Reader comments · Venues which cancelled anti-gay marriage conference ‘like fascists’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Venues which cancelled anti-gay marriage conference ‘like fascists’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Is Annew Widdecombe really trying to say the government should dictate who an organisation should be able to rent a room to, or what criteria their room rental policies should contain – thats not the role of government, nor does the Equality Act or Freedom of Speech come into play.

    This is disingenuous sophistry and wordplay by the anti-gay militants, because they are losing the argument – evidenced by the fact respected organisations like the Law Society find the views these conferences sought to promote as so abhorrent and damaging as to wish to distance themselves from it, and make it crystal clear that they were doing so – by denying access of the organisations to property that they (not government) control.

    1. Gemma Gillon 18 Jul 2012, 2:20pm

      They are not a law unto themselves they are subject to the equality act as much as the B&B that denied a gay couple were. If they should suffer a penalty for not accepting gay couples becosue they were under the equality act at the time they rented there premises out to the public then so should the venues hear for breaking the equality act towards religious folk when they were under the same act that by the way guarantees the religious fundies an exception. I hate it as much as you do but that seems to be the law. Don’t hate the gamers hate the game and change it then.

      Trust me I am a catholic and gay and if the conference done what they done to these people although to the LGBT I would be advocating the LGBT and jumping on the conferences ass all the same

      1. Dave North 18 Jul 2012, 2:32pm



        Just DROP it.

        1. Gemma Gillon 18 Jul 2012, 2:37pm

          See if you were to say that against a faith such as Islam you would be in the back of a police van udner a hate crime charge. The gamers are only playing the game, equality law in this country is two ill thought out. Its a bad day when a religion can have you charged for freedom of your speech over yours or vice versa.

          1. for saying divisive? get a grip GG

        2. They said they were going to have a “reasoned” debate about marriage LOL
          A better word would be INDOCTRINATION, because nothing that goes against their thousands of years old book is tolerated.
          And they have the audacity of speaking about “freedom”!

      2. Gemma

        With respect, the World Congress of Families is a designated hate group in the USA.

        One of the directors of the World Congress of Families is Robert Patterson. Patterson is a bigot.

        “… We have read of major cutbacks in the programs of the Dept. of Public Welfare, including slashing 100,000 children from medical assistance (20,000 of whom were returned so far after the state admitted errors). The Dept. will also soon cut off food stamp benefits to most people who have $2,000 in assets. So who was the brains behind these cutbacks???
        Robert W. Paterson was serving as a $104,000 a year top advisor for the PA. Dept. of Public Welfare. He has a long history of writings in archconservative magazines that attacked the very idea of public assistance. His writings also show extremely outdated and warped views of women. Once questions were raised, he resigned today. He sounds like the insane general from Dr. Strangelove who was always talking about his ‘precious bodily fluids’.

        1. Excerpts from today’s Phil. Inquirer article: “The Inquirer began asking about Patterson’s side job as editor of The Family in America… In the journal, Patterson has weighed in on … what he described as a woman’s ideal role in society: married and at home raising children. For instance, he wrote about research that he said showed that if women wanted to find “Mr. Right,” they should shun birth control pills; and if they wanted to improve their mood, they should not insist that their men wear condoms lest they miss out on beneficial chemicals found in semen. In last year’s spring issue of the journal, Patterson co-authored a piece summarizing and reviewing recent studies related to families. Among them: a recent study suggesting condom use robs a woman of “remarkable” chemicals found in semen that have been shown to elevate mood and self-esteem. What’s more, the study found that “semen-exposed women” perform better on concentration and cognitive tasks, Patterson reported. He also

        2. referenced a 2004 study that suggested birth- control pills weakened a woman’s “natural sense of attraction to men who would be a good biological match and enable her to conceive easily and bear healthy children.” And should the “pill-popping young lady” go off the pill, she may no longer be attracted to the man she chose when she was on it, the study said. In the journal’s summer issue, Patterson … advocated scaling back assistance programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, the children’s health insurance program, and cash assistance for the poor.”

          Further info on Patterson here:

          This is not an organisation which I think the Law Society should be endorsing and which I feel they should be free to exercise their freedom of speech and association to decline them using their own private premises.

          The devious and manipulative Andrea Minchiello Williams is alleged to have said:

          “This colloquium

        3. was intended to be a genuine open debate on the issues, constructing a case for marriage in the public sphere, and they seem to be closing it down. Of all the places in society where you might expect freedom of debate to be protected, the regulatory body of the legal profession would surely be at the top of the list! This move is highly political, highly charged and wholly inappropriate.”

