-wide public hearings regarding the application of concepts based upon it. It is NOT law in Canada, and it is NOT widely accepted as the way of things.

    The VAST majority of Canadians do NOT accept the idea of “Reasonable accommodations”, and even find the very term ridiculous.

    If you cannot work at a job because of your religion, then you should be fired. Period. No amount of “Accommodations” will be “Reasonable”.

  12. We should be very pleased that EHRC have had to change their misguided approach to these cases as a result of public pressure (notably from ordinary LGBT people – the politicians only responded following public complaints). It shows what can be achieved.

    Their original intervention was obviosuly a gross error and suggests that they had been “got at”.

    This “consultation” has the appearance of a fig leaf to cover their embarrasment. Nevertheless it is most important that we all respond to it in order to keep up the pressure.

  13. I thought tey were disbanding this useless group?
    I’ll tell you how to advise religious groups that want the right to discriminate against the legal rights of gay people.
    Tell them the feck off!

  14. Jock S. Trap 16 Aug 2011, 10:30am

    I assume taxpayers money is paying for these court cases to allow Christians the right to discriminate?!
    -
    They still don’t see the irony and the damage they will create if they continue with this complete farse.
    -
    They are not above the law like everyone else they must abdie by it, no questions, no if’s no buts.

    1. Yep, the taxpayers are also subsidising the homophobic and above the law government that is now using the state apparatus to impose draconian measures. The Bullyingdom Gang rob the most vulnerable communities and discuss who are gonna be their next victims, while sipping champagne at the best resorts around.

      1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:44pm

        Ah ha, I see!

  15. I think the EHRC should disband immediately. They are not fit for purpose as a human rights groups. In particular when it comes to LGBT right.

    We should have realised this when the homophobic extremist Joel Edwards was appointed as a commissioner.

    The fact that this homophobic quango decided to support ‘reasonable accommodation’ for religious bigotry shows the utter contempt in which they hold us.

    Trevor Phillips is clearly not able to do this job any more.

    Does anyone know whether Trevor Phillips is a fundamentalist christian, as his leadership of this quango illustrates his utter incompetence and probable homophobic bigotry.

  16. No accommodation of the right to manifest religious beliefs can be seen as ‘reasonable’ in this context.

    Firstly, it is impossible to set a limit to what counts as reasonable. Is it reasonable to accommodate a belief that is strongly held? How strongly must it be held? Is it reasonable to accommodate a belief that is widely held? What about discriminatory beliefs that are non-religious?

    This is clearly a ‘slippery slope’.
    Making accommodations for any sort of belief, religious or not, strongly held or widely held, would fundamentally undermine equality legislation. It would create a material risk that gay people – as well as others that equality legislation seeks to protect – would have unequal access to public services.

    Secondly, as a matter of legal principle, laws made by Parliament for the public good should not be subject to an override for those who do not agree with them on account of their personal beliefs. This is no basis for a pluralistic democracy.

  17. Julian Morrison 16 Aug 2011, 11:16am

    Has anyone here actually read the thing?

    <>

    In other words, they propose to support overt cross-wearing even where it breaks uniform policy or could spread germs, but they propose to OPPOSE religious homophobia.

    1. Julian Morrison 16 Aug 2011, 11:16am

      Sorry, quote fail. Trying again.

      We propose to intervene in:

      Eweida and Chaplin on the basis that the Courts may not have given sufficient weight to Article 9(2) of the Convention.

      Ladele and Mcfarlane on the basis that the domestic courts came to the correct conclusions.

      1. However they still want people’s views on the Ladele and Mcfarlane cases:

        Please let us know if you think the UK tribunals and courts applied the justification test correctly in the cases of Ladele or McFarlane? Please let us have your views on the cases and whether there are specific aspects you think are important.

  18. Let’s see….innate personal characteristic versus deliberate and conscious choice to be hateful, even though the rules of the faith are not necessarily hateful, and are not necessarily agreed upon by all those who share that faith…. Sounds like a no-brainer to me. Personally, I long for the day that desert cults are abandoned as anachronistic nonsense. But so long as the belief in those faiths are not universal (theocracy) then they should have no power in law or social policy.

