Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

MP calls for a ‘conscience clause’ to protect baker which refused ‘support gay marriage’ cake

  • David

    If Christians want a ‘conscience clause’ give it to them. After all they have fixed all the other problems in the world weighing on their conscience like poverty and world hunger… Oh no – sorry I forgot that would be too hard. Then this is an opportunity to be bigoted, obtuse and contrarian, no I don’t believe it.

    • That There Other David

      He’s a DUP MP. Par for the course.

    • CHBrighton

      They’ve never been able to prove anything their religious beliefs are based on, either.

  • Peter Muller

    Anyone in the business of providing any kind of service or product to the public CANNOT be allowed to discriminate, First it will be the Christians (wearing robes of mixed fabric) against the Gays, then the Muslims against the Jews, and the Buddhists against the… you get the point.. It will never end. NO DISCRIMINATION MEANS NO DISCRIMINATION. If anyone feels agrieved or unable to comply, then they need to get out of the business of being in business.

    • http://www.derekwilliams.net Derek Williams

      This is necessarily because they’re gay, but because of the message on the cake – not the same thing.

      • Robert W. Pierce

        Ah, but a conscience clause would not only allow religious people to discriminate because of a sole political message which happens to be only a gay one, but for everything else they don’t agree with, divorce, hetero adultery, much like the Bull’s case. Where does it end? Once you start granting special privileges to one group to be above the law, you have to give them to others. Imagine the chaos that would portend. I’ve said this many times before but religious belief has two rightful places, a place of worship and the home. End of.

        • http://www.derekwilliams.net Derek Williams

          I don’t disagree in principle, but legally, there is a distinction between being gay, which is not a political position or private opinion, and advocating for something political, like same sex marriage. Refusal of goods and services for the former is clear discrimination, but I’m not so sure about the latter.

          What would you say for example, it the couple had gone in for a cake that had a message on it saying “ban same sex marriage”, and the baker had refused to bake it. Would you support the baker or the couple?

          • Robert W. Pierce

            I would support the couple, no matter how much I disagree with the political message.

          • JonParker

            One part of the Peace process in N. Ireland after the Troubles is that N.Ireland law is heavy on the banning of political discrimination, almost as much as religious discrimination. A Catholic baker couldn’t refuse to bake a “vote DUP” cake any more than a DUP baker could refuse to bake an “I heart the Pope” cake.

            I would support the couple too I’m afraid, legally the anti-equal marriage stance is just as protected as the pro-equal marriage. I’d probably feel bad about it after and probably donate the profits to a pro-equal marriage cause, but I would have to provide the same service as I provide to everyone else

          • MarkN

            You could, of course, just put something nasty in the cake…..:-)

          • Peter B

            I totally agree with Derek on this. Using religious and social beliefs as a reason to not serve someone is ridiculous and will lead to theological anarchy and discrimination based on the individual’s nature and circumstance.

            However the cake in question is without doubt a political item that is directly encouraging people to be politically involved in pushing forward a political agenda or change in policy. “SUPPORT gay marriage”. – Everyone must abide by the same rules and as Derek said, if someone came to your business and wanted your product to push a political message, that product could be just influential enough people to cause the relevant tipping point and a change in policy.

            Maybe Putin saw an “ban the gay perverts”, cake at a public event and took that as extra proof that the general wish of the citizens was that gay people should be legally discriminated against. He then put through the gay propaganda law This may be far-fetched but the principal is sound.

            The Russian baker in question may have been a gay guy “just doing his job” but it is undeniably him in part that enabled that message to reach a politician and influence his course of action.

            I don’t see what’s the problem in allowing businesses to stay politically neutral if they wish and refuse to allow their products to become political tools. It would be quite simple to identify items and services that push for political change (like the cake in the article) and items that are not (gay wedding cakes etc..)

            This way everyone will be safeguarded against discrimination and not be forced to endorse/contribute to potentially dangerous political agendas.

