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.
Andrew Pierce!? That an awful Daily Mail gay Uncle Tom ... I look forward to the inevitable day when he on the quiet converts his civil partnership into a full marriage hoping no-one remembers his crusade against marriage equality. The Pride event is not about welcoming opponents of gay equality. Surely that does not need explaining. The marriage debate globally is a litmus test for gay rights whether the likes of gay Daily Mail journalists agree with it or not. And the history books will record it as such.
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.
I hope I live to see the day when the Vatican sues Gay Pride for their right to march along side everyone else! Then we will know the struggle is finally over:)
I hope I live to see the day when the Vatican sues Gay Pride for their right to march along side everyone else! Then we will know the struggle is finally over:)
The point is the same. If you actively sought to exclude them for their belief it may be illegal, after all equality laws are there to protect us all, or at least that is how they are presented.
Andrew Pierce!? That an awful Daily Mail gay Uncle Tom ... I look forward to the inevitable day when he on the quiet converts his civil partnership into a full marriage hoping no-one remembers his crusade against marriage equality. The Pride event is not about welcoming opponents of gay equality. Surely that does not need explaining. The marriage debate globally is a litmus test for gay rights whether the likes of gay Daily Mail journalists agree with it or not. And the history books will record it as such.
The marriage debate has become a litmus test for some that neither means it is the holy grail of equality or in fact is equal in itself as it raises issues on various levels and I am sure it is not over. Your Uncle Tom comment certainly indicates the intransigence of many who hold that their view of equality is the only view and that if you are not with us you are against us attitude that is not the one of tolerance that is supposed to be the reason that Pride exists in the first place, is it not?
But if he wasn't gay, Andrew Pierce would still be an odious little f*ckwit.
That is as maybe but because he is gay his opinion is relevant to any gay issue, the difference I suppose is that he cannot be silenced with the cries of homophobe which is the usual tactic.
That is as maybe but because he is gay his opinion is relevant to any gay issue, the difference I suppose is that he cannot be silenced with the cries of homophobe which is the usual tactic.
I'm a woman.
Katie Hopkins is a woman.
Does that mean her opinion is automatically relevant to me and all other women?
Does that mean her opinion is automatically relevant to me and all other women?
I can assure you it doesn't.
Of course it does not but if you are using equality as an issue then her opinion of how that equality is represented is of equal value as yours and even if she is a minority in her opinion then it is still relevant as that is the nature of tolerance, diversity and equality. The point about women's rights, gay rights, human rights they exist and belong to every individual irrespective of how much any other person may disagree and irrespective of whether or not they are odious. The Pride march as I understand it is an inclusive march as a celebration of gay rights, what those actual rights are are a matter of opinion, open to interpretation and are by no means fixed in stone otherwise it is the majority dictating to the minority what is right and what is wrong which is exactly what Pride is meant to be against.
Of course it does not but if you are using equality as an issue then her opinion of how that equality is represented is of equal value as yours and even if she is a minority in her opinion then it is still relevant as that is the nature of tolerance, diversity and equality. The point about women's rights, gay rights, human rights they exist and belong to every individual irrespective of how much any other person may disagree and irrespective of whether or not they are odious. The Pride march as I understand it is an inclusive march as a celebration of gay rights, what those actual rights are are a matter of opinion, open to interpretation and are by no means fixed in stone otherwise it is the majority dictating to the minority what is right and what is wrong which is exactly what Pride is meant to be against.
If you think Katie Hopkins is relevant on any level then we have reached an impasse.
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.
I'm pretty sure that protection only applies to religious beliefs, except in N. Ireland.
I am by no means a fan of Ukip but this decision to ban them from Pride was shameful. Kippers have just as much right to celebrate Pride as anybody else. Who on earth is Peter Tatchell to tell them they are basically the 'wrong kind' of gays?
I am by no means a fan of Ukip but this decision to ban them from Pride was shameful. Kippers have just as much right to celebrate Pride as anybody else. Who on earth is Peter Tatchell to tell them they are basically the 'wrong kind' of gays?