  19. Some of these cases seem to be politically motivated anyway, in my opinion. Wasn’t that nurse offered the option of still wearing her cross but pinned where a nurse’s watch would be? Yet that appeared not to be good enough.

    Even giving these extremists what they want won’t be good enough – they’ll still insist on more and whine about being persecuted even if they’re given accommodations. They’re on a mission – and it’s nothing to do with any god.

    1. Special accommodation in a secure unit for some of these vexatious religious activists would be something I could fully support.

      1. Christine Beckett 16 Aug 2011, 12:22pm

        LOL…. :-)

        chrissie
        xx

      2. Compare how many ‘religious activists’ have HIV to how many homosexuals have HIV then you will see it is the homosexuals that need locking up for the protection of moral people, along with the fornicators. Aids is spread by the morally bankrupt and kills even innocent babies. How do you people sleep!

        1. @Keith
          .
          Are there no heterosexuals living in the UK with HIV or AIDs ?

          1. Yes there are but the person that attacked the religious activists was a homosexual and therefore it was his hypocrisy I was exposing, being that his community are more fatal to innocent life than the ‘religious activists’ he attacks.

          2. And, Keith, I’ll think you’ll find that religion has killed a fair few people in its time.

            Why do you feel so bad about being gay?

        2. So all those haemophiliacs who so tragically developed AIDS got it from blood donations made by “morally bankrupt” people, did they? Well, thanks for that, Keith. Maybe you could alert the medical authorities to your brilliant theory. And let’s lock up all those “morally bankrupt” mothers in Africa who gave HIV/AIDS to their unborn children.

          And I sleep very well, thank you. A sleeping tip for YOU: Stop obsessing about other people’s sex lives and seeking to distract yourself from your own faults by denigrating others and working to create hate and dissension, and you’ll find that all that bitterness oozes away, allowing you peace.

          1. Infected blood comes from infected people . Infected people are usually fornicators or sodomites, the sodomites (particularly the homosexual ‘community’) being responsible for the initial spread of AIDs. Babies have been born with AIDs having been infected by immoral carriers.
            If everyone lived a sexually moral life, AIDs would disappear and no baby would die.

          2. No, ‘infected people’ can be haemophiliacs, babies, wives given HIV by their philandering husbands, etc, etc. Your moral judgements on those unfortunate enough to have HIV/AIDS are wrong. You’re making generalisations and tarring a whole lot of people with the same brush.

        3. @Keith
          .
          Just under half of new HIV diagnosis are heterosexual!
          .
          Keith, are these heterosexuals morally bankrupt?
          .
          Keith, should these heterosexuals be locked up?

          1. Indeed they are, those that fornicate and help spread loathsome diseases that kill innocent babies even .Do you think it is ok to spread such such diseases when it is entirely preventable by adopting a moral lifestylesuch as abstinence until marriage?

          2. “Indeed they are, those that fornicate and help spread loathsome diseases that kill innocent babies even.”
            .
            Keith, do you know how many babies have been killed by heterosexuals or homosexuals contracting STDs

            “Do you think it is ok to spread such such diseases when it is entirely preventable by adopting a moral lifestylesuch as abstinence until marriage?”
            .
            Keith, do you think this is realistic?
            .
            * Prince Charles committed adultery whilst married to the Princess of Wales
            .
            * The Ex-Prime minster John Major committed adultery whilst married to Norma Major
            .
            * The current deputy Prime minster Nick Glegg is known to have had sex with many women before his current marriage.
            .
            Keith, I was wondering what you are going to do about heterosexual promiscuity?

          3. And, Keith, do you haunt sites frequented by straight people to harry them and call them ‘fornicators’? Or is it just gay people who you like to chat with?

          4. @ Iris…
            You said…”No, ‘infected people’ can be haemophiliacs, babies, wives given HIV by their philandering husbands, etc, etc”

            In the context of the pervious comments we were talking about infected DONATED blood which would exclude those on your list! Was that oversight deliberate?