          Minchiello Williams would not recognise open and honest debate or what is appropriate if it hit her in the face and said “Hello, I’m open and honest debate and I am appropriate”

          I love how she accused THE LAW SOCIETY of England and Wales of “misreading” the Equality Act – no I think you find that the professional body has it right and she has it wrong – and any court would support this.

          Free speech and open debate should always be to the fore when an issue such as this has been opened up to the public, but then we in the gay community are members of that public also and are entitled to the

        4. protection of the law against incitement and hate crimes, to say nothing of repeated defamation.
          In shutting this conference down, I suspect the whole spectrum of civil wrongs were uppermost in the minds of the Law Society members.
          In doing so they have sent a powerful blow to institutionalised bigotry in the UK.

          This would be one of the few occasions I’m proud of the Law Society. They did the right thing in denying an audience to this vile organisation.

          I believe in free speech, and that even those with (what I would call) hateful and prejudiced views should be allowed to spout their bile; mainly for everyone else to see how ridiculous they are.

          However, if they are denied the support of “credible” organisations, they wither and die.

        5. dear Stu
          can you provide a link to any info re World Congress of Families that call it out as a hate group? I monitor the sctivities of right wing religious groups in the US and this hasn’t come up on my radar before.

          1. Dr. Allan Carlson, President of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society (USA), initiated the congress. The Howard Center gained some publicity when Carlson, who was then its president, testified in a victorious Washington Supreme Court case against gay marriage.
            Allan C. Carlson (born Des Moines, Iowa, 1949) is a scholar and professor of history at Hillsdale College in Hillsdale, Michigan. He is the president of the Howard Center, a director of the Family in America Studies Center, the International Secretary of the World Congress of Families and editor of the Family in America newsletter.
            The following organisations are affiliated to them:
            American Family Association
            Family Research Council
            United Families International
            (all designated as hate groups by the SLPC)
            Most of the directors of the WCOF are members of the board of designated hate groups.
            Gives more info

        6. @Stu
          never mind. I just reviewed the list of organizations that are affiliated to them … same old culprits AFA, Focus on the Family. This was actually the critical link I need to connect chistian concern to the family of US right wing evangelicals. Scary how well they organize themselves!

          1. There is a lot of mutual incest on the managerial boards of hate groups!

      3. de Villiers 18 Jul 2012, 4:20pm

        The Preddys were denied a hotel room because of their sexuality. The reason for the refusal of the hotel was sexuality. No-one has been denied the QE Conference rooms on the grounds of their sexuality. The reason for the cancellation of the conference room was not the sexuality or religion of the organisers / attendees. There is, therefore, no direct discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or religion.

      4. why can’t they just preach this conference in a church? why are they going out of their way to try and force themselves into venues where they are not wanted and they know it.

        In a B&B it is prebooked you do not know the hosts, in business arangments you know the venues and what they will and won’t tolerate. They will probably find that it goes against the contract as well to promote hate speech

      5. Thought you was a bisexual tran?

  2. Freedom of speech is a valued right and entitlement.

    As with all rights and entitlements it carries with it responsibilities – including understanding the views of the building owners if you are renting a room.

    Clearly, neither Christian Concern nor Anne Widdecombe are interested in their responsibilities and prefer to cry about other organisations damaging their freedoms – when they were protecting their own and wider society interests.

    The Law Society exercised its freedom of speech and freedom of association by saying that it disagreed with the hate being promoted in these conferences that it would not be associated with them.

    Surely, responsibly exercised freedoms (such as that exercised by the law society) are to be respected – rather than those who seek blanket rights (such as Widdecombe and CC) regardless of who or how they harm or damage others rights and liberty.

    1. Jock S. Trap 18 Jul 2012, 12:09pm

      Indeed, just as Christian Concern scream the right of Freedom of Speech it seems to escape them that other do too for example venue owners!

      Clearly yet again they want to be above anyone else with the law of the land AND Freedoms, speech or otherwise.

      1. And at the same time Christian Concern defend vehemently the right of Christian hotel owners to ban a gay couple from sharing a double room. Talk about hypocrisy and double standards.

        1. Gemma Gillon 18 Jul 2012, 2:34pm

          Exactly and that was deemed unlawful because they discriminated against an identifiable group based on a protected characteristic under the act , so the venue you should be held to account for doing the same against religious people, who are an identifiable characteristic under the act and by exception of the same act are allowed and guaranteed the right to speak out against homosexuality. Otherwise you must pardon the B&B and uphold there right to refuse based on a characteristic under the act as well then. You cant have your cake and it. Either both can ban on a characteristic under the act while working with the public although they are private essential or they cant.

          1. The equality act protects individuals from discrimination – not corporate bodies from their perceptions of discrimination.

