Are you referring to UAF and Hope not hate? I don't doubt it's not black and white (;-))with regards to who starts trouble at these events but why bring that trouble to pride events when it can be easily avoided. I personally am against the UKIP ban because i think UKIP attending wouldn't have been a big deal, at worst there will have been a few boos but no fighting. However EDL are obviously a different case altogether and i believe they should remain banned or business's would pull out and families would stop attending.
I am not saying it is black and white however we know that IN Luton when the Muslim demonstrators could not get at the EDL they attacked the police, we know in several rallies that groups of UAF sought out and attacked the EDL and we know that the UAF have broken thorugh some police cordons en masse and bombarded an EDL rally with missiles, the police of course stopped the rally to avoid trouble. Violence wins again. IF you assess EDL rallies through the Guardian it is unsurprising that you have your doubts. I was not saying the EDL should attend, I was pointing out that violence at EDL rallies is not solely an EDL affair.
Yes, it's not about not noticing whether, for instance, someone is black but not adversely comparing them to an imaginary superior standard of being white.
It's not symmetrical.
There, generally speaking in the West, is no superior standard of being female, black or homosexual which is why these celebrations happen and why anti-discrimination laws exist. They exist against the backdrop of hundreds of years of the white, male heterosexual paradigm as being the standard by which the 'other' is measured. (Which doesn't mean individual acts of discrimination against white people etc don't happen, of course).
Which is why 'white men etc are the most discriminated against sector of society' is something said by either the wilfully ignorant, those that have no understanding of the issues or those who are comfortable with the white etc standard of superiority and find any dilution of the idea of that superiority challenging.
I've seen people on here claiming you're not allowed to criticise a woman without being called a sexist. No, it's about not criticising a woman for some fault of hers personally and blaming it on her gender.
As the Au Pairs said many years ago 'You're Equal But Different. It's Obvious'. You'd think so.
The thing is though that straight white men are a minority in this country. The charge seems to be that they have too much power and that that most of that power should be removed from them as a group. Because they have power it is also best to apply a minority wide badge of privilege to each and every one of them so that they can be actively excluded from furthering their already too strong grip on power. We have seen this type of thing before and we have seen where it leads.
Upon reflection I'm unconvinced that any threat has actually been made. I think it's more likely someone within the organising body doesn't like UKIP and has made this decision using some hypothetical threat of "potential" violence as an excuse.
Either way it's a bad decision that reflects badly on Pride by giving an impression of partisan bias. (IMO).
None of the reports I've met have even mentioned "violence"- "threats" can cover a multitude of sins.
Just as an issue of accuracy, no actual people have been banned. UKIP members, as far as I know, are entirely allowed to take part. The organisation itself is all that's not allowed a presence.
They're welcome as long as they stay in the closet.
Personally I find Ukip utterly beneath contempt and I disagree with them with a passion but I feel that there is something intrinsically wrong in preventing their LGBT members from marching under the umbrella of the party or at least as their gay wing.
I attend many pride events and the worst that would happen is for them to be booed and jeered all around the parade route and any face to face meetings would certainly demonstrate the feelings of everyone there.
Ukip are poles apart from LGBT community but that is not a good enough reason, certainly on this occasion, to stop them as a group participating in the parade.
UKIP are poles apart from LGBT community but that is not a good enough reason, certainly on this occasion, to stop them as a group participating in the parade.
The LGBT "community" shares a political group mind? Like Borg? I learn something new every day.
There was me thinking they were a cross section of ordinary people with the same diversity of political opinion as the wider population.
A diversity it seems that is no longer welcome at Pride.
The LGBT "community" shares a political group mind? Like Borg? I learn something new every day.
There was me thinking they were a cross section of ordinary people with the same diversity of political opinion as the wider population.
A diversity it seems that is no longer welcome at Pride.
You seem to have either deliberately misread my post or have totally missed the point. In general the party are not in tune with the general LGBT population but of course there will be those within the party who do not agree with Ukip on a number of issues.
As for diversity, at no point did I suggest that the community shares the same political beliefs, all the other parties march at pride and are so represented. Ukip should be no different. The point I was making is that Ukip are probably the least in tune with LGBT matters.