The question remains: given that UKIP opposes gay equality, why would their members wish to take part in a march for gay equality? Only they can answer that, one assumes. But being gay and a UKIP member doesn't promise much for their sense of logic.
"Turkeys voting for Christmas" sums it up perfectly.
The question remains: given that UKIP opposes gay equality, why would their members wish to take part in a march for gay equality? Only they can answer that, one assumes. But being gay and a UKIP member doesn't promise much for their sense of logic.
"Turkeys voting for Christmas" sums it up perfectly.
They're probably gay people who want to leave Europe and have lower immigration levels.
You have to weigh up what's important you you. There's an argument to be made that Labour's mass immigration from hugely homophobic Islamic countries was unhelpful to the gay cause and could've done real damage in the long run. It's something I've been concerned about myself, but I still voted for them this year as I liked most of their policies in other areas.
I am by no means a fan of Ukip but this decision to ban them from Pride was shameful. Kippers have just as much right to celebrate Pride as anybody else. Who on earth is Peter Tatchell to tell them they are basically the 'wrong kind' of gays?
The question remains: given that UKIP opposes gay equality, why would their members wish to take part in a march for gay equality?
For much the same reason that there were LGB Tory groups on Pride marches when the main party was against equality, I expect (not that I necessarily expect the UKIP leadership's views to change).
And as I predicted further up the thread, the fact that UKIP joined the march anyway means they've got even more publicity than they would have done if they had just been allowed to join officially.
For much the same reason that there were LGB Tory groups on Pride marches when the main party was against equality, I expect (not that I necessarily expect the UKIP leadership's views to change).
And as I predicted further up the thread, the fact that UKIP joined the march anyway means they've got even more publicity than they would have done if they had just been allowed to join officially.
I was never in favour of banning them but I can't help but think that a main reason (perhaps even the chief reason) for them turning up was to provoke a reaction in people they oppose politically. After all, UKIP's been around for years and they've never shown any interest in Pride before.
I was never in favour of banning them but I can't help but think that a main reason (perhaps even the chief reason) for them turning up was to provoke a reaction in people they oppose politically. After all, UKIP's been around for years and they've never shown any interest in Pride before.
Perhaps they should just disappear and hide and not shove their views or lifestyles down other people's throats.
Wasn't that what a lot of people used to say about gay people and pride matches?
If you are about inclusivity then you should rise above it and let them march - if other people want to make a fuss the gay UKIP contingent and verbally attack them maybe they should be the ones banned?
The question remains: given that UKIP opposes gay equality, why would their members wish to take part in a march for gay equality? Only they can answer that, one assumes. But being gay and a UKIP member doesn't promise much for their sense of logic.
"Turkeys voting for Christmas" sums it up perfectly.
Do they oppose gay equality? Gay equality is surely not an opinion fixed in stone it means different things to different people. Just as racial equality means different things to different people.
I believe Peter Tatchell was bothered that the UKIP supporters contingent had barged into the parade in such a way that they blocked another group's presence with their placards. Not so much that they turned up at all. They weren't confronted on the spot and were left to go on as no-one wished to take away from the generally good atmosphere of the event.
Do they oppose gay equality? Gay equality is surely not an opinion fixed in stone it means different things to different people. Just as racial equality means different things to different people.
UKIP propose legally protected discrimination towards gay people by selective groups, so yes they do oppose equality.
Do they oppose gay equality? Gay equality is surely not an opinion fixed in stone it means different things to different people. Just as racial equality means different things to different people.
As a quick google search will show UKIP have repeatedly opposed gay equality as their voting record in the European parliament and positions at home show. The chairman of the party's own LGBT group Tom Brooker quit the party because its leaders weren't 'gay friendly'. And that's before we even get on to UKIP's history on marriage equality.
I believe Peter Tatchell was bothered that the UKIP supporters contingent had barged into the parade in such a way that they blocked another group's presence with their placards. Not so much that they turned up at all. They weren't confronted on the spot and were left to go on as no-one wished to take away from the generally good atmosphere of the event.
UKIP propose legally protected discrimination towards gay people by selective groups, so yes they do oppose equality.
