Comments on: Employment tribunal has "legitimised homophobia" http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/ PinkNews.co.uk Gay News (UK and world) from Pink News - all the gay news for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered community in the UK and beyond- thegaynews from Pink News Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:50:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: adele winston http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32680 adele winston Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:38:49 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32680 Laws are passed for a reason; we have had enough of discrimination. Religion is a personal matter - some religions believe that women should wear wigs or veils or immolate themselves on their late husbands' funeral pyres, or that men should have numerous children by very young close relatives - but civil servants should be told firmly to leave their religions outside the door. Laws are passed for a reason; we have had enough of discrimination. Religion is a personal matter – some religions believe that women should wear wigs or veils or immolate themselves on their late husbands' funeral pyres, or that men should have numerous children by very young close relatives – but civil servants should be told firmly to leave their religions outside the door.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Sharon http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32668 Sharon Fri, 11 Jul 2008 22:49:37 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32668 So....if I am a jehovah Witness Doctor, working in a hospital...and my religion does not permit blood transfusions...can i refuse to participate in blood transfusions???? I am a lesbian parent, and have been on the receiving end of the legal process versus religious beliefs....church of england believes in heterosexual marriage with one man and woman....my ex-partner sought via legal challenge to secure parental rights to my child....the law won...on the basis of "gay rights"....our religion was discounted!!!! I still think throwing gay rights in peoples faces as the "law" has done in past few years is WRONG......and I am a Lesbian....this sheer bloody mindedness is turning queer and non qeer folk into a WAR.....!!!! So….if I am a jehovah Witness Doctor, working in a hospital…and my religion does not permit blood transfusions…can i refuse to participate in blood transfusions????

I am a lesbian parent, and have been on the receiving end of the legal process versus religious beliefs….church of england believes in heterosexual marriage with one man and woman….my ex-partner sought via legal challenge to secure parental rights to my child….the law won…on the basis of "gay rights"….our religion was discounted!!!!

I still think throwing gay rights in peoples faces as the "law" has done in past few years is WRONG……and I am a Lesbian….this sheer bloody mindedness is turning queer and non qeer folk into a WAR…..!!!!

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: John http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32667 John Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:45:46 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32667 So she won a case against being discriminated and bullied at work. The evidence suggests, she probably was.... She did not actually win a case to not carry out civil partnerships.... but it's unlikely her employer will make her do them now. Lets not get carried away with the issue here. This is not a precedent for people to stop doing Civil Partnership ceremonies. It's a reminder that bullying in the workplace should not be tolerated - and that militant activism from either gays or christians gets no one anywhere. So she won a case against being discriminated and bullied at work. The evidence suggests, she probably was…. She did not actually win a case to not carry out civil partnerships…. but it's unlikely her employer will make her do them now. Lets not get carried away with the issue here. This is not a precedent for people to stop doing Civil Partnership ceremonies. It's a reminder that bullying in the workplace should not be tolerated – and that militant activism from either gays or christians gets no one anywhere.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Rudy Vallee http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32666 Rudy Vallee Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:20:48 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32666 The bible also supports slavery. Throw this black woman into shackles because her precious God wants it that way. Have a nice day. :) The bible also supports slavery. Throw this black woman into shackles because her precious God wants it that way.

Have a nice day. :)

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: David S http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32656 David S Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:59:56 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32656 William, I absolutely agree. We have gone from being oppressed by straights to being oppressed by self-aggrandising, smug queens who look down their noses at the rest of us. This is why I would never attend Pride because what it represents is not freedom: it represents a new elitism of the oppressed turning into the oppressor. I sometimes wonder if we have achived much at all over the past fourty years or so. William, I absolutely agree. We have gone from being oppressed by straights to being oppressed by self-aggrandising, smug queens who look down their noses at the rest of us. This is why I would never attend Pride because what it represents is not freedom: it represents a new elitism of the oppressed turning into the oppressor. I sometimes wonder if we have achived much at all over the past fourty years or so.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: David S http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32651 David S Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:36:19 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32651 Oh, surprise, surprise! William's original post was deleted by Tony "you have no rights here" grew! For all the criticism about Ladele, we can't even respect the right to free speech in our own community because somebody dares to speak the truth! Let's be frank about this - Ladele is black! She knows about discrimination and the comments about the historical abuse of black people in the cotton fields of the US and aparteid in South Africa. So why, for heaven's sake, why does she think it acceptable to practice the very discrimination she presumably despises? I think William is right: she's both a hypocrite and a stupid cow! Oh, surprise, surprise! William's original post was deleted by Tony "you have no rights here" grew! For all the criticism about Ladele, we can't even respect the right to free speech in our own community because somebody dares to speak the truth!