            In the case of a B&B the clients are individuals who are themselves gay, black, white, straight, disabled, old, young, Irish – whatever – and these can be discriminated against.

            Christian Concern does not have a race, gender, orientation, nationality or any other protected characteristic as an organisation – nor does the World Congress of Families.

            The Equality Act does not apply.

            Equally, the Law Society are protected in their choices of freedom of speech and association. Seems CC and Widdecombe do not care about those freedoms.

          2. It seems strange that the Law Society would be breaking the law though as you assert. Maybe equality law doesn’t come into it in the same way as it does in the case of the B&B. In which case ‘Christian’ Concern will lose like they have done in every case they’ve taken on!

          3. de Villiers 18 Jul 2012, 4:22pm

            You have got the law wrong. The reason why the Preddys were refused a hotel room was because they were gay – the ‘reason why’ was the sexuality of the two men. Here, the QE conference booking has been cancelled because of its content – not the sexuality or religion of its organisers.

            There is no unlawful direct discrimination by the QE conference centre.

  3. That There Other David 18 Jul 2012, 11:36am

    How would Ms. Widdecombe feel if the QEII or Law Society had refused a conference titled “The Lesser Black Race. Making a case for slavery”? Would she similarly back the conference organisers against the venue owners?

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 18 Jul 2012, 12:58pm

      Or how would she feel is guesthouse owners had refused a booking from gay people? Oh, wait…..

      1. I certainly wouldn’t want that old bag in my house!

    2. yes because she would probably want to attend shoch a conference purely in the interests of free speach of course

  4. Freedom of speech was not curtailed.

    A private venue did not wish to support or host this conference.

    No one put any prohibition of this conference being held elsewhere (which I understand it was).

    The Law Society claimed its rights to make its view known, by freedom of speech, on this matter – so have CC and Anne Widdecombe today. So did those who participated in the moved conference.

    The Law Society claimed its right of freedom of association and decided it did not want to associate with the organisations engaging in the activity of this conference – in their privately owned premises – which they are lawfully entitled to do.

  5. What those anti-gay groups don’t get is that the people who stand in opposition to their views are not just the gay people the anti-gays so ignorantly look down on.
    No, we are the majority who take offense at anyone with anti-gay views speaking and acting against the rights of the gay people we love. The numbers of straight people, who know someone who is gay, go up every year. Straight allies and gay people: we are the ones with integrity: discrimination is never right, no matter what guise it goes by. Together we stand strong and they will never win.
    I am so glad the two organisations refused to host their hateful events. I would take umbrage at that, very strongly.

  6. “Christian Concern has suggested the cancellations came about because equal marriage advocates are afraid the religious arguments against homosexuality are convincing..”

    Talk about deluded! :D I’ve not heard one single convincing argument from anti-equality people! It’s largely cr*p about slippery slopes and procreation, neither of which make sense. Oh, and ‘supporting familes’ which completely misses the point that LGBT people are part of families.

    Go on, Andrea and co! Campaign to ban divorce, campaign to ban the marriage of post-menopausal women or the infertile; campaign to ban interracial marriage (the Bible’s been used as ‘evidence’ for that previously) – you’ll have just as much luck. Most people aren’t as prejudiced and hate-inspired as you are, and don’t feel the need to make it their life’s work to deprive other human beings of rights and mark them out as inferior.

    1. you missed women with heresectomies and men with vesectomies for medical reasons they cannot reproduce either, should they be denied marriage?

      1. Sorry, James. I didn’t purposely omit them, I just wrote some examples as they came into my head. They are more to add, of course, and thanks for the ones you’ve added. :)

        1. Im happy to help Iris :)

  7. No, the religious arguments are not convincing, they are preposterous contradictory supernatural bilge and I can debunk each and every one of them with ease.

    And what they fear is that people are equating their hateful bigotry to the behaviour of groups like the KKK – who also used the bible to support their odious beliefs.

    1. de Villiers 18 Jul 2012, 4:24pm

      The religious arguments in relation to gay marriage are not convincing – although I am not sure if you are claiming the ability to debunk all religious arguments with ease.

      Although the KKK tortured and killed black people and no-one is (so far as I can see) suggesting that people who are against gay marriage also want to torture and murder gay people.

      1. Nevertheless the KKK still to this day calls itself christian and uses biblical rhetoric to support its nauseating beliefs.

        As for debunking religion as a whole? There’s no need. It is those that claim the positive (“god exists”) that have the duty to prove it. However, the biblical citations and claims they use can be very easily deconstructed (anyone saying marriage is 1 man and 1 woman because the bible says so has clever never read the thing).

