Comments: further developments in the ECHR appeal

A certain group of Christians has decided that it is beneath their dignity, that it is an affront, merely to serve food to, provide a room at an inn to, or perform ordinary civic functions for, GLBT people.
So society must conform to their needs..
This is arrogance. This group of Christians have decided that a certain class of sinners must be avoided, can be humiliated in public (if "I'm sorry, there’s no room at the inn for your kind" isn't an attempt at public humiliation, I don't know what is), so as to keep themselves pure. They are saying “I’m better than you.”
Innkeepers throw the doors of their inn open to the general public. A registrar registers the documents or acts of all people who come through the door. They serve everybody.
I bet the Christians who are upset that they cannot wear their crosses or crucifixes in certain situations would find that their employer's sanction was not "Thou shalt not wear crucifixes or crosses for it is an abomination unto me", but rather "Please refrain from wearing any jewelry, chains, medallions, clothing, pendants, etc., which might cause a safety hazard or interfere with instrument telemetry." But! They don't care about the not wearing of Magen Davids, kipot, turbans, veils, or other religious jewelry or artifacts. They care only for their crosses or crucifixes.
These certain people feel it is all right to tell other people not to discriminate, or to serve everyone, or to not wear jewelry, but they feel “By God (literally, apparently) I'm a Christian and I'll discriminate or wear crosses as I damn well please!"
John 11:35

Posted by peterpi - Peter Gross at Sunday, 7 August 2011 at 7:58pm BST

Oh, dear!

What's this? Angela Mason and her equality unit, as I remember, opposed the goods and services regs !!

The press release referred to followed a rather confusing interview from Trevor Phillips who heads up the ECHR, the head of the ECHR's legal department has some strong views expressed there. One detected at the time an attempt to wrong foot Commission members and push forward a certain agenda.

Richard Kirker and LGCM fought a long campaign against the appointment of Trevor Phillips and we didn't think much of Angela Mason either!

Some time later others started to share our concerns and that well known opponent of marriage equality Ben Summerskill (who took over Stonewall from Angela) resigned his seat on the ECHR (2009), the seat then offered to Angela.

All a little incestuous really.........

I would vote for none of the above.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Sunday, 7 August 2011 at 8:08pm BST

Martin, I think each use of ECHR in your posting should read E&HRC. The former is the European Court of Human Rights (a European body) which has never had Trevor Phillips at its head. He heads the Equality and Human Rights Commission (a UK body). An unfortunate similarity in the acronyms :-)

Posted by RPNewark at Monday, 8 August 2011 at 12:41pm BST

Just so PRNewark, thanks, acronyms and my brain don't mix.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Monday, 8 August 2011 at 10:13pm BST
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.