Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

EHRC confirms backtrack on opt-outs for anti-gay workers

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Mumbo Jumbo 19 Aug 2011, 10:55am

    So Trevor Phillips announces this to everyone’s surprise in a confused interview with the Telegraph. Then we get the announcement of a review after a predictable backlash, though what there was to review is anybody’s guess. Then the proposal is withdrawn whilst the review is still going on. For pity’s sake, resign you clueless idiot.

    1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 11:00am

      I agree, Trevor Phillips has long since past his use by date. Time for change for the better within the EHRC.

    2. I find this new development very strange indeed.

      American Religious Right group intervenes in European discrimination court hearing
      Fri, 19 Aug 2011
      American Religious Right group intervenes in European discrimination court hearing

      A conservative American religious group has been given leave to intervene in the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in cases concerning alleged religious discrimination.
      http://www.secularism.org.uk/american-religious-right-group-i1.html

      1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 8:41am

        Your right Pavlos, thats does sound a bit strange. Why would an American group be allowed to intervene in a this. There’s no way anyone else would be able anyone from another country would be allowed to interfere in their affairs.
        -
        This is typical and desperate of those who are fighting to discriminate.
        -
        There’s a reason the ECHR is dropping it’s case so what gives another country the right to interfere with British Law or even European law for that case? Prehaps the US Christians should fight for the right to grant asylum to these fruitloops line the US away from harms way. (Sorry to the decent US citizens)
        -
        I’m disappointed to say the least. It seems if your religious and you don’t succeed in getting the right to discriminate you want, you cheat around any laws and try and get it somehow.
        -
        So their right to discriminate is that strong within them is it. Reap the consquences, hatred Extremist religious homophobes.

        1. Whilst part of me thinks we should not be afraid of ECHR being asked to form judgement on this issue, as common sense will prevail and the European court will not tolerate discrimination on grounds of orientation; I also think its crazy in one sense that the court gets asked to make this decision which is so clearly obvious (maybe to me with a vested interest I concede).

          However, if a European group wished to bring this matter to the court this would be a matter of concern, but justifiable in terms of that grouping having interests in the jruyisdiction but for an American group to do so is laughable

          1. Jock S. Trap 26 Aug 2011, 3:18pm

            Welcome back Stu!! :)

  2. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 10:56am

    Common Sense at last.
    -
    As for the bitter Christians, everyone is protected under the Equality law whether Gay and/or Christian, your “freedom of religion and religious rights of conscience” do not entitle you to be above the law.
    -
    You make the choices to be bigotted homophobes and that should never be rewarded esp against how people are born.
    -
    As for the excuses about why the EHRC has changed it’s mind – bitter much? No it’s not because of ““barrage of public criticism from secularists and gay activists””, it’s because the majority of people including law abiding Christians who saw the damage this action woul;d have done, particularly to all UK discrimination laws and the backlash those innocent Christians would recieve because of a few fruitloop extremists.
    -
    As much as these extremists don’t want to believe people have the right to be treated with decency and respect, they do. No religion is above the laws of the land.
    ……..

    1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 10:59am

      ….
      You make your choices, your religious lifestyles so now deal with it.
      -
      Obey the law of move to a country that accomodates you.
      -
      Let this society progress with out your hatred and discrimination. It’s what all people deserve and that kind of stability is what we need to show all, our children the world is a far better place without the evils of religion.
      -
      Live and Let Live – Gay equals Love/ Religion equals Hate.

      1. All religion is child abuse.

        1. And most paedophiles are homosexuals. Good reasons to avoid homosexuals and religion!

          1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 11:23am

            Yeah, you keep telling yourself that, if it helps you deny reality.

          2. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2011, 11:28am

            Actually the only study done into the adult sexuality of those who had abused children found that around 95% of abusers were men who identified as heterosexual, the vast majority of whom were in a relationship with the mother of the child. The other 5% were gay men and heterosexual women with a teeny tiny proportion being lesbians. I can’t remember the name of the study but it was done at Denver University in the US.

            You may want to blame gay men for pedophilia but that says more about you and your hatred than it does about reality.

          3. There you are, Keith – you asked for evidence that you have been promoting lies on this site. Thanks for providing another example.

          4. Deeside Will 20 Aug 2011, 12:01pm

            Yes, Keith, Rehan is absolutely right on that. That one really IS a lie. Most paedophiles are NOT homosexual and most homosexual people are NOT paedophiles. Also, some homophobes ARE secret paedophiles – I’ve known a few.

          5. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 12:11pm

            There is truth in that Deeside Will.
            -
            Homophobes think they will get away with abusing using Gay as a vunerability and thinking the victim will be too ashamed to tell.
            -
            Another evil of both religion and homophobes. I blame religion for a lot of child abuse regardless of if the abuser is religious or not.
            -
            But then if they believed the falsehood of Gay people being so because of abuse look at the way they clearly treat abuse victims… with such hatred.
            -
            Now prehaps they need to look more closely about who it is that is immoral.

        2. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 8:44am

          Agreed myself. Forcing this on children is a form of child abuse.
          =
          Children should be allowed to decide at a reasonable age if a religious lifestyle is of their choosing, not have it forced on them.

      2. You make your choices to be gay, when your at a certain age you get the the ‘feeling’ fo what direction you want to go in.

        I for one believe the EHRC have been intimidated.

        This however will not stop Peter and Hazelmary’s appeal going ahead in a few months time and I hope they win it. Common Sense will see this.

        And as it has been said before on here, you can refuse service, you just dont give a reason, as you not legally required to do so, just like a Pub landlord.

        1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 4:12pm

          Actually no you don’t. I knew very young that I was Gay and I also knew it wasn’t a choice.
          -
          It is simply pure ignorance to suggest all are born straight and you choice otherwise. It preaches bigotry and shows a complete lack of education and respect.
          -
          Common sense is Everybody abiding by the law and the Equality Bill not some thinking they should be above it.
          -
          Give the right to discriminate and you better prepare for the consequences but then you don’t care about people do you just yourselves.
          -
          No wonder we have a problem.
          =
          It’s the decent law abiding Christians I feel sorry for because they can see the damage along with everyone else that people like you are doing to our society.
          -
          Your shameful, disgusting and selfish.

