Bigots detect a new gay marriage threat: young people will shun public sector jobs

ON the day that MPs voted against an amendment to the Equality Act as a sop to bigots who disagree with allowing same-sex couples to marry, the Daily Telegraph carried a letter warning that thousands of young Christians who believe in traditional marriage will think twice before taking public sector jobs.

A gang of 17 ministers and one archbishop expressed their concern about the consequences if the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill is passed in its current state.

The letter said:

If the Bill passes into law without much clearer protections for freedom of speech and freedom of belief, teachers and public-sector workers will have to choose between their conscience and their career, as many will be deterred from a public-service career or from charity involvement.

The church leaders said there are 150,000 in their combined congregations, 50,000 of whom are aged between 13 and 30.

For many in this rising generation, marriage is the union of sexual opposites, and the thread that binds generations.

The letter was signed by The Rt Revd Peter Smith, Archbishop of Southwark, Revd Vaughan Roberts rector of St Ebbe’s Oxford, and Revd John Stevens the National Director of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches among others.

Ministry of Silly Hats: the Rt Rev Peter Smith is the berk in the centre

Ministry of Silly Hats: the Rt Rev Peter Smith is the berk in the centre

The Bill will cause “pain for many, without tackling prejudice against the few”, the letter said.

Meanwhile, it is reported here that MPs voted 339 votes to 148 to reject the amendment to the Equality Act 2010 to include a person’s “conscientious beliefs” about the definition of marriage as a protected characteristic. Current protected characteristics include age, race, disability, gender reassignment and sexuality.

The amendment was tabled by David Burrowes and defended today by Conservative MP Edward Leigh, a staunch equal marriage opponent, who represents Gainsborough in Lincolnshire. He remains unconvinced by the government’s position on religious safeguards and claims pending legislation offers no security to people opposed to the change.

Leigh said today that the amendment was necessary because:

When there is a clash between gay rights and religious freedom, gay rights, I’m afraid, in our case law, comes first.

His argument was opposed by MP Chris Bryant, who pointed out that no other religious beliefs – such as believing in transubstantiation or the virgin birth –  are protected characteristics.

Leigh told the Commons:

They are entitled to protection not just in their churches, they are entitled to protection in the workplace, on Facebook, at home and when they are teaching in the classroom. They are entitled to speak about their beliefs on merit.


49 responses to “Bigots detect a new gay marriage threat: young people will shun public sector jobs”

  1. JohnMWhite says:

    It’s the age of austerity. What public sector jobs?

    When there is a clash between gay rights and religious freedom, gay rights, I’m afraid, in our case law, comes first.

    Finally some honesty.

  2. The Vicar says:

    One of Asimov’s works — I think it’s the original “I, Robot”, not the movie version — had a discussion where conservative humans were trying to “rebel” against the efficient (and entirely beneficent) machine-run economy under the guidance of some new super-brained computers. To try to throw the system into chaos, they were deliberately overreporting their ability to supply raw materials and goods, so that the economy would have to compensate. The people discussing this whole thing point out that this actually has the opposite effect as what is intended: by making humans notably less reliable than machines, they are causing their own role in the economy to shrink because people prefer the accurate, honest answers the machines project.

    Well, this is something of the same thing: if religious people won’t take certain jobs, then it means they are marginalizing themselves. Nobody else is doing it to them; if you can’t cope with other people because you believe they are sinners, then the problem is entirely with you, not with them. The whole idea of this amendment is just stupidity; what next, a law requiring hospitals to hire Jehovah’s Witnesses?

  3. Lazy+Susan says:

    Am I right in believing all the signatories to the letter to be male? There was a letter from a bunch of Muslims too, explaining how same-sex marriage would be the end of civilisation. I could not decide if they were all male, but the few I checked appeared to be (method: google images with the person’s name and see if the images are predominately male or female).

    Given the Tory party’s imminent collapse I fear for this bill going through.

    Just sayin’.

  4. Graham Martin-Royle says:

    These bozo’s are worried that young people might not want public sector jobs because of the gay marriage bill. I think someone ought to point out to them that younger people are more in favour of this bill than any other age group.

