Reader comments · Equality chief: Religious are not above the law · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Equality chief: Religious are not above the law

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Under this man’s leadership the Commission is a total shower – no principles, no consistency, no courage, no results.

    I am passionately in favour of such a commission, but as it stands it is little more than a gravy train for those involved.

    For the sake of us all, this man needs to stand down.

    1. I have my criticisms of him too… But isn’t what he’s saying here pretty sensible?

      1. Mumbo Jumbo 17 Feb 2012, 10:39am

        Yes. But what will his opinion be next week, or the week after that?

        1. Exactly my point, Mumbo Jumbo.

      2. Tom, of course he’s got the line right in this instance, but not so long ago he was taking a very different view. Do we really want to say “you’ve got it right this time, so everything’s ok now, and we’ll forget that there isn’t a fence thin enough to push you off”? That makes our position as fickle as his. This organisation needs clear and consistent vision and leadership, and the fact that he’s now come up with something that we agree with only adds to the impression that he’ll say almost anything at anytime.

  2. Mr Phillips has said the right thing – now.

    But where was he during the “reasonable accommodations” fiasco last year?

    And what has happened in the interim to stiffen his backbone?

    The unavoidable inference is that Mr Phillips waited to see which way the political winds were blowing. Scared that the EHRC might be included in the “bonfire of the quangos” beloved of the Tory right, he allowed the EHRC to flirt with religious conservative views.

    Now it has become clear that Cameron finds it expedient to keep the coalition liberal on social issues, and now the EHRC seems to be safe (for the moment), Mr Phillips has remembered that we have a secular legal system.

    He has lost all credibility and should go.

    1. The calls for his sacking because of his support for homophobic extremism (ie the reasonable accommodation arguement) and his lack of understanding of equality, seems to have reminded him that equality applies to gay people as well.

      ‘Reasonable accommodation’ is not about equality – it is nothing more than a licence to discrminate and it would appear that Phillps seems to realise how utterly unacceptable this is.

    2. Spanner1960 17 Feb 2012, 2:06pm

      atalanta: “Mr Phillips has said the right thing – now.”
      Well that’s more than can be said of Messrs P. Tatchell or K.Livingstone of recent weeks.
      Frankly I can’t stand Phillips generally, but what he says here is totally true.

  3. Yes, the Equalities commission has previously been inconsistent in it’s stance.

    I agree absolutely with this most recent statement by Trevor Philips and it is perfectly sensible and reasonable but will he stick to his word now or will he be swayed to backtrack by the usual religious lobbyist’s unreasonable and self-interested demands for special privileged exemptions from equality law? I hope not.

    1. Sadly, Pavlos, he has “form”

  4. Carey really isn’t the brightest person in the world if he can’t tell the difference between the logical application of his point of view to all religions, and a comparison between Christianity and sharia law. Also, he doesn’t seem to remember that he was retired as Archbishop of Canterbury many years ago.

  5. Religions might not be exempt from the law, but the law has plenty of exemptions which allow religious organisations to discriminate legally!

  6. Helen Wilson 17 Feb 2012, 11:07am

    Trevor Philips a man who likes to play on both sides of the fence. He is a few steps bellow estate agents, used car sales people and sun journalists in persons you would trust.

    1. Keith Farrell 17 Feb 2012, 11:54am

      hey, I have been a used car salesman and an estate agent, I have always tried to keep to my agreements even when the customer had tried to change the agreement after all my work, but that is my feeling. This person and people like him all sit on the fence and wait to see which side is winning, in this case I feel he is right, there cannot be laws for christian’s and laws for others, yes the church has their feeling of what they want and the laws still stays the law. discrimanation is wrong no matter how the church justifies it. so either they give us the same rights or they are forced to operate under the same rules as us. In other words, no marrage in any church, every one has to be married in a registar’s office or the marrage is not legal. end of problem, they can then have a marrage in their church but unless the persons have gone through the registar’s office, they are not married. equal rights for everyone. and why must our tax money be spent on upkeep of their buildings

      1. Dr Robin Guthrie 17 Feb 2012, 2:10pm

        “I have been a used car salesman and an estate agent”

        You should become an MP, then you will have the complete set.