Let's be frank about this – Ladele is black! She knows about discrimination and the comments about the historical abuse of black people in the cotton fields of the US and aparteid in South Africa. So why, for heaven's sake, why does she think it acceptable to practice the very discrimination she presumably despises? I think William is right: she's both a hypocrite and a stupid cow!

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Robert, ex-pat Brit http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32649 Robert, ex-pat Brit Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:13:57 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32649 If a person's religious beliefs are in conflict with the job they do, then find another that will accommodate your needs, though I doubt there are any unless one is employed by a religious organisation or place of worship. This woman deserves no right to be exempt from performing civil partnerships, she is paid to do it. If I owned a hotel or restaurant, could I refuse to accommodate guests whose religious beliefs were made known and which are contrary to my sexual orientation? The answer is an unequivocal NO! I'd face a fine or jail or both. Why should anyone be exempt from the law? Religion is a choice and as such should be confined to the home where it belongs, not brought to the workplace where it doesn't. This is nothing more than caving into bigotry and homophobia disguised in religion. The decision by the Islington Council is seriously flawed. If a person's religious beliefs are in conflict with the job they do, then find another that will accommodate your needs, though I doubt there are any unless one is employed by a religious organisation or place of worship. This woman deserves no right to be exempt from performing civil partnerships, she is paid to do it. If I owned a hotel or restaurant, could I refuse to accommodate guests whose religious beliefs were made known and which are contrary to my sexual orientation? The answer is an unequivocal NO! I'd face a fine or jail or both. Why should anyone be exempt from the law? Religion is a choice and as such should be confined to the home where it belongs, not brought to the workplace where it doesn't. This is nothing more than caving into bigotry and homophobia disguised in religion. The decision by the Islington Council is seriously flawed.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Martin Davies http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32648 Martin Davies Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:55:24 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32648 I am somewhat confused by this court judgement. When I worked for a borough council some 20 years ago it was a specification of our employment contract that we might be serving members of the community with whom we may not pass judgement or impose personal values upon their lifestyles etc. So why is it all of a sudden so acceptable to express prejudice as an officer of the crown in a public appointment based on religion? I am somewhat confused by this court judgement. When I worked for a borough council some 20 years ago it was a specification of our employment contract that we might be serving members of the community with whom we may not pass judgement or impose personal values upon their lifestyles etc. So why is it all of a sudden so acceptable to express prejudice as an officer of the crown in a public appointment based on religion?

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Julian http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32646 Julian Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:37:32 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32646 William Dublin, you sound like the one with the hate her. The spite and vitiol flying about. How do you know what is going on in this woman's head? And this "this is the 21st Century" slogan which gets repeated every time someone so much as farts on a black/disabled/gay/muslim/woman etc is just plain horseshit. We have got to kill off this PC nonsense before we all become robots, doing only what has been expressly allowed by the State. Insults? Have you ever seen a UK drag show? William Dublin, you sound like the one with the hate her. The spite and vitiol flying about. How do you know what is going on in this woman's head? And this "this is the 21st Century" slogan which gets repeated every time someone so much as farts on a black/disabled/gay/muslim/woman etc is just plain horseshit.

We have got to kill off this PC nonsense before we all become robots, doing only what has been expressly allowed by the State. Insults? Have you ever seen a UK drag show?