          5. No, it was a response to your implication that all people infected with HIV/AIDs were immoral – an ignorant and rather nasty implication, I thought, and that’s why i replied.

        4. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 5:09pm

          Don’t encourage his religious mania, it just makes him sicker.

          1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:46pm

            Is that possible?

  20. Tally, quite. Once you start making exceptions for one group, you have to make exceptions for others. Could a gay business refuse to serve straights? I think not. This is a pandora’s box waiting to explode. The EHRC better consider what it’s really wishing for. The recent riots pale in comparison to what could happen if this ever comes to fruition. The social implications are enormous.

    1. Gay businesses do refuse straight people, full stop. You cant have a mixed night club as the gays would have to behave, as they would attract attention and they would then blame others as usual.

      All single sex clubs should be banned, inc gay ones, and should be mixed, after all gays want to be equal so why should they have their own night clubs.

      1. Lesbian (married with kids) 17 Aug 2011, 12:57am

        “gays would have to behave”? Seriously? Get a grip man.

      2. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:47pm

        Oh another one without any education. Life mist be so simple.

      3. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:49pm

        “why should they have their own night clubs.”
        -
        Because it’s straight people that discriminate us meaning we have to have places of our own away from the hatred and discrimination.
        -
        Why do you think some straight people like going to Gay bars? It’s to get away from the hassle and actually enjoy themselves coz if we know one thing it’s certainly that we know how to enjoy ourselves.

  21. Shouldn’t a major public body have consulted before announcing their position, rather than the otherw ay round?

  22. Gay Marriage blamed for UK riots:
    .
    Youtube:
    /watch?v=5YiAjEKy_F0

    1. So ridiculous it’s almost laughable – if it wasn’t so utterly sad. Do these people not realise that they’re making themselves look like idiots?

      1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:51pm

        I doubt it Iris. Those types always deny any responsibilty for anything.

    2. religious people are defined by their stupidity though.

      You have to worry about the mental health of anyone who believes in a malevolent sky-fairy called ‘God’.

      I mean really!

      1. JohnK said”’
        * Prince Charles committed adultery whilst married to the Princess of Wales
        .
        * The Ex-Prime minster John Major committed adultery whilst married to Norma Major
        .
        * The current deputy Prime minster Nick Glegg is known to have had sex with many women before his current marriage.
        .
        Keith, I was wondering what you are going to do about heterosexual promiscuity?
        Obviously I can do niothing about promiscuity. of ALL sexual orientationsI believe that God will end promiscuity as the bible foretells in Matthew 24:14 and other scriptures such as Jude 7.
        I do not know the exact figutre of innocent babies killed by the promiscuity of others (AIDs , Hepatitis etc), especially as the figure is fluid and growing every day. What is important is that you do not deny this and accept my claim that it is preventable if people adopted abstinence and then sex only in marriage as the bible advises

        1. Keith, firstly in that case why are you just preaching abstinence on a LGBT site? Do you do the same on straight sites?

          Secondly, what has Matthew 24:14 got to do with promiscuity? Thirdly, the crime of Sodom was inhospitality and it’s sexual crime was attempted rape of the angels – NOT being gay.

          1. Inhospitality??????
            Then why Jude verse 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.”
            Also, the reason for Matthew 24:14 is in reply to JohnK who asked what I would do about promiscuity. I said leave it in God’s hand and added the scripture

          2. “Keith, firstly in that case why are you just preaching abstinence on a LGBT site? Do you do the same on straight sites?”
            I do the same on straight sites too, this site does not have primacy or ppreference.

          3. Your quote from Jude there certainly isn’t in MY perfectly mainstream bible, Keith. There is no mention of homosexuality at all. Indeed, nowhere – yes, NOWHERE – does the bile condemn loving, consensual sex between adults of the same gender.

            Thank you for explaining your use of Matthew – but, in that case, may I respectfully suggest you do, indeed, leave it in god’s hands…

          4. Thanks for confirming you visit straight sites too, Keith. So why do you sometimes make comments here that imply you dislike LGBT people?