  5. […] Bigots detect a new gay marriage threat: young people will shun public sector jobs ( […]

  6. Robster says:

    Do these people, those in the silly hats and strange robes, go out of their way to look extremely silly? I ‘spose their silly look matches their silly morality and beliefs so it does make sense. The churches must have secret colleges tucked away that teach absurd silliness, because they do, do it very well. Can religiots do a degree in abject stupidity, or are they born that way? And who makes the hats?

  7. barriejohn says:

    There’s a black guy, apparently wearing priestly garb of some sort, looking over their shoulders. How ironic! They do seem to have managed to overcome Biblical objections to the ordination of the supposed descendants of Ham, or of physically handicapped people. evidently. (The Bible provides such a relevant moral guide to modern man.) Do they support young people who object to the marriage of different racial groups on grounds of “freedom of speech and freedom of belief”, I wonder? How out of touch and out of step these twerps show themselves to be!

  8. barriejohn says:

    A YouGov poll says 54 per cent support same-sex marriage, but revealed a deep generational split. Under 40s back the idea by three to one, but over 60s are two to one against.

    “I fear that the playing field has not been levelled. I believe that the pendulum is now swinging so far the other way and there are plenty in the aggressive homosexual community who see this as but a stepping stone to something even further.” (Sir Gerald Howarth MP)

    Too much equality is obviously a dangerous thing. (Like too much good health, I wonder?)

  9. Daz says:

    the aggressive homosexual community

    Didn’t we have “aggressive secularists” just the other week? Somebody must’ve sold ’em a set of rubber stamps.

  10. remigius says:

    ‘I fear that the playing field has not been levelled…’

    Yeah, that’s cos it’s probably the only one your money obsessed excuse for a government haven’t sold off to any property developer willing to bung a few quid in the Tory coffers.

  11. remigius says:

    the aggressive homosexual community…

    Oh, Daz. Don’t get me started. My neighbours – lovely couple. Steve and Stephen. Steve is great, we get on fine.

    But that Stephen. OMG. He actually had the bloody nerve to criticise my curtains. Apparently, according to him (bitch), you can’t have pale coloured curtains in a pale coloured room.

    It’s not pale – it’s pastel. I told him. Steve told him. But would he listen. You should see his shirts. Or rather don’t. No please don’t, you wouldn’t thank me. Anyway, I’ve told them both I’m not going to support any more gay rights until that tart (Stephen) apologises for the hurt he’s caused.

    You can have pale curtains in a pale room. (It’s magnolia, btw)

    Fuckin’ poofs.

  12. JohnMWhite says:

    A stepping stone to something further? Like what? Gay people get to have two marriages? It is so depressing to see grown adults stamping their feet and kicking up a fuss and whining that somehow, some way, the people they don’t like being allowed to live their life in peace will mean something bad will happen. They can’t even explain themselves anymore, all their faux intellectual objections have crumbled long ago, nobody gives a shit about their ‘conscientious objections’ to other people being allowed to do something, and now they are reduced to transparent and feeble fear-mongering. Ooh, those people who are not like us, they’re going to make stuff that’s not like what we like happen!! Crivens!

  13. Barry Duke says:

    “The aggressive homosexuality community”.

    Ah! He Probably had in mind those thugs Christopher Bryant and his partner Damon Truluck, who, on spotting six straight guys in a London park on Sunday, decided to kick the shit outta them.

  14. barriejohn says:

    I think that by “aggressive” he means anyone who refuses to cower in a corner and keep their mouth shut. At the risk of repetition, this has obvious echoes of the “uppity niggers” bleating of the KKK and others, but they can’t see that.

  15. barriejohn says:

    Hahaha – the fool is being lampooned, and rightly so:

    @stevedonnan Tweeted: “We will break into your house when you’re on holiday, reupholster your living room and redecorate your kitchen. #aggressivehomosexuals”

  16. ab says:

    I love the sweeping generalisations and careful manipulation of the figures. Their congregation numbers 100,000 therefore 100,000 people support their bigoted views.I wonder how many of them asked? Many christians are not opposed to equal marriage and of course a lot of those 100,000 people are children of their congregation, dragged to church by their parents. Anyone asked their views?

