Christians fight for right to free speech.

[bathsheba666]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17706866

Christian group wants to advertise on buses the ability to cure homosexuality, were rebuffed, and are now seeking advice from m'learned fiends (with an 'r').

Spoiler :

A Christian group which had its advertisement pulled from London buses after it was described as anti-gay has said it is considering legal action.

Anglican Mainstream has instructed a law firm to look at whether Transport for London (TfL) acted illegally when it scrapped the adverts.

It said it wanted to know what happened to its contract with TfL for the ads, which implied people could be "ex-gay".

The banned posters read: "Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!"

They were in response to Stonewall promoting equal marriage by having adverts on 1,000 London buses which featured the slogan: "Some people are gay. Get over it!"

The adverts were reportedly booked for two weeks by Core Issues to display on vehicles running on five routes in central London, including buses to top tourist destinations such as St Paul's Cathedral, Oxford Street, Trafalgar Square and Piccadilly Circus.

Tom Ellis from legal firm Aughton Ainsworth said he was going to examine whether the ban was a breach of contract and the group's right to freedom of expression.

A TfL spokesperson said: "We do not believe that these specific ads are consistent with TfL's commitment to a tolerant and inclusive London.

So the Mayor, just before election season, comes down against having these messages on London buses.

If even right wing chancers are intolerant of intolerance, is this a happy harbinger for the future ? Or is this merely a gateway posture to future evil ?

How hypocritical are the Christians being, by appearing to view a sin as a medical condition ?

If the Mayor is scared of losing their votes, are there more than we thought? or is the fight a close run thing ?

 

[Oruc]

I'm surprised he actually stopped them from being shown, equally surprised anyone would think it was a good thing.

I'm actually starting to think when people mock me for being British (claiming ludicrous things are banned in Britain) that they are actually on to something.

How hypocritical are the Christians being, by appearing to view a sin as a medical condition ?

How is it hypocritical?

 

[LucyDuke]

Breach of contract, maybe. Breach of right to freedom of expression? Not so much.

 

[Dreadnought]

Let the advertising company chose its clients; it's not illegal to refuse business to someone, whether they be straight or gay.

 

[Leoreth]

Apparently some people did not get over it.

 

[bathsheba666]

How is it hypocritical?

I'll take that as a zero.

 

[caketastydelish]

You can't say "anti gay" is "not multicultural" because both Christians, Muslims, and several others are all against gays.

edit: before I get flamed, let me clarify that that was a joke. For the record I'm pro-gay rights. I'm just saying it's interesting that several cultures/religions are all anti-gay. Christians are not the only ones guilty of being anti-gay.

 

[Traitorfish]

Is there a difference between "ex-gay" and "post-gay"? The former is straightforward enough, but when juxtaposed to it the latter seems to suggest that they might come out of the program even more queer than they were to begin with.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The Ads are very tame.
(consider what US politics is like. Maybe British sensabilities ?)

 

[G-Max]

Americans buy bumper stickers a few inches wide. Brits yell out their messages on the sides of buses. I feel so... inadequate.

But seriously, you can't troll that epically in the most obsessed-with-being-politically-correct country in the world and expect that the banners will stay on the buses for long.

Is there a difference between "ex-gay" and "post-gay"? The former is straightforward enough, but when juxtaposed to it the latter seems to suggest that they might come out of the program even more queer than they were to begin with.

Yup. That's the result of a typical trip to the UK.

 

[LucyDuke]

Is there a difference between "ex-gay" and "post-gay"? The former is straightforward enough, but when juxtaposed to it the latter seems to suggest that they might come out of the program even more queer than they were to begin with.

Quick googling looks like the most common meaning is a sort of gay after equality. Gay without making a thing about it because it's not a political thing anymore. Gay without it being a definitive part of one's identity. Clearly not what those haters meant:

Post-gay and ex-gay are terms used by Christians and some psychotherapists and psychiatrists to refer to homosexual people who have undergone spiritual or pastoral therapy and, according to an Anglican Mainstream definition, have “now left a homosexual lifestyle [and experienced] an increased emotional and sexual attraction to the opposite biological gender and possibly a reduction in or loss of same-sex attraction.”

http://www.peter-ould.net/2012/04/12/ex-gay-adverts-on-london-buses/

So no difference here.

You can't say "anti gay" is "not multicultural" because both Christians, Muslims, and several others are all against gays.

edit: before I get flamed, let me clarify that that was a joke. For the record I'm pro-gay rights. I'm just saying it's interesting that several cultures/religions are all anti-gay. Christians are not the only ones guilty of being anti-gay.

