Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Christian Legal Centre: High Court anti-gay bus ruling is a victory for Christian freedom

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. It’s like some weird Orwellian double speak campaign. The christian institute are just very strange mentally ill people.

    freedom is slavery

    defeat is victory

    sex crime

    1. EqualityFinesse 23 Mar 2013, 4:31am

      indeed!

      Or even this from an analysis of Andrea Williams’ Twitter feed…

      http://tweetpsych.com/?q=a_minichiello

      Coming in at No. 1 – SEX … May indicate a preoccupation with sex (Is the pope catholic!)

      At No.2 – CONTROL …includes restraint and moral imperatives and may indicate a desire to impose order. (The only order required here is a restraining order!)

      At No. 5 – NEGATIVE …This user Tweets about negative sentiments 39% more than the average user. This includes negative emotions, negative feelings and morbid thoughts.

      Which about sums it up for rational people who who don’t live in never never land.

  2. A little birdie told me that her Botox has seeped into her brain.

    1. Brain? Not to sure if she had one to begin with…???

  3. Mykelbarber 22 Mar 2013, 7:06pm

    She needs help and lots of it. I suggest some serious deprogramming and a healthy dose of scientific education.

  4. she says right here that conversion thera[y doesn’t work:

    “Some people choose not to act on same-sex attraction. They should not be ostracised for doing so but helped, if that is what they choose”.

    Their advert is misleading because thats not what it says at all!

  5. A victory? You’ll slip up again and have another court battle. What a waste of money.

  6. Lol, “Freedom” the one thing they are opposed to is “Freedom”. Apart of course, from their own freedom to discriminate and indulge in their now (thankfully) watered down control freakery. How they must yearn for bygone days when they wielded real power over people’s lives.

    1. Jock S. Trap 23 Mar 2013, 9:32am

      Indeed.

      It’s not Freedom they seek.

      It’s control.

    2. That is EXACTLY why they bellyache so much. All other biblical ‘sins’ have been dismantled one by one. Homosexuality (because so many people have had gay thoughts) is still quite emotive. People self-hate because they have been conditioned by religion to do so. But the deference that people once had for religion (usually out of fear for their own safety) is well and truely over … and they do not like it. The constant whining noise we hear is simply that emanating from a dying breed. If ONLY these ‘loving’ christians did more of what their founder implored – ‘Love One Another’ – they may survive longer. But while they peddle this type of hatred, people are increasingly seeing them as hateful nutters. Not the best way to ensure your survival, is it?

  7. AMW: “Blatant discrimination will not be tolerated by the courts.”

    You’re absolutely right, Ms Williams – which is precisely why the ban on your posters has been deemed lawful.

    Talk about the classic PR strategy of spinning defeat into victory!

  8. Note the sprinkler of water in this Stewart Lee clip.

  9. That There Other David 22 Mar 2013, 7:26pm

    Hmm….if this is the way she thinks perhaps I can get her to loan me £50k then tell her she owes me £50k. What’s the betting she’ll fall for it?

  10. Does LrT have any say on which ads are allowed on their buses? If so they can choose not to allow them. Or if they do, then no one get on that particular bus. I mean, would you with that message splattered all over the outside of it?

  11. These people really don’t stop, do they?

    They also don’t have a clue.

  12. So, Andrea, they’ll be running the ads after all then?

    No?

    I thought as much.

  13. “Blatant discrimination will not be tolerated by the Courts.”

    She’s right on this. Just look at Christian B&B owners Mr and Mrs Bull who turned away a gay couple who in the eyes of the law are legal partners.

    Of course that that’s why the Courts ruled their treatment was unlawful.

    As Andrea is a Barrister, you’d be forgiven for imagining that she might understand the concept of legal discrimination, but sadly not.

    I wonder has she actually understood what the Judge has said, which is their Poster was unlawful, however procedures and polices laid down by TFL were not followed.