          5. Oops! I wasn’t being purposely insulting there – just a typo. ‘bile ‘ above should read ‘bible’, of course!

          6. And my source for the sin of Sodom being inhospitality was a man called Jesus. Check your bible, keith.

          7. Iris the source of the sin of Sodom being Lack of Hospitality, as well as arrogance, is Ezekial, verse 20 if I remember rightly.

            Homosexuality is never mentioned in the Bible. I understand some very recent American mistranslations by Evangelicals have inserted it though, to support their agenda.

          8. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:52pm

            “I do the same on straight sites too, this site does not have primacy or ppreference.”
            -
            What spew your homophobia? yeah I don’t doubt it.

        2. @Keith,
          You previously said you didn’t follow any religion… so I’m a little confused now with all your Bible quotations, are you a Christian? or are you not a Christian?

          keith wrote, “I do not belong to any religion you bigotted, inarticulate igoramus!”
          http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?comments_popup=25173

          1. It’s funny because I remember another fundie claiming he didn’t belong to any religion (was it DS?). All I can think is that none of the usual choices are extreme enough for them.

          2. I do not feel the need to be lanbelled, pigeon holed or part of any religious group. I accept the bible as God’s inspired word and live by it! I am not attached to any ‘religion’. I am not required to call my self a ‘Christian’ neither does the word appear in the bible.

          3. keith, am I right to understand that you claim to belief in God and you also claim to belief that the Bible is his inspired word but that you simultaneously deny Christ and so reject the title Christian?
            Or am I missing something?

          4. Excuse typo above, it should read “claim belief” in both instances
            (a added a couple of extraneous to’s)

          5. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:53pm

            “I do not feel the need to be lanbelled”
            -
            And yet you always seem so happy to do it to others.
            -
            Hypocrite much?

          6. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:53pm

            It’s not you thats ‘missing something’ Pavlos.

        3. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 5:12pm

          Darling, get the help you so clearly need for your obsessive fears of homosexuality, germs and disease, fear of sex generally, and your religious mania. Before you harm someone.

          1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:54pm

            Harm himself more like.

  23. @Pavlos
    You are correct with the exception of denying Christ and rejecting the title Christian.
    I have not denied Christ at any point and I do not reject the title Christian. I merely do not label myself that way but if others wish to label me as Christian that is their concern. The ‘title’ Christian does not appear in the bible and therefore I am not scripturally obligated to employ it.

    1. So, am I right to think that you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and in that sense at least you would be a Bible literalist (even though you might not use the label literalist)

      Anyway, what concerns me is your own and others reference to certain translations of the Bible which wrongly condemn quite specific acts as homosexual practice when in fact scripture does not describe homosexuality per se at all… anywhere.
      Some recent Bible translations wrongly incorporate the mid-19th Century word “homosexual” as a lazy translation for words/phrases in scripture that do not describe homosexuality but quite other specific practices that most homosexuals would also condemn, like attempted humiliating gang rape, pederasty, sex with prostitutes and condemned ritualistic forms of wrong sexual worship described in Leviticus and in Romans (these of course no longer occur), all have wrongly been called homosexual practice although none describe homosexuality per se nor homosexuals.

      1. I believe the bible to be the truth, some literal, some symbolic.
        The scriptures say it is detestable for a man to lie with a man. You can call it anything you like. Fornication is also condemned so by default, a man lying with another would be committing fornication.
        Can you provide a scriptural example of an approved homosexual relationship, endorsement of homosexuality or any scripture that might cause one to believe sodomy and homosexuality are approved by God?
        Whilst you are here, do you condemn father and son consensual incest? If so, on what basis?

        1. Oh, Jonathan and David, Ruth and her Daughter in law, Jesus and John (according to John, but he could be exaggerating), I am sure there are many other examples of same sex love. The book is silent on whether it was just platonic or not. Oh and that naked youth in the Garden of Gethsemane with Jesus’ group, what on earth was that about !?