Ukip are poles apart from LGBT community but that is not a good enough reason, certainly on this occasion, to stop them as a group participating in the parade.
And you know this how?
Are you implying that all the members of the LGBT community think exactly the same?
Are you implying that all the members of the LGBT community think exactly the same?
Read my post above. I did not say at any stage that everyone thinks the same or has the same views, even within a given political party.
I can only base my opinion on Ukip (as the party, not individual members) on speaking with other gay people, going on LGBT boards and sites, speaking to Ukip supporters, lack of LGBT policies and the nature of any homophobic or not so friendly comments etc made by Ukip representatives aimed at the LGBT.
Women got the vote in 1918 after years of campaigning and fighting for their rights. Yet in 1968 the women workers at Dagenham's Ford Works went on strike to fight for equal pay. They were being paid less than the men working in the same factory despite performing skilled work. Gender inequality was STILL prevalent 50 years after the suffragette movement's significant gains towards achieving women's rights. Today there is STILL inequality in wages - with women on average receiving at least 12% less than men - along with the treatment of men and women in the media remaining unbalanced. Imagine if the attitude in 1918 was, "Right well, you've got what you wanted. Now go away and shut up." It's not been 100 years since women won the right to vote and the fight for true equality is still ongoing.
Gay Pride and the fight for equal representation for people of the LGBT community has barely being going half the time, yet, thanks to the foundations laid down by the women who came before, their movement have made great strides over the last 50 years. But like the suffragettes' success in 1918, the fight isn't suddenly over. Despite things getting better, many LGBT people are still facing abuse from those who remain ignorant and feel the need to attack - either verbally or physically - those whose life doesn't reflect their own. There's still a way to go before there is a truly equal society that doesn't judge or discriminate people for their sexuality. In the same way there is still a way to go before women are truly on the same platform as men with equal pay and not being subjects of open misogyny.
UKIP, as a party, propose the policy that discrimination towards the LGBT community should be permissible - PERMISSIBLE - for certain groups of people. How is that either fair or equal? How is that condusive with Gay Pride? How can they possibly equate an official presence at the parade with that party policy? This is a party who also either voted against or abstained from the vote on a law seeking equal pay for women at the European Parliament.
Gender and sexuality are not choices people make, however political persuasions are. Supporters of a party that promotes discrimination, whether explicitly or implicitly, towards the LGBT community and the party itself cannot in all sensibility bemoan that their official representation has been withdrawn from the event. Members can attend individually if they so wish, but UKIP as an organisation appearing at Gay Pride would be like having Thatcher at a miners' rally.
UKIP, as a party, propose the policy that discrimination towards the LGBT community should be permissible - PERMISSIBLE - for certain groups of people. How is that either fair or equal? How is that condusive with Gay Pride? How can they possibly equate an official presence at the parade with that party policy? This is a party who also either voted against or abstained from the vote on a law seeking equal pay for women at the European Parliament.
Gender and sexuality are not choices people make, however political persuasions are. Supporters of a party that promotes discrimination, whether explicitly or implicitly, towards the LGBT community and the party itself cannot in all sensibility bemoan that their official representation has been withdrawn from the event. Members can attend individually if they so wish, but UKIP as an organisation appearing at Gay Pride would be like having Thatcher at a miners' rally.
The modern enthusiasm for minority rights can easily create impossible situations.
Consider an employer who encourages the staff to cycle to work and provides showers for cyclists. One of the male employees declares that he is going to change sex, and demands the right to use the female showers...and all the other women protest that it should only happen after the surgery.
The PC approach is to pass more and more laws, and let judges decide what should happen...at enormous expense. UKIP is more inclined to encourage people to sort out these problems themselves. It is not a policy of promoting discrimination, but a policy of giving people freedom.
The modern enthusiasm for minority rights can easily create impossible situations.
Well, it occasionally causes difficulty for those who want to discriminate. Otherwise there are rarely any problems with equality legislation.
Consider an employer who encourages the staff to cycle to work and provides showers for cyclists. One of the male employees declares that he is going to change sex, and demands the right to use the female showers...and all the other women protest that it should only happen after the surgery.