    There is a big difference and one you’d imagine a qualified Barrister would understand.

  14. While I disagree with the “ex-gay” bus campaign, I think that the the ‘offence’ argument for banning it does show a double standard when it comes to who is allowed to be offended. If LGB people have a right not to be offended by a supposed factual claim, then why not Christians? The article makes no mention of any considerations of truth, so I’m assuming that it wasn’t taken into account.

    It also seems a bit stupid to ignore the ‘truth’ aspect, given that its clearly the most relevant, and least controversial distinguishing factor. Why not just go with the fact that the anti-gay campaign pedaled unverified medical claims?

    1. here, let me use small words for you to understand:

      make an advertisement that says: “Being black isn’t bad! Be proud of who you are!”

      now, someone else makes an ad: “Being black is BAD! We can help you stop being black and return to your true roots of slavery!”.

      Do you see the connection?
      No?

      One is a positive message, about acceptance.

      The other is a LIE about trying to change people through “therapy” to fit your own “belief system” based on a 2000 yr-old book.

      Either you are incredibly dense, or you’re a troll sent here by the “Christian Institute” or whatever the hell these crazies call themselves.

      1. Except Mickey, the judge didn’t say it was a lie, just that it was offensive. The judgement would have been stronger if the judge had said these ads are lies and shouldn’t be displayed, but he didn’t. What is considered generally offensive is subjective and changes over time. Banning them on the grounds of “offensiveness” leave a crack open for an appeal on free-speech grounds.

        Sorry some of these words are a bit longer, Mikey, but hopefully you’ll understand too.

        1. That is because the argument put forward wasn’t about it being a lie, a judge can’t say that without it being argued in court. Way to go completely missing what Mickey was trying to say.

    2. Jock S. Trap 23 Mar 2013, 9:35am

      Sorry but being Gay, Lesbian etc is Not a choice unlike religion which is a completely chosen lifestyle. Something people are taught.

      The Religious should Never triumph over how others are born.

  15. While I disagree with the “ex-gay” bus campaign, I think that the the ‘offence’ argument for banning it does show a double standard when it comes to who is allowed to be offended. If LGB people have a right not to be offended by a supposed factual claim, then why not Christians? The article makes no mention of any considerations of truth, so I’m assuming that it wasn’t taken into account.

    It also seems a bit stupid to ignore the ‘truth’ aspect, given that its clearly the most relevant, and least controversial distinguishing factor. Why not just go with the fact that the anti-gay campaign pedaled unverified medical claims?

  16. dorset bob 22 Mar 2013, 8:48pm

    It takes a very twisted kind of mind to claim victory when the judge has ruled “the ban lawfull as the posters would cause grave offence to the gay community and they were perceived to be homophobic”. I must be stoopid as I cant see any ambiguity in this statement.

  17. andrea darling, you thick bimbo, the judge clearly thought the ban was lawful as the posters would “cause grave offence” to the gay community and they were perceived to be homophobic. if anything its a total disaster not a victory

  18. The sad thing is that lots of her supporters will believe her. That’s what makes them perfect followers – they accept everything they’re told as fact even in the face of evidence contradicting what they’ve been told.

    1. Right on.

      It’s fair to say that religions are equally ‘uncontaminated’ by evidence…. lol

  19. You lost, you stup!d religious nutter.

    She is clearly fooked in the head if she thinks they have won.

    But keep on wasting your money on endless appeals and legal action – what you don’t realise is that equality and public opinion is on OUR side.

  20. These groups are going to succeed in branding the word “christian” to come to be identified as “homophobic” in the public’s minds.

    Is this what they want christianity to be ultimately defined as?

