Reader comments · MPs’ report on ‘undue limitation of Christian belief’ questioned · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


MPs’ report on ‘undue limitation of Christian belief’ questioned

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. These cultists need to be told in no uncertain terms:

    ‘You are free to believe what you like, but the moment you step out from your cult building then you are bound by the exact same laws as everybody else’.

    ‘Reasonablle accommodation’ for religious beliefs is a contradictory term.

    How can you make reasonable accommodation for truly unreasonable, irrational stupid beliefs.

    1. Why don’t religious MPs stand on a theocratic ticket come election time? Why not have a “Christian” party? They won’t because they would never get elected. They prefer to piggy back into office on the back of mainstream parties and then attempt to impose their beliefs from the lucrative (for them) palace of westminster . Isn’t that fraudulent?

      Come on guys put your money where your mouth is and stand as religious candidates at the next election. I double dare you! We all know how much you value honesty. Don’t we?

  2. And let;s make no mistake.

    When cultists demand ‘reasonable accommodation’ for their beliefs, what they are actually asking for is a license to discriminate.

    That’s how religion workd.

    Religion has nothing of value to offer society. So they can go p*** off if they think that special rules should apply to them because of their moronic, bigotted belief systems.

    1. Spanner1960 28 Feb 2012, 10:34pm

      Good to see you are your usual compromising self.
      I am as much an atheist as you, but these people have every right in believing what they want as much as you and I have of shagging men. As long as those actions and beliefs do not impinge on the freedom and liberty of others, people should be allowed to do what they wish.

      1. Agreed. They deserve condemnation when they do things like the Bulls in Cornwall, but otherwise they are entitled to their freedom of religion as much as you or I are entitled to our freedom from religiion!

        1. They should be stripped of all rights and sent to an asylum and receive electrode-shock therapy to rid them of their stupid misguided “beliefs”.

          They are clearly insane and a danger to civilized society.

          1. @Socrates

            Rights are inate and are not granted by state or government.

            You can prevent people exercising their rights by being draconian but you can not prevent them having rights

      2. David Myers 29 Feb 2012, 6:03am

        In asking for “reasonable accommodation” when it comes to human rights they are demanding the right to impose their religious beliefs on others, which is not ok. If they don’t want to rent a room, sell a product, etc, to whoever they feel religiously compelled to discriminate against then they have no right to rent a room or sell a product to the public.

  3. Saying as how you can believe anything you want, I think how I was born trumps it tbh.

    Sorry but many christians don’t have a problem with homosexuality, so its obviously not the biggest part of your faith

  4. Seems fair enough.

    1. Only to the bigoted, that would be you would it? Religion should have no more status than a harmless hobby for those who cannot grow up and deal with the reality of death. We die get over it. Religion is ridiculous.

      1. But freedom of thought and conscience are quite clearly the highest marks of a civilised society. Now if they have an opposition to someone having a homosexual attraction then by all means call them irrational, they are. But if they are opposed to homosexual acts then that is quite clearly a different kettle of fish.

        1. And there is a difference between thought and conscience and personal beliefs and delivering a service provided to the public …

          When you are providing a public service you abide by the law, not just the laws you choose to abide by

  5. Lets start with a basic fundamental human right that is part of the culture of Britain – freedom of or from religion. No reasonable person has suggested anything that would jeopardise either aspects of this freedom (and the responsible exercising of those freedoms) until this patronising parliamentary report.

    When the report talks about “reasonable accommodation”; isn’t it more the case that they are seeking special rights, exclusoins from the law that impacts on everyone and a special status for Christians?

    That is wrong, fairness means that all citizens should not be given preferential treatment or be exempt from laws because of philosophical or ideological difference.

    Some could argue that “reasonable accommodation” is another version of Sharia law. Having separate legal systems is an affront to democracy, immoral and arrogant.

    1. Scott Lovely 28 Feb 2012, 1:58pm

      And what is special about religious, as opposed to other beliefs ? What is the basis for them having special rights?

      1. @Scott

        Exactly! As far as I can see there is no basis for there to be special rights afforded to anyone on the basis of Christian, other religious, or other ideological beliefs.