    2. You could add Heads’ of Equality Charities to the list, Helen!

  7. Actually in some ways the religious are above the law. For example when it comes to sex discrimination in employment of women as priests (Catholics) or sexual orientation discrimination when appointing Bishops (Anglicans).

    1. Ah, but the difference there is that, while in the Anglican view, being a priest is a job, the Catholic view is that it isn’t. It isn’t something someone applies for in the Catholic church, so it isn’t like someone with a different ethnic background will face being discriminated against while trying to get a parish. Catholic priests are appointed to a parish, the way a soldier is sent to a particular station.

      That isn’t to say that there haven’t been people calling for more equality in functions within the Church itself, and it also differs per country or even diocese how people think about these things, and how conservative they are.

      1. You’re saying being a soldier isn’t a job? It is, it’s a profession, and so is being a priest.

      2. I cannot imagine why you are so downplaying the misogyny of the Catholic church. The current Pope has declared it a grave sin to even campaign for women to be ordained, never mind to be made priests. That’s the same level of sin a molestation of children. That’s a clear church policy which applies here in the UK too.

        Just last week we saw how that church has managed to get its own state-funded universities in the UK, and is using them to give its hateful teachings the supposed standing of academic endorsements, completely ignoring anti-discrimination legislation. Thus a Bioethics department and its journal can now be quoted as condemning abortion, birth control, and transsexuality (deemed a grave disorder and threat to humanity by the Vatican), which can’t be too welcoming for trans and women students.

        It looks to me as if that church is very much above the law.

    2. Also women as bishops or archbishops, still (Anglicans).

      1. They just voted that through. Of course in the RC church, no one gets a vote as it is still an absolute monarchy.

        1. No, they held another vote, but it isn’t though yet.

  8. The religious should leave their views “at the door of the temple” and be governed by public law when providing public services – And when living in a multi-culture.

  9. Of course religious people should not be above the law.

    Trevor Phillips comments are welcome and demonstrate a positive and fair stance. As other commentators have said, he needs to stick to this.

    As a gay Christian I despaired at the appointment of Joel Edwards. What is Phillips going to do about this (given that he feels it appropriate – he is right – to apologise).

    1. Good point, Zack.

      If Phillips feels the need to apologise then presumably he feels his organisation did something wrong in appointing Joel Edwards. If appointing Joel Edwards was wrong, then should he remain in post?

    2. They should have appointed a gay christian.

      1. Whilst still having not a single member of staff, never mind a commissioner, with any experience (or arguably even understanding) of transsexuality, despite us being a specific discrete category the are charged to protect? How many more gay or lesbian commissioners do you want before we get a single person there, never mind the variety needed for proper guidance?

  10. George Carey is a disgusting human being.

    1. Spanner1960 17 Feb 2012, 2:08pm

      Oh get off your anti-religionist whinging please. Your incessant complaining about the church is becoming seriously boring and offensive.

      1. Sister Goodlove 17 Feb 2012, 3:12pm

        But not as offensive as George Carey, who would be just as repulsive even if he were Richard Dawkins’ business partner, or an acolyte of Buddha.

        Religion is a wonderful umbrella for the hideously deranged.

      2. John Antrobus 17 Feb 2012, 7:21pm

        I’ve never found dAVID’s comments offensive or boring.

        1. I have found dAVIDs repetitiveness boring and on occasion I have found him offensive.

          I do have to agree with part of Paddyswurds comment about the ridiculous diatribe that George Carey wrote last weekend. It was totally unChristian.

      3. Paddyswurds 17 Feb 2012, 8:07pm

        Read George Carey’s piece in last Saturdays Daily Wail and then complain about anti religion. It is one of the most disingenuous pieces of crap i have ever read and that includes Skinner and the madman Keith on these pages. There is only one place for religion and that is in the shame dustbin of history.