  21. Sexuality conversion groups should NOT be allowed to advertise, & should NOT even be allowed to operate at all.
    There is NO evidence to suggest that sexuality can be changed via this ‘treatment’, & yet all the evidence in the world to show that its damaging to the people that undergo the ‘treatment’. People are left, understandably, with alot of confusion, self hatred and maybe above all, with their homosexual preference still very much intact. But with a whole lot less money in their bank account! After treatment they often lead very dysfunctional unhappy lives, when, as we all know, THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
    Organisations like this are despicable.
    They highlight a ‘problem’ that they themselves are the root cause of.
    They say “Well but we have 100’s of unhappy gay people coming to us for help!” Well why do you think that may be? Could it be because people like you have been telling them that theres something wrong with them their entire lives?!

  22. If they really wanted to be part of the solution, to produce happy functional individuals, then the solution lies in THEM changing their attitudes. And then going out there and starting to rectifying the damage that they’ve been part of, by helping others to change THIER attitudes as well. The solution does NOT lie in trying to change other people to fit your ideas of right and wrong.

    1. Equalityfinesse 23 Mar 2013, 4:43am

      With you on this spiritbody but…

      … to produce happy functional individuals, requires people who are happy functional individuals themselves.

      Put another way, people who are heading towards self actualisation or individuation are highly unlikely to be involved with fundamentalism of any sort. It’s more a case of Physician heal thyself!

      The opposite, has we have seen with the Scottish cardinal example, is that these people are simply projecting outwards what they are unwilling/unable to deal with inwards – what Jung would call their shadow process.

      In a sense, I have some sympathy for such conflicted individuals because there’s no form of delusion as pernicious as self delusion.

      I hope that one day, Andrea does come to see the light of enlightenment – A kind of pilgrims progress of the most painful kind!

  23. So if they won, they won’t be appealling the decision then?

    Oh, they will? Funny that!

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Mar 2013, 12:00pm

      Good point! Of course, she’s incapable of comprehending it and I always thought barristers were highly intelligent people. It surprises me that she’s not screaming ‘abuse of religious freedom’ nonsense. Clearly the woman is deranged to claim victory.

  24. Christians always bury their heads in the sand when the obvious truth and facts are staring at them in the face. Also, they always have to insist that they are right even when they’ve already been shown to be wrong. In addition, they’ll use their faith as a status of authority over everyone else’s lives. They believe that their ‘status’ gives them that authority (a ‘God-given right’) to judge, to be perceived as being correct at all times and not have their judgements questioned. They refuse to believe that they can be wrong.

    In her comments, the Christian Legal Centre’s Director is showing all of those traits. She will continue to be a hypocritical and delusional self-righteous bigot until the day she dies.

  25. What a surprise that these comments show the level of conformity evident among the general population now.

    100 years ago these same people would have been gay/faggot bashers, . .because at that time, that was the socially acceptable norm, that was how you would fit in.

    Oh to think for yourself, rather than the media, peer pressure, society at large with whatever current agenda doing the thinking for you.

    Christianity is a mental illness. . .homosexuality is not. . . Err. . .OK!

    So if same sex attraction is a naturally occurring, benign trait of the human (and animal) species (with no ‘actual’ scientific/bio’logical’ basis), that DOES NOT need to be cured. . . Then why not also other ‘un-natural’ desires such as Zoophilia/Beastiality, Pedophilia, Incest, Necrophilia and any other perversion/mental illness/distortion you can name/think of.

    How long till they are societally/socially acceptable. Why should we discriminate against those who ‘naturally’ have the desire to copulate

    1. your knowladge is based on decades old material where sexual orientation is confused with sexual disorder

    2. “Then why not also other ‘un-natural’ desires” – Well for starters, same sex attraction isn’t an unnatural desire.

      And the reason we don’t condone / approve of paedophilia is because its the rape and abuse of children, whereas same sex between adults is consensual and loving – but the really concerning thing is that you apparently can’t distinguish between the two!!!

  26. END>

    Why is it ok to discriminate against Homophobes?!?. . .Plenty out there that want to change them, . . .make them conform to the rest of the well adjusted people that realize that being gay is entirely normal. . .