        1. Father Ted 28 Feb 2012, 2:25pm

          Especially when they are exercising them in the political sphere. The fact that they are a grouping in parliament shows that in fact their beliefs are political as much as “religious”.

    2. Spanner1960 29 Feb 2012, 7:51am

      I have experienced religion at first hand with many people, as I am sure many have on here.
      Many claim that religion is a choice, whereas sexuality is something you are born with. I agree with this statement, but it is not as cut and dried as many like to think.

      Religion is a meme; it is a concept passed down through generations. I have seen many people who bring up families and as babies they are Christened, read the Bible, go to Sunday School, go to church and grow as adults to do the same thing to their children because they know of nothing else, and their parents felt it was the right thing to do.

      It is a form of benign indoctrination, most people are born into a religion rather than converted, and to change their way of thinking is almost as impossible as us trying to change our sexuality. It has become totally built-in.

      1. Spanner1960 29 Feb 2012, 7:58am

        For that reason I do feel many on here are unduly harsh towards people of faith, but equally, others need to understand that there many people out there who are not religious, (and also gay Christians that do not see a conflict), and that it is they who must work around us, and not vice-versa. A similar analogy might be having a butchers that sells pork in a Jewish or Muslim area. If you don’t like it, don’t go in there. If you are a Jewish or Muslim butcher, you simply don’t sell it. There are always workarounds and compromises that need to be made on both sides. In the case of the registrar that refused to do a Gay CP, then they should have had this matter pointed out at their job interview: If they disapprove of doing it, don’t take the job.

  6. Scott Lovely 28 Feb 2012, 1:56pm

    Simon Barrow speaks for the majority of Christians I believe, the sensible majority who have no problem with gay marriage, according to polls.

    This little group in parliament are extremists,

  7. Equality Act 2010 is there to protect against discrimination, to prevent situations where a gay or a christian people are denied services because of who they are. asking for an exemption from it in order to discriminate against other people is not an equality unless other people would get the same exemption allowing them to discriminate against discriminators. disability act excuse doesn’t work for simple reason, that you normally don’t decide to become disable or don’t have a choice not to be disable, un like to be christian.

    it is actually possible for christians to provide services to gay people without making much fuss, but that would require the knowledge of what it is to be a real christian

  8. Father Ted 28 Feb 2012, 2:21pm

    I wonder if reasonable accommodation will extend to religions that, for example, require the ritual and cruel sacrifice of animals? Or the abuse of children?

    Just because someone claims something is a part of their religious belief should not exempt them from the secular laws of the land.

    1. Spanner1960 29 Feb 2012, 8:05am

      Actually, you state “the secular laws of the land”, but many of our laws are actually based on what the church defined, and consequently, the Bible itself.

      The Bible, The Koran, The Torah and all other religions I know of state “Thou shalt not kill” or words to that effect, and it is a good law to have, and there are many others. However, country laws have since been sculpted, moulded and adapted to fit the times whereas unfortunately the religionists refuse to do the same, so they are still stuck with 2000 year old laws talking about not eating prawns and coveting thy neighbour’s ass.
      (And my neighbour has a lovely ass ;) )

  9. my neighbour is a christian , he talks to me many times about god and how good he is . How he has thrown himself before him, for his mercy.
    He has signed the coalition for marriage petition. He feels that it is his christian duty to preserve the importance of marriage between and man and a woman. It is the moral fibre of a decent moral society, his words.
    Oh I forgeot to mention , he has been divorced twice.

    1. Father Ted 28 Feb 2012, 2:29pm

      So his personal religious beliefs only come into play when deciding what other people should be allowed to do…

    2. Mary Marriott 28 Feb 2012, 5:57pm

      your neighbour seems a bit typical

      and talking BS — talks the talk but dunnae walk the walk

      hope he s ok with you though

  10. where my comment!?!?!?!!?

    Dont you just hate pink news

    1. Father Ted 28 Feb 2012, 2:30pm

  11. oh its back……….sorreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey

  12. You enter my business and i don’t try and convert you into a gay.
    I enter your business and you try to convert me to a christian and refuse me service.
    Fair? No
    Make religion illegal, it’s nothing but rules to discriminate in the name of a made up being.