The PC approach is to pass more and more laws, and let judges decide what should happen...at enormous expense. UKIP is more inclined to encourage people to sort out these problems themselves. It is not a policy of promoting discrimination, but a policy of giving people freedom.
OK, so it's a policy of allowing discrimination. Doesn't make much difference to those discriminated against! And there's really no need to drag supposed "PC" into this.
The modern enthusiasm for minority rights can easily create impossible situations.
Consider an employer who encourages the staff to cycle to work and provides showers for cyclists. One of the male employees declares that he is going to change sex, and demands the right to use the female showers...and all the other women protest that it should only happen after the surgery.
The PC approach is to pass more and more laws, and let judges decide what should happen...at enormous expense. UKIP is more inclined to encourage people to sort out these problems themselves. It is not a policy of promoting discrimination, but a policy of giving people freedom.
BIB - If this is the case then UKIP and their supporters should be perfectly happy for Gay Pride to have withdrawn their official presence on the day. It's the organisers' decision and that's their right. However, they are instead calling it discrimination against them.
So are they really after giving freedom for all or just seeking freedom to practice their own prejudices?
Women got the vote in 1918 after years of campaigning and fighting for their rights. Yet in 1968 the women workers at Dagenham's Ford Works went on strike to fight for equal pay. They were being paid less than the men working in the same factory despite performing skilled work. Gender inequality was STILL prevalent 50 years after the suffragette movement's significant gains towards achieving women's rights. Today there is STILL inequality in wages - with women on average receiving at least 12% less than men - along with the treatment of men and women in the media remaining unbalanced. Imagine if the attitude in 1918 was, "Right well, you've got what you wanted. Now go away and shut up." It's not been 100 years since women won the right to vote and the fight for true equality is still ongoing.
Gay Pride and the fight for equal representation for people of the LGBT community has barely being going half the time, yet, thanks to the foundations laid down by the women who came before, their movement have made great strides over the last 50 years. But like the suffragettes' success in 1918, the fight isn't suddenly over. Despite things getting better, many LGBT people are still facing abuse from those who remain ignorant and feel the need to attack - either verbally or physically - those whose life doesn't reflect their own. There's still a way to go before there is a truly equal society that doesn't judge or discriminate people for their sexuality. In the same way there is still a way to go before women are truly on the same platform as men with equal pay and not being subjects of open misogyny.
UKIP, as a party, propose the policy that discrimination towards the LGBT community should be permissible - PERMISSIBLE - for certain groups of people. How is that either fair or equal? How is that condusive with Gay Pride? How can they possibly equate an official presence at the parade with that party policy? This is a party who also either voted against or abstained from the vote on a law seeking equal pay for women at the European Parliament.
Gender and sexuality are not choices people make, however political persuasions are. Supporters of a party that promotes discrimination, whether explicitly or implicitly, towards the LGBT community and the party itself cannot in all sensibility bemoan that their official representation has been withdrawn from the event. Members can attend individually if they so wish, but UKIP as an organisation appearing at Gay Pride would be like having Thatcher at a miners' rally.
Very good re-righting of history to exclude the many men who funded, supported and fought alongside women suffragettes et al. If we are to exclude supporters from organisations which are misogynist and homophobic why are Catholic and Islamic groups represented. Perhaps you should revise your argument based on facts and not prejudice.
Very good re-righting of history to exclude the many men who funded, supported and fought alongside women suffragettes et al. If we are to exclude supporters from organisations which are misogynist and homophobic why are Catholic and Islamic groups represented. Perhaps you should revise your argument based on facts and not prejudice.
Where did I say men did not support the suffragette movement or the female workers of Fords? I was just talking about the actual basis of the movement itself and the strike. There are other sources to go to for the full story of the women's rights movement over the last 150 years, but I thought it best to go for the snapshot approach for the sake of some brevity.
Is Catholicism or Islam a political party seeking legislation to legalise a specialised form of prejudice in law? No. It's LGBT members of those groups, and other faiths, who are bringing peaceful changes in attitude to those within those religions though their participation in such Gay Pride events. It's something that's ongoing and still making progress.