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Iris http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32642 Iris Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:31:17 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32642 I just can't understand this ruling at all. Firstly, Ms Ladele states her belief in what constitutes marriage - but she was not being asked to MARRY gay people, only to perform civil partnerships (and it's my opinion that that term was chosen diplomatically to allow the 'sanctity' of marriage as being between a man and a woman only to remain); secondly, she is not working in a church, she is working in a lay position for a local council, so I don't see where her religious beliefs fit in at all in this context. This is the start of a slippery slope where some people are more equal than others. It will stir up resentment and lead to more discrimination against ALL kinds of people. Even if you don't feel threatened by this ruling because you're not gay, you should - who's next for discrimination? It's not about 'gay rights' but human rights. I just can't understand this ruling at all. Firstly, Ms Ladele states her belief in what constitutes marriage – but she was not being asked to MARRY gay people, only to perform civil partnerships (and it's my opinion that that term was chosen diplomatically to allow the 'sanctity' of marriage as being between a man and a woman only to remain); secondly, she is not working in a church, she is working in a lay position for a local council, so I don't see where her religious beliefs fit in at all in this context. This is the start of a slippery slope where some people are more equal than others. It will stir up resentment and lead to more discrimination against ALL kinds of people. Even if you don't feel threatened by this ruling because you're not gay, you should – who's next for discrimination? It's not about 'gay rights' but human rights.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: james hadley brown http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32641 james hadley brown Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:25:29 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32641 All this PC crap is destroying what integrity we have as gay people. Every person is entitled to their religious views wether right or wrong. If this was a gay person who objected there would belittle or no controversy. Thank goodness no one cracked a gay joke in the process or this would have made headlines. All this PC crap is destroying what integrity we have as gay people. Every person is entitled to their religious views wether right or wrong. If this was a gay person who objected there would belittle or no controversy. Thank goodness no one cracked a gay joke in the process or this would have made headlines.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Darrel http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32640 Darrel Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:13:12 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32640 I 100 % support this womans' right to believe that gays are condemed to eternal damnation , AND that if she participates in these unions that she would be offending God. I also 100 % support any religious groups' right to refuse to perform ceremonies that contradict their beliefs. No church should be forced to operate against the tennents of their beliefs. But this lady is NOT a church , and is NOT working for a church. She is working for the PUBLIC , and that means EVERYONE ! AND it means EVERYONE by rule of law. The public service cannot allow employees to pick and choose which members of the public they'll serve based on personally held beliefs, it is simply not right. So this woman has to ask herself which law is it more important for her to follow ? Gods or those that govern us here ? If she honestly cannot fulfill the duties of her public office because of her beliefs, then she really has no choice but to seek other employ, and take comfort in the fact that she has done what she believes God wants. What she needs to understand is that most of us support her right to her beliefs , but she does NOT have the right to impose them on the rest of us ! Period. I 100 % support this womans' right to believe that gays are condemed to eternal damnation , AND that if she participates in these unions that she would be offending God.

I also 100 % support any religious groups' right to refuse to perform ceremonies that contradict their beliefs. No church should be forced to operate against the tennents of their beliefs.

But this lady is NOT a church , and is NOT working for a church.
She is working for the PUBLIC , and that means EVERYONE ! AND it means EVERYONE by rule of law. The public service cannot allow employees to pick and choose which members of the public they'll serve based on personally held beliefs, it is simply not right.
So this woman has to ask herself which law is it more important for her to follow ? Gods or those that govern us here ? If she honestly cannot fulfill the duties of her public office because of her beliefs, then she really has no choice but to seek other employ, and take comfort in the fact that she has done what she believes God wants.
What she needs to understand is that most of us support her right to her beliefs , but she does NOT have the right to impose them on the rest of us ! Period.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: flapjack http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32637 flapjack Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:06:08 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32637 Just heard the editor of this site on Radio 2 going head to head with an evangelical representative. The latter did herself no favours by throwing around accusations of intolerance at everyone else (for the reasonable observation that black rights were resisted 40 years ago by people of a similar mindset) while simultaneusly claiming gay marriage was analgous with polygamy as a dodgy "thin end of the wedge" arguement. Paul O Grady gave it to her straight... she's a bigot, pure and simple and a very bad advert for Christians everywhere. Just heard the editor of this site on Radio 2 going head to head with an evangelical representative. The latter did herself no favours by throwing around accusations of intolerance at everyone else (for the reasonable observation that black rights were resisted 40 years ago by people of a similar mindset) while simultaneusly claiming gay marriage was analgous with polygamy as a dodgy "thin end of the wedge" arguement. Paul O Grady gave it to her straight… she's a bigot, pure and simple and a very bad advert for Christians everywhere.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: apYrs http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32636 apYrs Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:56:43 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32636 she is receiving exceptional protection where he colleagues found her privileged position unacceptable: she was picking and choosing. Had she demonastrated any other form of discrimination sh'd have been up on a disciplinary hearing and for retraining as a minimum. Her actions are also harrassment against LGB staff under the terms of the Regulations, in that she demeans them and their real relationships. It is interested how little coverage this has got in the "qualities". Only the Telegraph reported it. Had she discriminated on grounds of race, colour, or sex, there would have been a lot to say, including in the editorials. As it is it's just against us queers. she is receiving exceptional protection where he colleagues found her privileged position unacceptable: she was picking and choosing. Had she demonastrated any other form of discrimination sh'd have been up on a disciplinary hearing and for retraining as a minimum. Her actions are also harrassment against LGB staff under the terms of the Regulations, in that she demeans them and their real relationships.