            “Slice of support Sharia Law cake Prime minister?”

          • Rick

            >>I don’t see what’s the problem in allowing businesses to stay politically neutral if they wish and refuse to allow their products to become political tools. It would be quite simple to identify items and services that push for political change (like the cake in the article) and items that are not (gay wedding cakes etc..)<>agree<< with homosexuality or call it a lifesytle. It is part of they tactics of reducing it to just an opinion which they can then easily attack.

          • Rick

            Then there are things which are political only in certain contexts. Like sitting in a front seat of a bus. Itcan be seen as political when done as a protest against discrimination, as Rosa Parks did.
            Also, the costumer who ordered the cake can argue that he doesnt see the message of support for gay marriage as something political, or that his intention was not to promote the idea with the cake but to eat it, or whatever. He could argue, as I would, that the idea of marriage equality being a political issue is in itself inherently homophobic.

          • MarkN

            I tend to agree about this distinction, (though as has been reported elsewhere, in N.Ireland there appears to be some protection for political statements)…It would have been far more interesting if the complainants had ordered a cake with a couple of same sex-dolls on it to celebrate a civil partnership; in this case it would be far less easy to argue there is a political slogan involved as this is a common enough symbolic form for straight couples to use, and civil partnerships (unlike SS marriage) are legal in N.Ireland. Celebrating some specific individuals’ relationship can hardly be seen as political, whereas promoting a change in the law surely is…I do hope the complainants have chosen their battle ground wisely, as it would be irritating – and widely interpreted as a victory for the homophobes – if they lose this case…

          • Dolly Digest

            The latter would only apply if it was his policy to refuse all cakes with a political message or affiliation including those whom he personally supports – he would have to include this on his advertising. Choosing which political positions he will cater for based on his personal or religious ideals is discrimination. The question is – would he bake a wedding cake for a same sex wedding or civil partnership or an engagement cake for a same sex couple?

          • JackAlison

            proactive discrimination.
            you cannot be using opinionated negatives to support such an arguement and make out there is such a thing as
            “BIGOTED LITE”
            if i say “jump” and u jump no harm done
            if i say “jump off a cliff ? ”
            would you do it?
            we ALL know prejudice is wrong
            We know it from hate speech and kristallnacht in 1933 that eventually led to the holocaust
            We know it from the dehumanizing spectre of slavery that led to the US civil war and 1960′s civil rights movement.
            (see Mississipi burning)
            We know it from the African Union which has repeatedly not only recriminalized gay behaviour but in some cases has called for the death penalty such as brunei. and islamic countries.
            oh and just for a little “chaser” the african union has recently decided that it has amnesty form ALL human rights abuses in internationational courts.
            yes
            instead of living in semantics read and see everyday all over the world gay brothers and sisters are at the mercy of hate speech and violence. it begins with bakeries that refuse gay ppl. under the specious pretext of religion

        • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

          As I said elsewhere this week soon they entire western world would come to a standstill as no one wants to serve or work for anyone who is “different” in any way!

      • WRE

        If they want to declare they are a christian bakery, fair enough, however. the christian rules have to apply across the board. Do they question if babies are born out of wedlock before baking a birthday cake, or question if couples have been previously divorced before making them a wedding cake? I don’t think so. So the double standard is discrimination. The bakery made a statement saying it was against their ‘religious views’ not their ‘political views’

      • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

        Oh, don’t fall into that pit of vipers. It is so about the Gay and anyone who says different is either a fool or is also an anti Gay bigot… We really ought to know!