        2. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 4:14pm

          “I for one believe the EHRC have been intimidated.”
          -
          Yeah, because the majority of good decent law abiding citizens don’t count do they?
          -
          Typical, things not going your way and you have your tantrums and throw your toys out of the pram.
          -
          Pathetic.

        3. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 4:15pm

          Here’s some advice… stop assuming and learn some facts about humanity.
          -
          Stop setting an bad example of the worst humanity has to offer.

        4. bobbleobble 20 Aug 2011, 8:31pm

          I think what you mean is that you believe that is how sexuality is formed although you do contradict yourself by suggesting one minute that we choose our sexuality (presumably including yourself) and the next that we are following feelings which seems to suggest something innate.

          Nobody in the science community is prepared to actually say what produces someone’s sexuality (and that includes heterosexuality). The current thinking is that a person’s sexuality is created by a mix of genetics, in utero exposure to various hormones and very early life experiences which fix a person’s sexuality either at birth or in a child’s very early years.

          As for the hypocritical Bulls, they are simply throwing good money after bad and I believe that the only common sense answer would be that the findings of the first judge will be upheld.

    2. ‘Amen’ to that Jock ;)

    3. “No it’s not because of ““barrage of public criticism from secularists and gay activists””, it’s because the majority of people including law abiding Christians who saw the damage this action woul;d have done, particularly to all UK discrimination laws and the backlash those innocent Christians would recieve because of a few fruitloop extremists.”

      Well said, Jock. It’s obvious that such an opt-out would have caused untold trouble for many, many people and would have been a very ill-judged thing – so, luckily, the EHRC realised the possible consequences for all and re-thought this.

      1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 12:05pm

        Indeed Iris.
        -
        What I find very worrying is these so called Christians who won’t accept the damage this would have caused but clearly don’t give a toss about it all in the name sake of Their consciences? The fact they are so willing to put so much on the line so they had the right to discriminate is, quite frankly, disturbing.
        -
        This is their idea of religion? No thanks.

        1. I think it’s because they’re so obsessed with their own agenda that they’ve become blinkered and unaware of wider consequences. Sad really.

          1. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 12:45pm

            And it’s an agenda that has very little to do with being Christ-like, as Gandhi would have pointed out.

        2. Spanner1960 19 Aug 2011, 2:58pm

          Jock: “…won’t accept the damage this would have caused but clearly don’t give a toss about it all in the name sake of Their consciences…”
          Yet you are still willing to allow high risk groups like gay men donate blood and threaten peoples actual lives just because it makes them feel better?

          I detect a pot/kettle hue differential scenario here.

          1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:25pm

            And yet all countries that have allowed blood and equality on who should and shouldn’t give blood have seem a remarkable drop in infected bloods being past on.
            -
            Anyway regardless of that I don’t see what that has to do with the EHRC confirming a backtrack on opt-outs for people who don’t like Gay people.
            -
            Yes I know you support them and that you think All gay men can’t stop having sex, therefore to you deserve to be discriminated against but the fact you claim not to be like that and I know my partner and I aren’t like that well we ain’t the only three.
            -
            Maybe stop being so short minded and start seeing people are different and most don’t satisty you somewhat strange deluded ego.

          2. Spanner1960 20 Aug 2011, 1:54pm

            That sentiment equally applies to many Christians who don’t have a problem with homosexuality, yet you and many others seem to tar them with the same ‘bigot’ brush.

          3. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 3:26pm

            Oh dear Spanner there you go again. I have explain so many times I don’t say that and if you read anything properly you’d know that. The people here Know that I don’t mean all but hey if it suits you taking some kind of issue.
            -
            Never mind. Have another go.

    4. “freedom of religion and religious rights of conscience” do not entitle you to be above the law.”

      Do you apply the same values to practicing homosexuals in Uganda who’s freedom of conscience does not and should not entitle them to be above
      the law according to your view?

      1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 8:20am

        Cinsidering the harm and persecution LGBT take in Uganda I think you are one Very sick individual and I hope PinkNews deal with this abuse.
        -
        We shouldn’t have to put up with it.

  3. am I missing something here but isn’t this what was announced a few days ago on a previous PN article…they’re still having a consultation though on how to progress the reasonable adjustment argument in future and I don’t know how this fits into anything and why they are doing it since it wouldn’t be used in the european courts on any basis…..I wish they’d split these cases up a bit better , it’s really confusing lumping the ladele/mcfarlane case with the crucifixes cases and expect us to know which cases various people are talking about ..

  4. Jack Holroyde 19 Aug 2011, 11:10am

    “Don Horrocks, head of public affairs at the Evangelical Alliance, said: “It seems pretty clear that the commission has been successfully intimidated against proceeding as they initially announced.”

    What a load of total Horrocks!

    1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 11:13am

      Indeed it does seem to imply the common Evangelical belief that people that don’t do or agree with them cannot possibly think for themselves.

      1. Not all evangelicals are like that. The EA covers a broad spectrum of evangelicals including ‘open evangelicals.’ Not all evangelicals are anti-gay despite what appears in the media.

        1. I would estimate however that the vast majority of evangelical christianis are homophobic bigots however.

          1. Depends on what you base your estimates on I guess. My understanding is based on the friends and contacts I have in evangelical churches and I think statistically the sample shows that the “vast majority” aren’t “homophobic bigots.” Just because people like the Christian Institute shout loudest doesn’t mean they’re the “vast majority.”

        2. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 12:07pm

          I realise that Jamesh but this article happens to be about the particular one that do think like this, clearly.

    2. billywingart 4 Oct 2011, 12:31am

      theyve been intimidated etc etc

      Here again, the victimizer claiming they are the victim.

      Are there any jobs collecting garbarge to which these people can be transferred. And hopefully be buried with it at the dump.

  5. The problem is not the Evangelical Alliance, the problem is the EHRC who opened the door to all this in the first place. It needs to be disbanded as a totally useless quango and Phillips pensioned off to the Lords.

    1. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 11:59am

      Only if the Dept of Justice takes on actively enforcing the anti-discrimination laws, as it does in America. Without that, an NGO like the EHRC is needed.

      1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 1:07pm

        Agreed. There should always be something, a legal body, that has the power to hold people and governments into account with regards Equality.
        -
        Without it would give power to these homophobic Christians etc to damage our society further.

