This is what my latest article in "The Grapevine" is about, and specifically how such a conception of gay rights has actually backfired on the gay community. The gay community needs to move away from this hard left sense of entitlement, as they are beginning to do in the USA, and come back to a true conception of liberty for all.
"The phrase “gay rights” is one of those slippery left-wing terms I have always been very suspicious of, just like “equality”, “compassion”, “community” and “development.” It is not that I am against equality, compassion, communities or development, or even gay rights, it is just that I don’t think that when left-wing special interest groups employ such terms, that they mean the same as what I mean.
Therefore when asked if I am “for or against gay rights”, I always answer in the affirmative, believing that all people should be free to believe and do whatever they wish to believe and do, as long as they are not harming others or infringing on the liberty of others. Yet it seems that – according to left-wing special interest groups – that if I state that I am “for gay rights”, then I must actively support – and want the government funding of – all sorts of flags, practices, schemes, initiatives etc, and must also support the illegalisation and censorship of anyone who dares disagree.
As you may be able to tell from the tone of this article, I do not support such nonsense. People should be left well alone whenever possible, and forcing other people to pay for various schemes that vary from the noble to the downright silly – and declaring people to be “homophobic” if they object – is not my idea of liberty. Additionally, the demand of “gay rights” groups not for actual equality, but for special treatment, will only harm gay people in the long term as their sexuality becomes a narrow political banner instead of a facet of their personality.
This has been shown predictably in the last week, where the latest “gay rights” crusade has backfired on the special interests groups and threatens to hurt everyone involved. Most people will remember the case a few months ago of the Christian Bed and Breakfast owners who catered only to married straight couples. A gay couple complained to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, won a load of compensation and had the B&B shut down. Cue much celebration from gay rights group “Stonewall”, who declared it to be a great day for gay rights.
Unfortunately, now the EHRC has noticed that if they follow their legal principle that businesses aren’t allowed to discriminate, then gay B&B’s could be shut down on the same principle. The same could also happen to apartment buildings that cater exclusively to gay people, as well as gay bars and restaurants that encourage a predominately gay clientele.
Of course this has caused much celebration from many people who were outraged that a Christian B&B was set to be shut down, feeling that the gay rights groups have got their just desserts. The gay rights groups are celebrating at the misery of the Christians, and Christian groups are celebrating at the misery of the gay rights groups.
The rest of the article can be found here.Yet my question in all this is “Who wins?” Who wins by the Christian or a gay B&B being shut down? Would a gay couple really want to go to a B&B whose owners did not approve of them? Would a straight person wish to infringe upon a gay business that wished to cater only to people of a certain sexuality? Won’t Stonewall’s claims of moral victory sound slightly macabre when gay businesses all around the country are forced to disband, and the unemployment rate amongst the gay community increases?...."