UKIP's policy of justified discrimination is a backward step and doesn't marry with the general message of Gay Pride. As such, an official presence would garner a negative response - not necessarily violent, by the way - which the organisers will have been keen to limit as much as possible. This is why UKIP have been denied a place on the day. Yet again, individual members and supporters of UKIP are free to attend on the day, just not in official association.
Women got the vote in 1918 after years of campaigning and fighting for their rights. Yet in 1968 the women workers at Dagenham's Ford Works went on strike to fight for equal pay. They were being paid less than the men working in the same factory despite performing skilled work. Gender inequality was STILL prevalent 50 years after the suffragette movement's significant gains towards achieving women's rights. Today there is STILL inequality in wages - with women on average receiving at least 12% less than men - along with the treatment of men and women in the media remaining unbalanced. Imagine if the attitude in 1918 was, "Right well, you've got what you wanted. Now go away and shut up." It's not been 100 years since women won the right to vote and the fight for true equality is still ongoing.
Gay Pride and the fight for equal representation for people of the LGBT community has barely being going half the time, yet, thanks to the foundations laid down by the women who came before, their movement have made great strides over the last 50 years. But like the suffragettes' success in 1918, the fight isn't suddenly over. Despite things getting better, many LGBT people are still facing abuse from those who remain ignorant and feel the need to attack - either verbally or physically - those whose life doesn't reflect their own. There's still a way to go before there is a truly equal society that doesn't judge or discriminate people for their sexuality. In the same way there is still a way to go before women are truly on the same platform as men with equal pay and not being subjects of open misogyny.
UKIP, as a party, propose the policy that discrimination towards the LGBT community should be permissible - PERMISSIBLE - for certain groups of people. How is that either fair or equal? How is that condusive with Gay Pride? How can they possibly equate an official presence at the parade with that party policy? This is a party who also either voted against or abstained from the vote on a law seeking equal pay for women at the European Parliament.
Gender and sexuality are not choices people make, however political persuasions are. Supporters of a party that promotes discrimination, whether explicitly or implicitly, towards the LGBT community and the party itself cannot in all sensibility bemoan that their official representation has been withdrawn from the event. Members can attend individually if they so wish, but UKIP as an organisation appearing at Gay Pride would be like having Thatcher at a miners' rally.
Uncomfortable as it may be the right to hold a religious belief, or not to hold a religious belief or any belief, and not be discriminated against for holding that belief is as much a protected characteristic as sexual orientation. What you seem to wish is that religious belief be excluded from this protection in law. Also gay pride I understand is a charity so is subject to the Equality laws and the only exemption that I can see is as regards its limitations as to who it is intended to benefit. In all other respects it has to extend equality to all other people. It is excluding people, who it is intended to help, on the basis of their belief, or support for others who hold a belief, which certainly seems on the face of it to be contrary to the law.
Uncomfortable as it may be the right to hold a religious belief, or not to hold a religious belief or any belief, and not be discriminated against for holding that belief is as much a protected characteristic as sexual orientation. What you seem to wish is that religious belief be excluded from this protection in law. Also gay pride I understand is a charity so is subject to the Equality laws and the only exemption that I can see is as regards its limitations as to who it is intended to benefit. In all other respects it has to extend equality to all other people. It is excluding people, who it is intended to help, on the basis of their belief, or support for others who hold a belief, which certainly seems on the face of it to be contrary to the law.
So someone of a religious faith, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed by law to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their non-hetrosexual orientation?
So someone of non-hetrosexual orientation, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their religion or faith?
So someone heterosexual, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their non-hetrosexual orientation?
So someone of no religion or faith, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their religion or faith?
So someone from a white background, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their non-white skin?
So someone from an ethnic background, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their white skin?
So a man, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but them being a woman?
So a woman,working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but them being a man?
So someone under 30 years old, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but them being over 50?
So someone over 50 years old, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but them being under 30?
So someone of a religious faith, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed by law to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their sexual orientation?
So someone of non-hetrosexual orientation, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their religion or faith?
So someone heterosexual, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their non-hetrosexual orientation?
So someone of no religion or faith, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their religion or faith?
So someone from a white background, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their non-white skin?
So someone from an ethnic background, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their white skin?
So a man, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but them being a woman?
