You must log in or register to comment.

BlimeySlimeySnake t1_j9ybct9 wrote

>“It’d be very easy for her to tell lies, just so that she could win that election,” Badenoch said of Forbes. “And she’s not doing that, and I think that that’s something that people need to take into account.”

Guys, she could have just lied and said she did support same sex marriage so she should actually be commended for being a bigoted religious freak.

I'm sure she thought the UK was conservative enough that saying that would actually win her points, and tbh I'm surprised she was wrong. If she had kept her comments limited to anti-trans rhetoric she wouldn't have had an issue.


asianpotato_xo t1_j9z1ti8 wrote

That the culture war candidate for the last leadership election was appointed equalities minister is such a damning indictment of the Tory party.


Vulkan192 t1_ja0ldfn wrote

I work in the heritage industry and I’ll always remember the day the government threatened to cut funding to museums and trusts that dared to teach “controversial history” (aka Britain’s role in slavery, colonialism etc etc).


thisisboba t1_j9z680w wrote

How is it possible for someone to hold that position if they oppose the rights of certain societal groups? In all honesty, the Tory party just enjoys continuing to display its fascist tendencies!


Kobrag90 t1_j9yc7pq wrote

Scotland is lije 80% pro marriage btw. Political suicide.


NewCanadianMTurker t1_j9yecu2 wrote

"Nicola Sturgeon at the top of the pro-independence Scottish National Party, is fighting to stay in the race after saying in an interview that she would have voted against legalizing gay marriage “as a matter of conscience”"

How is preventing gay people from getting married "a matter of conscience"?


Postcocious t1_j9ytgs5 wrote

My conscience trumps your rights.

It's the attitude of all conservatives, in all places and at all times:

>Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

- Frank Wilhoit

She likes being the in-group, wants to control it even.


Rexia2022 t1_j9yai6d wrote

The equalities minister, everyone.


UniquesNotUseful t1_j9ydjgh wrote

So describing Badenoch views as problematic (trans and environment to start) would understatement. In this case she's actually correct to defend someone's right to say what was said, even though she doesn't agree with it, as her job as Equalities Minister.

>Pointing to her role as “guardian” of the U.K.’s Equality Act, which includes religious protections, Badenoch said: “To ask me to criticize someone for their religious beliefs, when I’m supposed to be safeguarding it, shows that those people don’t understand equality. What they want is to use the Equality Act as a sword to fight their own personal battles, rather than as a shield to prevent others from discrimination.”

Please don't say stupid stuff that makes me defend them again.


Rexia2022 t1_j9ydpsk wrote

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


UniquesNotUseful t1_j9zep7a wrote

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


Rexia2022 t1_j9zflkq wrote

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


PromeForces t1_j9ycj8d wrote

Freedom of Speech


Rexia2022 t1_j9ydss2 wrote

Isn't freedom from criticism.


PromeForces t1_j9yee5y wrote

She said she respect others. It wasn't criticism. She was talking about her beliefs.


Rexia2022 t1_j9yemx6 wrote

She specifically said she would have voted against same sex marriage. A vote is a political action.


PromeForces t1_j9yesht wrote

That's what you call democracy...


Rexia2022 t1_j9yewpo wrote

And we're allowed to criticise her for that. That's what you call free speech.


PromeForces t1_j9yfbln wrote

That's why she's in the lead to be the next SNP leader?


Rexia2022 t1_j9yfh3n wrote

Mate, what the fuck point are you trying to make? You're all over the place.


Classic_Star5426 t1_j9zccio wrote

Calling someone a bigot for espousing bigoted views and not voting for them is freedom of speech (and conscience). Badenoch is actually attacking those rights not defending them.


Vulkan192 t1_ja0lmx8 wrote

Isn’t a thing in the UK and most other western nations like it is in America. And we’re the better for it.


Breys t1_ja0hnjk wrote

No sorry. You have the right to believe in whatever you want. As Whoopi Goldberg said, if you don't want gays to get married then don't marry one. That's as far as anyone gets to go. The second you try to use those beliefs to impact the private lives of others then you crossed a line. If you aren't going to serve the rights of all citizens of your country then you don't belong in politics.


autotldr t1_j9yaxr7 wrote

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot)

> LONDON - The U.K.'s equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch, launched a full-throated defense of under-fire Scottish National Party leadership hopeful Kate Forbes' right to oppose same-sex marriage amid a bitter row.

> Badenoch - who stressed her own support for same-sex marriage - told a POLITICO event in London Tuesday night that she would defend the right of Forbes to hold those views, and refused to condemn her comments in her role as equalities minister.

> Badenoch - viewed as a rising star in the Conservative Party, which is at odds with the SNP on the key question of Scottish independence - said she admired Forbes "For not being dishonest" about her faith.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Forbes^#1 Badenoch^#2 Equality^#3 people^#4 marriage^#5


MajCassiusStarbuckle t1_j9yhqnx wrote

Bronze Age bigotry


Educational_Set1199 t1_j9ymhwk wrote

The first country to legalise gay marriage was the Netherlands, and that was in 2001. You seem to have a very broad definition of "Bronze Age" if you think it only ended around 20 years ago.


MajCassiusStarbuckle t1_j9yz1yb wrote

Did you intentionally misinterpret what I wrote or was it accidental?


Educational_Set1199 t1_j9yzkeg wrote

What did you mean, then?


MajCassiusStarbuckle t1_j9yzxd4 wrote

That bigotry rooted in Bronze Age superstition still influences decisions. Which I find, to put it nicely, regrettable.


zipzoupzwoop t1_j9ys21o wrote

But it's [current year], all the things I agree with should be obvious to everyone!