RELIGIOUS groups staging a torchlit protest against new laws to protect gays were accused today of homophobia and a "deeply disturbing" agenda against homosexuals.
Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, of the group
OutRage!,
said a demonstration outside the Palace of Westminster against the Sexual Orientation Regulations was the result of "scaremongering, lies and hypocrisy".
The
Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement
added that every one of the objections raised had been answered and accused the demonstrators of pursuing a "deeply disturbing" agenda against gay men and women.
The legislation, already in force in Northern Ireland, would ban discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation in a similar way to the rules on sex and race discrimination.
Christians, Muslims and Jewish groups have protested that the laws will force them to "actively condone and promote" gay sex.
But Mr Tatchell said: "They have a highly selective and overtly homophobic interpretation of biblical morality.
"If there are going to be laws against discrimination, they should apply equally to everyone.
Discrimination
"It is wrong to give legal protection against some forms of discrimination but not against others.
"Last year's Equality Act gave full legal protection against discrimination to people of faith.
"Some religious leaders are now demanding that the protection they have secured for themselves should be denied to lesbians and gays.
"It is hypocrisy and double standards. They want the law to give them privileged protection and for gay people to be treated as second-class citizens.
"If anyone was demanding the legal right to discriminate against Christians, these zealots would be outraged. Yet they want the right to discriminate against gays. They are two-faced homophobes."
The Rev Martin Reynolds, communications director for the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, said: "They are setting up straw dogs that they already know do not exist. They have received assurances about the points they have raised. There is a deeply disturbing agenda running in this."
Hotels
The regulations would mean that hotels could be prosecuted for refusing to provide rooms for gay couples and parishes obliged to rent out halls for gay "wedding" receptions.
Equally, gay bars would not be able to ban straight couples.
Catholic adoption agencies have said they fear they may be forced to allow gay couples to adopt.
Some black churches have also added their voices to the protest, saying pastors and churchgoers would go to jail rather than accept rules that would mean they had to open their meeting halls to gay lobby groups.
A petition signed by 10,000 Christians will be handed to the Queen asking her to use her "position and power" to stop the Government introducing the laws.
ARE you for or against the new protective laws for gay and lesbian people? Have your say.
Tweet
Showing comments 1 to 25 and replies | View All
Elaine, Manchester (09/01/2007 at 12:44)
Being gay does not make a person a pervert! Rather a loving home with same sex parents than some homes where abusive fathers absolve themselves in their church regularly.
E, Manchester (09/01/2007 at 12:45)
Chris, Oxfordshire (09/01/2007 at 12:57)
The whole tone of the article is that the Christian groups are wrong.
Hardly objective reporting.
elizabeth putbrace, bury st edmunds (09/01/2007 at 13:01)
but why would any church want a gay meeting in the same hall as a youth meeting for example and we really should be allowed to excersise our right of choice this is taking away one groups freedom to give to another one.
Mary Biphwachs, Whitefield, (09/01/2007 at 13:06)
Let us face facts now the politicians could brazenly condemm this type of immorality but they do not.
Mr Major was right we need to get back to basics before its too late.
Tiger, Town (09/01/2007 at 13:10)
What about a gay youth meeting? Young people are gay too, you know. If the church was serious about looking after it's flock, it wouldn't turn it's gay children away now would it?
E Forsyth, Scotland (09/01/2007 at 13:16)
openminded, in thought (09/01/2007 at 13:18)
And to the first poster, should there be services denied to those who practice heterosexual anal sex (at least, that's what I think you are attempting to describe in your quaint euphemistic language...)? I think you'll find that there's a lot of it about, but IT SHOULDN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT PEOPLE DO IN BED!!!!