  11. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 17 Feb 2012, 1:20pm

    I think he’s saying something worthwhile at least. But I can’t understand for one minute why it is an essential human right to be of a religion anyway or why I would be employed in a public authority as a person of religion when I am merely a Registrar! But then I can’t understand why people need to respect your religion, Lord Carey! Just because you are an old institution doesn’t mean you are right or superior to intellectual, evidence-based debate rather than yahweh mumbo-jumbo and mysticisms or torturing someone’s soul for eternity for refusing to believe in transubstantiation by death penalty! Only if we allowed to tax them, can they have their freedom of religion!

    1. @Mr Ripleys Asscrack

      Its part of the UN declaration of Human Rights.

      You have the right to freedom from religion, so why should I not also have the freedom to exercise my religion (provided I do so responisibly?)

      As I have said many times, my faith is largely a personal thing.

      I am also gay, I belong to a church that believes in gay rights and equality. 61% of Christians share these views. The voice of accepting and reasonable Christians are repeatedly being heard.

      I respect your right to exercise your right to freedom from religion, why can you not respect my right to exercise my own personal private faith?

      1. “61% of Christians share these views”

        Not in the Guardian or Telegraph they are not.

        The stories on secularisation are awash with them at the moment and I have never read such homophobic bile from so-called christians.

        We were compared to paedophiles and bestiality.

        One of them even wanted the right to gun down “the gays”.

        1. Spanner1960 17 Feb 2012, 2:24pm

          Actually, most of the Telegraph’s commenters are surprisingly very pro-gay, and the Guardian is wall-to-wall lefties anyway, so I find your comment risible.

          1. The Guardian CiF boards are frequently flooded with insidious, religious trolls Spanner.

      2. Dr Robin Guthrie 17 Feb 2012, 2:08pm

        “I respect your right to exercise your right to freedom from religion, why can you not respect my right to exercise my own personal private faith?”.

        NO ONE is preventing you

        Just keep it that. ie: Private.

      3. Fine, but why should your church get a tax break (privilege) when my social club doesn’t?

        1. I WANT the churches getting tax breaks!

          As long as they are getting tax breaks they cannot say that they are tax-paying entities with an equal right to campaign politically.

          i KNOW that churches are sill campaigning right now, which is basically illegal… but some day, a politician with BALLS will come around and put the R. Catholic church and the other extremist organizations back in their place.

          You don’t pay taxes, you don’t get a say in the political landscape.

        2. I don’t think the church should get a tax break, generally.

          I might make a special case for genuinely charitable works (not religious) e.g. when they raise funds for overseas relief efforts, homeless shelters etc. Currently all such money legally has to go through the accounts of the church (these should be exempt from tax in line with charity law). The rest of the churches money it would be entirely appropriate to consider liable for taxation.

      4. “You have the right to freedom from religion”

        So why can’t these disgusting monsters like George Carey accept this?

        These hate-filled cults like the cult of England and the catholic cult are constantly trying to interfere with the laws of the land.

        1. @dAVID

          So we both agree you are entitled to freedom from religion. Regardless of what George Carey or others think.

          Am I entitled to freedom of religion included freedom from the hatred bile you spread calling religion a mental illness?

          1. John Antrobus 17 Feb 2012, 7:25pm

            It is a mental illness; it’s delusional.

          2. @John

            They used to say the same about homosexuality.

            The Royal College of Psychiatry are both satisfied that neither homosexuality nor religion (generally) are mental illnesses.

            Are you more eminent in your views that the Royal College?

      5. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 17 Feb 2012, 3:15pm

        Zack – well dah, obviously it’s in the UN declaration, but my point is that it should be removed. If I felt so strongly about the Beano, for example, I wouldn’t believe that Dennis the Menace should, upon pain of death or eternal damnation (ha!), be the supreme being, lording over all other fictitious characters.

        What is responsible freedom to exercise religion? History teaches us that as a christian, you wielded your faith with paranoid aggression.

        “I respect your right to exercise your right to freedom from religion”… Really? So why this comment then! You (as a person of ‘faith’) inherently CANNOT respect anyone who has no belief in this age-old fiction. Ever prayed for someone who didn’t have ‘faith’? “Why can you not respect my right to exercise my own personal private faith?” Because people of ‘faith’ rarely can keep it to themselves, and must ram it down other’s throats. If all we had was religion today, we would not have any of the technologies that we enjoy.