So a woman,working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but them being a man?
So someone under 30 years old, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but them being over 50?
So someone over 50 years old, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but them being under 30?
Equality, eh?
I never said any of that and it is a complete irrelevance to the point I made. Whether or not you agree with what you believe a view entails is of no consequence, people are allowed to hold views without discrimination. Is not that the nature of the law that you do not discriminate because of what you believe about the other person and their protected characteristsic.
AS regards discrimination then Pharmacists can refuse service already, checkout personnel can refuse service. They have to indicate or provide alternatives but they can exempt themselves from providing that service.
One party that has many gay members and supporters, is legally constituted in the UK, has an MP, is the largest UK group of MEPs and has recently received over 12% of the National vote in a general election.
and it's one party that has a history of opposing gay rights and the only mainstream party whose policy was to oppose marriage equality. I wouldn't ban them but understandably if they were on the march there wouldn't be much love for them, to put it mildly. A party can't campaign against gay rights for years and then expect to be welcomed with open arms at a gay rights event.
I never said any of that and it is a complete irrelevance to the point I made. Whether or not you agree with what you believe a view entails is of no consequence, people are allowed to hold views without discrimination. Is not that the nature of the law that you do not discriminate because of what you believe about the other person and their protected characteristsic.
AS regards discrimination then Pharmacists can refuse service already, checkout personnel can refuse service. They have to indicate or provide alternatives but they can exempt themselves from providing that service.
My point is, if you bend the rules for one then why not bend the rules on the others? Why should one group have the privilege of discrimination over another? That's what UKIP are proposing and why they would face a negative reaction at an event such as Gay Pride.
I didn't say people couldn't hold whatever beliefs they have but that they shouldn't use those beliefs to adversely effect others by practising such discrimination on those grounds.
What pharmacists refuse service based on gender, sexual orientation, religious faith or ethnic background?
Giving in to the demands of a violent minority is never a good idea, It only leads to more demands. Would Muslim (or Christian) gays be excluded because there are vocal and violent elements within their faith? I think not.
.
Well gay Catholics and their support groups have been present on the march for decades but believe me official representatives of the Vatican would certainly be excluded from a Pride event because the Vatican does not believe in the very concept of Gay Pride. Does UKIP as a political party? Some of its members might but as a political entity the message has been loud and clear that UKIP is not a supporter of Gay Pride ..or gay anything else as far as I can see. But let UKIP march... I'd like to hear them defend their party's lamentable track record on gay issues.
and it's one party that has a history of opposing gay rights and the only mainstream party whose policy was to oppose marriage equality. I wouldn't ban them but understandably if they were on the march there wouldn't be much love for them, to put it mildly. A party can't campaign against gay rights for years and then expect to be welcomed with open arms at a gay rights event.
Andrew Pierce is a gay man in a civil partnership and in my recollection he opposed 'marriage equality'. You seem to think disagreeing with a specific take on 'equality' is somehow against rights. As far as I am aware the Pride event is supposed to be about inclusion and not specifically about what the determined rights are because most people have differing views.
Well gay Catholics and their support groups have been present on the march for decades but believe me official representatives of the Vatican would certainly be excluded from a Pride event because the Vatican does not believe in the very concept of Gay Pride. Does UKIP as a political party? Some of its members might but as a political entity the message has been loud and clear that UKIP is not a supporter of Gay Pride ..or gay anything else as far as I can see. But let UKIP march... I'd like to hear them defend their party's lamentable track record on gay issues.
It is possible it would be unlawful to exclude them if they asked to march in support of the charity registered as Pride. Especially if that exclusion was on the basis of belief.
Comments
I am not saying it is black and white however we know that IN Luton when the Muslim demonstrators could not get at the EDL they attacked the police, we know in several rallies that groups of UAF sought out and attacked the EDL and we know that the UAF have broken thorugh some police cordons en masse and bombarded an EDL rally with missiles, the police of course stopped the rally to avoid trouble. Violence wins again. IF you assess EDL rallies through the Guardian it is unsurprising that you have your doubts. I was not saying the EDL should attend, I was pointing out that violence at EDL rallies is not solely an EDL affair.
