UK Law Society cancels event to silence dissent on same-sex marriage

From the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

Sir Paul Coleridge, the Family Division judge who recently launched a new charity to combat marital break-up, had been lined up as the main speaker at the annual event at the Law Society’s London headquarters later this month.

But organisers were forced to cancel it at short notice after the Law Society ruled that the programme reflected “an ethos which is opposed to same sex marriage”.

They accused the Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, of an “extraordinary” attempt to stifle debate on current affairs and warned that the cancellation itself could be against equality laws.

Lawyers, journalists and think tank chiefs were due to speak alongside Sir Paul at the annual conference organised by the World Congress of Families, a US-based non-religious group which promotes traditional family values.

Around 120 people were expected to attend event which this year took as its theme: “One Man. One Woman. Making the case for marriage, for the good of society.”

Sir Paul, who made headlines last week as he launched a new charity, the Marriage Foundation, was due to speak on the effects of divorce on society.

A follow-up event for MPs was being planned take place in Parliament after the conference.

Organisers said the conference had been booked for up to six months and a deposit of around £4,700 has already been paid.

But in an email on Thursday, Adam Tallis, general manager of Amper&and, the company which organises hospitality at The Law Society, informed them that the booking was being cancelled and the deposit refunded.

“We regret the need to take this step,” he wrote.

“I can assure you that it is not something we do lightly.

“However, where an event does not fit within this company’s diversity policy, it is a step we must take.

“The nature of your event has recently been drawn to our attention, and it is contrary to our diversity policy, espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same sex marriage.”

Same-sex marriage is not currently legal in Britain, although a consultation is under way on a possible change in the law.

So, disagreement with same-sex marriage is not “diverse” enough, but agreement with same-sex marriage is “diverse” enough. That’s what diversity means – it means agree that marriage is anything that any vocal minority wants it to be, including polygamists, polyamorists and so forth, or be accused of rejecting “diversity”. Diversity now means there is only one correct view, and anyone who dissents has to be silenced, coerced or worse.

7 thoughts on “UK Law Society cancels event to silence dissent on same-sex marriage”

  1. “Through our events and venues supplier, we have assisted the organisers in identifying an alternative, non Law Society venue.”

    Taking this into account, my only problem with this is personal, in that I consider homosexuality to be a sin.This seems to me to be very similar to those classic cases when Christians would not give unmarried couples one room, or a Christian photographer would not photograph a same-sex wedding. Except, of course, it is the reverse.

    Now, while I think their actions in themselves were not wrong, their motivation is a different matter entirely.

    Like

    1. You’re right, this does make it better. I think they have a right to refuse the use of their building. However, what was annoying to me was that they did it in the name of diversity. And the short notice caused them to cancel it outright, which is mean.

      In fact, I think that they should sue for damages caused by the late cancellation of their reservation. If they had said no RIGHT AWAY and not taken the money for 6 months, it would have been fine.

      Like

  2. Just this past week, in Australia, we had a psychiatrist resign from his position on one of our states’ Equal Opportunity committees. Why? Because he was a co-signer, among other medical professionals, on a submission to our federal Senate that opposed amendments to the marriage act. His submission was printed for public viewing (along with 300+ other submissions) – when ssm lobbyists made the linkage, pressure was applied to have him removed.

    Welcome to the brave new world of “tolerance”. Things like this are only the tip of the iceberg.

    Like

  3. I still like to think of tolerance as a kind of virtue. This kind of crap needs to be distinguished from the virtue it’s a corruption of. What do we call it? Totalitolerance? Toleritarianism?

    Like

    1. Just make them define the word. Tolerance is good when it means letting people who disagree speak their mind, and not taking offense at it and trying to silence or coerce them. You disagree with their view, but you don’t try to harm their career, or vandalize their property, and so on. On that definition, marriage activists are tolerant, and gay rights activists like Dan Savage are intolerant.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s