        1. I do find it ammusing that the Evangelical Alliance is based opposite a cruising spot in south London. If they get bored across the road they go for some hot man on man fun

          1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 3:26pm

            LOL – it wouldn’t surprise many, I’m sure.

    2. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 12:10pm

      I’d have to say rather than disbanding it it needs fresh faces who are willing to keep the EHRC up to date.
      -
      Used properly and it does good work.
      -
      Used badly and it is abused like in this case.
      -
      We need a EHRC for 2011 not 2006.

  6. Robert J Brown 19 Aug 2011, 11:15am

    Sir Trevor Philips is doing not doing a good job at all and if anyone else was being as ineffectual as he was they would have been sacked by now.

    There needs to be someone who actually understands equality to be leading the EHRC and that is not Angela Mason.

    She sold us down the river when she accepted 18 as an equal age of consent and declared that we had won.

    We did not win. We had to wait many more years for an equal age of consent.

    1. Angela Mason (just like Ben Summerskill) is a professional homosexual.

      They owen their fat salaries to their sexual orientation.

      And both are willing to sell the larger LGBT communities down the river so long as their salaries and access to the powerful is maintained,

      Mason and Summerskill are truly appalling representatives for the LGBT communities.

      Both need to retire and pass the baton to the younger genweration (or so someone who will not betray the LGBT community for their own self-interest or opportunity).

      1. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 12:08pm

        I disagree, they chose to work in a field aligned with their personal belief in fighting discrimination against gay people. That they can get paid for it is a bonus, and who wouldn’t turn down such an opportunity.

        This is the first I have heard about what you say about the age of consent and Angela Mason, but my recollection is that it was reduced to 18 from 21 during the Thatcher years (?), because that was the age of majority and had been since the sixties. Maybe it was the art of the possible in those days. The idea of equality was a long way from the minds of the landslide Thatcher government, or even the Labour party of that time.

        1. Ben Summerskill campaigned against marriage equality until last year.

          Angela Mason acted as if an unequal age of consent for gay men was acceptable and something to celebrate.

          The fact that these people get paid for their positions mean they should be answerable ro someone.

          Neither Mason nor Sumemrskill is answerable to the LGBT community.

          Therefore they cannot be trusted to keep LGB interests as their priority.

          Summerskill’s homophobic campaigning against marrage equality proves this.

          1. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 1:31pm

            Did he? I got the impression he may have just had it on the back burner having only recently achieved CP’s, and may have been waiting for public opinion to catch up. It’s hardly accurate to call him homophobic.

            I guess they are answerable to their members and people who contribute to them, volunteer, and attend meetings, assuming there are meetings. If you do none of that, then you haven’t really been taking part in the decision making.

            Are you even gay, or are you that ridiculous troll again?

          2. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 4:27pm

            Ben Summerskill didn’t campaign against marriage, he just made an ill advised speech to a conference and had to be pushed into accepting that Equality did mean marriage too.
            -
            This will damage him for as long as he’s head of Stonewall.
            -
            Stonewall reputation will only recover once he is gone.
            -
            I certainly won’t renew my membership until he is gone.

          3. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 4:30pm

            ooer missus
            -
            No he did make some ill advised speech about how much marriage Equality would cost which the Christian Institute have happily used ever since.
            -
            Vast amounts that put the idea of marriage Equality way out to on a negative footing thinking it wasn’t what we wanted.

        2. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 4:24pm

          I think prehaps the answer is we need to see exactly why Ben Summerskill and Angela Mason get paid what they do.
          -
          They may actually do a lot but (and I hate this word) transparency needs to be shown in what they do to earn their money.
          -
          How much do they stand out and stick up for our community?

  7. “Mr Horrocks added: “For many Christians wearing a cross is important, but these situations ought to be relatively easily accommodated by reasonable people on both sides in work related situations.”

    The problem is brought on by extreme, politically motivated, religious activists whose intention is not to be reasonable at all but to obtain special privileges for themselves to discriminate against those they arbitrarily disapprove of.

    “However, being forced to be morally complicit in activities which directly violate people’s religious conscience involves seriously fundamental human rights principles.”

    As recent cases have shown, religious conscience so often only gets switched on when these religious activists are required to deal with LGBT’s, anti-gay politics is undoubtedly behind the sham show of “conscience” and civil law should not collude with religious activists on this nor grant them any special opt out nor any special accommodation to discriminate against LGBT’s.

    1. “Mr Horrocks added: “For many Christians wearing a cross is important, but these situations ought to be relatively easily accommodated by reasonable people on both sides in work related situations.”
      I find this to be a bit of a pointless crusade. Before I became an atheist I was brought up as a christian, and at no point did I ever feel compelled by my belief to wear a rosary as a matter of concience. They are no more intrinsic to anyone’s faith than displaying a fish on the back of your car, so in an employment situation I’d lump them in with any other item of jewellery you’re intitled to wear in the company dress code.
      It’s a non-issue.
      Either you’re allowed gold chains and broaches or you’re not. Simple.

    2. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 12:19pm

      It does appear very likely that some of these cases are chosen and funded because they are part of an overall anti-gay agenda, and to try and legitimise discrimination, rather than a genuine fight for religious freedom. Otherwise we would see them funding cases to support the right of gay-friendly denominations to hold CP’s or marriages for gay members on their church premises if they want to.

      They also do not seem very supportive of other faiths or of the rights of people with no faith. In fact some of their news stories on other faiths and atheists are quite vile.

    3. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 4:31pm

      If people truely believed they wouldn’t need to wear anything. Thoughts would be enough.
      -
      I do think all religious wear should be banned from schools and they should remain neutral.

      1. Paddyswurds 20 Aug 2011, 1:24pm

        @Jock S Trap…
        ……..but that not the point atall. The whole reason for wearing these so called abrahamic religious symbols and religious clothing is to let the rest of us know how holy and close to “god/allah” et al the wearer is and how ungodly you are, and to give themselves a superiority fix.

        1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 1:55pm

          I know thats the point but the way I see it is they’re just trying to justify themselves to themselves while rubbing their behaviour in everyones faces.
          -
          True believers don’t need gimmicks as it’s what comes from how they feel and a lot of this bitching about religious wear isn’t coming from the LGBT community but more likely other religions while trying to prove all others but there own is the only true one, with all other the work of the devil. It’s a complete farse.
          -
          Thats why it makes a mockery when they claim to be born religious. It’s pathetic and incredibly sad.