BIB - Would you mind explaining that further?
WE already have legally protected discrimination allowed by Pharmacists and at supermarket tills. Equality means that allowable discrimination is extended to all and the likes of Chaps hotel in Blackpool advertising for gay men only or the company that advertise that they supply 'hand picked' staff only for private gay events. I have no issue with that but fair dos for those who wish something else.
To some race equality means equal representation, to others it means having equal opportunities. The former requires racial discrimination to achieve.
As a quick google search will show UKIP have repeatedly opposed gay equality as their voting record in the European parliament and positions at home show. The chairman of the party's own LGBT group Tom Brooker quit the party because its leaders weren't 'gay friendly'. And that's before we even get on to UKIP's history on marriage equality.
They have possibly opposed your concept of gay equality which does not of necessity mean they have opposed gay equality. The 'marriage equality' issue has arguments that mean that you can be against it but not against equality because equality has different definitions.
WE already have legally protected discrimination allowed by Pharmacists and at supermarket tills. Equality means that allowable discrimination is extended to all and the likes of Chaps hotel in Blackpool advertising for gay men only or the company that advertise that they supply 'hand picked' staff only for private gay events. I have no issue with that but fair dos for those who wish something else.
To some race equality means equal representation, to others it means having equal opportunities. The former requires racial discrimination to achieve.
Pharmacists and supermarket tills are legally protected to discriminate against gay people? I'm not sure you have full grasp of your own argument.
A hotel for gay clientele hosting parties with specific gay themes wishing to employ gay staff is not discriminating against anyone else. It's situationist, which is what you're getting mixed up with.
Not allowing someone to work at a school because they are a paedophile is not being discriminatory. Not letting someone purchase alcohol at a till because they are a child is not being discriminatory. Not allowing someone to receive their prescription because there is a risk of overdose is not being discriminatory.
Not allowing someone to work at a school because they are gay is being discriminatory. Not letting someone purchase alcohol at at till because they are gay is being discriminatory. Not allowing someone to receive their prescription because they are gay is being discriminatory. With their policy, UKIP would see these instances as "allowable discrimination" as they want to do away with anti-discrimination laws that currently protect against such incidents. Where do you think that would lead?
Equal representation requires racial discrimination to achieve it? Exactly what planet are you living on?
Comments
Andrew Pierce!? That an awful Daily Mail gay Uncle Tom ... I look forward to the inevitable day when he on the quiet converts his civil partnership into a full marriage hoping no-one remembers his crusade against marriage equality. The Pride event is not about welcoming opponents of gay equality. Surely that does not need explaining. The marriage debate globally is a litmus test for gay rights whether the likes of gay Daily Mail journalists agree with it or not. And the history books will record it as such.
I hope I live to see the day when the Vatican sues Gay Pride for their right to march along side everyone else! Then we will know the struggle is finally over:)
Never said there wasn't.
But if he wasn't gay, Andrew Pierce would still be an odious little f*ckwit.
The point is the same. If you actively sought to exclude them for their belief it may be illegal, after all equality laws are there to protect us all, or at least that is how they are presented.
The marriage debate has become a litmus test for some that neither means it is the holy grail of equality or in fact is equal in itself as it raises issues on various levels and I am sure it is not over. Your Uncle Tom comment certainly indicates the intransigence of many who hold that their view of equality is the only view and that if you are not with us you are against us attitude that is not the one of tolerance that is supposed to be the reason that Pride exists in the first place, is it not?
That is as maybe but because he is gay his opinion is relevant to any gay issue, the difference I suppose is that he cannot be silenced with the cries of homophobe which is the usual tactic.
I'm a woman.
Katie Hopkins is a woman.
Does that mean her opinion is automatically relevant to me and all other women?
I can assure you it doesn't.
Of course it does not but if you are using equality as an issue then her opinion of how that equality is represented is of equal value as yours and even if she is a minority in her opinion then it is still relevant as that is the nature of tolerance, diversity and equality. The point about women's rights, gay rights, human rights they exist and belong to every individual irrespective of how much any other person may disagree and irrespective of whether or not they are odious. The Pride march as I understand it is an inclusive march as a celebration of gay rights, what those actual rights are are a matter of opinion, open to interpretation and are by no means fixed in stone otherwise it is the majority dictating to the minority what is right and what is wrong which is exactly what Pride is meant to be against.
