Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rexia2022 t1_j9ydpsk wrote

Reply to comment by UniquesNotUseful in UK’s Badenoch defends SNP hopeful Forbes’ right to oppose same-sex marriage by DuckTalesFan

She wasn't asked to criticise them on their religious beliefs, she was asked about a political stance.

Edit: not that it would matter, the equalities act protects the right to hold religious beliefs and not be discriminated against for them. It doesn't make them immune to criticism, it's not blasphemy laws.

5

UniquesNotUseful t1_j9yi9t7 wrote

I don't understand your point. I suspect we both disagree with the Forbes views, so what is your political stance on it, if you were asked?

I think the political stance is obvious from part I quoted originally. Forbes had the right to say she wouldn't have voted for gay marriage due to religious views, and won't condemn someone expressing their views based on a religious stance.

If you mean her own views on gay marriage, the article states several times she supports it personally .

>Asked by POLITICO whether she would condemn the views Forbes had put forward, Badenoch directly declined, and said that while she personally supports gay marriage, she “would not want people to condemn me for having personal views.”

My political stance, the more you shine a light on these views and debate them the sillier the objections are - it's what killed the BNP resurgence.

−1

Rexia2022 t1_j9yivcu wrote

> Forbes had the right to say she wouldn't have voted for gay marriage due to religious views, and won't condemn someone expressing their views based on a religious stance

See, this is weasely. She wasn't asked to do that, she was asked if she condemned the views, not the right to express them.

> the more you shine a light on these views and debate

The light was shone, the equalities minister refused to then condemn or debate them.

4

UniquesNotUseful t1_j9ymgwc wrote

There are a lot of nuances in English and they seem to be lost on you. If she made no comment about her own views, I may have seen your point.

You are just being professionally offended at this stage. There is much to criticise but you are turning valid problems into background noise by trying to find issue where there is none.

I asked your views on what Forbes said, you haven't condemned them or even said they were wrong. According to you, I should be claiming that you are anti marriage equality, context indicates that is not the case.

−2

Rexia2022 t1_j9z3gdo wrote

> There are a lot of nuances in English and they seem to be lost on you. If she made no comment about her own views, I may have seen your point

You are very easily fooled by political doubletalk.

3

UniquesNotUseful t1_j9zep7a wrote

Well good luck with your life being angry at everything including your imagination. May I suggest you investigate ulcer treatments.

−1

Rexia2022 t1_j9zflkq wrote

Ah, but you fail to consider that I said I'm not mad, thus I can't be.

3