  8. Good.

    And is there any progress on replacing Trevor Phillips with a more competent head.

    His disgusting behaviour over this issue means that he is no longer fit for purpose as the head of the EHRC.

    He should have been sacked when he appointed homophobic extremist Joel Edwards as a commissioner.

    This ‘reasonable adjustment’ debacle shows us the extremely low regard in which Trevor Phillips holds LGBT human and civil rights.

    1. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 12:26pm

      Do we know for a fact that TP had any part in the decision or announcement? The original announcement did not refer to him at all.

      1. Mumbo Jumbo 19 Aug 2011, 12:47pm

        He went “freelance” in the Telegraph. See here: http://goo.gl/ezZgx and here:http://goo.gl/JSvwp

        1. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 1:34pm

          Aren’t those 2 articles contradictory?

          1. Mumbo Jumbo 19 Aug 2011, 2:17pm

            Well, that’s Trevor Phillips for you.

  9. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 11:38am

    Sorry, but I have lost faith in the EHRC and no longer trust them to keep their word on this.

    We urgently need other NGO’s to apply to intervene in the case as the NSS have done, including moderate Christian groups that are opposed to discrimination against us.

    1. Dream on about ‘moderate’ christians fighting our case.

      ‘Moderate christianity’ has no interest in helping us.

      Like all other churches their main concern is how much money the y can extort from their followers.

      Actually supporting equality would not be popular among their members so the ‘moderate’ christians keep quiet about LGBT equality.

      Remember how the Church of England refused to condemnt the genocidal homophobia ot the Ugandan Anglican Church.

      That’s what you can expect from ‘moderate’ christians.

      1. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 12:39pm

        That sort of defeatism and generalisation is simply divisive. Yes, they need to speak up against the extremists, but churlish behaviour towards them is certainly not going to encourage them.

        1. Dr Robin Guthrie 19 Aug 2011, 1:03pm

          Maybe not, but their own “so-called” christian ethic should have done that for them.

          1. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 1:35pm

            More churlish comments. All you seem to want is to alienate people who actually support us.

        2. Well religious belief by its very nature is divisive and undemocatic and discrminatory.

          And religious groups are always the most homophobic and bigotted in any society.

          Religious belief has nothing of value to offer society.

        3. So effectively you are saying that ‘christian compassion’ is a myth and that you have to earn it.

          Typical – compassion from religious people has to be purchased,

          Religion really is a cancer on our society. We would be so much better off without it.

          1. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 2:37pm

            That’s one opinion, though I suspect not really yours and you are being an easy-to-knock down straw man.

            No one said anything like your first line.

            The person that generally deliberately twists and misrepresents posts like that is the Pepa/Keith troll. Are you he?

            It has nothing to do with “purchasing compassion”. Why would you deliberately set out to offend religious people who support us? Your only intention can be to try to alienate them.

          2. I absoluely believe that religion is a cancer that has nothing of value to offer the world.

            Fair enough if people are stupid enough to beleive in the genocidal maniac known as ‘god’ (he who murdered every 1st born Egyptian infant).

            But religious groups never leave it at that. They are constantly trying to impose their superstitions on everyone else. And they are constantly trying to pervert democracy to suit their superstitions.

            Look at what these christtian freaks are up to here – trying to undermine equality legislattion to allow their monstrous homophobia free reign.

            Religion is a cancerous drug for stupid people.

    2. I thought the EHRC had announced that they wre going to intervene in the LAdele and Mcfarlane case “on the basis that the domestic courts came to the correct conclusions”. The equalities office has said that “It is believed that the current law strikes the right balance between people’s rights to freely express their religious beliefs, and the rights of others not to be discriminated against in areas such as employment and the provision of goods and services.”

      If the EHRC hadn’t opened their big mouths in the first place and confused an already accepted case law then we wouldn’t be having all this confusion and problems. I have no idea what the EHRC is up to and I don’t know what the consultation due by early Sept is for. The EHRC are incompetent fools, at least that’s the impression you get of these fumbling idiots, crashing from one PR disaster to another…

    3. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 12:34pm

      Well what about those religious groups that have been saying they want to conduct marriages and Cps for gay people? They claim a right to their religious freedom to do so, and could apply to intervene. Also the Gay Christian Movement.

      1. They need to be forcing this isue with the EHRC and getting the EHRC to tell the govt that the law needs to be changed.

        It’s the British govt that isn’t allowing them to conduct marriages and CPs in their religious buildings!!!. There’s a delayed consultation on marriage equality if you hadn’t noticed and the “religious” CP mendement still isn’t there, after almost 1 and half yrs.

        IT’S THE GOVT THAT IS AT FAULT in this case but the EHRC should follow the Scottish EHCR and encourage the govt to change…

        1. Civil partnerships should not be allowed in a religious building.

          The clue is in the title. A CIVIL partnership like a civil marriage should have nothing to do with the cults.

          I support the Dutch and French model where religious weddings have zero legal recognitionh unless youn haule yourself down to the townhall afterwards to get legally married also.

          1. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 1:43pm

            Why not? It’s called religious freedom for gay people and their supporters. If you can have them conducted in a stately home, why not in a building that happens to be religious? It’s no one else’s business, least of all the State’s.

          2. Well if all legal recognition was to be removed from church weddings then a church could chose who can marry and when.

            And the religious objection to civil marriage would also be nullified.

            Removiing all legal recognition from church weddings (as is the case in France and the Netherlands guarantees religious freedom while at the same time ensuring that religious groups do not continue to pervert our secular democracy.

          3. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 2:42pm

            I think a vast majority of the population support the right to marry in Church without having to go to a registry office.

            These days you can get married practically anywhere. It makes no sense to exclude religious buildings.

          4. Well SteveC if you feel like that why not sign the eptition that came out yesterday to stop it, the number of signatures against it are piling up and the number for the gay marriage epetition stopped.

            The Protestant Truth Society has just published an e-petition against the registration of civil partnerships on religious premises.