        • http://www.derekwilliams.net Derek Williams

          In a court of law is where it’s headed, and they could argue that they object to the slogan, not the fact that the couple are gay. That said, they’ve pretty much shot that argument in the foot now, with this sanctimonious video they made:

          The “it’s in the Bible” excuse if allowed, opens up a huge can of worms, because the Bible also says the following about marriage, and then some:

          God’s Marriage Laws:
          • No marriage will be sanctioned between people who have been divorced. (Matthew 5:32)
          • No marriage shall be sanctioned between Christians & non-Christians. (2 John 1:9-11, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
          • No marriage shall be sanctioned in which the wedding ceremony shall occur during the women’s menstrual cycle (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18, & Ezekiel 18:5-6)
          • No marriage shall be sanctioned of people of different races. (Deuteronomy 7:3, Numbers 25:6-8, 36:6-8, 1 Kings 11:2)
          • A married couple who have sexual intercourse during a woman’s period shall both be executed. (Leviticus 18:19)
          • No marriage shall be sanctioned involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law). All women whose husbands have passwed away shall refrain from intimacy & pleasure for the remainder of their lives. (1 Timothy 5:5-15)
          • No marriage shall be sanctioned for any man who has had sexual thoughts of any woman other than his intended (Matthew 5:28)
          • A woman not a virgin on her wedding night must be executed. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
          • If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, both adulterers be stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 22:22)
          • A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist. Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
          • If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her. (Deuteronomy) 25:11-12)
          • A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
          • If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir. (Mark 12:18-2)

          BUT Polygamy endorsed by God:
          • Solomon … had 700 wives … and 300 concubines. (1 Kings 11:2-3)
          • Rehoboam … took 18 wives, and 60 concubines. (2 Chronicles 11:21)
          • But Abijah waxed mighty, and married 14 wives…. (2 Chronicles 13:21)

          • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

            Unfortunately, they are also on record comparing this to pornography, and saying that they need to take a stand against equality. These are statements the twerp made on record, so it’s clearly not just about the political message. They are against equality, and under equality laws they are not permitted to act in a prejudiced way against any group of people based on those ideas.

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            Political opinion is also protected by law in the north of Ireland…..

          • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

            The slogan is a political slogan and a political opinion and as such is also protected by the Law in the north of Ireland but in GB ,,,,

      • lord thorpe

        Shouldn’t there be a small piping on the cake that says the views expressed on this cake are not necessarily the views of the baker?

      • Dolly Digest

        A conscience clause will only allow discrimination which is quite rightly illegal in the UK. The answer is for the business to make clear in it’s window that it is it’s policy to not bake cakes with any political messages and/or advertisements (even those whom he agrees with or supports) or change his business model to a christian cake bakery only providing christian themed cakes for only christian events and ensure that he includes this in his advertising so that ordinary members of the public are not misled.

      • Harry

        I agree that this is a much more arguable position than straightforward Preddy v Bull discrimination and I would be cautious about fighting too hard on this front, lest we lose something that really matters.

  • Dee

    Several issues here:

    1) why should a religious business owner be allowed to discriminate? what if you’re atheist but still against same-sex marriage?

    2) ethical businesses often turn away legitimate business from companies that produces weapons etc, even though those businesses are legal – pot kettle black anyone?!

    3) same-sex marriage is still illegal in Northern Ireland (frankly ridiculous – how if I were married to someone by crossing the NI border would we suddenly then not be, yet still being in the same country) so therefore this may not be discrimination – the law discriminates (wrongly in my opinion), so in reality, it’s a case of a business owner taking the same stance as an ethical business turning away weapons manufacturers

    4) I just wish everyone were more tolerant of each other – if I were a woman, I just don’t think I could ever personally have an abortion, the whole idea of killing a baby inside me seems abhorrent and wrong – but people should have the right to decide for themselves, who am I to judge others? This business owner probably should have just made the cake with the attitude “I don’t agree with the cake’s message but who am I to judge?”

    • Cal

      Good point. If people are allowed to discriminate only on “genuinely held beliefs”, what about the guy who says “I’m an atheist but I just hate you.” The law won’t be able to defend that distinction. It makes no sense.

    • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

      I can foresee a time when Atheism is classified as a religion, so that then perhaps we too can discriminate in our businesses against anyone wearing religious iconography or following the ridiculous voodoo of Christianity.

  • Jones

    No. You can’t have one rule for one people and one rule for another. Oh wait, I am talking about an MP here.

    • Barry Scarfe

      Yeah, but you are not just talking to an MP you are talking to an MP from a party that has explicit religious principles and therefore can’t be expected to understand the concept that the United Kingdom (of which his party is such a fervent supporter of) is a country in which most of us think the law should be secular and that whilst people are free to believe in any religion they shouldn’t expect the state to impose laws on non-religious people that they have to abide by. The DUP needs to understand that the United Kingdom is a mostly secular country nowdays. Hopefully, one day soon his party and those who support it in NI will update their attitudes. NI should come into line with the rest of the kingdom.

      • Jones

        My comment didn’t mean to tarnish all MPs with the same brush, as I know there as some MPs who would never get into dodgy dealing and who are honest to the public – Dennis Skinner being a prime example.

  • JD

    Over and over we all have to suffer this pathetic and even ludicrous attitude from the backward, superstitious – This is Bigotry, brainless hatred caused by the lifestyle they are indoctrinated into as vulnerable infants…. ENOUGH ALREADY!!

  • http://www.derekwilliams.net Derek Williams

    This isn’t so straightforward because the refusal isn’t necessarily because they’re gay, or even because it’s a same sex wedding, but because the cake carries a political message the owners disagree with. The court may well see this as conflicting interests in apportioning one party’s freedom of speech over that of another.

    • Robert W. Pierce

      Well, the baker as far as we know hasn’t said he or she will bake them a cake without the political message. That would clarify once and for all if it’s not about the couple being gay, but they haven’t.

    • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

      I do like your rational ways Derek, but the staff of the bakery have clearly said that are opposed to same sex marriage, and compared this cake to a pornographic one. They stated that they feel they “need to take a stand now” against gay rights.

      They are bigots, Christian bigots, with barely enough braincells to hold an icing funnel.

      • http://www.derekwilliams.net Derek Williams

        Yes, I’ve now seen their video that makes this clear.

  • lee

    I agree with Dodds and support it fully as long as the clause includes gay people can refuse to serve Christians and bigot MPs

  • Sasha

    As ever, the religious was privileges unavailable to others. If the don;t get them, they are (somehow) being treated less fairly than the rest of us.

    Totally illogical – but logic never was something that religion specialised in.

    This guy’s ‘clause’ stands zero chance of even being debated, let alone becoming law. They’ve tried to squeeze something similar into every equality law considered by parliament. And each time, they crash and burn. They will this time, too.

    Just more nonsense (in fact, the same old nonsense) courtesy of the fascist loons at The Christian Institute.

  • Cal

    Who we are is none of your consciences’ business.

  • doug

    If we decide as a society to end discrimination then it would make a mockery of that if we provide exemptions for those groups most likely to discriminate. (Patrick Harvie MSP)

  • Rovex

    This whole ‘conscience’ thing need to die a painful death. It makes it sound like lovely benevolent people are making a deeply considered moral decision in a bid to ‘help’. This isnt what really happening at all. Its about deluded bigots continuing medieval persecution because of an old book of fables and second hand myths.

    Its time that these people realised that they lost the moral high ground centuries ago and religion is no longer a valid excuse for treating people as second class citizens.

    • anon

      Er, they *never* had the moral high ground? Morality stems from reason.

      Religion has always been the retarding force opposed to reason.

    • Rumbelow

      “In defending the bakery’s refusal to provide the cake, a manager compared supporting same-sex marriage with making a cake with pornographic images on it.”
      That gratuitously insulting comment spells it all out really, this is nothing to do with religious conscience but everything to do with the bakers homophobic prejudice.