    1. Make religion illegal how idiotic.
      I’m a practising Wiccan, my faith does not discriminate or judge anybody.
      Why should my faith be outlawed when we are taught to love and accept everyone?

      Don’t you mean hateful judeo-christian religions be outlawed?

      1. Father Ted 28 Feb 2012, 3:39pm

        What about the Wicker Man then? That was a bit cruel.

        1. Anything with Nicolas Cage is cruel… but I’m presuming you meant the original Brit version of the film?

          1. Singapore Sam 28 Feb 2012, 5:35pm

            Yes. You never know what those Hebrideans are up to!

      2. All religion should be permitted. But anyone who tries to impose their beliefs on the rest of society needs to be stopped.

        Melanie – your wiccan faith may be happy clappy as far as faiths go but it is as nonsensical as any other religion.

        Make no mistake about that.

        And the rest of society needs to be protected from your beliefs as much as they need to be protected from christianity or islam.

        1. ‘…Melanie – your wiccan faith may be happy clappy as far as faiths go but it is as nonsensical as any other religion…’

          it would be worth mentioning that this is your opinion and not simple matter of the fact

        2. Paddyswurds 28 Feb 2012, 4:59pm

          Society needs to be protected from people of “faith” of whatever hue. They are clearly not working with a full set and should not be trusted in any sphere of life.
          The Irish trusted the Church of Rome absolutely for 1500 years and look what was going on behind their backs and sometimes in full view. I say allow them to be deluded by their fictional cults if they wish but ban all public manifestations of religion, including bell ringing and call to prayer screaming, religious processions and any other acts that inconvenience the general public. They should also be required to sign a document when being hired to guarantee they will not let their delusions affect their work or impact on those they serve. Otherwise I say ban the lot.

    2. Spanner1960 29 Feb 2012, 8:12am

      What a naive and ridiculous statement.
      Until we have “thought police” that is not going to happen.
      Many political regimes have tried to ban religion, and none have succeeded.

      You cannot prevent people believing, however daft or dangerous you may consider those beliefs to be, and anyone who thinks otherwise is simply a fascist or an idiot.

      1. Paddyswurds 29 Feb 2012, 12:14pm

        …Where exactly did I say ban religion? Again you post gibberish that suits your own agenda. Read my comment again , moron.

  13. Paddyswurds 28 Feb 2012, 3:04pm

    The government needs to be very careful about how it tinkers with the Law as far as religious fantasists are concerned. If the religious cults are given special treatment, then they will have opened a can of worms that will be very difficult to close. Gay people who provide services to the public will have to be given Quid Pro Quo and the cultists will find the UK a very cold place indeed.
    If they want to know exactly what discrimination feels like they will soon know…..Then there is the question of fair taxes. Why should Gay people pay taxes equal to heterosexual society if we are to be denied the same rights as hetro society…I rest my case.

    1. Father Ted 28 Feb 2012, 3:42pm

      Maybe we should be taxed on the same basis as religious charities.

  14. Does it really not compute for them that there are legal ramifications for allowing belief which – by its very nature – can be neither measured nor proven sincere, to allow people to behave in ways that are contrary to the law of the land? If we let people be excused from the law on belief grounds, then I am going to assert that the invisible pink bunny that only I can see requires me to ignore whatever laws I don’t like the look of.

    1. Father Ted 28 Feb 2012, 3:47pm

      It’s not a bunny it’s a teapot, and it’s just behind the moon. I know because I channel Bertrand Russell regularly and he told me.

      He also told me I must not work on Mondays as it’s a sin, so it’s unfair if my boss forces me too.

    2. They are religious. Therefore their lack of reason along with their stupidity should come as no surprise.

    3. Father Ted 28 Feb 2012, 4:02pm

      Come to think of it, what were that hotel couple doing having a hotel business open on a Sunday if they are devout Christians? How come they are not like that other CI case, the care worker who refused to look after disabled children on a Sunday?

      It seems like they all pick and choose and it has more to do with personal preferences and prejudices than any accepted religious rules.