It is interested how little coverage this has got in the "qualities". Only the Telegraph reported it. Had she discriminated on grounds of race, colour, or sex, there would have been a lot to say, including in the editorials. As it is it's just against us queers.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Kamasutra Jones http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32635 Kamasutra Jones Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:54:47 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32635 Johnny, sounds like Islam to me... Personally, I have no problem with a church denying marriage to a gay couple. It's becoming a big topic over here in the States, especially California. Many churches here receive tax money for charity work, which the gay left feels requires them to perform marriages. I disagree. If a church wants to deny marriage, that is their right, just as much as a church wants to perform marriage. That said, this woman was working for the government. Therefore, she has no right to claim that her religion prevents her from performing her job. If that's the case, she should be fired. Using "conscientious objector" as a defense is simply wrong. It is not analogous to Quakers facing the draft, for example. But, I'm wondering if maybe the employment tribunal decided this way in order to bring the issue to the floor? They may have wanted to have someone higher decide on the issue, and therefore found in such a controversial way. Johnny, sounds like Islam to me…

Personally, I have no problem with a church denying marriage to a gay couple. It's becoming a big topic over here in the States, especially California. Many churches here receive tax money for charity work, which the gay left feels requires them to perform marriages. I disagree. If a church wants to deny marriage, that is their right, just as much as a church wants to perform marriage.

That said, this woman was working for the government. Therefore, she has no right to claim that her religion prevents her from performing her job. If that's the case, she should be fired. Using "conscientious objector" as a defense is simply wrong. It is not analogous to Quakers facing the draft, for example.

But, I'm wondering if maybe the employment tribunal decided this way in order to bring the issue to the floor? They may have wanted to have someone higher decide on the issue, and therefore found in such a controversial way.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Johnny http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32631 Johnny Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:22:31 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32631 So if my religion says that I should take on slaves, beat my wife and or wives and sleep with my children the government and law should let me because my religion says so? So if my religion says that I should take on slaves, beat my wife and or wives and sleep with my children the government and law should let me because my religion says so?

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: nicholson http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32630 nicholson Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:14:31 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32630 I believe this is strictly a matter of local services. Islington tax payers pay taxes to enable the borough registrars to provide the service they are legally bound over provide, and it has now been determined that this service is available to same sex couples. Anyone who has taken paid employment to act as a registrar is paid by Islington tax payers to deliver the service in full as legally required. This is the situation. There is no flexability in that context. If someone holds personally formed ideas formed by themselves alone, because of the influence of their religious practices- ie. they have choosen to form a specifc perspective where they have been free to interpret any other AND they use that to avoid undertaking the duties they specifically have been paid to carry out , then they should remove themselves from that specific paid job. This woman and the judge who granted in her favour have made 2 fundamental errors. 1. The woman sees the change in law which introduces registration to same sex couples as discriminatory against herself because she see's the threat of being asked to leave her job for not carrying out her job as discriminatory on the grounds of her religious beliefs. Her position is untennable because legally both she and the Council must not discrimate against gay people. The council cannot legally uphold a policy of advertising for paid registrars who disciminate against gay people. Her beliefs would make her no longer suitable for the post and this is not descriminatory against Christianity or Islam, where the post is still open to people who may belong to these religions, but not open where people choose to interpret them and manifest them in a way which descriminates against others and breaks the law. 2. The judge has simplified & distorted the findings by considering only the issue of the right of the woman to remain in employment in Islington council, in part due to her 16 year work history there, but has not explored in depth the legal principle which needs to be established by this case, which is that you are free to hold your religious beliefs but they must be compliant with the Law. I believe this is strictly a matter of local services. Islington tax payers pay taxes to enable the borough registrars to provide the service they are legally bound over provide, and it has now been determined that this service is available to same sex couples. Anyone who has taken paid employment to act as a registrar is paid by Islington tax payers to deliver the service in full as legally required.
This is the situation. There is no flexability in that context. If someone holds personally formed ideas formed by themselves alone, because of the influence of their religious practices- ie. they have choosen to form a specifc perspective where they have been free to interpret any other AND they use that to avoid undertaking the duties they specifically have been paid to carry out , then they should remove themselves from that specific paid job.