  • CHBrighton

    The religious lot always, always want a conscience clause to allow them to carry on bigotting. They seem to believe that ‘freedom of religion’ means saying and doing whatever they want without fear of anyone else contradicting or disagreeing with them. Thus, it seems to me, the problem with ‘freedom of religion’ is that it breeds mental incontinence to the extent that people believe that whatever they say in the name of their religion is ‘true’. They live in fantasy land, of course, but it takes some good hard knocks to make them realise that in a plural society their responsibility to other people trumps their adherence to mystic beliefs which mean they should think before they pronounce.

    • That There Other David

      Of course. They criticise you, it’s God’s will. You criticise them, it’s persecution. Such is the way they think.

  • Joe McDougall

    lol – and how far would I, a white male, get with a “conscience” that forbode me for serving black people, or women?

    Not very far… and quite so!

    • http://www.derekwilliams.net Derek Williams

      The issue in this case isn’t necessary based on the fact that they’re gay, but that the cake itself sported a political slogan supporting same sex marriage. The sexual orientation is protected under anti-discrimination, but the slogan is protected freedom of speech. However this works both ways – the right of the gay couple to hold a view, and the right of the baker to disagree with the view.

  • DTNorth

    As a private vascular surgeon I look forward to the day when I can state that my “conscience” will not allow me to treat christians as my philosophy, athieism, believes that they are a hinderance to mankinds progression and therefore a waste of oxygen.

    • lord thorpe

      Way to go!

  • http://loveandtruth.co.uk Faithful and True

    To refuse to make a cake for a same sex marriage is judgemental. If you are running a business and serving a community, you cannot pick some customers out and say you are not serving them. A word of warning, do not use goods and services with those who are homophobic about your lifestyle, you cannot trust them!

  • Stephen_Glenn

    The thing is Northern Ireland already have a clause in the Northern Ireland Act that says everyone should have equal opportunity irregardless of religion, race, age, disability, gender or sexual orientation.

    So once the DUP can manage to get on board with the first two about other religious views and race themselves there should been any further need for a conscience clause, they are just ignoring the equality bits of the Northern Ireland Act when it doesn;t agree with their own viewpoint, on EVERYTHING!

  • WRE

    It’s just a smoke screen for homophobia. If they want to declare they are a christian bakery, fair enough, however. the christian rules have to apply across the board. Do they question if babies are born out of wedlock before baking a birthday cake, or question if couples have been previously divorced before making them a wedding cake? I don’t think so. So the double standard is discrimination. The bakery made a statement saying it was against their ‘religious views’ not their ‘political views’ Here’s their video response. http://youtu.be/NFqxdiVvrx0

  • WRE

    It’s just a smoke screen for homophobia. If they want to declare they are a christian bakery, fair enough, however. the christian rules have to apply across the board. Do they question if babies are born out of wedlock before baking a birthday cake, or question if couples have been previously divorced before making them a wedding cake? I don’t think so. So the double standard is discrimination. The bakery made a statement saying it was against their ‘religious views’ not their ‘political views’ Here’s their video response. http://youtu.be/NFqxdiVvrx0

    • http://www.derekwilliams.net Derek Williams

      OK – that video says a lot, and makes it clear that it was more than just the slogan at issue. Clearly a case of discrimination, however they need to have that question directly put to them, “would you bake a cake for a same sex wedding, including dolls of the same sex on the icing, if it were without the slogan promoting same sex marriage?”

      I agree with you about the hypocrisy. They talk as though there is only one kind of Christianity, their kind, however there are dozens of LGBT affirming Christian religions that welcome LGBT with open arms, open hearts and open minds with full sacraments, including communion, ordination to the clergy and same sex marriage.

      I also agree regarding the other examples you cite such as divorce, which are roundly condemned in both the Old and New Testaments.

      • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

        They wouldn’t have done this even without the slogan, the reporting I have seen on this is quite clear, they objected not only to the slogan, but the idea of same sex marriage. Their manager or director (some young brainwashed twerp) said “if we don’t stand up against this now…”

        You know, the usual nutty Christian BS they spout, like they have a right to dictate to the rest of Humanity how people should live. These idiots really do think they have a patent on marriage and have a right to inflict their religion onto others.

  • Noah Campbell

    we dont want to bring Northern Ireland backwards on LGBT rights !! we always want to progress !! but what that bakery done was a form of discrimination its states it in the law ?? !! i think if your going to open any type of business in Northern Ireland you have to realise that your always going to meet all different types of people !! and its only right that you serve everyone !!! you cant pick and choose ! #we need to keep moving forward # STOP DUP – ruining NI politics !!!!

  • St Sebastian, the humanist

    Would they suggest a conscience clause if it were race related? No, so they shouldn’t consider a conscience vote for homosexuality, which like race is not a choice and should therefore not be subject of conscience clauses.

  • Steven Gregory

    If a “conscience clause” is to be considered, then rules for strength of that conscience must also be instituted, including observance of Biblical dietary laws, all Biblical mandates concerning marriage (no adulterers — including divorced people remarrying, no fornicators, all women seeking a wedding cake must prove they are virgins with hymen intact, no wedding cakes for non-believers, the bakery must tithe 10% of its gross revenues to a church and all employees must do the same, the bakery must be closed on the Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday) and all holy holidays.

    Otherwise, it’s just anti-gay bigotry wrapped in religion.

  • sJames6621

    these anti christ clowns are the same type who created the job adv hand marked 1945 that I found in my DADs papers

    Jews and colored need not apply. Run tthe MFs out of biz and do something if you havent the necessary laws to prevent the hobby lobby mess we have in the states.

  • Mikeylano

    Religious beliefs that are protected under human rights laws should never be able to trump other rights that are enshrined in law.

  • Katie

    An MP might know what a ‘clause’ is, but as for a ‘conscience’…?!

  • Alan O’Flynn

    The Christianist mob in Northern Ireland have been nurtured on hate & discrimination from the breast onwards so know no different. The only thing for them is to chuck them to the lions.

  • Pádráig O’Gáirmléadháigh

    Absolutely so long as there is also a clause that says a list of those availing of the conscience clause is published annually in All the newspapers. Methinks the numbers availing of the conscience clause will be small after that….. I mean we don’t want to be offending those poor timid bigots with words like Equality and Gay, so we would need such a list, amiright?

  • Truth

    And what about the ‘conscience clause’ which would allow Jews to discriminate agaist Muslims or Catholics against Protestants or white people against black. Why is it religion makes people believe they can discriminate with impunity? Religious beliefe is NOT a licence to hate. Keep your ‘beliefs’ where they belong: at home along with other infantile nonsense like Peter Pan and Santa Claus.

  • Jock S.Trap

    How thick are these people who run out country. A law to allow them to discriminate. They just don’t see the wrong in it.

    Do they seek protection from the law to abuse children I wonder…, bet they’ll want a

    ‘conscience clause’ too there!

    Sick bastards!

  • Daniel

    Once again the religionists seek to protect their tradition of discrimination. The dying throes of their centuries old hatred of anything they deem unfit is ever louder. Hopefully within my lifetime, we’ll be able to look back on these dinosaurs with pity.

  • http://www.bloketoys.co.uk/ BlokeToys.co.uk

    I wonder how long they would support a “conscience clause” when thousands of companies start to reject service to Christians based on their hateful activities?

    Surely if the Christians are allowed to discriminate based on their own “deeply held beliefs” then I too can discriminate using my deeply held belief that they are all despicable hateful cretins?

    This is a two-way street, if you back this notion then you will face massive discrimination of the same kind from decent people.

