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 ay-article This is an automated email - do not reply[/i Unsurprisingly, the statement has now been retracted.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 ay-article This is an automated email - do not reply[/i Unsurprisingly, the statement has now been retracted.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 Can't stop people having outdated and reprehensible views and neither would I want to, but unless it impairs him somehow in the workplace, as you were.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.