      2. de Villiers 21 Jul 2012, 8:54am

        I’m not sure that religion has to prove itself any more than art or literature has to prove itself. But I agree that the simplistiic arguments on gay marriage take a purely literal and unsophisticated interpretation of biblical verse, both of which are of very low value.

    2. there actually isn’t a religious argument- merely an irrational assertion that the Bible condones marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Reason plays no part in their thinking, only blind obedience to what they say are God’s rules… This kind of irrationality prevents any kind of ethical maturity and makes them impossible to reason with.

      1. where is the scripture quotation that says one man and one woman for life, excluding all others etc … o wait the scripture doesn’t say that it says women are property and to marry all the women you want to.

  8. Silly sods.

  9. Jock S. Trap 18 Jul 2012, 11:54am

    Funny coz yet again he we have projection.

    They accuse all of doing Exactly what they are guilty of themselves!

    Disgusting people!

    1. Jock S. Trap 18 Jul 2012, 11:57am

      Christian Concern… BNP… National Front… N@zis…. what’s the difference?

      Seems nothing is the answer!

  10. “Christian Concern has suggested the cancellations came about because equal marriage advocates are afraid the religious arguments against homosexuality are convincing and will undo the gay “revolution”.”

    Hard to not laugh, isn’t? :

    1. Mumbo Jumbo 18 Jul 2012, 1:07pm

      As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “the religious stories of one generation become the entertainment of the next”.

      I think Christianity may finally be reaching that stage.

  11. I see Minichiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, is deploying ‘the homosexual lobby’ device once again, as she so often does. Williams – one of the most hateful and ignorant individuals I’ve ever met – certainly knows that opposition to her poison extends far beyond a small ‘homosexual’ elite. Oxford’s academics, students, and townsfolk showed her that last Easter (!

    I wonder if Anne Widdecombe has ever met Williams and knows what she is really like and how she profits by seeking to destroy families, setting parents against their own children? I doubt it.

    1. I wonder if it his Williams who is fighting on behalf of Rimmer in Liverpool about his concerns about the rainbow flag on a police station? Its the sort of inept legal campaign I would associate with her!

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jul 2012, 2:08pm

      Widdecombe is no different than Williams, both want to make our lives miserable and deny our relationships dignity. They don’t even like CPs and pretend they support them when they say they are sufficient and that we don’t need and shouldn’t have marriage. She also claims that many gay people support her views but hasn’t provided the numbers nor has C4M. Both are vile bigots of the worst kind. Interesting that both are Tories too.

  12. Anne Widdecombe can suck my baws. So it wasn’t totalitarian or facist to prevent teachers from openly discussing homosexuality in schools during the time of Section 28? Is she seriously saying that a law that prevented DISCUSSION of a subject was more tolerable than a culture that is slowly realising that free speech is a good thing, but that individual people and organisations have a choice to not let that speech happen around them?

    She’s a dinosaur, and no one should take any heed of her bile, not will they be likely to.

  13. NOM and Christian Concern are the KKK of anti-gay haters.

    1. de Villiers 18 Jul 2012, 4:26pm

      The KKK tortured and murdered black people. They were far worse than NOM and Christian Concern.

  14. I want to be reasonable, I want to be accepting of others’ opinions. I want to support freedom of speech but I am getting angrier and angrier at this hate filled rubbish we keep hearing. One day I’m gonna start chucking tomatoes, and get happily arrested!

    1. Chucking tomatoes won’t help – that’s exactly the kind of behaviour the likes of Williams and her concerned so-called ‘Christians’ are seeking to provoke. I noticed it at the demo in Oxford. Williams and her cohorts came out to talk to us and deployed their lies and snide insinuations with exocet precision – all entwined with false compliments and offers to pray with us / for us. It was all a performance for their cameras which they had trained on us ready to catch any outbursts of anger which they could then use against us and in their national hate-mongering. It was an astonishingly efficient operation. I’ve never experienced such darkness before. So don’t throw any tomatoes Robert! What works is exposing their lies, especially to those organizations (like Exeter College) that unwittingly associate themselves with these anti-LGBT lobbyists. Sadly, the Christian act works. People don’t tend to question what groups calling themselves Christian are really up to.

      1. I know you’re right Tom. I just feel they get away with so much in the name of ‘belief’ that they go too far. Of course I won’t actually throw tomatoes but a face to face offer to pray for me might well elict some bad language at the very least. Fortunately I’ve been spared meeting them face to face. :-)

        1. That There Other David 18 Jul 2012, 1:24pm

          “Pray for yourself. You’re the one in a personal Hell” would be a sufficient response I suppose.

          (Must remember that in case I’m ever in that situation. Better to go in prepared and all :-))

        2. Gemma Gillon 18 Jul 2012, 2:41pm

          Bang on TOM. Bang on. I agree, let them make a fool of themselfs on the public stage and be ripped to bits by the LGBT that would have been much better, instead the law society have given them a case and an exscuse to cry foul play.

