I honestly thought we were past this sort of thing.

So, in Westminster tonight, members of three major world religions will gather outside the Houses of Parliament and lobby against new legislation that makes it illegal to discriminate against people in the provision of goods and services on the basis of their sexual orientation (that is for any shop or establishment to have a “no gays” policy – or, for that matter, a “no straights” one.)

I simply can’t believe it. It’s 2007 in the UK, a moderate, liberal nation, and there is a significant (and vocal) minority opposing equality laws. What on Earth are these people thinking?

Oh yes, of course, these people are religious. They’re not thinking, they don’t need to, because they have faith. Anybody who thought about it would realise that what someone else does in the privacy of their own home, without involving you, can have no possible impact on you and is none of your concern. But no, some ancient book suggests that same-sex relationships are a bad idea, and these people are so virtuous, so faithful, that that’s all the evidence they need to discriminate and hate and cause misery and suffering, all in the name of their “higher morality.”

Of course, they’re not spinning it that way. All of their press releases and their media spots are full of thoughtful, sympathetic sounding people explaining that of course they understand equality is a good thing, and that they don’t actually mind homosexuals doing whatever it is homosexuals do (so they’re not prejudiced, oh no!), but that their higher moral imperative simply forbids them from condoning that activity by, say, selling them a Snickers. They’re full of heart-wrenching stories about poor (mainly) Christian people being persecuted by the Governments’ insistence that professionally they treat gays just like every other customer. My particular favourite (although it’s hard to pick one) is this quote from Lord MacKay, who is a former Tory Lord Chancellor:

The government, when they consulted, said they were minded not to include harassment provisions.

They thought they were best dealt with later but in fact in spite of that they have put them in.

They are very difficult to understand but it could well mean that if you teach in a school, particularly in an advanced class, that homosexuality is wrong, you would be guilty of breaching these provisions.

Hello?

Damn right you’d be guilty! You can’t teach kids, in school, that homosexuality is wrong. Any more than you can teach them that a woman’s place is in the home, or that Negroes are genetically inferior to Whites. This is exactly the sentiment at the heart of the whole debate though, and the only thing differentiating Lord MacKay is that he’s being honest about it. When the rest of these people say that they understand equality is a good thing, and that they don’t mind homosexuals being homosexual, they’re lying. Why else would they oppose laws designed to promote the very equality they say they understand (and, in theory, support)? These people are prejudiced. They are bigots. They think that someone’s sexual orientation is a moral issue, and that homosexuality is wrong, pure and simple. They think gays and lesbians are less good than the rest of us, merely because they are gays and lesbians, and that that gives them the right to discriminate against them.

It’s not even like anyone’s telling them they have to let gays join their Churches. The only restriction being placed on anybody is that if they offer goods or services for sale, they must do so to all customers equally, without prejudice. Is that really so hard? They don’t have to like these people, or to approve of them, just to behave professionally. If they really can’t do that, then maybe they shouldn’t be in business in the first place.