        1. @Mr Ripleys Asscrack

          “History teaches us that as a christian, you wielded your faith with paranoid aggression.”

          Please tell me when I have wielded my faith with paranoid aggression. You personalise you comment towards me, so please explain why.

          You seem to have pigeon holed me and assumed how my faith impacts on my life and my actions.

          I am as happy to keep my faith to myself, and those who share my faith or ask to know more.

          Your assumptions about me are that – assumption.

          So, are you saying that everything about me can not be respected because I have a faith? – because thats the message you portray.

          Or is that based on your presumptions?

          1. Paddyswurds 17 Feb 2012, 8:54pm

            ….”assumed how my faith impacts on my life and my actions.”………….. and you dear one, are seriously deluded if you think otherwise. You are already deluded as you have been infected with the Abrahamic cult fantasy lie.

          2. Which things are you presuming about me, Paddyswurds?

            Do you also feel I am incapable of rational thought, reasonable decisions etc due to my faith?

            Seems when it suits some people on here they will agree with me eg I agree churches should be taxed (generally). However, when it suits them they are prepared to write off me by saying I am mentally ill or incapable or rational and reasonable opinion because of my faith. This is without having taken the time out to discover what my views are.

            its all supposition and speculation.

          3. Paddyswurds 18 Feb 2012, 12:15pm

            … words in quotes are yours taken from your reply to Mr Ripley. I’m Assuming nothing about you. And frankly yes, I do think anyone, not just you, who has been brainwashed by a vile Abrahamic cult of whatever hue, are incapable of Rational, reasoned thought, because if that weren’t the case they would have sussed those cults for what they are, a means to control your life. The very claim to be a person of faith in a fictional deity renders anyone’s opinion of you to be suspect and not someone who’s views and opinions to be considered as legitimate, as they would most likely be coloured by your faith in a fictional old book of fables passed down orally from fearful, ignorant desert tribesmen thousands of years ago and compiled into a book by a despotic English King in the 15th century..

          4. Paddyswurds 18 Feb 2012, 12:43pm

            …..The words in quotes were yours in reply to Mr Ripley, but i do think that your “faith” will impact on your rational and reasoning in everything you do. Anyone who has been infected by the Abrahamic cults, of whatever creed, cannot be assumed to be a rational and reasoned person, because if they were they would have seen through the fictional deity fantasy.
            A fiction from an old book compiled by a despotic English King from oral tradition passed from fearful, ignorant desert, tribal leaders wandering the deserts of the Middle East more than four thousand years ago.
            So to answer your question, No, your opinions cannot be considered reasoned and rational as, they will always be associated with you inability to see through the whole Religious fantasy thing.

  12. At the end of the day the point is valid the religous are not above the law and even the bible says to obey the law of the land, and yes I can be accused of taking out of context (for the benifit of our persistant troll). The recent cases that have been penned here in PN is proof of that and despite certain trolls statement that homophobia is not against the law hate speech and homophobic actions are becoming increasably chargable as racism had. I know nothing of this guy but yes he is right on this particular point

    1. I think the Romans probably added that bit about obeying the law of the land, for obvious reasons.

      1. probably but then again most of the christian faith is an amalgamation of previous conquered faiths incorporated into christianity to make convertion more palatable

  13. Dr Paul D Davis 17 Feb 2012, 1:37pm

    I don’t think that Bishops should sit in the House of Lords either, we should have total separation of Church and State. If they want to begin these parliamentary sessions with a Christian prayer, then it is only fair under the anti-discrimination act to allow people of all other faiths to say a prayer also.

    1. Well the House of Lords should be replaced in its entirely by a democratically elected Upper House.

      Until that hapwpent it’s correct that bishops should not be allowed to participate in the House of Lords.

      1. Spanner1960 17 Feb 2012, 2:22pm

        Yeah right, like they do in the Commons and we end up with a bunch of career politicians and brown-nosers.