            This petition initiated by the Protestant Truth Society (PTS) calls upon HM Government not to pass any legislation to allow the registration of civil partnerships on religious premises. It affirms the biblical teaching that marriage can only be between one man and one woman, and that any civil partnership registration has no place in any church building or on any other religious premises. It calls upon HM Government to do everything in its power to support the uniqueness of traditional marriage. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/13058

        2. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 1:41pm

          All true, but can we trust the EHRC any more after this debacle? Other groups need to intervene too, don’t be a hostage to fortune. Luckily in the Austrian case the Austrians had several NGO’s intervening. In the India decriminalisation of gay sex case, agai, several NGO’s represented gay rights. Don’t put all our eggs in one basket, we need other people making sure our case is put properly.

    4. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 4:33pm

      Thats why we need an out with the old in with the new policy in the EHRC. Bring it up to date to deal with the real issues of 2011 not pander to Christian homophobes.

  10. Dr Robin Guthrie 19 Aug 2011, 12:34pm

    This “consultation” is still ongoing until 5th September.

    If you wish to make your feelings known, I would suggest heading off to http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/legal-and-policy/human-rights-legal-powers/legal-intervention-on-religion-or-belief-rights-seeking-your-views/ and downloading the Word formatted document.

  11. Y’know I can’t even applaud this. An equality body shouldn’t have needed frothing outrage and a freaking campaign to prevent them endorsing bigotry.

    1. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 1:10pm

      Which is why I don’t necessarily trust them to keep their word, especially after what happened in Europe the last time. On the issue of our marriage rights, being reviewed in an Austrian case at the European Court, the Brown government said or implied in the House of Lords that they were going to change their position and not intervene against our rights in the case. Then they instructed a QC who not only aggressively argued against our marriage rights, so strongly that the court commented on it, but the very same QC has also done so in Hong Kong too, to prevent a transsexual from marrying, bizarrely for fear of legitimising same sex marriage.

      We cannot and must not leave the arguing of our civil liberties just to people whom we have lost confidence in. And if they instruct the wrong counsel it can lead to disastrous results for our civil liberties.

      1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 4:34pm

        Very true, an excellent point.

  12. Mumbo Jumbo 19 Aug 2011, 12:49pm

    For amusement, here is the Daily Mail’s take on this: http://goo.gl/8UmDl

  13. Born This Way 19 Aug 2011, 2:30pm

    Common sense prevails.

    It only just occured to me, reading the opening gambit of the article that “religious workers” were to be given the same freedoms as disabled workers.

    Being “religious” equalling disability sounds pretty much spot on as far as I am concerned.

    Although, going one step further, I’d probably prequalify the word disability with the word “mental” – but then again that’s only my point of view.

    Threre should be a really simple acid test when it comes to the work of the EHRC. The EHRC protects communities by identity from those who CHOOSE to disagree / take offence at / hate.

    It strikes me that the politicised christian organisations take great pains to equate homosexuality with a lifestyle choice. why? so they can win arguments such as this & seek special dispensation based on outdated value systems

    1. ooer missus 19 Aug 2011, 2:51pm

      It would be interesting to know when and how the “lifestyle choice” theme was invented, and it was pure invention. I believe it was during an anti-gay campaign in Florida in the 1970s, by a religious right icon, a former beauty queen, that it was first used. Obviously it was invented to try and discount any notion that we were a minority. In countries where the religious right have a lot of power, it has been used against the decriminalisation of gay sex and the portrayal of gay people in any positive light.

      1. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice.

        Being religious is a lifestyle choice,

        And a very negative one at that, considering that religion is constantly trying to undermine our secular democracy by imposing their beliefs into our laws, regardless of whether you are part of the cult or not.

    2. Religious belief is quite possibly a mental illness,

      Anyone who believes in an omnipotent ‘god’ in spite of a complete lack of evidence for its existence is clearly deluded at best; and insane at worse.

    3. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 4:35pm

      No disabled people have a good sense of pride and decency unlike…

  14. Cameron has ordered a review of the Equality Act and he’s asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission to do it!

    So it’s not all good news!

  15. ooer missus, I believe it was Anita Bryant who started it.

    Notice when describing heterosexual relationships, the term “lifestyle” is NEVER applied but when you ask ignorant homophobic bigots when they chose to be straight, they can’t provide one rational answer. They’ll fob you off by saying…”oh, because I’m normal”. It’s not even answering the question. Now religious belief is a lifestyle, chosen.

    1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 4:48pm

      That is one thing I have always noticed, how heterosexual relationships are never a lifestyle.
      -
      The ignorance of these people is deafening. All calssic cases of projecting their own sad warped lifestyles.

      1. bobbleobble 19 Aug 2011, 7:14pm

        It stems from the old view that existed prior to the first studies into human sexuality, the accepted wisdom at the time was that everyone is heterosexual and those who sleep with someone of their own sex are for whatever reason going against their true nature.

        As people in the 19th century began to really study sexuality, it became clearer and clearer that this simply wasn’t the case. Clear to everyone except the main religions, some of whom still teach this guff.

        So that’s why you won’t hear them talk about their choice of heterosexuality, some of them truly believe that everyone is born straight and if you are gay it’s becuase you chose it somewhere along the line.

        1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 8:51am

          What has always made me laugh is when religious homophobes say that being Gay is a chosen lifestyle then try and tell us that we couldn’t possibly choose to sleep with the same sex.
          -
          For pity sake homophobes, which it is? make your minds up do.
          -
          It’s seems too ignorant to suggest that who people are that is how they were born and even when studies show that they still don’t want to believe it. Shame really that they are so insecure with themselves they feel the need to keep interfering with other people’s lifes.

          1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 8:52am

            And yes, it is completely ignorant of these homophobes assume everyone is born straight. It’s also a very hugely naive and stupid.

  16. With regards to the 2 cases where they want to wear a cross in the workplace, I completely agree. Everyone has a right to religious expression and if wearing a cross is part of that then they should be entitled to do so freely. It impacts no-one. Unless of course, the jewelery in itself is a health and safety hazard for the kind of job they do.

    However… expressing your religion in a way that impacts other people (ie refusing to serve) and somehow gives them a religious shield to discriminate is completely ridiculous.

    1. Jock S. Trap 19 Aug 2011, 4:49pm

      If people truely believed they wouldn’t need gimmicks.