          1. There is no case against the Law Society.

            They are mere lies and manipulations spread by Widdecombe and Williams

  15. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jul 2012, 12:17pm

    … “same-sex relationships” and “marriage” were mutually exclusive terms because a gay couple could not conceive children.”

    Well then, that means all hetero couples who can’t procreate must also be banned from marriage. Brian Brown and all of those American hate groups should be banned from entering the UK.

    1. Gemma Gillon 18 Jul 2012, 2:26pm

      See, THAT is a very good intellegent point without resorting to your a homophobe ban your right to dessent crap. That point you raised is a very good point indeed.

      1. Its one that is raised again and again and the religious groups ignore it because its a giant flaw in their logic. They are aware of this, they are aware of medical procedures to bear children they just choose to ignore it.

  16. They really do not get it, do they.

    They simply do not understand that people will no longer put up with their hate filled divisive nonsense, and they are crying fowl when told that they cannot.

    Like the KKK. Your time has past. Move along.

  17. The anti-gay movement in the US has one tactic they use over and over again:

    They try to create a false equivalence between their hate and our lives.

    They say that if we talk about our lives and our partners, they must be able to talk about their hate.

    They say that if we have access to goods and services even if we talk about being gay or bring a partner, they must have access to goods and services even if they say we are immoral and a danger to society.

    They say that if we deserve protection for being who we are, they deserve protection to say hateful things about us.

    The error here is twofold. They pretend that us living our lives is us pursuing a political agenda. And they equate our love with their hate.

    There is no “discrimination” here. The Law Society would have banned a conference about the immorality of Christianity.

    We need to be clear it is public hatred, not private ethical belief, which is unacceptable – and that applies to all.

  18. It seems to me that Christian Concern and their lemming (Anne Widdecombe) seem to be either misunderstanding what fascists believed in, deliberately deceiving about history or self-projecting.

    Fascists believed in:
    * Indoctrination based on belief system
    * Eradication of perceived foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation
    * Opposition of liberalism
    * Dilution of social democracy
    * Support government regulation of the use of private property
    * Promotion of racist and homophobic approaches
    * Support of expansionist imperialism
    * Restricting freedom of speech on birth control
    * Increasing penalties for abortion
    * Promotion of a view that homosexuality is “perverted and degenerate”
    * Opposition to universal rights and benefits – arguing their should be favouring of people on basis of race, politics and orientation

    Now don’t many of these policies of the fascists sound like those of Widdecombe, Williams and the CC (at least in large parts)?

    1. de Villiers 18 Jul 2012, 4:28pm

      I agree entirely with the first two paragraphs of your post. There is a big difference between the promotion of civil society by marginalising those who would take away the rights of others and seeking to suppress all forms of speech which relate to people claiming rights in relation to themselves.

    2. No they sound like exactly what the gay maniacs are going!

  19. Lord Haw Haw 18 Jul 2012, 12:29pm


  20. What is silly old Widdecombe on about? The conference went ahead, those idiots found another venue, so in what way was their freedom of speech curtailed?

    I would dearly love to know if Widdecombe, concerned as she is with free speech, would be as swift to defend the conference of a traditionalist group that advocated the limiting of women’s activities to childrearing and housekeeping.

    1. Gemma Gillon 18 Jul 2012, 2:14pm

      It was deny’d at that venue and they sufferd an injury to there rights at that moment.

      1. Dave North 18 Jul 2012, 2:34pm

        The perceived right to spew cr@p at a section of society is NOT a right.

      2. They had advance notice that the owners of the premises were not prepared to let them use the room.

        They obtained alternative premises. There was not injury or harm.

        There would have been harm to the Law Society if the event had gone ahead by linking the Law Society to views which the organisation opposes. These views had not been made known to the Law Society in advance. Had they been made known the booking would not have been taken. When they did become known, as soon as possible the booking was cancelled – the Law Society used their rights to choose who uses their premises (in this case an organisation which has no protected characteristics as it is not human) and whose views the Law Society opposes. They chose to deny access, but did so responsibily (unlike the Bulls!) by making decisions early, informing them and enabling them to find an alternative venue who did not object to the (in my opinion) reprehensible hate inspired views.

  21. I give up, Andrea Minchiello Williams is right, I’m so scared of the PIB slippery slope arguments against same sex marriage,(that’s Polygamy, Incest Bestiality).
    I just don’t want to risk a reasoned debate about such bogus arguments against same sex marriage equality because no gay person could possibly be capable of debunking them as the scare-mongering, unrelated, red herrings they are.