        1. …and the Lords is not full of of career politicians and brown-nosers? I take it you don’t know so many.

        2. David Myers 18 Feb 2012, 10:07am

          Better than a bunch of fascist dictators!

    2. Can the rest of us watch a movie?

    3. Spanner1960 17 Feb 2012, 2:20pm

      I don’t see why religious people should not be allowed, as they are part of the larger community whether you like it or not. The Lords should be made up of respectable, educated and upstanding people from all walks of life, and they should be allowed to debate their views as much as anybody else. Restricting people is the thin end of the wedge and will simply turn the Lords into a Member’s only club and go against all this country’s democratic principles.

      1. Paddyswurds 17 Feb 2012, 9:00pm

        Yes but only if they are elected ,like the senate in the US for example

        1. Spanner1960 18 Feb 2012, 8:35am

          You *seriously* think that is democratic? With brown bags flying every which way? It is as bent a system as you could possibly create.

          1. Paddyswurds 18 Feb 2012, 5:01pm

            ……Brown bags?…really. I was a voter for many years in the US and no-one ever gave me a brown bag for any reason, never mind to sway my vote.

    4. I do not think it is democratic to have any unelected people in either of the Houses of Parliament.

      I think if a Bishop or other religious person wishes to be part of the parliamentary process they should stand for election and the electorate decide whether they should be elected or not on their merits, the same as any other person.

      1. Spanner1960 18 Feb 2012, 8:32am

        The problem is that elections are not always as democratic as they may appear. Look at the US Presidential elections, with massive amounts being spent on lobbying and each side being funded to the hilt by biased parties. It ends up usually not the best person winning, but the richest.

        The whole point of the Lords is these people have no political aspirations, and no axe to grind; they don’t do it for money, glory or power, but simply see it as their public duty.

  14. Yet only a few months ago, he was championing the right of religious people who feel that equality legislation oppresses them. The more I hear about the guy, the more I think he’s an idiot.

    1. I get the impression that, a Christian himself, he got blind-sided by the xtian extremists after agreeing to meet them. They may have put out their own version of the meeting which the Commission was unprepared to answer for a vital period. Eventually, after stirrings in the gay press, they assured the gay community that they would be consulted, but of course then had to be reminded, strongly, that it was not only gay men who are threatened and discriminated against by religion. They then took on board that women, those under the gender identity protection, and of other and no beliefs are just as much threatened. Pretty astounding that they needed telling.

      Hopefully all of that got to the Chairman. It sounds as if it did. But the problem usually at the Commission is that they only hear what fits their preconceptions, which are limited, and inadequate.


    1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 17 Feb 2012, 2:49pm

      Hear hear, but caps lock off next time!! Or do you mean to shout that?!! Perhaps. And please don’t throw that evolution word around… yahweh will smote you for denying his creation of the world some time around 10:15 last saturday night.

    2. Bronze age superstitions and beliefs, surely? Well at least 1200 years after the virus of xtianity destroyed the roman empire and its libraries and skills would not have been lost. Their deliberate oppression of us for about 1700 years, and ongoing, would not have happened, as it didn’t in those non-colonised countries of south-east asia and the Pacific.

      A truly disastrous price has been paid, for which they claim full credit.

      1. Spanner1960 18 Feb 2012, 8:39am

        Not half as disastrous as the cult of Islam, which is considerably more insidious and dangerous.

        1. David Myers 18 Feb 2012, 10:13am

          “A plague on both their houses”. Christian fundamentalist fascism and muslim fundamentalist fascism – they’re both fascists! Non fascist muslims and christians I have no problem with as long as they respect everyone else!

  16. Jock S. Trap 17 Feb 2012, 2:46pm

    At last this man talks some sense. Religious people are not above the law after all they do choice to be in a religious lifestyle unlike the LGBTQI community.

    As much as they think they are above all laws they are not and should be treated just the same….ie equally and not as they choose it.

    1. Exactly, which is what most Christians seek – equality.

      1. Jock S. Trap 17 Feb 2012, 4:12pm

        Yet the only Christians that don’t have equality are the LGBT ones. The rest take their own ‘Equality’ for granted then come out with the LGBT wanting extra right wish, as we all know, is crap. They just can’t see that Equality means treating all the same by the law, not by their religious view of it, skewed as it is for some of them. Thankfully not all.

