I actually think it's more incredible the other way. It's now impossible for the Liberal party to be lead by a Christian even if that leader consistently votes for liberal policies with regards to sexuality.It's an incredible statement:
'I am resigning because leading the Liberal Democrats is incompatible with my being a homophobe'
Well at least he's finally admitted that he was deliberately 'misleading' the public during the election.
It is perfectly possible to be Christian and not puritanical about gay sex.
But not enforcing your private views on other people IS Liberalism
I actually agree with the first two.
If she continues at her current rate she might match their seat share right enough.
If he'd kept them private it would be one thing, but he's been weirdly evangelical on this matter whilst also trying hard not to actually say what he thinks apart from on abortion where he was just an outright cock:
Quite.
Why's that him being a cock?
Well firstly it was from an interview given to the Salvation Army magazine. In terms of organisations that a Lib Dem leader shouldn't be giving interviews with the Salvation Army are right up there. Secondly, the idea that the leader of a liberal party would seemingly support never having legalised abortion in the first place goes against virtually everything he professes to believe in.
I'm not sure that's entirely his fault though. The media tried to gotcha him on "Is gay sex wrong", which I honestly don't care about the answer to as long as the person in question is not forcing their answer on other people who think differently. *
The media only had it because he attempting to have his cake and eat it.I'm not sure that's entirely his fault though. The media tried to gotcha him on "Is gay sex wrong", which I honestly don't care about the answer to as long as the person in question is not forcing their answer on other people who think differently.
And he clearly does think gay sex is wrong and felt forced into saying otherwise by the media and his party. That abortion remark is more problematic (the wish to argue it away), and I definitely take the point that he has put his foot in his mouth on these issues a lot. But there is nothing in his voting record that suggests he is an illiberal politician and it is a shame that he has been hounded out because of views that don't seem to have influenced his votes. And because I actually think he was a fairly positive role model for more extreme/fundamental religious people — Have your beliefs but don't force them on everyone else. But he was also a bit shit so i'm not going to fall over myself defending him
The media isn't that nuanced. It just made good TV to make him squirm failing to answer it.
How come?
It depends how you view the sequence of events I guess. He was only asked about it in the first place because he said some illiberal things, he only squirmed because they had him, it only became a big story because he squirmed. Being quietly christian – like the vast majority of our politicians still I believe, but this might have changed – and voting as he did wouldn't have caused the questions in the first place. It was only because he was trying to bang the 'you can be a christian and a liberal' drum it got bought out and it turned out that, for him, apparently you can't be after all.
https://libcom.org/library/starvation-army-twelve-reasons-reject-salvation-army and for a more balanced view: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/salvationarmy_1.shtml
Eh fair enough then I hadn't done my research properly.
You agree that public services should be denied to gay people?
Fair enough, can't say I know anything about them other than the fact they're a charity tbh, so wasn't really sure.
Could you define a public service? I might've got the wrong end of the stick. I had in my head scenarios like that cake maker being forced to cater to a gay couple. I don't think in a capitalist society that anyone has the right to anyone else's labour. I guess this would be private services, so I'd need to hear a couple of your examples before giving my opinion really.
Yes
Ok yeah I take that one back then. Not sure how you can get behind anything discriminatory on behalf of the state, but I would argue private businesses are a different matter.
I do get your point about private services - that they should be free to make their own choices, and ideally any business who seeks to ostracise gay people would hopefully see a decline in business anyway, but I do think it's a slightly dodgy route to go down; if you're, say, in a relatively small, rural area, you may find yourself in a position where you've realistically only got one or two types of certain local service available to you; if they're denying you service then it's blatant discrimination that can have a negative impact upon your life based on your sexuality.
Private businesses should not be a different matter.
If it's against the religious beliefs of that person to serve anyone, be it because they're gay or otherwise then they should definitely have the right to not give their services. Even if it's not for religious reasons, they might literally just feel like acting a dick and denying someone their service arbitrarily. As I said before I don't think anyone has the right to someone else's labour.
I think you're basing too much on that cake nonsense.
Perhaps. I just think it comes down to a simple rule really, which is that no-one should be able to force you to do anything. Isn't that an inherently liberal philosophy?
So it should be legal to refuse to rent a house to a black family? Or to deny a gay couple their hotel booking? Or to refuse to serve a Muslim person in a shop?
Depends. If you're a private landlord, yes. If it's your hotel, yes. If it's your shop, yes.
We do this debate an awful lot. It always comes back to the fact that tolerance shouldn't include tolerating intolerance.
This, again, is all well and good in principle - when it comes down to practice it can become incredibly difficult and may limit members of the LGBT community. What if someone is, say, going to work for a week in a fairly remote area with one hotel on offer, and that hotel refuses them service on the basis of their sexuality? It's a fairly arbitrary scenario, granted, but it's still something that could occur and something that would hugely disadvantage someone based on their sexuality alone. That shouldn't happen.
Wow. I find that so, so wrong. Thankfully the law is on my side
That's crazy talk.
Yeah, jumped the shark a bit, here.