  22. perhaps they should hold their conference in a certain Cornish B&B where they will be wlecomed with open arms.

  23. Poor, old Anne Widdlebum! – a Roman Catholic convert, and, therefore, like any other person of religious faith, mentally ill.

  24. Poor, old Anne Widdlebum – a Roman Catholic convert, and, like anyone of religious faith, mentally I’ll.

  25. Mumbo Jumbo 18 Jul 2012, 12:59pm

    “…..exhibiting the behaviour of ‘a fascist or Communist regime’…..”

    Someone was sent to a death camp?

  26. Cardinal Capone 18 Jul 2012, 1:13pm

    They look into a mirror and see fascism.

    They mistake resistance to their fascism, as similar to their own motives.

    Religious fundamentalists often attribute their own motives to others, which is why, for example they often say absurd things like gay people are out, impossibly, to “convert” others, when that is quite plainly their own evangelical aim.

    1. They want to ‘point us to the hope that is jesus christ’. If that isn’t trying to convert, I don’t know what is. I’d like to convert them to the love that is a big, fat c**k….but no doubt that would be trying to convert people to our sick lifestyle, which of course would be terrible and not at all hypocritical of them…..

  27. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jul 2012, 1:17pm

    Andrea Minichiello Williams wrote…”“They are right to be scared, because it is. And we must love them and point them to the hope that is in Jesus.”

    Really, seems to me that she, Widdecombe and other hate mongers are trying to impose religion on the rest of us against our will and those who supports us are called “fascists”? The shoe is on the other foot. None of them follow the teaching of Jesus, none.

    1. ‘They are right to be scared’. So they ARE using scare tactics then. Finally they admit it.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jul 2012, 3:40pm

        That shows how really stupid they are doesn’t it?

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jul 2012, 3:41pm

        They’d really be scared if a call for a referendum to abolish state religion were supported by the majority of the public. They’re going the right way about it. They’d better be careful what they wish for.

    2. That There Other David 18 Jul 2012, 1:34pm

      Ben Heli and Son, carpenters of Nazareth. Est. 3776

      If they’d had any idea at the time of the evils it would lead to, I’m certain they would have all just stayed at home.

  28. Oh honey, nothing in this world will undo the gay revolution. If anything, the gay rights movement and secularism will undo religion.

  29. Gemma Gillon 18 Jul 2012, 2:09pm

    Christian concern will win this or should even though its against my intrests. They venue has broken the act aswell as there cotnract and denyed the civil right of dissent. As it stands gay marriage is unlawful so these people had a right to state a case against it in the public domain. The act gives religious groups an excemption which conferances being venues must recognise. They did not do this. This is going to make the LGBT cause look very dictatoral and anti human rights. Hear I find myself playing devils advocate again but the law is equal to all and if the LGBT have a right to march against church doctrian and hold confrences for equal marriage, then so should the voice of dissent. Thats democracy. So far a referendum has been denied to the people and public assembly of the opposition. This will allienate the people against your cause and we will suffer becosue of a few dictators.

    1. Gemma Gillon 18 Jul 2012, 2:12pm

      I know you don’t like to hear that and I will be marked down but if you think I am wrong debate with me.

      1. Dave North 18 Jul 2012, 2:31pm

        The Law Society is a PRIVATE institution that does NOT want to be associated with bigots.

        What is difficult to understand about that?

        They are perfectly free to hire/use one of their silly cults churches and discuss their poison therein.

        1. Gemma Gillon 18 Jul 2012, 2:43pm

          The law society is governed by an act of parliment, it is governed by the public. Even if that were the case a contract was made then broken the society should have just refused them at the door.

      2. naaeh – I just marked you down cause I can’t stand reading stuff so full of spelling and grammar mistakes!

    2. @GG
      The conundrum here is not whether an organization has the right to limit to access to their facilities according to the values they espouse – for if this was the only issue then why are we so outraged at the b&b who denied to rent a room to a gay couple – clearly it is an issue that involves questions of harm and human dignity to individuals. To discriminate against a gay couple by refusing to rent them a room was harmful and demeaning for the two individuals involved. It was an act of hatred against the couple.
      To refuse access to the anti-gay marriage group (an organization and not a person with minority status) was not a case of victimizing an individual. it was a political decision rather than an act aimed at the detriment of individual dignity. This differentiates it from the anti-gay b&b case.
      It was not an act of hate or discrimination, it was an act affirming the dignity of a vulnerable minority group – that has a rather different kind of status dontcha think?

    3. Gemma

      Firstly, in the unrelated issue you raise – the referendum in Scotland – referenda in the UK are about constitutional matters – marriage is not a constitutional matter. Furthermore, would you hold a referendum on whether black people should be able to marry? I hope not. Referenda should never be held to allow a majority to deny a minority equal civil or human rights.