          1. How disingenious twist a story of deep friendship into one of sex where there is none mentioned. Especially as Davisd was well aware of Gods ruling about men lying with men. The account mentions nothing of homosexuality and you have failed to cite a scripture that justifies or condones homosexuality.
            I knew you would cite David & Jonathan (as those clutching at straws always do) and when it appeared, I knew that you knew you had failed. Incidentally. The scriptures fail to mention that whether David as a shepherd was having sex with his sheep. Are we to conclude then, due to this omission, that he was?
            I wonder incidentally how large the bible would be if it had to include all the things people did NOT do as you seem to think it should?

        2. Leviticus actually says “a male with another male may not lay lyings of a woman” there is no obvious modern translation of “lay lyings of a woman” the verse is incomplete requiring insertions to be read, it is most likely referring to wrong worship where followers would have ritual sex with the temple priests to become one with the deity, the temple priests were believed to be the deities embodiment on earth. Also the verse comes directly after another condemnation of wrong worship of Moloch with inferences of child sacrifice.
          So in Lev it is not homosexuality per se being condemned but a specific wrong type of sexual ritual worship that doesn’t exist today.

          I have no experience of father & son consensual incest, neither do I have enough information about it to make any worthwhile comment on it… although you keep harping-on about this topic, I don’t endorse any form of incest not least because there is far too much scope for coercion.

          1. Coercion is neither unlawful nor immoral, besides , coercion can exist in any legal sex act so why discriminate against the CONSENTING father and son?
            I notice that you cite lack of experience of the subject of incest to be able to decide whether it is right or wrong. Most decent moral people know instinctively it is wrong. Shame you cannot decide!
            Regarding your bizzare interpretation of Leviticus. I would say that THIS is the area in which you have no experience and are not positioned to comment.
            I wonder what bizzare, ridiculous spin you will attempt to put on Romans 1:26-27 which reads…”Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
            The men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other and received the due punishment”

            Fornication is condemned numerous times in the bible. Fornication would include homosexual sex.

          2. Of course you are being unreasonable and misrepresenting what I wrote, you are a troill after all.

            Actually Romans deals with the a similar thing to the mistranslated Leviticus verse although in Romans Paul ios much more clear and precise, Paul describes a group of otherwise heterosexual worshippers engaging in ritual sex, no doubt including of all kinds of sex acts as well as same sex acts during ritual sexual worship .
            We know they are heterosexual because the women are described as the mens women “even their women” and they are described as going against their natures, so otherwise heterosexuals engaging in some specific same sex acts of Pagan worship to become closer to their deity, this is what is being condemned, not homosexuality per se nor homosexuals but Pagan ritual worship from which Paul wants to distance himself.

            Incest appears to be your favourite topic keith, I suggest you leave your son well alone, you will get no encouragement from me.

        3. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:56pm

          That fvcking Bible again… thank Gaga I have my own mind.

    2. Dr Herbert Shellface 18 Aug 2011, 5:28pm

      People don’t encourage his religious mania, it’s potentially dangerous combined with his sexual phobias.

      1. @Pavlos. regarding your last paragraph… You are incapable of mature discussion without false accusation and unwarranted insult. I will likely have to add you to my list of swine to whom i will not cast my pearls, unless you GROW UP!
        let’s cast aside for a moment the implausible, comical interpretation you put on obvious scriptural passages. please stop bringing deities into the scriptures I cite. They are neither mentione nor implied except to the reader seeking to pervert an obvious moral directive.
        Do you accept that sodomy between two men is fornication? If so then sodomy between men is condemned on the grounds that it is fornication , even before I get to the passages that directly condemn the act.
        You see, no win for you using the bible, even twisting it!

        1. You know where you can place your Bible keith…so sit on that a while, have a nice day.

        2. ‘keith’ is your other name David? I fully expect you to launch into a story about how some gay man (a boss maybe) was mean to you any minute now.

          You’re obsessed with gay sex, ‘keith’. It’s just sad you can’t see how you’re embarrassing yourself. We may joke about you, but you’ve clearly got psychological issues and could do with seeing somebody to talk them through – for your own sake.

          1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:58pm

            Perfectly summed up Iris. I’m sure it is DS and Rich (unoriginal).
            -
            So sad that these people have to change names.

    3. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:55pm

      But weren’t you a Muslim up to last week for a couple of months?

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all