If you think Katie Hopkins is relevant on any level then we have reached an impasse.
I'm pretty sure that protection only applies to religious beliefs, except in N. Ireland.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/ukip-supporters-barge-into-london-in-pride-parade-despite-being-banned-by-organisers-10350214.html
.........shame on you Tatchell and there was no trouble.
The question remains: given that UKIP opposes gay equality, why would their members wish to take part in a march for gay equality? Only they can answer that, one assumes. But being gay and a UKIP member doesn't promise much for their sense of logic.
"Turkeys voting for Christmas" sums it up perfectly.
They're probably gay people who want to leave Europe and have lower immigration levels.
You have to weigh up what's important you you. There's an argument to be made that Labour's mass immigration from hugely homophobic Islamic countries was unhelpful to the gay cause and could've done real damage in the long run. It's something I've been concerned about myself, but I still voted for them this year as I liked most of their policies in other areas.
He's entitled to his opinion.
For much the same reason that there were LGB Tory groups on Pride marches when the main party was against equality, I expect (not that I necessarily expect the UKIP leadership's views to change).
And as I predicted further up the thread, the fact that UKIP joined the march anyway means they've got even more publicity than they would have done if they had just been allowed to join officially.
I was never in favour of banning them but I can't help but think that a main reason (perhaps even the chief reason) for them turning up was to provoke a reaction in people they oppose politically. After all, UKIP's been around for years and they've never shown any interest in Pride before.
Perhaps they should just disappear and hide and not shove their views or lifestyles down other people's throats.
Wasn't that what a lot of people used to say about gay people and pride matches?
If you are about inclusivity then you should rise above it and let them march - if other people want to make a fuss the gay UKIP contingent and verbally attack them maybe they should be the ones banned?
Do they oppose gay equality? Gay equality is surely not an opinion fixed in stone it means different things to different people. Just as racial equality means different things to different people.
UKIP propose legally protected discrimination towards gay people by selective groups, so yes they do oppose equality.
BIB - Would you mind explaining that further?
As a quick google search will show UKIP have repeatedly opposed gay equality as their voting record in the European parliament and positions at home show. The chairman of the party's own LGBT group Tom Brooker quit the party because its leaders weren't 'gay friendly'. And that's before we even get on to UKIP's history on marriage equality.
WE already have legally protected discrimination allowed by Pharmacists and at supermarket tills. Equality means that allowable discrimination is extended to all and the likes of Chaps hotel in Blackpool advertising for gay men only or the company that advertise that they supply 'hand picked' staff only for private gay events. I have no issue with that but fair dos for those who wish something else.
To some race equality means equal representation, to others it means having equal opportunities. The former requires racial discrimination to achieve.
They have possibly opposed your concept of gay equality which does not of necessity mean they have opposed gay equality. The 'marriage equality' issue has arguments that mean that you can be against it but not against equality because equality has different definitions.
Pharmacists and supermarket tills are legally protected to discriminate against gay people? I'm not sure you have full grasp of your own argument.
A hotel for gay clientele hosting parties with specific gay themes wishing to employ gay staff is not discriminating against anyone else. It's situationist, which is what you're getting mixed up with.
Not allowing someone to work at a school because they are a paedophile is not being discriminatory. Not letting someone purchase alcohol at a till because they are a child is not being discriminatory. Not allowing someone to receive their prescription because there is a risk of overdose is not being discriminatory.
Not allowing someone to work at a school because they are gay is being discriminatory. Not letting someone purchase alcohol at at till because they are gay is being discriminatory. Not allowing someone to receive their prescription because they are gay is being discriminatory. With their policy, UKIP would see these instances as "allowable discrimination" as they want to do away with anti-discrimination laws that currently protect against such incidents. Where do you think that would lead?
Equal representation requires racial discrimination to achieve it? Exactly what planet are you living on?