Anthony, London (09/01/2007 at 13:52)
Laugh Out Loud, Budapest (09/01/2007 at 14:31)
Danny, Manchester (09/01/2007 at 14:40)
B K, London (09/01/2007 at 14:53)
David, London (09/01/2007 at 15:30)
markyboy, manchester (09/01/2007 at 15:42)
i agree with the other poster that having read the article it is so biased in favour of gays, where is the MEN's attempt for the christian's response?.
why should gays be given special treatment?, and why give a voice to the rantings of tatchell yet again?.
what about the rights of straight god fearing christians??, oops sorry we do not count do we?.
Mikey, Bristol (Ex Salfordian) (09/01/2007 at 16:05)
Tom, Manchester (09/01/2007 at 16:09)
Simon Gower, Somerset, UK (09/01/2007 at 18:18)
Quite why people who believe something that cannot even be founded in reason or logic which is quite unnatural demanding that people who are of a certain sexual preference through nature itself should be treated any differently to anyone else should even be considered or MENTIONED is - quite frankly - laughable.
Charisse, New York (09/01/2007 at 20:55)
Jacob, Stockport (09/01/2007 at 21:50)
This is not an issue of "gay versus straight", it is an issue of a small number of fanatics opposing a perfectly sensible law.
As for Tatchell's "rant" as some ignorant people have branded it, I think it is lazy on the part of the general press that Tatchell seems to be the only gay rights campaigner they turn to for comments. There are many others out there with different views who should be given a say, Ben Summerskill of Stonewall for example, isn't heard from nearly as much.
The act is not demanding that any perrson who dislikes homosexuality must change their views or face prison, in this country you have a right to believe whatever you choose. However, homosexuals are a protected group just like ethnic and religious groups are. As such, they should not be denied equal treatment in terms of goods and services. If one is uncomfortable providing a service to homosexuals, then one should not work in the service industry. There are people who would rather not serve a black person, but they would receive little sympathy from the general public. In a reasonable society, the same response would greet a homophobe.
A person's sexual practise is their own business, does no harm to anyone else and in a free society, there should be no disparity in rights between a person who has relations with the same sex or a person who has relations with the opposite sex.
ex mancunian, australia (10/01/2007 at 00:10)
Whenever the subject of homosexuality is debated, if one can call it debate, those against these unnatural sexual practices are shouted down by a very vocal minority.
Homosexual views & the views of their supporters are aired with much more vigour than opposite views on the subject.
Society today abounds with many so called celebrities
'coming out of the closet'. They promote their lifestyle as natural & desirable. It is neither & I can assure you that to most people, whether they be religious or not, it is totally undesireable.
Mary Biphwachs, Whitefield (10/01/2007 at 00:34)
ged, Salford6 (10/01/2007 at 00:52)
Anthony, London (10/01/2007 at 01:32)
If I cannot discriminate against a Christian on the basis of their faith, then why should a Christian be able to discriminate against me because of my sexual orientation? They should not, pure and simple!
â€oeBut the bible says homosexuality is an abomination!†(Leviticus 18:22) The bible also says that slavery is permissable (Exodus 21:7), that those found working on the Sabbath should be put to death (Exodus 35:2), that people can be stoned or otherwise put to death for planting different crops side by side or for wearing garments made from two different threads.
For all I know, the bible represents the best wisdom of its age, an age where a growing village population meant the difference between the life and death of your tribe. But when was the last time you saw someone murdered for working on a Sunday or for wearing a garment purchased in NEXT?
Point proved, QED - Christians obviously donâ€TMt take the bible literally!
The world has moved on, so have societyâ€TMs values â€" get used to it! But please keep protesting, keep demanding your right to bigotry and to discrimination, because the more you protest, the clearer it is that your beliefs are utterly irrelevant in a modern, equal, society.
Mike, Manchester (10/01/2007 at 10:39)
The law merely provides that it is wrong to put a sign up in a guest house saying "no gays". It's been illegal since the 1970s to put a sign up saying "no blacks", "no Catholics", or "no Protestants". Therefore people who are campaigning against this legislation seem to me merely to be campaigning for the right to harass and discriminate. How very Christian.
Bilbo, The Real World (10/01/2007 at 11:09)