The thing is though that straight white men are a minority in this country. The charge seems to be that they have too much power and that that most of that power should be removed from them as a group. Because they have power it is also best to apply a minority wide badge of privilege to each and every one of them so that they can be actively excluded from furthering their already too strong grip on power. We have seen this type of thing before and we have seen where it leads.
None of the reports I've met have even mentioned "violence"- "threats" can cover a multitude of sins.
They're welcome as long as they stay in the closet.
I attend many pride events and the worst that would happen is for them to be booed and jeered all around the parade route and any face to face meetings would certainly demonstrate the feelings of everyone there.
Ukip are poles apart from LGBT community but that is not a good enough reason, certainly on this occasion, to stop them as a group participating in the parade.
The LGBT "community" shares a political group mind? Like Borg? I learn something new every day.
There was me thinking they were a cross section of ordinary people with the same diversity of political opinion as the wider population.
A diversity it seems that is no longer welcome at Pride.
You seem to have either deliberately misread my post or have totally missed the point. In general the party are not in tune with the general LGBT population but of course there will be those within the party who do not agree with Ukip on a number of issues.
As for diversity, at no point did I suggest that the community shares the same political beliefs, all the other parties march at pride and are so represented. Ukip should be no different. The point I was making is that Ukip are probably the least in tune with LGBT matters.
And you know this how?
Are you implying that all the members of the LGBT community think exactly the same?
Read my post above. I did not say at any stage that everyone thinks the same or has the same views, even within a given political party.
I can only base my opinion on Ukip (as the party, not individual members) on speaking with other gay people, going on LGBT boards and sites, speaking to Ukip supporters, lack of LGBT policies and the nature of any homophobic or not so friendly comments etc made by Ukip representatives aimed at the LGBT.
Gay Pride and the fight for equal representation for people of the LGBT community has barely being going half the time, yet, thanks to the foundations laid down by the women who came before, their movement have made great strides over the last 50 years. But like the suffragettes' success in 1918, the fight isn't suddenly over. Despite things getting better, many LGBT people are still facing abuse from those who remain ignorant and feel the need to attack - either verbally or physically - those whose life doesn't reflect their own. There's still a way to go before there is a truly equal society that doesn't judge or discriminate people for their sexuality. In the same way there is still a way to go before women are truly on the same platform as men with equal pay and not being subjects of open misogyny.
UKIP, as a party, propose the policy that discrimination towards the LGBT community should be permissible - PERMISSIBLE - for certain groups of people. How is that either fair or equal? How is that condusive with Gay Pride? How can they possibly equate an official presence at the parade with that party policy? This is a party who also either voted against or abstained from the vote on a law seeking equal pay for women at the European Parliament.
Gender and sexuality are not choices people make, however political persuasions are. Supporters of a party that promotes discrimination, whether explicitly or implicitly, towards the LGBT community and the party itself cannot in all sensibility bemoan that their official representation has been withdrawn from the event. Members can attend individually if they so wish, but UKIP as an organisation appearing at Gay Pride would be like having Thatcher at a miners' rally.
The modern enthusiasm for minority rights can easily create impossible situations.
Consider an employer who encourages the staff to cycle to work and provides showers for cyclists. One of the male employees declares that he is going to change sex, and demands the right to use the female showers...and all the other women protest that it should only happen after the surgery.
The PC approach is to pass more and more laws, and let judges decide what should happen...at enormous expense. UKIP is more inclined to encourage people to sort out these problems themselves. It is not a policy of promoting discrimination, but a policy of giving people freedom.
OK, so it's a policy of allowing discrimination. Doesn't make much difference to those discriminated against! And there's really no need to drag supposed "PC" into this.
BIB - If this is the case then UKIP and their supporters should be perfectly happy for Gay Pride to have withdrawn their official presence on the day. It's the organisers' decision and that's their right. However, they are instead calling it discrimination against them.
So are they really after giving freedom for all or just seeking freedom to practice their own prejudices?
Very good re-righting of history to exclude the many men who funded, supported and fought alongside women suffragettes et al. If we are to exclude supporters from organisations which are misogynist and homophobic why are Catholic and Islamic groups represented. Perhaps you should revise your argument based on facts and not prejudice.