    Maybe thinking that being sexually attracted to the same sex is unnatural/abnormal, . . is entirely normal. . .Why should anyone who holds that opinion have to change.

    Double standard some. . . Nah. . How many of you will be able to see and acknowledge this fact. . . Realistically. And that is what this case was about, . . . even if it does just end up as a platform for the usual plastic rhetoric from the faceless, oh so wise and educated modern (not backward) ones.

    1. End, when you are ready, there are plenty of groups available to help you with your internalised homophobia- you can search on this site. No-one will ‘convert’ you, or try to make you something you’re not, just help you to understand why you hate yourself so much.

    2. You should seek help immediately you are suffering from severe delusions and the inability to think clearly.
      I would recommend your nearest mental health facility.

      1. Lol. Not ironic at all. . .Did you have any awareness whatsoever of the points that I made and whether or not you were fulfilling the role of said repeaters . . . of course you did!

        Did you actually bother to think about this
        ‘disturbing’ alternative perspective. . .sure you did! (the points raised. . .whether there was any validity to what I said)

        So. . . If I am able to rid myself of these delusions/mental illness. . .and gain the capacity to think clearly. . .Will I then be Pro-Gay?

        Or will I be conforming?

        Anyway. Hopefully one day I can be like you. .. nothing of substance to say. . ..no awareness of being a complete hypocrite. I bet you cant even comprehend how you are even being hypocritical. You don’t care right!

        Maybe a shrink can help fix me and help me connect with my inner gay. . . we live in hope ;)

    3. No one has to change. You are free to be a racist within the confines of your mind or within your private circle. But this sticker surely breaches advertising standards legislation and it could be argued promotes discrimination and possibly violence against gay people. We all know how some like to bully and seem pious at the same time. Look at the gleeful and enthusiastic stoners in the middle east and Africa. If confronted they would say they were being “religious”

      1. “Racist”? surely you mean “homophobic”? There are many who wish to define homosexuals as a separate species – if only to further themselves from the uncomfortable truth that they themselves may have same-sex leanings. Let’s not count ourselves amongst them, eh?

        Excellent comment, none-the-less.

        1. I was just using “racist” as an example of how people can have their own private views but should not incite violence, discrimination or aggression against others.

    4. Jock S. Trap 23 Mar 2013, 9:38am

      Oh Get back to your Boring West Boro Crapper… oops sorry Church!

    5. You should be called 666

  27. Well, they have Dame Peter Tatchell on their side so I can understand why they may be under impression they’ve scored a propaganda coup right now.

  28. If these bus adverts were to run, then london will be known as a backward primitive dump, best avoided.Also if the useless judge is concerned about freedom of speech , why not have KKK recruitment adverts on taxis etc or is her freedom of speech rubbish only for the homophobic.

  29. Aaaaaaah. . .

    Censorship!. . .

    Dissenting opinions. . . being censored. . . Nothing quite like the slippery slope this world is on now!>

    1. @666

      Nobody here is censoring you. None of your comments have been removed – as far as I’m aware.

      To paraphrase Johann Hari, the crux of the issue here is that you demand the right to (metophorically) spit in the face of gay people, and claim you’re being picked on when asked to stop, citing oft-debunked ‘slippery slope’ arguments, and the bogus bait-and-switch suggestion that you want to engage – despite all evidence to the contrary (as lofty a soapbox as this is).

      Don’t expect to be thanked for your ignorance. This is *your* issue. Don’t attempt to alleviate your hang-ups by provoking strangers in argument. As the posters say – some people are gay – get over it!

      1. Liam the God 23 Mar 2013, 5:38pm

        DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!!

    2. Sister Mary Clarence 24 Mar 2013, 11:37am

      Slippery slope indeed, slippery from all the sh1te you’re spouting.