      1. i agree.. its why I said “if wearing a cross is part of that”… because im not actually convinced it is a requirement of the faith… but I take no issue if they want to, it impacts me in no way at all. Though, if they were denied that right to wear it due to say, the grounds of non christian people may find it offensive, then the same rules would apply for people drinking tea and coffee in the workplace, something which my parents, as LDS Christians, find offensive.

        I guess what im saying is, each to their own, as long as it doesnt effect another person negatively.. or perhaps, in any way at all.

        1. Dr Robin Guthrie 19 Aug 2011, 7:00pm

          If you believe the biblical stories, it must be remembered that Jesus never got involved with the cross UNTIL he was nailed to one.

          It is NOT part of their faith, however it was made part of their religion. 2 different things entirely.

          It is nothing more than idol worship.

        2. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 8:55am

          I agree, people should have the choice to wear a cross so long as it doesn’t affect other people for example in a hospital.
          -
          However true believers believe, they don’t feel the need to rub it everyones faces.

    2. Rashid Karapiet 19 Aug 2011, 6:02pm

      Might I suggest investigating the use of the word ‘impact’? Standard usage – as distinct from American-inspired journalism – requires a preposition such as ‘on’ or ‘upon’, thus for example, ‘xyz has an impacct on…’ or ‘pqr impacts upon…’ And I’m far from ashamed of being called a ‘pedant’.

      1. Yes! I mourn the missing prepositions too! ‘Protest something’ is another one that drives me mad. Long live the preposition! :D

        1. A sentance, a statement without a “Preposition”?
          .
          Is this a new “Postmodern lingusitic turn”?
          .
          lol

  17. Stupid brainwashed christians.

    What’s the difference between a catholic priest and a pimple?
    A pimple waits until you’re 13 before coming on your face.

  18. HOW INSANE IS IT FOR PEOPLE TO BE ANGRY AND SAD BECAUSE SOMEONE TOLD THEM WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO CONTINUE TO ABUSE , HARRASS, STALK, AND TERRORIZE AND DISCRIMINATE, OTHER PEOPLE AND THEIR FAMIIES, THE PEOPLE HAVE DONE NOTHING TO YOU ARE YOUR FAMIILES, THIS TWISTED HATE GROUPS WILL DESTROY EVERY CHILD AND THIS NATION, IF BIGOTS AND RACISTS EVERYWHERE ARE NOT PUT IN PLACE, ARRESTED AND FIRED, YOU SIMPLY TREAT OTHERS LIKE YOU WANT TO BE TREATED WITH COURTESY, AND RESPECT, AND GET ON ABOUT YOUR BUSIENESS YOU DO NOT GO AROUND ARE APPLY FOR A PUBLIC JOB OR A JOB THAT DEALS WITH PEOPLE AND HATE HALF OF THEM, AND WANT TO ABUSE THEM OR NOT BE POLIITE TO THEM , THE MONSTERS ARE AND WHERE HURTING PARENTS AND A CHILDREN , OUT OF THEIR OWN WICKED DARK HEARTS, THESE KINDS OF MONSTERS ARE NOT ANGELIC, THEY ARE ABUSERS, AND TERRORISTS, THEY INSTIGATE TROUBLE , WHERE THERE IS NO TROUBLE , KAOS WHERE THERE IS NO KAOS, PEOPLE GET ALONG FINE , UNTIL RACIST AND BIGOTS START CAUSING TROUBLE , THEN VIOLENC

    1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 8:56am

      Why shout? You’d probably get better responses if you didn’t.

      1. She makes posts like this on the Advocate website as well, and other lgbt news sites. I firmly believe that she doesn’t read any comments made in response to her posts, so I doubt that complaining about her CAPSLOCK obsession, lack of punctuation and bad spelling is going to make the slightest bit of difference.

        1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 3:28pm

          Fair enough.

          1. As it is, attempting to read her posts make my brain wan’t to implode, so I just skip them

          2. me too…

  19. George Broadhead 19 Aug 2011, 5:27pm

    Has anyone noticed that Trevor Phllips showed blatant bias in favour of religion and by implication against non-belief when he said:

    “Our business is defending the believer. The law we’re here to implement recognises that religious identity is an essential part of this society. It’s an essential element of being a fulfilled human being.”

    And this person leads the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

    What a farce!

    1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 8:58am

      Indeed.
      -
      The problem is that these Christians will not accept that the Equality Bill is just as much for them as everyone else.
      -
      It means to treat all equality and with respect but most but some can be above the law and do what they please.

  20. Religious belief is not ‘quite possibly a mental illness’. It is a mental illness!

    1. billywingart 4 Oct 2011, 12:36am

      basically it is induced obsessive compulsive disorder. Based on anxiety – the fear they wont go to heaven unless they do as their told, and the fear that they will go instead to hell.

      The twin pincers of mankinds worst curse and cause of most wars.

      3 lously letters for which hundreds of millions have been tortured and destroyed. G O D

      We have a pooper to get rid of undigestible garbage we eat.

      We need to mod the head to give it a pooper to blow out the garbage fed into the brain by religion.

      Whose only goal is money and power, each feeding the otehr in a symbionic relationship

  21. Rashid Karapiet 19 Aug 2011, 5:53pm

    I still cannot take seriously anything posted by ‘Jock S. Trap’. Do you not see how jejune, immature and junior schoolboyish this pseudonym is? What are you afraid of?

    1. @Rashid Karapiet
      .
      Hi Rashid, I am sure that you are a lovely person, but you do not help us to get to know you by constantly sniping at Jocks name,

      1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 9:00am

        Thank you JohnK :)

    2. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 8:59am

      So don’t respond to it then. It’s quite simple.

  22. Better to backtrack late than never. … but …. why does it take soooo long to recognise a very simple sexual orientation equality matter??? Some people in this org are not fit for purpose. We should ask for an independent enquiry to establish who is responsible for this mess.

    1. And remember the people in the EHRC are small fish. Those on the top (AKA Tories) are creating the conditions that enable some people in the EHRC to take a misguided stand on the sexual orientation regulations.

