The Sexual Orientation Regulations went through the Lords on Tuesday night, making it unlawful to discriminate against lesbian and gay people in the provision of services, notwithstanding a disgusting misinformation campaign by a vocal religious minority.
So how did Cameron’s compassionate Conservatives vote? Surely they’re against discrimination towards gay people? Actually no - 80% of the Tory Peers who bothered to turn up voted against the new regulations. It wasn’t much better when it was in the Commons last month, when all but 9 Tories were absent for the vote.
There’s very little about gay rights on the Conservative’s website, and I had to go back to a speech by Theresa May from 2005 to find a decent quote…
And for the small minority who don’t accept women — or black or gay people — as their equals, I’ve got a message. Don’t think you’ll find a refuge from the modern world here. There is no place for you in our Conservative Party.
But obviously as far as these regulations were concerned, the Tory position was “We’d rather that religious people were allowed to discriminate against gay people, than for gay people to have equal rights in the provision of goods and services.”
If this was disabled people, or black people, or foreign people, would this position be justified? No. So how can it possibly be justified for gay people? When engaged in society (such as running a business) there is no justification whatsoever for using personal prejudices to discriminate against others.
Before I get complaints, I’m not saying that the Tories homophobic - indeed it’s interesting to read the very mixed feelings on the subject on ConservativeHome, from the supportive to the utterly opposed - but I am saying they have failed to support proper equality for gay people. It may not be a perfect piece of legislation, but the principle here of opposing discrimination is paramount.
redtamarin[at]gmail.com
Loading ...
“Not saying that the Tories are homophobic”…
Not this time
thenewconstitution said this on January 11th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
oh sod off…what about Cameron’s support of gay marriage in his party conference speech?
BTW not turning up is not the same as voting against.
GB said this on January 11th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Why should heterosexuals support equality for homosexuals if the nett result is damaging to their individual andyes, collective interests, and if they perceive those interests to outweigh the faux-moralities of liberalism?
Guessedworker said this on January 14th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Personally, I’m in favour of freedom of association.
I think it’s foolish of a businessman to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, but the market will soon punish him for his sins
Machiavelli's Understudy said this on January 16th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Good post, monkeyman.
And GB: Support for gay marriage in a conference speech (when you know you’re getting wall to wall tv coverage) is fine in theory but as Monkey demonstrates matters little if your party don’t follow suit.
GuinnessCream said this on January 16th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
It’s a ludicrous bit of legislation. Personally I’m quite in favour of gay adoption (the only worry I have is over child’s embarassment, and enough heterosexual parents are embarassing enough anyhow), though not gay marriage (though civil partenerships are fine so far as the financial arrangements go). But I don’t see why a religous group shouldn’t choose to support people based upon their ideas of morality; moreover, you have to ask how suitable as parents are a homosexual couple who go to a Catholic adoption agency - going somewhat out of their way to offend people.
Moreover, passing a bill into law based on the principle of it, though its wording is bad, is a bad idea, besides being unnecessary.
Posting waaay after it’s all done and dusted but someone might read it
UC said this on February 17th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I read it if that’s any consolation. I think the point is that it’s so unlikely that a gay couple will go to a catholic adoption service that there is no justification for allowing the discrimination.
Recess Monkey said this on February 17th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
The issue is that the catholic adoption agency are given public money to do the adoptions.
If they want to spend public money, then they can’t be discriminatory about it.
Ade B said this on February 18th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Gay Lesbian Marriage…
Reading the blog and the otherposts I see things that are close to home. I have added you to my digg account for bookmarking….
Gay Lesbian Marriage said this on January 30th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Game Day Preview - at…
Game Day Preview - at HamlineCarleton College News, MN -Feb 13, 2008All-State honorable mention after leading Robbinsdale Armstrong to the class 4A…
train drawer pull said this on February 17th, 2008 at 1:24 pm