www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11 ... 43017.html A rare outbreak of common sense. I've been following this case for some time and sent an email to THT last October. I received this condescending reply: [iThank you for your email. Please follow this link to read the Trust's statement on this matter www.traffordhousingtrust.co.uk/y ... ay-article This is an automated email - do not reply[/i Unsurprisingly, the statement has now been retracted. Regardless of your views on gay issues, this is a triumph for individual liberty. Employers do not have the right to police the private views of their employees, even if such views contradict the equality mantra shoved down everyone's throats at work. Congratulations Adrian!

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11 ... 43017.html A rare outbreak of common sense. I've been following this case for some time and sent an email to THT last October. I received this condescending reply: [iThank you for your email. Please follow this link to read the Trust's statement on this matter www.traffordhousingtrust.co.uk/y ... ay-article This is an automated email - do not reply[/i Unsurprisingly, the statement has now been retracted. Regardless of your views on gay issues, this is a triumph for individual liberty. Employers do not have the right to police the private views of their employees, even if such views contradict the equality mantra shoved down everyone's throats at work. Congratulations Adrian!

The guy was, in my view, entitled to post his opinions on his own Facebook page, fair enough.

He hadn't refused to house married gay couples or anything, so no issue.

This war on secularism has gone too far

As for the issue - correct decision in my view. Shouldn't have happened in the first place as long as it wasn't affecting his job.

Kirkstaller thinks otherwise though.

Facetiousness aside, I agree. Can't stop people having outdated and reprehensible views and neither would I want to, but unless it impairs him somehow in the workplace, as you were.

I'm intrigued by his notion of there being too much equality. It amuses me.

Do I?

I'm sure most Christians would agree.

The issue here though is that Adrian Smith was expressing his concern that churches may be forced to conduct gay marriages. By "equality too far" he meant that, in this case, the gay rights movement's pursuit of equality would infringe the church's right to act in accordance with doctrine.

The church has the right to manifest their views the same way a gay man has the right to manifest his sexuality. From a secular standpoint, to stop the church from upholding the biblical definition of marriage is equally as wrong as prohibiting gay civil marriage.

I agree with his first comments

"I don’t understand why people who have no faith and don’t believe in Christ would want to get hitched in church"

But then he carries on about "civil" partnerships and then goes all bigoty on us.


"I have won today. But what will tomorrow bring? I am fearful that, if marriage is redefined, there will be more cases like mine - and if the law of marriage changes people like me may not win in court.
"Does the Prime Minister want to create a society where people like me, people who believe in traditional marriage, are treated as outcasts? That may not be his intention, but, as my treatment shows, that's what will happen.
"The Prime Minister should think very carefully about the impact of redefining marriage on ordinary people."

He makes a fair point, but is he also suggesting that if you're gay you can't be a Christian?

And it's about access of services to everyone without discrimination, kirkstaller.

[url=http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/11/16/uk-christian-man-refuses-to-drive-bus-because-of-stonewall-gay-rights-poster/Like this dude[/url?

That only makes sense if you assume that there are no gay Christians. Clearly he assumes just such a thing.

Yep. If his views stop him from driving a bus then he should leave or be removed from his job.

Two points:

1) At no time have I seen reference to any church being forced to conduct gay marriages, the proposal is a civil marriage and if any church so wishes, it can (not must) conduct a same-sex marriage.

Does kirkstaller know what OMG means? (And please don't come back with "Oh my gosh"icon_wink.gif If he does, is he happy with his blasphemy?

Quite, but it doesn't fit in with their propaganda.

And I'd like to retract my first statement until I can find out who funds specific churches, if they're supplemented by the tax payer then everyone has a right to marry there.

I wouldn't force the priest/bishop to perform the ceromoney though.

Quite, but it doesn't fit in with their propaganda.

And I'd like to retract my first statement until I can find out who funds specific churches, if they're supplemented by the tax payer then everyone has a right to marry there.

I wouldn't force the priest/bishop to perform the ceromoney though.

It's easy to say that now, but it's a certainty to happen.

How long will it take for some liberal Christian or cantankerous gay campaigner to go running to Strasbourg?



I thought it meant 'Oh My Gosh', though I'm aware of the alternative usage. I try not to blaspheme but sometimes I can't fight my sinful nature.

Good job I have a Saviour. Have you?

Remember - life is not a test.

What a silly thing to say. Paying tax doesn't afford everyone the right to every service.

Do 40 year olds have the right to go to primary school?

Do male victims of domestic abuse have the right to go to a publicly-funded women's shelter?

Do the non-disabled have the right to home help?

If you try not to blaspheme, how come you post continuous hatred and bigotry?

the sooner you are reunited with your god the better

They are not supplemented by taxes at all. Churches pay their taxes, same as any other organisation. They are funded by churchgoers and investments made by the relevant denomination.

Some church schools are part financed by taxes.

That is what the situation is at present. A church can, if it so wishes, bless a civil partnership. However, Stonewall wants to go further than that and people of faith - Jews, Christians, Muslims and maybe other faiths too - do not want that.

As for the OP, I am very glad that the man has won his case. However, he has not been reinstated to his old job and therefore he has only half won his case. He should now sue to be reinstated, if that is actually possible. Given that the judge decided his contract had been breached then he should now be returned to the terms of his original contract as otherwise surely Trafford Housing are acting unlawfully?

It would have been a sad day for this country if he had lost: to not be free to post your personal opinion on your (private) Facebook page in your own time about an issue that was not even directly connected to your employment without fear of being punished by your employer would have been a sinister development.

Good post.

Sadly, I fear we have reached the stage where any opinion which runs contrary to the liberal Guardianista elite is derided as 'bigotry' and its proponent vilified and prosecuted. Thank Heaven for small mercies such as this.

The ruling sets a positive precedent IMO. For too long Councils have been enjoying increasing freedom to interfere in areas they have no right to interfere and this was a particularly vindictive example. The message is now out that there is such a place as private and such a thing as a valid personal opinion, and work has no reach there.

Jesus, are you still feeding this troll?

Don't argue with Kirkstaller, don't give him chance to air his medievel views, he'll get bored and go away.



(Or, as I suspect, create another identity and come back with a different set of beliefs.)

Very interesting, so religious organisations in the UK only receive funding for schools?