      Moving on to the CC and their abhorrent lies.

      The equality act only applies to individuals – it does not apply to organisations, corporate bodies or legal entities. Only humans can have protected characteristics such as age, gender, orientation, race, religion etc. Christian Concern is neither heterosexual nor homosexual – it is neither black nor white – it is not male or female. The Equality Act is a spurious attempt to try and justify the abhorrent and fatuous claims, using sophistry, that there has been a denial of freedom of speech. There has not.

      People do have a right of public protest – in a public

      1. place. The Law Society HQ is not a public place.

        Nothing the Law Society did prevented CC or the US group from holding a conference or setting out their view. They merely said their premises were not an appropriate venue.

        The Law Society is not a public body in the sense that it is controlled by government. It is the representative body in England & Wales for solicitors – effectively similar to a staff association. It does have supervisory roles to protect the reputation of lawyers.

        If a contract was in existence between the Law Society and CC and/or the US body then the Law Society chose to abandon that contract (clauses may exist in their standard terms on leasing rooms to permit this in the circumstances that occurred) but gave the organisations sufficient time to find an alternative venue – which they did. There is no injury or equality act issue in play.

        No one prevented CC or the other organisation from saying what the felt they should say, they said what they intended

      2. to say in a conference held on the intended date (at the same time) but in a different venue. The Law Society when it realised what was going to occur at the conference was courteous and gave sufficient notice to enable the conference to go ahead elsewhere – even though the LS disagrees with the content of the conference.

        1. Dave North 18 Jul 2012, 4:38pm

          Eloquently put….

          1. Thank You.

            I struggle to believe that anyone can genuinely believe there is a comparison between the odious behaviour of the Bulls in their B&B to two private citizens who breached the equality act and behaved in a homophobic manner; and the behaviour of the Law Society against another corporate entity (with no protected status) who were going to speak out against equality and fairness and promote a message that was homophobic. The LS rightly said – this would not happen.

    4. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jul 2012, 3:39pm

      How about a referendum to abolish state religion, another to abolish divorce, abortion and heteros who can’t procreate? You’re far from playing devil’s advocate but trying to foment opposition. Name one civil right in the UK which was put to referenda? Twat!

  30. If the company are referencing their diversity policy then their concern is likely to be for their staff. If even one member of staff who identified as gay had been put on shift then they could have a good case to sue their employer and as the respective companies cannot ask staff about their sexual orientation they cannot even offer warning, for whoever doesn’t turn up to the shift has effectively been outed.
    I sure as hell would not risk putting any of my staff through that experience.

  31. I’d have said this on Christian Concern’s website but of course they don’t allow comments on their announcements.

    I totally support their wanting freedom of speech and I look forward to booking my local church hall/conference centre to have a pro-gay marriage event…

    These guys are hypocritical beyond belief. They want free speech but only for themselves. When they get turned away from a venue it’s facism but when they refuse gay people communion, marriage, acknowledgement in church etc it’s God’s will?

    1. Gemma Gillon 18 Jul 2012, 2:46pm

      ‘I’d have said this on Christian Concern’s website but of course they don’t allow comments on their announcements.

      I totally support their wanting freedom of speech and I look forward to booking my local church hall/conference centre to have a pro-gay marriage event’

      See thats a good argument.

      1. Dave North 18 Jul 2012, 2:48pm

        What is your Point?

        Are you gay?. A christian? A gay christian? or just meddlesome.

        The reason you get obtuse answers to your ramblings is because people are sick of having to defend themselves and explain themselves to your like.

        1. me thinks a troll

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Jul 2012, 3:35pm

      Well said, Adam, I so agree. They’re always playing the victim card when they can’t get their own way or force others to think the way they do. What this is really all about is imposing a religious belief and keeping the power of the church in tact. This the price we pay for living in what is technically a theocracy in England and Wales. We have an unelected, undemocratic House of Lords, the upper chamber where approximately 26 Angilcan bishops reside and who get a say in who is entitled to rights and a constitutional monarch who is head of the church. This shouldn’t exist in a modern 21st century society. Few EU members have state religion.

  32. why anyone would ever listen to or repeat what anne widdecombe has to say on anything, is beyond my understanding.

    1. Dave North 18 Jul 2012, 4:36pm

      And how dare this loveless spiteful dried up old SPINSTER have the audacity to even for 1 second think she has any right to quote her biblical drivel against our lives and loves.


      1. Dan Filson 18 Jul 2012, 5:55pm

        Particularly as Section 28 was aimed a gagging schoolteachers from explaining the facts of life to schoolchildren under the bizarre concept that mentioning gay couples was asking of pretend families. She certainly has no right to champion free speech given her track record.

