Reader comments · Judge pulls out of “confusing” Bahamas wedding competition · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Judge pulls out of “confusing” Bahamas wedding competition

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 16 Nov 2011, 9:24am

    Typical of these people to get confused by their own ignorance. Guess it doesn’t take much but hey why to promote their own breed of discrimination.

    Well done to Goldsmiths judge Ruth Benford though for standing up. I take it Goldsmith are removing their sponsorship entitlely though not just the judge?

    1. Whilst it may be simple confusion over the use of terminology – if someone setting up legal conditions is not familiar with terminology used in a different jurisdiction they should seek clarification before wording something in a misleading manner …

      It could equally be that the Bahamas Tourist Office sought a form of words that appeared confusing to obviate it of any responsibility for prejudice, whilst maintaining that prejudice.

      Well done to Goldsmiths for withdrawing the judge and being willing to declare an impartial stance on the issue. I hope the competition funding is also withdrawn

  2. Good for Goldsmiths.

    These Caribbean countries’ biggest industry is tourism.

    For those tourist countries who discrminate against its own gay population, we need to start highlighing this to everyone.

    Hit them in their pockets where it hurts.

    The Bahams is certainly not as savagely backward as Jamaica is when it comes to gay rights, but it’s not paradise.

    A gentle reminder that their biggest industry is under threat unless they deal with gay human rights concerns is very timely.

  3. jamestoronto 16 Nov 2011, 11:40am

    If I am not mistaken, a civil partnership could be concluded on property of the UK High Commission in Nassau and be valid in the UK.

    1. Rubber Ducky 16 Nov 2011, 3:15pm

      unfortunately this is not correct, you’ve fallen into the trap that most people do these days, its a myth that embassies (and in the case of commonwealth countries the high commission) have full extraterritorial status or that they’re sovereign territory of the country to whom they represent, it still the property (both land and building) of the host country although afforded immunity to certain things under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations of 1961

      1. @Rubber Ducky

        I get where you are coming from in terms of extraterritorality, however, the following document suggests that officers of HM Diplomatic Service may perform civil partnerships and specifically mentions Japan and Australia as potential options, which is interesting given that neither sovereign state offers same sex marriage and Japan does not include civil partnerships or similar, whereas some Australian states do.

      2. jamestoronto 16 Nov 2011, 7:00pm

        Yes the property remains that of the host state but the business that transpires is that of the foreign/commonwealth state. I am trying to locate where I have seen that civil unions have been concluded at British embassies. It was a while back so I may not be successful.

  4. Hmm, is it actually legal in the UK to run a competition that discriminates like this? I was under the impression that our civil partnership legislation made it an offense to provide something for people in marriages that was not also offered to people in civil partnerships. I thought that was illegal in this country?

    Which, of course, raises the question of whether the competition is being run by a UK firm or one from the Bahamas. If the former then I suspect a lawsuit could be in the offing.

    1. Well of course it’s not illegal.

      Marriage provides better pension coverage than CP’s for starters.

      Also marriage is recognised worldwide. Our CP Apartheid legislation is not recognised in many places.

      CP’s are 2nd class contracts designed specifically, for what the powers that be in this country, regard as 2nd class citizens.

      1. @dAVID

        Clearly marriage is not equal in the UK currently – although hopefully soon that will change …

        However, I think where this competition seriously went wrong is by not specifying that this was solely for marriage – if they had remained at simple marriage then under current English law that is a male and female couple, and thus technically the competition may not be discriminatory (although I suspect a case of discrimination could be argued!). As they have specifically mentioned civil partnerships and that they will not permit same sex couples then this clearly breaches the Equalities Act 2010 – equal access to goods and services.

    2. I was just thinking along the same lines. If you advertise in the UK, then that ad must abide by UK laws, which this clearly doesn’t. If you know where one of these ads has been published, complain to the ASA at the very least!

  5. So question? Now, Sandals, Kuoni, Thomas Cook and plenty more all offer weddings package all over the world (Caribbean, Africa, Asia) where same sex marriages are not legal but also where homosexuality is illegal and sometimes subject to death penalty of life imprisonment. These packages are offered to UK customers but will not be sold to same sex couples because of the legislation of the majority of countries.
    Any suggestions on how to address this and take legal action against all of these UK registered companies? Is a class action law suit possible?

    1. Possibly not, depending on which jurisdiction the contract that you take the purchase out in is claimed to be. Most contractual obligations are based on English law – so there may be argumental recourse for a class action suit. I suspect the court would agree that it is discriminatory but that customers can not require an organisation to breach the law of another sovereign state. What is needed is campaigning that includes individuals, groups and companies such as Thomas Cook etc to pressurize these nations to understand that their tourist dollars are under threat from their own bigotry.

