Born again Christian, Izzy Montague, is taking the headmaster of her son's primary school to court for not giving him the option not to take part in an LGBT pride event. The result of this could be interesting!
Overall, I personally have long felt that the protective characteristics covered by the equalities law should not include religion. That is not because I do not believe in religious freedom, nor that those of a religious faith should not be guarded against violence or hatred. It is because, whilst some characteristics-age/***uality/colour of skin/physical or mental disability-are inherent, religion (like politics) is not, it's a belief. Extreme versions of religion preach attitudes that go against inherent characteristics that individuals cannot change about themselves and surely this cannot be right.
Ordinarily then, I would place the rights of the other protected characteristics above religion and so support the rights of LGBTQ people above the concerns of any religious doctrine whether Christian, Islamic or whatever. BUT this case is a bit different. It is one thing to teach children to be more tolerant of others and not to hate or discriminate simply on the grounds of skin colour or ***uality but completely another to actively promote LGBTQ against other beliefs.
There is nothing wrong in encouraging challenging and debate in children alongside tolerance but it can all too easily become indoctrination. The woke section of the LGBTQ community cannot have it all their own way. If religious views can be challenged then so should their own. The LGBTQ group often use slogans such as "Some people are Gay/Bi/Trans etc-Get over it". Fair enough, but how about "Less than 3% identify as being non hetro***ual-Get over it!" . Being tolerant and accepting of others is one thing but the overwhelming percentage of the population is "straight" and there is simply too much stuff being forced down their throats by minority groups sometimes that ends up having the opposite effect than the one intended. The taking the knee gesture is just one example but seeing businesses in every high street falling over themselves to show they support Pride events with rainbow flags etc becomes equally empty and meaningless.
There is something to be said for an "agree to disagree/live and let live" mentality and ultimately I feel that the decision by the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland to find that the refusal of the Christian Asher's bakery to make a wedding cake with the "support gay marriage" slogan was not discriminatory was the correct one. The couple concerned were not actively being hateful but sticking to their beliefs. For the court to decide otherwise would open up a whole can of worms like trying to sue a Jewish or Muslim restaurant for not serving pork. The child concerned was at primary school ffs. Nothing wrong at all in encouraging tolerance from an early age but virtually forcing them to attend a Pride event? Is that really appropriate?
Reply With Quote
but I understand that this is not the case here.
Originally Posted by Calgarybaggy