        1. The troubling thing is that this woman still has a mouthpiece and uses it at every opportunity to rally the old Tory Guard.

          They have not even noticed that she, herself is the extreme opposite of that which they purport to stand for.

          A protestant born woman who switched to Catholicism whilst never marrying.

          Surely her religion tells her. Back of the bus for you. A woman. You have no rights.

          Her naivety and religious indoctrination is complete.

          Just as her male priests and vicars wanted.

          Anyone for a stoning.

          1. Tonight.

            I am a wee bit mildly drunk.

            Pissed off after recently going through 2 weeks in hospital with a DVT and ending up on warfarin and asking my Civil Partner
            what he thought about this. ” I’ll be apparently OK in heaven” FFS.

            As an indoctrinated from childhood catholic he saw no problem, despite Civil Partnering me in Feb 2011.

            Just how much damage are these “priests” causing. It goes on and on.

            I give up.

  33. The last thing these people are concerned about is freedom. Freedom of any sort that is. They would like nothing more than a Christian Iran.

  34. Chris Hewitson 18 Jul 2012, 5:10pm

    If an organisation can be psychopathic then Christian Concern is a psychopath. It’s obsession is ‘to win’ on its own terms; and anything that prevents it from ‘winning’ is always the fault of others, not the result of its own failings.

  35. @Andrea Minichiello Williams
    We are not scared of you; we mock you!

  36. I understand CC nor World Congress of Families have not sought legal recourse for any legal remedy against the Law Society or other venues due to cancellation of any agreement.

    So this is about rhetoric and publicity – and not fact or real perceptions of injury to the organisations.

    Williams will bring almost any impossible case against any organisation if it can either promote her indoctrinated views or her homophobia – so if even she recognises the futility of this case then the demented ramblings of her and her lemming, Widdecombe, are that – rhetorical, salacious, deceptive lies and fallacies.

    1. salacious? interesting choice of adjective. I’ve never thought of Andrea Minchiello Williams as lecherous before, although she isn’t uncute… :-)

      1. was using salacious as a synonym for nasty .. perhaps not the best choice …. ;-)

        Andrea isn’t my type (!!) but although I can see potential for some to find her aesthetically pleasing – her character, personality and behaviour are about as attractive as George W Bush (whether physically or character based!)

      2. Until you wrote that, Stu, I thought I must have misunderstood SkepChik. and got all my negatives muddled. But now…SkepChik – no! :D Ewwgghh! Uncute? Please tell me you were joking! :D

        1. Er… *not uncute obviously! See how the very idea has scrambled my brain :D

    2. Very true, Stu. I get the impression that Andrea actually welcomes impossible cases – she can lose and then wallow in martyrdom and send updates about ‘another example of Christians being persecuted’. Win or lose, it doesn’t matter to her because she wins either way in her mind.

  37. what she ignored was the rights of LANDOWNERS who refuse to be guilty by association of hate speech

    1. Absolutely!

  38. essexgirlbecky 21 Jul 2012, 8:59pm

    I am delighted to hear Christian Concern is planning to take action under the Equality Act. If they do, I think they will be unpleasantly surprised by the outcome.

    To succeed, they need firstly to prove that the Law Society and the QEII Centre treated them differently from other organisations and secondly that they did so on grounds of faith.

    On the first point, the positions of the QEII Centre and the Law Society are clear; their equality and diversity policies outlaw the use of their premises for events which campaign against the equal rights of others. They take the same position against extreme right wing organisations which campaign on issues of race.

    On the second, Christian Concern will need to satisfy the court that opposing same-sex marriage is a legitimate Christian activity. However I am sure the ramifications of a ruling that Christianity and same-sex marriage are not incompatible is clear to Christian Concern.

  39. I do not see how the LGBT community are affecting Anne Widdecome or Christrian Concern. Us LGBT do not go out our way to make there lives miserable. Anne Widdecome is one to talk, she was part of strictly come dancing which has several gay dancers and judge Craig Revel Horwood

  40. soapbubblequeen 2 Aug 2012, 5:45pm

    Perhaps Ann Waddle-Along would like to defend free speech when she can also defend the ritual murder and killing of gay people in several countries around the world, carried out in the name of religious belief. Crazy old cow.

  41. Daniel White 27 Nov 2012, 8:15pm

    Christian Concern is the ultimate oxymoron, neither christian, nor concerned, and Anne Widecombe has no right to complain either, herself being unmarried. How the hell does being against gay marriage help society? Do they REALLY want to dissolve the partnerships of those already married? “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” KJV bible, Mark 10:9

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.