  6. Why is PinkNews promoting discrimination against black people?How dare you claim you are defenders of rights when you allow citizens of the islands to be referred to “these people”? You are encouraging with the stereotype of stupid, ignorant black folk! Take a look closer to home if you want to talk about discrimination!!

    1. Where does it say these people?

    2. Can you read?

      If so then what on earth are you babbling on about?

    3. There is no such wording in the article EAT
      EAT must stand for Eyesight Absolutely Terrible!

    4. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 16 Nov 2011, 3:23pm

      EAT, the comment regarding ‘these people’ was Jock S Trap’s personal view and he is not a employee so far as I know.

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

        Nope certainly ain’t but you can always be assured that ‘some’ people will take my comment ‘these people’ out of context and make it into their own warped twist mind set. Guess that actually says more about that individual that they clearly think all comments are about race, gender, orientation and simply not just as ‘these people’ organising this event.

        EAT, keith, pepa… whoever you wanna be these days,… it’s ain’t working. No matter what name you use you’re still a Big Fat Fake and always will be!

        1. jamestoronto 16 Nov 2011, 9:38pm

          Once again context. Any one, two or three words taken out of context can be used for any tirade. “These people”, by the way I read it. refers back to “the management and employees of the Bahamas Tourist Board” which in turn in a long-winded way of saying “these people”

  7. Thanks to Goldsmiths then!
    Glad to see places with decent principals that everyone is equal!

  8. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 16 Nov 2011, 3:41pm

    Did Goldsmiths forget to check with the competition promotional material before signing their sponsorship of it?! Yep, and what a stupid gaff it is on their part. And they are happy to promote it on the as a hetty-only competition. We of the alternate lifestyles are, of course, catered for under the Bahamian Law of ‘Void or Voidable Marriages’ under their Matrimonial Causes Act, section 22… ah, what a perfect world

  9. The problem is the majority of Christians do not include gays unless it is a gay Christian Church.

  10. Jock S. Try as you may to U Turn Your agenda has been exposed!

    1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 16 Nov 2011, 4:48pm

      Erm, hardly but I DO like an exposed agenda, don’t get me wrong. If Jock’s comments were directed at a news item regarding a tourist board gaff which is, in turn I suspect a governmental agency, then ‘these people’ would refer to that agency and that governments’ discriminatory law and practice.

      The only discrimination being exposed is your good judgement and as your knife is so readily drawn at Jock’s harmless comment, I suspect that you are, as Jock himself supposes, the proxy-mutant himself, Keef… EAT’s a bit dull of a dull moniker, doncha fink? Only in a strictly now-that-you-are-here-put-on-a-show kinda way ;-)

      1. @EAT

        More than happy to expose bigotry and intolerance of any kind, you are seeing it where it just doesnt exist …

        “These people” in this example is the tourist board …

        1. @Stu

          So Stu, as a very active defendant of the LGBT community, if you dont accept that the Bahamas Tourist Office promotes getting married in the bahamas despite the fact that in the bahamas only straight people are allowed to get married…. I take it, you have never yourself visited, worked, dealt with consumed a produce of, listening music from or enjoyed anything from a country that do not allow same sex marriages, right?
          Given the fact that only 10 countries (out of 182) in the world allow gay marriages, you must have a pretty dull life…
          If, in the contrary, there is a double standart here and you don’t look at what you do but only at what others do. What is your excuse for promoting homophobic policies? As a member of the LGBT community, shouldn’t you stop dealing with anything coming from these ‘bad’ countries, the same way Goldsmith’s have withdrawn themselves from the Bahamas judge panel?

          1. Actually, I HAVE been to the Bahamas. I see backward country on human rights and lacking basic infrastructure other then to cater for tourists. But your comment makes no ense. What exactly has Stu utilised from the Bahamas that makes him the hypocrite you imply with your “double standards” comment?

            Please, enlighten me here, I’m at a loss as to your point, if you actually have one.

          2. Keith,

            Your prose gives you away and I am not going to dignify your pointless comments with any response – there is no element of contradiction in my comments

          3. Awww did I miss the renaming ceremony :( In my opinion Goldsmith did the right and principled thing, good on her :)

          4. @Dafy

            I didn’t get an invite to the renaming ceremony either …. strange, that …

    2. To quote you above:- “you allow citizens of the islands to be referred to “these people”?”

      Yeah, super with the agenda nonsense, but please explain the above comment. Where exactly does it say “those people” in the article?

    3. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2011, 8:39am

      Yet again, Keith talks out of that which he is fixated… his arse!

  11. Jock S… u r the Pink Sepp Blatter….

    1. Jock S. Trap 17 Nov 2011, 10:11am

      No, unlike you Keith I don’t feel the need to change my name to score attention points or to stop my messages comments from being removed.

      At least all know my opinion is just that in debate unlike you constant attention seeking with very little to add to anything.

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