Reader comments · Core Issues Trust calls on Court of Appeal to rule against Transport for London’s ban on anti-gay ads · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Core Issues Trust calls on Court of Appeal to rule against Transport for London’s ban on anti-gay ads

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. PantoHorse 10 Dec 2013, 2:37pm

    Mr Diamond said the Bible and its Christian scriptures only permitted sexual relationships between one man and one woman in marriage and people should be entitled to express that view.

    That’s not actually true though, is it.

    1. Indeed, if I recall correctly (and it’s possible I don’t so please check before quoting as fact), King David was bisexual, the Prophet Ruth was lesbian, Jesus healed a Centurion’s male sex-slave (the word used is catamite) and as to the one man and one woman… well, the one man part was commonly enforced, but any number of women, girls, boys or even animals was allowed.

      1. King David had close friendship with Jonathan but sexual intercourse was not mentioned. Leviticus 18 mentions some things that were forbidden.

      2. David had close friendship with Jonathan but sexual intercourse was not mentioned. See Leviticus 18, in particular, sex with animals is forbidden there.

      3. David had close friendship with Jonathan but sexual intercourse was not mentioned. See Lev 18 for the forbidding of sexual relations with animals.

    2. That isn’t even the view that the ads were expressing.

  2. Where’s our right to freedom FROM religion?

    God bothering homophobes

  3. Will these vile homophobes posing as ‘loving’ christians NEVER give up? Don’t they get it? Most people now know or are related to someone gay. They see attempts like this as just plain nasty – especially as it’s all over some silly, childish ‘belief’. I hope the court finds them pathetic and throws the case out. Also, who’ll be paying for the legal action? Their ‘charitable’ status? It’s a total disgrace that so many so-called ‘religious’ charities spend every penny they collect on vindictive issues like this. Someone in government should be challenging how these religious ‘charities’ get away with becoming involved in political matters ……

  4. Does anyone know if Stonewall can sue these bigots for breach of design rights?

    1. I’d like to know that too – the fact that it’s a blatant rip-off of a fairly well-known campaign should in itself not be allowed.

  5. Some people are Gay get over it is a factual slogan – It is not biologically posible to be an ex gay – so the trade description people should intervene and stop this superstitious nonsense!!

  6. The fact that derogatory messages incite violent and discriminatory actions from those who the messages are directed at means that there is no justification for allowing the ads because free speech that is destructive is not protected.

  7. What would happen is someone posted on buses: “Some people are racist/misoginist/homophobes, get over it” ? Would that be acceptable in the name of “free speech” ?

  8. It’s not a freedom of speech issue; they are free to advertise with any organisation that will do business with them. They could even hire a fleet of mobile billboards.

    It’s rather like complaining that The Times didn’t think that a letter to the editor was worth publishing.

  9. Colin (Queenstown/London) 10 Dec 2013, 7:21pm

    Having read most of the submissions to Parliament during the Marriage Bill progress I was gutted at how hideous almost all the larger churches were, COE and Catholic especially. This included professors, doctors, teachers the people I was told to respect as a kid.

    Get all religion out of Parliament and certainly out of schools. Brainwashing the young is sick to me. Religion is the worst drug on this planet.

    Diamond and his ilk …ego…these people seek to exclude…as the world works to be inclusive.

    For many look first at what we have in common before we see our differences.

  10. No. No. No. If they are so interested in teaching biblical messages, let them campaign for slavery first. See how far that gets them. Then they can begin on the Gay cures.

  11. Whatever the outcome there will be a fair consideration of the issues and trial. The Master of the Rolls, the most senior of the three judges in the Court of Appeal (in fact the most senior Court of Appeal Judge) is immensely fair and sensible.

  12. Fairness is surely the issue. I don’t agree with CIT’s view of gays nor with their religion but it really is taking things too far to ban their ad on grounds of offensiveness. Suppose they had got the original ads banned; try on other people’s hats; that’s the test. There are always people who find offense in what other people say, think or write but that’s their problem as long as it doesn’t incite illegal acts. The CIT ad is naff but you can’t see it as incitement. I think its effect would probably be the opposite of what they intend; the original ad certainly had that effect on me because it’s injunction to “get over it” is essentially aggressive.

    1. Frank Boulton 12 Dec 2013, 12:20pm

      Yes, Richard, fairness is the issue. Mr Diamond said: “Is the belief that homosexuality is a sin worthy of respect in a democratic society?” The question may be offensive to some of us but freedom of speech permits him to ask such a question. In most Western democracies, more people now support same-sex marriage than are opposed to it and even more people think that same-sex relationships should be recognized in some way by the state and we should take comfort in that. However, the “ex-gay” posters overstep the mark delineated by freedom of speech legislation. They promote a “cure” and that oversteps the line in promoting medical treatment by those unqualified to diagnose, prescribe and treat. No one should be entitled to engage in any medical treatment including psychiatry without appropriate qualifications. Medical treatment should not be promoted by persuasive advertising. WHO and the American Psychiatric Association no longer classify homosexuality as a disease. Get over it.

      1. Speaking for myself, there’s nothing in this subject area that I need to get over. And when that trollish formula is thrust at CIT or anyone it tends only to confirm and solidify barriers. People whose identities are so weak that they try to bolster them up by converting other people to their tribal norms need understanding, not aggression.
        I think I agree with the idea that people ought not to be allowed to advertise treatments they are not qualified to deliver, but it’s a big subject and contentious enough even where herbal remedies are concerned, let alone brain-washing (is Michael Gove qualified to be messing with our children’s minds?). It’s also quite different from what most people are writing in this and related threads.

      2. Bob Hutton 13 Dec 2013, 3:43pm

        Some people believe the Bible – get over it.

        1. Guglielmo Marinaro 13 Dec 2013, 6:31pm

          Some people believe the Qur’an. Get over it.

          Some people believe the Book of Mormon. Get over it.

          Some people don’t believe in sacred books of any kind. Get over it.

          1. Trollspeak leads to confrontation. If that’s all you’re interested in you can have the space to yourselves. I’ll not be back.

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.