Who said "anti gay" is "not multicultural"?

 

[bathsheba666]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/13/gay-cure-christian-charity-mps-interns

A sister organisation to the one behind behind this has funded interns for MPs in Parliament, and has also run seminars around the country.

Christian Action Research and Education shows exactly where the CARE comes from, with seminar titles such as 'The Lepers Among Us', and has sessions in it's sponsored conferences entitled "mentoring the sexually broken".

 

[Lillefix]

I really don't understand why some religious people get upset by gay people. In any case: Putting up ads calling normal people sick is borderline. So, it depends on the wording. Perhaps if they just want to advertise their treatment it's okay, I guess.

 

[Bluemofia]

Americans buy bumper stickers a few inches wide. Brits yell out their messages on the sides of buses. I feel so... inadequate.

But seriously, you can't troll that epically in the most obsessed-with-being-politically-correct country in the world and expect that the banners will stay on the buses for long.

There used to be (might be still) a bunch of Atheism advertisements on buses in the US. They were the type that were more of citing statistics about Atheism's numbers, and some quotes from Thomas Jefferson, so they were fairly tame. That garnered a lot of press a while back because it's the US where it's taboo to publicly give Atheists rights or something, and people got angry, but it's not like this isn't unheard of.

And looking at the ads, they appear to be banned due to violation of policy, rather than a free speech thing. It's one thing to have freedom of speech yourself, but another to demand a company broadcast your message that they do not agree is good for their business as being too hateful.


If this is anything that they were planning to use, the "Get over it" at the end might be what put them off.

 

[innonimatu]

I wouldn't want to ban it. Instead it should have been met with a campaign of:

"Ex-christian. Gay and proud of it!".
"We can cure you of christianity! Get over it and lead your own free life."

At least that would not be false advertisement.

 

[Camikaze]

I'd be surprised if this was actually a breach of contract. I mean, you would assume there'd be some condition giving a right to terminate if ads are not suitable. It'd be kinda sloppy if TfL entered into a contract whereby they'd be obliged to carry whatever message, no matter how inappropriate.

 

[Verarde]

I'd be surprised if this was actually a breach of contract. I mean, you would assume there'd be some condition giving a right to terminate if ads are not suitable. It'd be kinda sloppy if TfL entered into a contract whereby they'd be obliged to carry whatever message, no matter how inappropriate.

Yes, it would be sloppy.

I was in London just last week, and I saw those Stonewall ads on the buses. They were slightly offensive to me. Yet TfL didn't want those pulled down.

So why can't Christians do basically the same thing except from a different viewpoint?

 

[Camikaze]

It's not at all the same thing, though. Just because it's from the opposite viewpoint doesn't make it so. One is stating a fact (which undoubtedly is aimed at taking a bit of a swipe at people who for some reason or another don't want to 'get over it', but nonetheless it remains a simple statement of fact). The other is highly misleading and implies falsities (ex-gay?).

I can understand that you may read them differently to that, but I don't think that can justifiably extend to reading them as the same thing from opposite viewpoints.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Let the advertising company chose its clients; it's not illegal to refuse business to someone, whether they be straight or gay.

The advertising company had no problem with the adverts. The decision appears to have been taken by Transport for London, which is subject to higher standards as a public authority, under instructions from the Mayor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/13/gay-cure-christian-charity-mps-interns

A sister organisation to the one behind behind this has funded interns for MPs in Parliament, and has also run seminars around the country.

Christian Action Research and Education shows exactly where the CARE comes from, with seminar titles such as 'The Lepers Among Us', and has sessions in it's sponsored conferences entitled "mentoring the sexually broken".

There is some confusion here about who organized what - which is perhaps what The Guardian intended. The article actually says 'The Lepers Among Us' was organized by Anglican Mainstream and Core Issues, not CARE. Also, remember that Jesus is fairly well-known for his positive attitude to lepers, an outcast and marginalized group.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

It's not at all the same thing, though. Just because it's from the opposite viewpoint doesn't make it so. One is stating a fact (which undoubtedly is aimed at taking a bit of a swipe at people who for some reason or another don't want to 'get over it', but nonetheless it remains a simple statement of fact). The other is highly misleading and implies falsities (ex-gay?).

I can understand that you may read them differently to that, but I don't think that can justifiably extend to reading them as the same thing from opposite viewpoints.

I looked at Core Issues website having read The Guardian article earlier, and it seems the director would assert the advert as his personal experience. So it's possible to see both adverts as truth-claims based on personal experience.

I'm not a scientist, but I think that the idea that sexuality is set in stone at birth in an unalterable way would be open to some dispute.