      1. Paddyswurds 28 Feb 2012, 5:03pm

        Inflicting misery on others makes their own misery feel better,and the is a real reason for their bigotry and delusion.

  15. David Boothroyd 28 Feb 2012, 3:27pm

    The report is hopelessly muddled, and its problem is best illustrated by a remark on page 22 about the case against Peter and Hazelmary Bull over their “married couples only” rule:

    “It is likely that this case was done in full knowledge of the Bull’s position and probably with the express intent of bringing a case against them for discrimination.”

    Is it? Because the court judgment says explicitly that they didn’t:

    “There was a suggestion in the course of the case, and indeed in some newspaper reports prior to the case, that the defendants were ‘set up’ by the claimants with the assistance of an organisation such as Stonewall. .. I can see why the defendants might have thought that this was so but I am quite satisfied on the evidence of the claimants that this is not the case” (paragraph 14)

    1. Father Ted 28 Feb 2012, 3:49pm

      As that is a finding of fact by the judge, the gay couple should be able to sue anyone who says this.

    2. Singapore Sam 28 Feb 2012, 4:15pm

      It’s just another way for them to try and appear victimised, when they are the ones who acted abominably and turned away these pre-booked guests, humiliated them and ruined their weekend.

    3. Nice quote, will keep that in mind.

  16. Singapore Sam 28 Feb 2012, 4:12pm

    It’s not a matter of judges interpreting things too narrowly or bein illiterate about religion. The judgements are very clear and fair.

    It’s just that these people disagree with the result.

  17. You could conclude that by their own admission they are disabled by choosing to site reasonable accomodation with regards to disabilities. I have always thought that they are severely mentally disturbed, but having this pseudo mental illness should not preclude them from the laws of the land.

  18. Hopefully this will bring new legislation where you can refuse service, it is only fair to those that do not wish to have homosexuals in their building and or business.

    And why does Ben Summerskill have to be in on every issue, he is the reason why people hate homosexuals, he is militant and it rubs off on to other homosexuals and it rubs people up the wrong way which makes people hate us.

    Homosexuals have been given ‘special rights’ and if we want to be ‘equal’ then we need to start behaving like the ‘other side’ and not making demands continually. Only then will be be fully accepted.

    I have signed the coalition for marriage petition, on and one more thing, I am a homosexual, just not one of the militant ones life is fine, I require no more that all others seem to harp on about.

    1. ‘…Homosexuals have been given ‘special rights’ …’

      what are those special rights you talking about????, and if you are really homosexual as you say, tell me then what was the title of the third album by kylie minogue

    2. Paddyswurds 28 Feb 2012, 5:10pm

      ….if you are happy to remain as a second class citizen, then bully for you, but don’t expect the rest of us to be cowards as well. We, as citizens of the UK and subjects of HRH Lizzy the Second, are fully entitled to require that all rights afforded the majority, be afforded to the GLB community as well, and not be denied because of how we were born and certainly not because some ancient book of fables says we shouldn’t. These bigoted parasites must learn that their day has passed…… Religion has been sussed and found badly wanting.

    3. Sean

      Would you support Sharia law for the Muslim communities?

      Would you entitle them to be exempt about laws they religiously disagree with?

      If not, then why on earth should you be abnle to pick and choose who you serve.

      I should no more be able to refuse to serve a Christian as you should be able to refuse to serve an Asian, Baptist, Jew, gay, traveller or anyone else on the basis of the identity.

      You have the same mindset of those who put up signs in windows in the 1950s and before saying “No blacks welcome here”. Your attitudes are obselete, immoral and inhumane.

    4. Its Christians who are seeking “special” rights to be exempt from the law and thats the anaethema to fairness and democracy.

      Nothing any LGBT person has sought or achieved or that the Equalities Act protects any citizen regardless or orientation from has granted “special” rights. Rights are inate and we are all born with them. Governmments can try to take them away but it is the duty of government to protect rights for all (including minorities). The Equalities Act is one method of ensuring this.