This woman and the judge who granted in her favour have made 2 fundamental errors.
1. The woman sees the change in law which introduces registration to same sex couples as discriminatory against herself because she see's the threat of being asked to leave her job for not carrying out her job as discriminatory on the grounds of her religious beliefs. Her position is untennable because legally both she and the Council must not discrimate against gay people.
The council cannot legally uphold a policy of advertising for paid registrars who disciminate against gay people. Her beliefs would make her no longer suitable for the post and this is not descriminatory against Christianity or Islam, where the post is still open to people who may belong to these religions, but not open where people choose to interpret them and manifest them in a way which descriminates against others and breaks the law.
2. The judge has simplified & distorted the findings by considering only the issue of the right of the woman to remain in employment in Islington council, in part due to her 16 year work history there, but has not explored in depth the legal principle which needs to be established by this case, which is that you are free to hold your religious beliefs but they must be compliant with the Law.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Julian http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32624 Julian Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:21:05 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32624 So this follows that Muslim workers should be forced to drink alcohol at the Christmas party? There are a million exceptions on how people work and behave at work, why cannot someone who has fundamental beliefs be accomodated? It is not like she is the only registrar in Islington, is it? By all accounts she wasn't going around condemming civil partnerships, she just didn't want anything to do with it. We are constantly going on about acceptance and tolerance, but why not be a bit reasonable and understanding? Gay rights lobbies are starting to turn into the feminists of the 70s, and risk turning people off, including gay people. Remember the slogan "Some people are gay, get over it", well we should get over it. Stop beiong so paranoid. So this follows that Muslim workers should be forced to drink alcohol at the Christmas party? There are a million exceptions on how people work and behave at work, why cannot someone who has fundamental beliefs be accomodated? It is not like she is the only registrar in Islington, is it? By all accounts she wasn't going around condemming civil partnerships, she just didn't want anything to do with it.

We are constantly going on about acceptance and tolerance, but why not be a bit reasonable and understanding? Gay rights lobbies are starting to turn into the feminists of the 70s, and risk turning people off, including gay people. Remember the slogan "Some people are gay, get over it", well we should get over it. Stop beiong so paranoid.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Patrick http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32605 Patrick Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:53:11 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32605 This is a fight religion and the god freaks WILL lose. That is the real truth in this argument and truth always wins eventually, because mans condition is to seek the truth , no matter the obstacles. This is a fight religion and the god freaks WILL lose. That is the real truth in this argument and truth always wins eventually, because mans condition is to seek the truth , no matter the obstacles.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]> By: Patrick http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8315.html/comment-page-1/#comment-32604 Patrick Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:45:47 +0000 http://www.pinknews.co.uk/?p=8315#comment-32604 To follow the logic of the god freaks to conclusion , a fireman could refuse to put out your burning house because it was against his human rights as a pyromaniac who utterly believed was his right to start fires not put them out. If you want a job which is paid for by all tax payers, gay and hetro then you must do the job entirely, not pick what you will or not do because it offends your bigoted beliefs. If you cant then go work for the god freaks you so hold so dear and leave the rest of the sensible world to get on with their lives. To follow the logic of the god freaks to conclusion , a fireman could refuse to put out your burning house because it was against his human rights as a pyromaniac who utterly believed was his right to start fires not put them out. If you want a job which is paid for by all tax payers, gay and hetro then you must do the job entirely, not pick what you will or not do because it offends your bigoted beliefs. If you cant then go work for the god freaks you so hold so dear and leave the rest of the sensible world to get on with their lives.

(Report comment to the moderator)

]]>