  23. WE NEED A TV SHOW TO TAKE THESE BIGGOTS INTO A STORE AND ALLOW THE TO BE THE CUSTOMERS AND HAVE ACTORS ACT OUT THE MALICIOUS DISCRINATIONS AND HATE RHETERIC AND RUDE ABUSIVE ATTACKS ON THEM ALL THROUGH OUT THE STORE AND CHECK, AND HAVE THESE HATEFUL IDIOTS OF EVIL, SUBJECTED TO THEIR OWN CRUELTY DAY IN AND DAY OUT FOR A MONTH , THEN PUT THEM BEFORE THE NATION AND PLAY BACK HOW THEY FELT, FROM THE ABUSE OF MONSTERS ACTING LIKE THEY REALLY ARE IN REAL LIFE, LETS ASK THEM THEN HOW ABOUT YOU STAYING NOW IN THE ROLE OF THE VICTUMS YOU DAMAGE AND STIGMATIZE FOR YOUR EVIL CHARACTERS, HOW ABOUT THAT,

    1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 9:01am

      but…

  24. YOU SEE IN YESTERDAYS PAPER TWO REPUBLICAN WOMEN CELEBRATED THEIR SONS AND GRANSONS GAY WEDDING, THE ONE WOMAN SAID SHE HAD REGRETTED YEARS AGO BEING A BIGGOT AND A RACIST, SHE NOW REALIZING WHAT KIND OF MONSTER IT TAKES TO STAND BY AND PROMOTE VIOLENCE AND ABUSES THAT AFFECT THE LIVE OF CHILDREN AND WOMEN AND PEOPLE FOREVER, IN SUCH HORRID WAYS, THAT EVEN LEAD TO SUICIDES AND MURDERS, HER BEING A GRANDMOTHER REALIZED HER LOVE FOR HER GRANDSON AND HIS HAPPINESS, AND THE FACES OF OTHER CHILDREN SHE SAID THAT HAD THE RIGHT TO THE SAME OR BETTER HAPPINESS AS OTHER DEEMED HER A BETTER PERSON FOR STEPPING OUT OF THE KLAN AND RACISM AND BIGOTRY AND NOW IS A FULL ADVOCATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND EUALITY , SHE SAID AND HAPPY TO BE A CIVIL RIGHTS GRANDMA, WHO SIMPLY LOVES HER GRANDSON , GAY OR NOT AND CAN SEE OTHERS DESERVE TO BE HAPPY AS WELL, SHE TOOK HER STAND IN IN THIS YEAR, SO A FEW MONSTERS WAKE UP AND SEE THEMSELVES IN THE MIRROR FOR THE DEMON POSSESSED BRAINWASHED VESSELS THEY HAVE BEEN,

    1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 9:01am

      and…

  25. LISTEN, YOU TAKE THE SAME BIGGOTS AND RACISTS AND THEIR TITLES AS FAKE CHRISTIANS AND KLANS PEOPLE AND ALL OTHER HATE GROUPS , YOU THROW THEIR ASSESS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AND HAVE SOMEONE BUST A CAP IN THEIR ASSES, AND THEN YOU HAVE A GAY PERSON OR A GAY FAMILY COME ALONG AND OFFER TO HELP THEM AND DEFEND THE AND BANDAGE UP THEIR BLEEDING ASSES BEFORE THEY BLEED TO DEATH, OFFER TO PUT THEM IN A CAR OR CALL AN AMBULANCE TO SAVE THEIR BIGGOTED RACEST LOW DOWN ASSES,AND I GUARANTTEE EVERY BIGGOT WILL REACH UP AND OUT AND CRY OUT FOR ANY GAY PERSON OR GAY FAMIY , TO SAVE THEIR LIVES THAT WHERE STANDING AROUND AND THEM IN A DIAR CALAMITY, BECAUSE YOU SEE, THEY SIMPLY WOULD NOT CARE WHO SAVED THEIR LIVES, BUT IN RETURN THEY HURT AND HARM INNOCENT LIVES, THEY ARE TRASH AND THE ROT OF OUR NATION ,BIGOTS ARE, HIPPOCRITES, YOU CANT EVEN PULL THEM OUT FROM STALKING GAY PEOPLE FOR SEX

    1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 9:01am

      Oh don’t worry, I got a splitting headache now.

  26. George, exactly, I noticed that. I have a problem with people who are paid to do a job, in the case of registrars, by the tax payers and as such, should NOT be exempt or accommodated. We go to work to work, not practice one’s belief system, there are appropriate places for that and that alone, either a religious edifice or one’s home. It does NOT belong in the workplace, ever.

    If these people can’t handle that, then they should go work for a religious denomination instead and stop imposing their religious beliefs on the majority. That said, I have no problem people wearing crosses or whatever, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their work.

  27. How can you be a Christian and a bigot? I know actual Christians who preach no hatred towards anyone. Bigots hide behind religion. They might as well just join the BNP and be done with it.

    1. “A conservative American religious group has been given leave to intervene in the appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in cases concerning alleged religious discrimination.

      The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has obtained permission from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to intervene in four cases involving British people who claim to have suffered religious discrimination.”
      more
      http://www.secularism.org.uk/american-religious-right-group-i1.html

    2. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 9:03am

      I think Bigots use Christians as an excuse.

      1. I posted this twice here because PN hasn’t yet covered this story of the vastly wealthy and extreme Christian US Alliance Defence Fund bizarrely being given permission to interfere in the ECHR cases scheduled shortly.

        1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 11:34am

          Glad you have Pavlos, it is a disturbing development.

          1. Disturbing! Shock Horror! The Tories and their friends are in Town:
            .
            http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/04/conservative-christian
            .
            Who could have predicted it?

          2. @ Beberts:
            That’s an excellent article Beberts, thank you for posting it.
            Shows the very close links between Andrea Minichiello Williams of the CLC and the Alliance Defence Fund, the CLC, which has represented most of these vexatious litigations in court, is in reality little more than a shopfront housing the Alliance Defence Fund lawyers.

          3. The road is being paved. They won’t find many traffic lights, and the government is slowly making sure these will turn green … so they’re slowly gaining ground and funnelling more cash and other resources from the US.

  28. It’s pretty simple – if you have a civil service job, religion play no part. You don’t have (and shouldn’t have) the right to pick and choose what parts of the public you serve. If your religious point of view is so strong, you need to find a different line of work.

  29. David Myers 20 Aug 2011, 9:01am

    Finally, some sensibility on this issue. Clearly if you had a religion that forbade you from performing marriages to people of another race (than white), that religious belief would not exempted from the legislation preventing discrimination. This is no different.