  • lord thorpe

    I got a bit of flack for being sympathetic towards the Bull’s. And some of the comments made me realize I was wrong. People have the right to be bigots, but they shouldn’t have the right to humiliate, abuse, attack or denigrate other people.
    The idiot M.P. who compares it to pornography is an idiot (I already said that) there are already laws about pornography.This is not the same.If a conscience clause was allowed any half wit bigot would be able to claim (Oh I’m religious!). And of course most of them are just white trailer park trash bigots.
    Wouldn’t Adolph Hitler have loved this sort of legislation?

  • http://www.derekwilliams.net Derek Williams

    A “conscience” clause would allow the bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race couple, a couple of differing religion, a couple where the wife was not a virgin, a couple where the wife was menstruating, or a couple where either had been divorced, all completely prohibited under “God’s Law”, which by the way doesn’t prohibit same sex marriage.

    God’s Marriage Laws:
    • No marriage will be sanctioned between people who have been divorced. (Matthew 5:32)
    • No marriage shall be sanctioned between Christians & non-Christians. (2 John 1:9-11, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17)
    • No marriage shall be sanctioned in which the wedding ceremony shall occur during the women’s menstrual cycle (Leviticus 18:19, 20:18, & Ezekiel 18:5-6)
    • No marriage shall be sanctioned of people of different races. (Deuteronomy 7:3, Numbers 25:6-8, 36:6-8, 1 Kings 11:2)
    • A married couple who have sexual intercourse during a woman’s period shall both be executed. (Leviticus 18:19)
    • No marriage shall be sanctioned involving a widow (unless it is to her brother-in-law). All women whose husbands have passwed away shall refrain from intimacy & pleasure for the remainder of their lives. (1 Timothy 5:5-15)
    • No marriage shall be sanctioned for any man who has had sexual thoughts of any woman other than his intended (Matthew 5:28)
    • A woman not a virgin on her wedding night must be executed. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
    • If a married person has sex with someone else’s husband or wife, both adulterers be stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 22:22)
    • A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist. Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
    • If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy’s genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her. (Deuteronomy) 25:11-12)
    • A virgin who is raped must marry her rapist. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
    • If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir. (Mark 12:18-2)

    BUT Polygamy endorsed by God:
    • Solomon … had 700 wives … and 300 concubines. (1 Kings 11:2-3)
    • Rehoboam … took 18 wives, and 60 concubines. (2 Chronicles 11:21)
    • But Abijah waxed mighty, and married 14 wives…. (2 Chronicles 13:21)

  • Alexander Kelso Shiels

    Oh I can see all the Sub Clauses that will have to be added if this stupid thing goes ahead!

  • JackAlison

    yes id like a special conscience clause too.
    when I PUT MY BOOT RIGHT UP THIS MP’S ASS
    (EXCEPT ID PROBABLY LOSE MY LEG)

  • JackAlison

    Proactive discrimination.

    you cannot be using opinionated negatives to support such an arguement and make out there is such a thing as

    “BIGOTED LITE”

    if i say “jump” and u jump no harm done

    if i say “jump off a cliff ? ”

    would you do it?

    we ALL know prejudice is wrong

    We know it from hate speech and kristallnacht in 1933 that eventually led to the holocaust

    We know it from the dehumanizing spectre of slavery that led to the US civil war and 1960′s civil rights movement.

    (see Mississipi burning)

    We know it from the African Union which has repeatedly not only recriminalized gay behaviour but in some cases has called for the death penalty such as brunei. and islamic countries.

    oh and just for a little “chaser” the african union has recently decided that it has amnesty form ALL human rights abuses in internationational courts.

    yes

    instead of living in semantics read and see everyday all over the world gay brothers and sisters are at the mercy of hate speech and violence. it begins with bakeries that refuse gay ppl. under the specious pretext of religion

  • Silly Old Bastard

    I don’t like the idea of anyone being forced to provide a service. What’s wrong
    with “Well if that’s your attitude, I’m taking my business elsewhere”. I want to
    see less resentment against gay people, not more.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all