      LGBT rights have been prevented in the UK for centuries and it is only since around 1967 that any major progress has been made. Of course this will lead to bigoted people who had their prejudices massaged by the ensuring LGBT people were second class citizens seeing this as a infringement of their liberties and freedo. The reality is the converse, for too long religious people have had special rights. The time is for religious people to have no special protection in law. Its wrong.

      1. Poo on the penis...,.euuugh! 28 Feb 2012, 6:02pm

        Blah Blah Blah. …wibble…burble.
        To Paraphrase Jesus to Pilate…
        “You would have no authority or rights if they had not been granted from my father above (Matthew 19:11)

        God is the supreme authority from which all authority derives (knowingly or not). Those that excercise this freedom against his moral laws will be judged as adversely as those immroals such as homosexuals, zoophiliacs, incestuous, colrophobics and sodomites(Jude 7) (1 Cor 6:9)
        PS. I am STILL a free man.

        1. Mr. Ripley's Asscrack 28 Feb 2012, 7:07pm

          Keef (for it is he), where is the evidence that Yeshua actually said these words – which you don’t get right or reference correctly? There is, happily, no evidence that a man named Yeshua actually existed in ANY of the historical reference material that the early christians didn’t burn in their typical “enlightened” but maniacal rioting kind of way. So I flick off your comment, extend my middle digit, and sayeth unto you, swivel. If I were a gentile then your jewish god (happily adopted for christian purposes) would indeed by my authority – I am not therefor he, happily, isn’t.

          1. Poo on the penis...,.euuugh! 28 Feb 2012, 8:32pm

            Chck Josephus and Tacitus moron. They were historians. Funny that the most famous man on th planet, most revered and lauded, never existed. That is some trick!

        2. Keith. You ARE being investigated. Watch what you say.

          1. Poo on the penis...,.euuugh! 28 Feb 2012, 8:30pm

            Should be funny trying to investigate the bible, which is the basis for my views.

        3. “PS. I am STILL a free man.”

          LOL! If you call being trapped in the tortuous insanity of your head being “free”, sure, why not….

    5. “I require no more that all others seem to harp on about” Thats not very clear, but I think it means “I’m alright Jack” or have your betters told you that have been allowed enough.

    6. Mary Marriott 28 Feb 2012, 6:01pm

      Sean I think I seen (no pun ! :) yer bollocks

      btw do you always talk bollox ?

    7. Paddyswurds 28 Feb 2012, 9:01pm

      …how, I wonder, would you react to a law or discrimination against people called Sean. That, in a nutshell, is the ridiculousness of your argument and has as much legitimacy as has your fairy in the sky cult.

    8. Spanner1960 28 Feb 2012, 10:41pm

      Does that mean that I can equally ban Christians, Muslims or Jews from my B&B?
      Or for that matter, Asians, Blacks, Pikeys, Dogs and/or Spotty-faced Adolescents?

      Where precisely would you care to draw the line is what is and isn’t acceptable?

    9. “Hopefully this will bring new legislation where you can refuse service, it is only fair to those that do not wish to have homosexuals in their building and or business.” Sean, anonymous internet coward wand lair, 2012.

      “They ought to stop lying. One day our patience will come to an end and then we will grab these insolent Jews by their throats and shut their lying mouths shut!” – Dr.Joseph Goebbels, German, 1933

      Another classic example of how far we really haven’t come.

  19. Craig Denney 28 Feb 2012, 4:44pm

    “new Christians in Parliament group”
    Christians in Parliament have been around for years. My MP Steve Webb co-wrote the last report (Scroll Down):

  20. Jonathan Wright 28 Feb 2012, 5:07pm

    An ‘undue limitaiton in beleif’ here is being prevented from going into a Church or reading a bible. We don’t stop or prevent that, and you are free to do these things as you so wish.

    But the moment you are in public life, and providing services to the public, you treat all people the same respect and service regardless of anything else.

    What you do in your own private life is your own business, and the same with mine. But just as I cannot provide a service to you because you are Christian, you cannot do the same to me because I’m gay.

    How is that now equal to both parties in the same way? Oh wait, you think you’re better than gays, so you need protection from your ‘rights’ being set to the same level as everyone else.

    Get over it.