    Also the statement that people will be put off public sector jobs. Which jobs? Registrars possibly but anyone else? The fact that a couple are married rather than just living together changes very little in terms of their use of public services. Someone who works in the types of field where they come into close contact with families already probably work with a lot of gay couples. What difference could it possibly make if they are married or not?

  17. barriejohn says:

    This is very interesting:

    “These are our principles, and if you don’t like them…well, here are some others that you might find more acceptable.” (With apologies to Groucho Marx)

  18. Lazy+Susan says:

    I’ve been running up curtains lately (no not like a cat) so I’ve been wandering around fabric stores going “Oooh! Look at at that!” and “Yes but that shade will clash with the walls!” Then I’ve been sitting at the sewing machine stitching and hemming and stuff.

    Is this an effect of same sex marriage? Is it the thin end of the wedge? Will it be curtains for all of us?

  19. barriejohn says:

    Lazy+Susan: A-hem. You had me in stitches.

  20. Daz says:

    And another thing

    “I fear that the playing field has not been levelled. I believe that the pendulum is now swinging so far the other way and there are plenty in the aggressive homosexual community who see this as but a stepping stone to something even further.”

    Could we perhaps squeeze just one more waffér theen metaphor into that paragraph? Poor ol’ George Orwell must be dizzy as hell!

  21. Lazy+Susan says:

    BarrieJohn – That link to the BBC article “How religions change their mind” was indeed interesting. It did not mention schism though, which often occurs when a new interpretation is made.

    EqualityJack – Have a look. It illustrates what I was saying about Islam invading the west.

  22. Lazy+Susan says:

    Daz – Yes! Why is there a pendulum over the playing field? And who put those stepping stones there?

    And what in blue blazes is “the aggressive homosexual community?”

  23. tony e says:

    A simple thought passed through my mind in that if the homosexual community was to be given full equality, in law, then the religious would have nobody to bully.

  24. barriejohn says:

    Daz: Alarm bells are ringing. People are up in arms. This is a wakeup call. We are on the precipice…

    Want any more?

  25. barriejohn says:

    tony e: Comments have been made recently – including one just above this – referring to schism. That’s where the most ferocious battles seem to take place!

  26. Daz says:

    Oh good grief. Tebbit’s joined in now:

    “When we have a queen who is a lesbian and she marries another lady and then decides she would like to have a child and someone donates sperm and she gives birth to a child, is that child heir to the throne?”

  27. Ivan says:

    As an American…words can’t describe my amusement. All I can do is simply point and laugh. Not so high and rational now are we? Though it is upsetting for humanity as a whole that there are stupid people…and that they are given authority to be bigoted and evil. You must prevail! Otherwise I may have to continue laughing.

  28. chrsbol says:

    @Lasy+Susan Will it be curtains for all of us?
    If it wasn’t for Venetian blinds, it would be!

  29. Lazy+Susan says:

    Well if same sex marriage leads to the end of the monarchy, that would be an unexpected bonus.

    Seriously, though, Tebbit has raised an important constitutional question.

    (SFX: muffled laughter)

  30. barriejohn says:

    Yes, we’ve never had an heir who was not the legitimate son of the previous monarch – in unbroken succession right back to King David!

  31. Graham Martin-Royle says:

    @barriejohn: Erm, that’s a bit weird, it jumps from the kings of Israel to the Kings of Ireland without any explanation and then does the same thing jumping up to Scotland. How does anyone think this explains anything?

  32. David Anderson says:

    Will all you people getting frantic about curtains please pull yourselves together.

    (I miss Tommy)

  33. Daz says:


    You should know by now, that any gap, in any chart of anything can be filled by the word “god.” It doesn’t have to make sense, and requests for clarification can be whisked away by adding the word “unknowable.”

  34. barriejohn says:

    GM-R: Are you accusing him of fabricating the evidence?

  35. AgentCormac says:

    I love articles like this – they make the word ‘desperate’ spring effortlessly to mind. And by clutching so blatantly at the flimsiest of straws, these god-bothering eejits merely make themselves look ever-more detached, ever-more hopeless and ever-more irrelevant.

