Sunday, 19 April 2015

Today's aggressive LGBT rights movement takes no prisoners – and it’s not finished yet

I suspect that few reading this blog will have heard of the ILGA but will equally not be surprised to learn that it exists.

The International lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex association (ILGA) is a worldwide federation of 1,100 member organisations from 110 countries campaigning for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex rights.

Its European wing maps the LGBT status of every European country and from this portal you can easily access the legal summary for the UK.

The latter lists the legislative objectives achieved and those still sought in these islands – in great detail.

You may be surprised that LGBT activists believe that there still are legal battles to fight. Northern Ireland still does not recognise hate crime on grounds of gender identity and has not yet legalised same sex marriage. Scotland has not yet criminalised hate speech on grounds of sexual orientation.

But overall the UK bridges not yet crossed are very few.

The ILGA is building a similar legal analysis for every nation on earth and its member organisations are working collaboratively to achieve every legislative objective.

Some may say ‘so what?’ Why shouldn’t LGBT people have the freedom to have what they are asking for?

But the problem is that legal rights for some constitute legal duties for others. Gay rights were once a concession. They then became an expectation. Now it seems they are a requirement.

What began as ‘accept me’ quickly became ‘affirm me’ and then ‘celebrate me… or else’.

Those who resist being coerced to deliver on the LGBT agenda pay a heavy price – not just ridicule and marginalisation, but legal sanctions - dismissal, fines, imprisonment, gagging and being driven from the public square.

These activists will not tolerate disagreement or dissent. Every knee must be made to bow, to recite the mantras and creeds and to grease the LGBT machinery.

The Coalition for Marriage has this week published a leaflet outlining 30 cases involving individuals or groups who have been ‘punished’ for ‘believing in traditional marriage’.

Each case is documented and carefully referenced and although coming from all over the world the vast majority come from the UK. Some examples:

Ashers Baking Company, owned by the McArthur family, was taken to court by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland for declining to produce a pro-gay marriage campaign cake.

Lillian Ladele was pushed out of her job as a registrar at Islington Council for asking her managers to accommodate her belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Peter and Hazelmary Bull were ordered to pay £3,600 in damages because their B&B in Cornwall had a policy of only allowing married couples to share a double bed.

Andrew McClintock was forced to resign as a magistrate in Sheffield because he didn’t believe placing children with same-sex couples was in their best interests. He lost his discrimination case at an employment appeal tribunal.

All Roman Catholic adoption agencies in England have been forced to close or abandon their religious ethos because of their policy of only placing children with traditionally married couples.

That’s five. There are 25 more. And so it goes on and on. I’m informed that these 30 cases are a small minority of those that have occurred. A mere tip of the iceberg.

Now it appears that we are in for more of the same with the three main political parties all pledging in their election manifestos to do more for LGBT ‘rights’. They are full of specious euphemisms which cleverly disguise the realities for those will not play ball.

The Conservative Manifesto trumpets its pride in legalising same-sex marriage and promises more: 

‘Our historic introduction of gay marriage has helped drive forward equality and strengthened the institution of marriage. But there is still more to do, and we will continue to champion equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people. We will build on the posthumous pardon of ... Alan Turing ... with a broader measure to lift the blight of outdated convictions of this nature’ (p46).  

The Labour Manifesto speaks of combatting ‘homophobia’:

We will also build on our history of championing LGBT rights, tackling homophobia with tougher laws at home and greater engagement abroad (p67) ...Labour will ...appoint an International LGBT Rights Envoy and a Global Envoy for Religious Freedom’ (p81).

The Liberal Democrat Manifesto boasts about further ‘marriage liberalisation’:

We will ... permit humanist weddings and opposite sex civil partnerships, and liberalise the rules about the location, timing and content of wedding ceremonies ... promote international recognition of same sex marriages and civil partnerships as part of a comprehensive International LGBT Rights Strategy’ (p107). 

It is clear that whoever gets to form a government after the general election on 7 May will be actively advancing the LGBT agenda.

Those who believe, teach and practise traditional Christian teaching on marriage, relationships and sexuality are therefore going to find themselves increasingly on the wrong side of the law as this new political correctness is taught is schools, enforced by the constabulary and judiciary and promulgated by the media, in parliament, through celebrity culture and inevitably in our churches.

Our first priority in opposing its pernicious influence must be to ensure that our congregations – and especially our children and young people – are firmly grounded in biblical teaching and also well briefed in how to argue against the new agenda. It is a task that will require clarity, compassion and, above all, courage.

The enemy’s goal is to undermine real marriage and the family. We must resist him with every fibre of our being – through speaking up for the truth and by faithfully upholding God’s model in our personal lives and Christian communities. 


  1. Following Peter's logic to its logical conclusion, it would be perfectly fine to allow everyone to vote... So long as they voted for the Tories (or the Greens, or what have you).

    I mean, everyone's equal, aren't they?

    Peter, if you have the right to marry the individual you are romantically attracted to, the LGBT community should also have that right.

  2. Regarding the B&B - if they're open for business, they should be open to everyone. What difference does it make whether people get intimate on a double bed or if they push two single beds together? Or if they get intimate on the floor?

    They're not forcing the owners to watch, are they?

  3. Well said, Peter. None of us voted to give these evil people the power to force others. They obtained it by totalitarian methods, and fully intend the worst consequences for the rest of us.

    I came across a book from 1993, McIlhenny, "When the wicked seize a city", which documents the rhetoric and the violent tactics used by these wicked people to obtain power in San Francisco. Do read it if you have not: you will recognise the methods!

    1. DP, would you be perfectly fine and dandy, to allow gay business owners to deny service to all Christians (or anyone suspected of being a Christian)?

      It would be easy enough to assume that anyone wearing a crucifix was a Christian.

  4. Replies
    1. Easy for you to say when you've got more political power than the LGBT movement, simply in terms of sheer numbers.

  5. Winston
    Someone conducted a survey in America, to ask homosexual bakers to make an anti gay marriage cake. Without exception all refused. It seems that 'equality' only works one way

    1. There's a subtle but crucial difference there, pippinsmum.

      They objected to the message, not to baking the cake itself.

    2. Quite. My point exactly. Ashers bakery also objected to placing a 'pro-gay marriage' message and were taken to court by LGBT activists where they still await their fate.

    3. Precisely. Ignore the words: Who is dragging who into court?

    4. Get back to me when the civil rights (i.e. choices and freedoms) that you personally care about are being restricted simply so we don't "hurt the feelings" of grown men and women.

      Don't you value personal responsibility? Or is welfare only for those like Terri Schiavo?

    5. If they live in small rural towns where there are only a handful of bakeries, and they are turned away at all of them, should they just deal with it?

  6. So many hypotheticals to justify real coercion of others. #contempt

    1. Do you really think it's a stretch to conclude that small rural towns with a few thousand people only have a single bakery?


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.