Where did I say men did not support the suffragette movement or the female workers of Fords? I was just talking about the actual basis of the movement itself and the strike. There are other sources to go to for the full story of the women's rights movement over the last 150 years, but I thought it best to go for the snapshot approach for the sake of some brevity.
Is Catholicism or Islam a political party seeking legislation to legalise a specialised form of prejudice in law? No. It's LGBT members of those groups, and other faiths, who are bringing peaceful changes in attitude to those within those religions though their participation in such Gay Pride events. It's something that's ongoing and still making progress.
UKIP's policy of justified discrimination is a backward step and doesn't marry with the general message of Gay Pride. As such, an official presence would garner a negative response - not necessarily violent, by the way - which the organisers will have been keen to limit as much as possible. This is why UKIP have been denied a place on the day. Yet again, individual members and supporters of UKIP are free to attend on the day, just not in official association.
Uncomfortable as it may be the right to hold a religious belief, or not to hold a religious belief or any belief, and not be discriminated against for holding that belief is as much a protected characteristic as sexual orientation. What you seem to wish is that religious belief be excluded from this protection in law. Also gay pride I understand is a charity so is subject to the Equality laws and the only exemption that I can see is as regards its limitations as to who it is intended to benefit. In all other respects it has to extend equality to all other people. It is excluding people, who it is intended to help, on the basis of their belief, or support for others who hold a belief, which certainly seems on the face of it to be contrary to the law.
So someone of a religious faith, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed by law to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their non-hetrosexual orientation?
So someone of non-hetrosexual orientation, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their religion or faith?
So someone heterosexual, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their non-hetrosexual orientation?
So someone of no religion or faith, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their religion or faith?
So someone from a white background, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their non-white skin?
So someone from an ethnic background, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but their white skin?
So a man, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but them being a woman?
So a woman,working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but them being a man?
So someone under 30 years old, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but them being over 50?
So someone over 50 years old, working in a business or industry that involves providing a service to the general public, should be allowed to refuse to serve someone based on nothing else but them being under 30?
Equality, eh?
I never said any of that and it is a complete irrelevance to the point I made. Whether or not you agree with what you believe a view entails is of no consequence, people are allowed to hold views without discrimination. Is not that the nature of the law that you do not discriminate because of what you believe about the other person and their protected characteristsic.
AS regards discrimination then Pharmacists can refuse service already, checkout personnel can refuse service. They have to indicate or provide alternatives but they can exempt themselves from providing that service.
and it's one party that has a history of opposing gay rights and the only mainstream party whose policy was to oppose marriage equality. I wouldn't ban them but understandably if they were on the march there wouldn't be much love for them, to put it mildly. A party can't campaign against gay rights for years and then expect to be welcomed with open arms at a gay rights event.
My point is, if you bend the rules for one then why not bend the rules on the others? Why should one group have the privilege of discrimination over another? That's what UKIP are proposing and why they would face a negative reaction at an event such as Gay Pride.
I didn't say people couldn't hold whatever beliefs they have but that they shouldn't use those beliefs to adversely effect others by practising such discrimination on those grounds.
What pharmacists refuse service based on gender, sexual orientation, religious faith or ethnic background?
Well gay Catholics and their support groups have been present on the march for decades but believe me official representatives of the Vatican would certainly be excluded from a Pride event because the Vatican does not believe in the very concept of Gay Pride. Does UKIP as a political party? Some of its members might but as a political entity the message has been loud and clear that UKIP is not a supporter of Gay Pride ..or gay anything else as far as I can see. But let UKIP march... I'd like to hear them defend their party's lamentable track record on gay issues.
Andrew Pierce is a gay man in a civil partnership and in my recollection he opposed 'marriage equality'. You seem to think disagreeing with a specific take on 'equality' is somehow against rights. As far as I am aware the Pride event is supposed to be about inclusion and not specifically about what the determined rights are because most people have differing views.
It is possible it would be unlawful to exclude them if they asked to march in support of the charity registered as Pride. Especially if that exclusion was on the basis of belief.
Oh excuse me...in my humble opinion.
Well to be honest I find him quite personable but the point being of course that there are diffferent views within the gay community