  30. The ex-gay message is damaging to people’s wellbeing. The court and PT should be criticising this fact. It’s has nothing to do with “free speech”. You don’t advertise things that are bad for people’s health and promoting gay cures is bad heatlh policy. end of story. Nothing to do with free speech, anti christian message and so on..

  31. I’m not English but I’m pretty sure that England has “Truth in Advertising” laws. With all due respect to Mr. Tatchell, this would fall under truth in advertising. Making false/untruthful claims in advertising is not covered under “freedom of speech” laws. Not even in America.

    1. Look at the hidden. . .down rated comments above and see the hypocrisy. . .Check what Nick B had to say. . .LOLOLOL. . .The irony here is just astounding. He was absolutely right. . .just like the judge. ..ONLY GAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE OFFENDED.

      1. PS. . .If anyone else would like to rate me down or respond with slander. . please. . .Do your best and answer the questions I posed. . . What is the difference. . . I would love to understand. . . Sway me! ;)

        1. For me it’s not about the offence involved though it is offensive.
          My objection to the Christian bus advert is squarely with the harm it causes to vulnerable minorities being sold quack therapies.
          Perhaps you’re familiar with John Stuart Mill’s “Harm principle”?
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle
          In this instance someone is advertising a discredited therapy which has been proven ineffective at best and detrimental to psychological wellbeing at worst. If someone was advocating using bananas and rice to cure cancer on a bus ad, you’d expect some pretty solid scientific backing to give it advertising space.
          Mainstream psychological bodies such as the APA have roundly rejected ex-gay therapy as unscientific snakeoil, and even some of the original founders have admitted a very low rate of “success”.
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/scientific-support-anti-gay-campaigners?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

        2. 333/666, we don’t have to waste our time and energy “negative commenting” you or rating you down. We’re beating you in the courts of public opinion and in the legal courts and in the halls of Parliament/Congress. That rips out your heart more than any silly comment or rating here ever could and that’s more than enough to make us feel all warm and fuzzy with satisfaction. In fact, the more you rant into the wind the warmer and fuzzier we feel.

          WINNING IS THE BEST REVENGE!

  32. I dont kwow why the Judge just did not rule for them then if she felt that any appeal would do much good?? Q : was it lawfully denied -yes it was so what is the appeal thing? as for Andrea – ????

  33. Strange use of the word “victory” Clearly it has a different meaning if you are a raving deluded bigot. Christians lying for jebsus again!

  34. One of the things I find so tellingly hypocritical of the British Christian fundamentalist lobby is that they whine discrimination to blue murder until they’ve berated the equalities legislation so much that it finally gives in and forces workplaces to amend their dress codes to accomodate Christians who want to wear a cross to work; yet the self-same moaning minnies so jealously guard their rights when they’re employers to prevent actual crossdressers from gaining exemption from needlessly sexist and archaic gendered workplace dress codes!!! Whatever happened to: ‘do as you would be done by’, eh?;)

  35. Jock S. Trap 23 Mar 2013, 9:29am

    The lengths these people will go to, to be allowed to openly discriminate, not caring who they offend in the process is disgusting.

    That a judge would take the opinion, knowing the ads would offend yet give power to a bigoted religion puts this judge on an equally appalling stance.

    This has nothing to do with Religious Freedom, Expression or even Speech. It’s just a excuse used by the nastiest in society to be above any laws of the land and pick and chose who they will openly hate.

    Hardly progress.

  36. I find the CI quote “This case demonstrates the huge asymmetry and censorship that characterises public debate at the moment” very telling. They have lost and don’t like it.

    When I was a young adult in the 1980’s I remember “Christian” leaders and anyone wanting to show their “Christian” credentials (Politicians, Judges, a Manchester Chief Constable…) making statements containing the most ridiculous, defamatory and disgusting fictions about gay people that destroyed lives and careers without any fear of rebuke. Now these type of statements are mostly laughed at and not reported, unless the papers what demonise the speaker and hold them to ridicule.