    1. This is just the thin end of a wedge strategy to legitimize Xian oppression of gays… women as a class will be next if the strategies they are copying for US fundie evangelicals take hold. The secular and gay community needs to take these sneak tactics VERY seriously

  21. Why does having odd beliefs entitle anyone to special treatment or respect?

    1. They should be entitled to their beliefs however odd they may be …

      But their protection by the law and requirements to comply with the law should be identical to someone who has different beliefs or no religious beliefs

  22. Robert in S. Kensington 28 Feb 2012, 6:29pm

    And I suppose all these “new christians” are Tories? Nobody is impeding their right to believe whatever they want, it’s when their beliefs interfere in civil matters and civil laws that apply to everyone in the land, even the monarch who is head of the state cult.

    You watch, they’ll be using this report in tandem with the Coalition for Marriage simply because it offends their beliefs. My only hope is that the government doesn’t cave in to them. They’ve already been accommodated in regard to the religious component for CPs and the C of E has already conceded that the provisions to allow religious denominations not to participate are adequate. I don’t see why the same wouldn’t apply to same-sex civil marriage which would really diminish their absurd reasoning to oppose it since it won’t affect them directly or indirectly.

    Let’s not forget, nobody is born religious, people choose to live their lives that way, in other words, theirs is a chosen lifestyle, our orientation isn’t.

    1. bobbleobble 28 Feb 2012, 7:30pm

      Not all Tories, Dobbin and Shuker are Labour and Brinton is a Lib Dem.

    2. Spanner1960 28 Feb 2012, 10:42pm

      You suppose wrong.
      As usual, the lefties have to drag party politics into the argument to ascertain more blame and win a few more points.

  23. Paddyswurds 28 Feb 2012, 8:31pm

    The recent push by religious for special treatment to be above the law may just have a hidden benefit for us all. Their constant push for special treatment will hasten their own demise as society becomes weary of their constant push to discriminate against sections of society they deem at odds to their fictional texts and cults.. The ultimate outcome will, I believe, a total marginalisation of those who espouse these discriminatory beliefs and cults. These cults have for millennia fought against the progress of man starting as far back as the Egyptians five thousand years ago. The Abrahamic cults have been particularly shrill in their opposition to progress, being as they were, particularly shrill in their opposition to the eradication of Slavery, opposition to allowing mixed marriage of black and white, the barbaric witch hunts and burnings of women, the Inquisition, the Crusades, then there’s the barbaric mutilation of baby boys in the Jewish and Muslim faiths and even….

    1. Paddyswurds 28 Feb 2012, 8:43pm

      …the mutilation of girls in some sections of the muslim faith,and opposition to the education and emancipation of women. Then we had the human sacrifices in other obscure faiths and cults such as the Aztecs. Frankly “faith” and religious practices have been the single worst idea ever to have emanated from the mind of mankind and it is time, in this 21st century, that we started to wean ourselves of such barbarity. Hopefully man will in another millennia look back on this aspect of mans progress in sheer and utter horror and wonder why, just why, we were prepared to be so beastly to our fellow human beings based on nothing more than fear and superstition. Fortunately we wont have to answer for our barbarity, but what an awful legacy we have to give to our descendants………

      1. Spanner1960 28 Feb 2012, 10:44pm

        If God had not created man, man would have invented him.”

  24. House of Lords question put by Lord Rennard on homophobic leaflet in Catholic school – Democracy Live website

  25. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, isn’t happy with gay marriage –

    1. Dr Robin Guthrie 29 Feb 2012, 3:28am

      He is in the Daily Wail spouting this religous babblere.

      Also Widdecombe has a page in the Express announcing her usual garbage.

      It really is a CONSTANT Fight against the religious.

      We even come onto this allleged gay site and get the religous piously appeasing their crapitude here too.

      I have had enough. Suicide for me 1 less gay NHS consultant, whatecer.

  26. An inquiry set up by the usual extremists with evidence from the usual extemists.

    If they had been serious about an enquiry then it should have consulted a wide range of people and should have been completely open to all.

    Best thing to do with this report is to bin it!

  27. We live in a DEmocracy not a THEOcracy !

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.