  36. The Woggler says:

    Anyone who works in the public sector essentially works for or on behalf of the public. The public includes gays, people of different religions and people from different cultures. For anybody who doesn’t appreciate this, and objects to dealing with members of the public whose lifestyle they don’t agree with, I would suggest working in the public sector might not be for you.

  37. The Woggler says:

    “When we have a queen who is a lesbian…”

    If that were to happen, I might re-consider my position as a Republican.

  38. Daz says:

    Woggler, are you suggesting that they should actually make personal sacrifice for the principles they espouse, rather than cry about how hard done by they are? Why, shame on you, for being so … aggressive!

  39. Tom80 says:

    As far as I can work out the only public sector Jobs affected aree registrars as some of them may not wish to conduct same sex weddings because of their religious beliefs. I watched the debate in the house of commons yesterday and it was stated by a speaker that in the Netherlands Registrars could refuse to carry out the ceremony due to their religious beliefs. A search on google (wikepedia) revealed this:

    Local governments are obliged to perform civil same-sex marriages, and they can require their personnel to conduct marriages for same-sex couples; however, if their existing contract did not state this requirement, they cannot be fired over a refusal. Some local councils choose not to require registrars who object to same-sex marriage to perform ceremonies.

    This seems reasonable to me and a good way to proceed would be for any registrar employed prior to the legislation being allowed to refuse to conduct the ceremony on his/her religious beliefs and any employed after the legislation is passed not to have this right.

    If this was done it should satisfy most of the objections.

  40. T says:

    These pompous overdressed bigoted fools are fast running out of time. How much longer can they go on pushing water uphill? Answer – not much longer.

  41. DredOne says:

    I heard a southern used car salesman yelling on television, “Freedom of religion is not freedom FROM religion.”

    The parallel that springs to mind is that one may not have a house free of bedbugs, one may only select the species.
    ~(i suppose if this were law, i WOULD keep the minimum number, dead, in a jar, in the curio-cabinet,..and now that I think of it I could probably do a thriving business by setting said # of deities in epoxy paperweights sell as religious articles. Why these dead bedbugs in epoxy, with proper accreditation could perform civil unions. God I love the wealth spring of $ ideas that only emerge when idiots are in charge!)

    With a vinyl-rip of the 1959 Miles Davis, “So what?” spurring me on, I suggests that ultimatums are generally more effective when no one wants the threat realised. I of course refer to our secret dreams free of assholes, not our tolerant social persona that wants everyone to have a cookie & a beverage.
    ~I was once privy to a proper conspiracy to utter ultimatum; lingering for payment & refreshments on a contraband delivery, I overheard a clear thinking yellow-papered ding espousing a plot. Simple put his threat was, “If one more crazy-person dies in Police custody, we will ALL go off our meds!”

    Now that’s a proper fucking threat! No one wants that and all the police have to do is to refrain from killing the mentally ill, in custody.
    It is sad that the religious are not willing to utter a threat that actually effects those they wish to move to sympathy of cause.

  42. Indifferentist says:

    Worth another airing….

    Are there any questions?

  43. AgentCormac says:


    Yes, they are pompous, overdressed, bigoted fools. However, you forgot to mention that they are also privileged, powerful, cosseted, well-connected, influential, persecuted, misunderstood, indulged, out-of-touch, mollycoddled (great word!), wealthy-beyond-imagination vermin who somehow think they still have a right to demand that they are listened to despite the fact that they are utterly irrelevant.

    Just thought it was worth adding those to the list.

  44. AgentCormac says:


    Brilliant YouTube link!

  45. DredOne says:

    The ’40 years on’ arguement has not been more than marginally successful on any but the browbeaten on every topic from tatoos to teen pregnancy.
    The Great Prophet Geo. W. Bush brought an end to the age of reason with the blanket statement, “Now is not the time for thinking, is the time for actionating!”
    ~The current administration did not repeal that General Order & many patriots still put ‘thinking’ in the treason catagory.
    ~He also reset human rights to somewhere mid 1950’s, …40 years on? We might be the idiots.
    Do you think, “God is an Atheist” .. on a T-shirt, is too on the nose?