  30. Paddyswurds 20 Aug 2011, 10:20am

    There is only one honourable thing left for the EHRC and that is to resign en masse. They have been proven by this dirgraceful debacle to be nothing more than a paper tiger and Trevor Philips a numbskull whose pandering to the Abrahamic cultists defies all logic. Angela mason’s scrambling to protect her job reveals her interests…Angela mason and nothing else.

    1. Paddyswurds 20 Aug 2011, 10:23am

      errata…..
      …..Angela Mason**
      …. obv.

  31. Pavlos, that’s very disturbing indeed. Just what and how can an American organisation be allowed to run interference in the internal matters of a sovereign country? Maybe this should be pursued and brought to the attention of 10 Downing Street. America does not allow any foreign entity to meddle in its internal affairs so why should we? To me it comes across as nothing more than a hate group and should be deemed as such and barred from in the affairs of a foreign country.

    1. Jock S. Trap 20 Aug 2011, 1:58pm

      Exactly. How are these US group meddling in our legal system any different to them interfering in places like Uganda?
      -
      It’s disturbing and two faced. Typical.
      -
      It needs to be dealt with, your right. They need to be told to keep their conks out and stick to there own.

      1. The CLC represented the majority of the “Christians” who alleged they were “victimised” in the workplace and who went to litigation and lost their cases, having exhausted their options through the legal system within UK some of these cases have now arrived at the ECHR.
        That the US Alliance Defence Fund has been given permission to intervene in the hearing at the ECHR is strange given the already very close links between Christian activist Andrea Minichiello Williams( who fronts both Christian Concern For Our Nation the Christian Legal Centre) and the ADF.
        The CLC and CCFON already both in reality little more than shopfronts housing Alliance Defence Fund-trained lawyers while pushing their Christian fundamentalist agenda in the UK, litigation playing a major part in their efforts to gain ground in the UK. Andrea Minichiello Williams “believes that abortion should be illegal, homosexuality is sinful and the world is 4,000 years old”.
        Looks like ADF involvement from start to finish

        1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 10:44am

          It is worrying. Don’t see how the US has any right to intervene in UK Law and policy and don’t get me started on how they even got accept to intervene!

  32. @Rehan’
    You said…
    “There you are, Keith – you asked for evidence that you have been promoting lies on this site. Thanks for providing another example”
    What I should have said is that most paedophiles are homosexual a AND…paedophilic child abuse is disproprtionately high amongst homosexuals…
    If anyone requires proof, let me know here!

    1. You’re obsessed with pedo’s keith, and bestiality. I’m begining to suspect you are a closet pedo you go on about them so much. Anyway, most pedos are not gay, the majority are straight. The majority of murderers are straight. The majority of rapists are straight. The majority of thiefs are straight. The majority of arms dealers who sell land mines and biological weapons are straight. The majority of serial killers are straight. The majority of bankers who would screw their own grandmothers out of money are straight. In fact, the majority of all criminals are straight. if you want proof, just go to any prison, and you’ll find the majority of people in them are STRAIGHT. btw, the majority of pedos in ireland are christians, like you. If you want proof, go and ask the Pope. You’re not an ex catholic priest are you?

    2. Here we go again…
      Lets see the proof you have Keith ??
      Anyway, as always you can find what you want on the internet to support your hatred.
      Paedophilia is not as clear cut as you make out, is it Keith. Try doing your research a little more. Just because a person molests someone of the same sex it doesnt make gay. There is a very high number of sexual molestation cases and proven research where men have abused boys but are not physically attracted to men. So, with proven research a man who molests a boy is not automatically gay and the majority of men who have molested boys are physically attracted to the adult female.

      Go away and pedal your agenda somewhere else keith.

      1. If you want specifics Keith to the numbers:

        A report in the USA in 2002 found that in 1038 men who molested boys, only 8% reported to be exclusively homosexual in their adult preferences. A further 9% said they were equally heterosexual and homosexual, the remaining are exclusively hetrosexual either married, then divorced, widowed then living with an adult.

        Nothing to do with sexual orinetation, but proves you are most highly likely to be molested during your childhood by a white straight male who is either a family member or part of your family circle !!! or a catholic priest !! ;-) ;-)

        1. Some points though worth mentioning are that I said most paedophiles, not child molesters, are homosexual but child molestation is disproportionately high amongst homosexuals.
          since the majority of people are not homosexual, it follows that most child abuse will be higher amongst heterosexuals.
          http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=13722

          1. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 8:25am

            Sicko! Stop your homophobia you disgusting excuse for a human being.

    3. @ Keith: so you’re admitting your statement “And most paedophiles are homosexuals” is factually incorrect then? If not, please provide statistics to support your contention.
      .
      Otherwise, an apology would be appropriate.

    4. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 8:23am

      Reported, I’ve had enough of Keiths abuse.

    5. Jock S. Trap 22 Aug 2011, 8:24am

      Your one fvckin sick perv, Keith.

  33. wnd.com…..is that the best you can come up with keith. The editor in chief, CEO and Chairmand Mr Joseph Farah, a far right conservative who is a practising evangelical christian !! The very person who started the conspiracy theory’s that President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA. Farah also pledged $15,000 dollars to the hospital where Obama was born upon receipt of his birth certificate !!

    Come on keith you can do better than that or am I wasting my time…..adios….loser !!

    1. Simon, exaclty
      .
      What (wnd.com) does not mention, is that when it is referring to published psychological research, it is actually referring to research by the discredited psychologist Paul Cameron. Dr Cameron was thrown out of the Amercian Psychological Association (APA) in 1983.
      .
      http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
      .
      So how did Paul Cameron publish his research linking homosexuality and Paedophilia?. Simple, he set up four main Journals of his own by gathering together like minded thinkers.
      .
      Journal of Psychology & Theology
      Psychological Reports
      Journal of Psychology
      Omega: Journal of Death & Dying
      .
      The Journals above are universally ignored by the academic world
      .
      http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_journals.html

      1. yech…what kind of a low-life would use Cameron’s misinformation to attempt to bully the LGBT community in the name of “revealed morality”?

      2. Dr. Paul Cameron on the Phil Donahue show – YouTube:

  34. Keith does fall into the profiling to be a child molestor/pedo with boys as he is a white staight…. Keith the pedo….straight men messing with kids make me sick !

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