    I think this case demonstrates the level of balance and fairness that most of the public now expect and that Judges, mostly, want to achieve.

    Still some way to go for all of society to get over its hang-ups about LGBT people, but perhaps in another 30 years when people make statements (like the CI are defending) the first reaction will be to ring 999 and get the
    individual the help they need from trained mental health professionals (Well that which remains of my 18 year old self can now dream…)

    1. Liam the God 23 Mar 2013, 5:40pm

      What ever happened to Sir James Anderton? Seems to have vanished without trace. Is he dead?

    2. Gave your comment a thumbs up… but don’t confuse the CI and the CLC – they are two different (though equally hypocritical and gay unfriendly) fundamentalist outfits.

  37. Robert in S. Kensington 23 Mar 2013, 11:54am

    Oh please! This harridan doesn’t like it that she lost. Trying to spin a defeat into a victory just because the judge said it was procedurally unfair proves how delusional and desperate she and her ilk are. They’re losing the battle, day by day. They’re all in denial. They will lose again on appeal. You’d think all the money they’re spending would have done a lot more good helping the needy and the poor. They’re no christians by any stretch of the imagination.

    To digress, a little bit of trivia here. To many who don’t speak Italian, the name ‘Andrea’, in Italian means ‘Andrew’. I wonder what her father was thinking of? Come to think of it, she does look a bit androgynous.

  38. Spanner1960 23 Mar 2013, 12:01pm

    I don’t think anybody would generally find wearing a cross/crucifix as offensive, but telling gay people they need curing sure as hell does.

    These people are mixing their apples and oranges here. I just hope the appeal court sees this as a judges aberration and upholds the ban.

    1. Spam buster 23 Mar 2013, 5:42pm

      As this is your first comment, we need to confirm your email address. Please check your email inbox!

  39. Here’s a repost of my response to 333/666 above that got lost in the hidden comments:

    333/666, we don’t have to waste our time and energy “negative commenting” you or rating you down. We’re beating you in the courts of public opinion and in the legal courts and in the halls of Parliament/Lords/Congress. That rips out your heart more than any silly comment or rating here ever could and that’s more than enough to make us feel all warm and fuzzy with satisfaction. In fact, the more you rant into the wind the warmer and fuzzier we feel.

    WINNING IS THE BEST REVENGE!

    1. So . . . Was ‘that’ ironic then?

  40. This message is confrontational, incendiary and designed to provoke.

    Get over it!

  41. It never ceases to amaze me how much time and effort these so-called ‘loving’ christians wil spnd on persecuting their fellow man. What a werid ‘sect’ they are. WHY are they so obsessed with homosexuality when there are people startving in Africa? Would their ‘founder’ REALLY want them to be wasting their time and energy promoting hatred instead of love and peace? Religion – especially their type – is divisive and incites hatred. I hope they get their reward (or otherwise) in the heaven they seem so convinced exists.

    1. Robert in S. Kensingtonr 23 Mar 2013, 4:19pm

      What I find bizarre is that there is a need for a “Christian Legal Centre” in the first place. Are there special laws they are entitled to and what is the reason for its existence? Who is funding it I wonder, hopefully not taxpayers?

  42. Why not just run a campaign saying not all people believe in religious indoctrination, get over it. It’s simply free speech after all.

  43. ‘…this is another important victory for Christian freedoms.’

    A few years ago, the Christian Legal Centre was supporting a crazy woman’s attempts to sue a gallery she had never even been to over a tiny piece of ‘blasphemous’ art. Is that the behaviour of an organisation that cares passionately about freedom? It is ONLY unbridled freedom for Christians that they really wish to see.

  44. Ah… 333, you’re halfway to becoming 666!

  45. The picture makes Andrea Minichiello Williams look like Jezebel (all that make up and face paint). Jezebel incited her husband to subvert the law. She ended up by being eaten by dogs.

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all