    2. did you not mean catholics that say using a condom is a sin?

    3. Damn now all I can think of is Monty Pythons every sperm is sacred song grrrr lol

    4. Who cares.

      1. Jock S. Trap 17 Feb 2012, 5:26pm

        Well considering he knows I got HIV through rape it shows him up to be a very sick individual don’t ya think!

        1. Ignore him. That creature lives in its own hell.

  17. Odd how Carey is oblivious to other faiths, and those with none, having equal claim to “truth”, and really seems to believe he has a right to tell everyone how to live their lives.

    I always assumed that at least those near the top of the pile must realise the total insubstantiality of the accumulated myths, contradictions, borrowings, wickedness, and falsehoods. Otherwise what on earth were their inter-faith talks about? But I guess he drank far too much cool aid.

    I have to say that only a woman archbishop of Canterbury would now give me any feeling that the Anglican church deserved to even continue to exist. At least a woman could have no doubt that xtianity has made huge mistakes and lied its head off.

  18. Raymond A. Weaver 17 Feb 2012, 3:38pm

    If Church sponsored agencies are using public money, then they should follow public law about its use.

  19. Phillips has been concerning in his pandering to religious elements in the past and his apparent lack of empathy and understanding for LGBT issues.

    What he has said here makes complete sense and is both reasonable and fair.

    However, like many others I am concerned that he might change his mind again.

    1. aww … look who is “concerned” about people changing their minds… the same person who were cheering up those who change from left to right to left again and right again…

      1. Hi Berberts. Or is it Samuel B? Can never tell what personality that freak is using these days…..

      2. Jock S. Trap 17 Feb 2012, 4:16pm

        Irrelvent as ever I see Beberts. Here’s a novel idea, how about contributing to the debate?

    2. Jock S. Trap 17 Feb 2012, 4:14pm

      Quite, his opinions do seem as changable as the weather.

      1. Why do you criticize a man who changed his mind, when just a few weeks ago you were all too happy seeing other people changing their minds? The same weather is changing your own opinions …

        1. Berberts, what’s with the single minded vendetta and the bullying? You either ARE SamB or you think its okay to behave like him. Neither is appealing.

          1. Of course its Samuel B! Who else has the relentless obsession with Stu! Why do you even have to ask!?!

        2. Jock S. Trap 17 Feb 2012, 5:28pm

          Get with the programme love, do!

    3. Hi Keith

      Always a pleasure to laugh at you

      Did you not read Benjamin Cohens comment a week or so back explaining there is an active police investigation into the trolls on here?

      I had an interesting conversation with the MPS who explained to me how their complex inquiry is gathering pace.

      1. Stu, It thinks its safe because it lives in some hick swamp in the USA.

        Anonymity is the reason it behaves like an animal on his site. I suspect the local in whatever hell it lives in are fully aware of what kind of diseased trash it is.

      2. “If only!”

        Go ahead, you powerless bigot.


      3. Bring it on, Keith …

        Make a complaint …

        I dare you.

        I hardly think I needed to direct you to Benjamin Cohens comment when you had commented after his comment. So either you were spouting ignorant of what Benjamin had said -= or you are lying when you said you did not see it.

      4. I see Keith never responded to that Stu and Rob?

        What an utterly spineless and useless coward he is.

    4. Jock S. Trap 17 Feb 2012, 5:30pm

      Coming from the biggest fake on these thread Keith I can’t help feeling pity for you and Laughing at you.

      1. Bad day at the liquor store?

      2. more like bad day with his sister his wife

      3. David Myers 18 Feb 2012, 10:19am

        You’re pathetic. Go get a real life, if that’s even possible for a demented fool like you.

      4. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 11:08am

        I’m glad I’m do much better than you. Unlike you I and most on here are not consumed with such hate like you. Thats got to make you life a misery.

        We’re so much better, the evidence of your comments prove it.

  20. Nor are they above the calls for accurate theology… they should read the experts… and repent of their sin against LGBT people like this Methodist minister continues to do.

  21. Janet Lameck 17 Feb 2012, 5:15pm

    We need total separation of Church and State. Their rules end at the door of their edifice, be a church, temple etc.
    Also tax laws for churches should only apply to actual church buildings, not businesses and other structures which the churches may own.

  22. Andrew Wilson 17 Feb 2012, 7:31pm

    I don’t know if the Jehova’s Witnesses run any care homes or nursing homes, but if they do, are they allowed to deny blood transfusions to any of it’s residents?

    I suspect not.

  23. Yet we still have the ongoing “clearing the groud” inquiry by gary streeter MP and only a few yrs ago Baroness Shirley williams (lib dem) proposed a failed amendment to allow opt outs for relgious charities and old aged homes to refuse gay couples.

    Let’s hope the MPs and Lords now listen to the commission and stop continually asking questions, making sly amendments and having inquiries to change the equality laws back to what they used to be!!!!!

  24. You are right – you are consumed by hate.

    So you suggest making a complaint but havent the courage to follow it through. Shows you to be the weak, depraved, perverted person that you are.

    Coward. Stand up for your convictions. Make a complaint.

    Or are you afraid you will be identified?

    1. You just said in another thread you hate religion?

    2. Had a bit much to drink tonight have we Keith, your attempts at insult make me laugh more than ever at you.

      If you didnt intend to suggest making a complain why would you suggest seeing me in court, for that to happen someone would have to make a complaint, and since you were the one suggesting court ….

      Shame, your only use is comedy.

      So, to be clear – you don’t have the courage or strength of purpose to make a complaint then? Your morals aren’t that strong? Your moral fibre won’t stretch that far? Or the realistic thing is you are a coward and afraid of the consequences.

      1. No wonder Stu, Will and everyone laugh at you …

        You are a disgrace to anyone who claims to follow Scripture.

      2. @Zack

        I think it was me he wanted in court for inciting religious hatred …

        Hardly. Although I think religion is illogical and wrong I do speak out for the right to religion.

    3. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 11:10am

      Your just a coward, Keith. You trolling this site proves it.

  25. What Trevor Phillips says is true, but these words need to be put into action.

    Saying “Religions must defer to the public laws of the state” is all well and good, it’s the action the commission takes with regards to these words that speak volumes.

  26. Could PN seek a comment from Joel Edwards and see if he agrees with Trevor Phillips?

  27. George Broadhead 18 Feb 2012, 1:56pm

    He has done a complete volte-face for no clear reason so whilst welcoming his new stance, I doubt his sincerity.

  28. @Keith — you say to Stu that he is an object of ridicule whilst you are simply hated.

    Not really. Can’t see any posts here which suggest anyone thinks Stu’s an object of ridicule.

    Nor do I think you’re hated; pitied and ridiculed, but not hated. You might not command as much attention as you wish. Maybe there are other forums for you to seek attention on ?

  29. GingerlyColors 19 Feb 2012, 1:59am

    Nobody should be above the law. Whether it is the religious, far-right and far-left polititians, the travelling community or the LGBT community the law should be the same and no one should get preferential treatment just because they happen to be a ‘minority’ as this may cause resentment among the rest of society.

  30. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 11:09am


  31. Jock S. Trap 19 Feb 2012, 11:12am

    Have you ever thought of taking up comedy…. you clearly like people laughing At you.

  32. Philips is the scumbag hea dof the organisation that refused to help me assert my human rights despite theee being several precedent cases gone through the ECHR.
    his organisation is waste of money – a quango for the bonfire

  33. Thanks for the post or share information. Maybe you’re interested inAbercrombie Fitch Online Shop

  34. Coming from an outside perspective, considering what we’re seeing in the US Presidential race… can we borrow him so he can talk to our legislature?! The equality laws making it through tend to allow everything short of murder, so long as someone says it’s for religious reasons. The bill just passed in MD, where I live, makes every accommodation for religious orgs, etc. and even delays itself until January so people can vote on the rights of a minority!!

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.