Gay Pride ad a new 'equality gap'?

Sunseeker, I think the whole point was that it was a special exhibition/event celebrating the original owner of the National Trust property who had had to conceal his sexuality for fear of imprisonment.
And as I said originally it was not refusing to wear the lanyards designed to go with the exhibition but the reasons for refusing to wear the lanyards that caused the problem. The National Trust is for everybody so would it be right to have volunteers dealing with the public if they know that those volunteers might not treat some people with respect?

It is not right that the National Trust involve themselves in this type of arena. My sadness is the fact that this generous donor, who has donated his property to this organisation, has been so publicly besmirched by them.

Hear hear M0nica

My reaction to the NT had I been one of their volunteers, would have been that I absolutely support the cause, but refuse to be labelled.

I do not wear badges advertising my religious or political beliefs nor do I wear T shirts with slogans or advertising on. I couldn't care less what anyone's sexual preferences are and never have.

I think the NT is on very shaky legal ground in making it mandatory that if staff, paid or volunteer, wish to react with visitors they must wear these lanyards. The NT may be committed to equality but that does not give it any right to make its workers wear anything specifically supporting any particular type of equality; sexual, racial or women's. It is a shame that just volunteers are affected like this because they are least likely to seek a legal opinion on the issue.

I am also very uncomfortable that Imperfect felt that she had to write such a long exculpatory email to justify saying that she did not like what the NT had done. She presumably felt she needed to do this to protect herself from the thought police who act like the religious police in Saudi Arabia if anyone dares to say anything that they choose to consider as anti LBGT/racist/anti-feminist.

Personally, I feel no need to apologise for the past or feel appalled at the way any specific group was treated in the past unless it was unacceptable at the time it happened. 100 years from now people will be apologising for things that we are doing now and consider meritorious - like hounding people who do not agree with everyone else.

The past is another country. They do things differently there

I think the National Trust are so wrong, if anyone does not agree with homosexuality then their decision .

Eglantine - why is it necessary for anyone to wear a gay pride badge, or a black history badge or a suffragette badge unless the place they are working has an exhibition relating to one of them. Isn't the LGBT lobby actually causing the problem by insisting people see them as a separate group? Why did Imperfect feel unable to express her opinion without first having to explain that she is not homophobic?

Every person is a person wether gay, trans. heterosexual, black, white, tall, fat etc. No need for badges or logos. I certainly would not be told that I must wear a badge of any kind. I do not wear a rememberence poppy that does not mean that I have any objections to the thought behind them.

I think the National Trust do a lot of virtue signalling to impress, so I agree with you Mawbroon

Why is there a need for a gay lobby Eglantine perhaps you know a lot about it?

If everyone would stop defining people by their sexual preferences then there would be no need for a GAY lobby. But until then......

Imperfect.... I understand perfectly what you are saying and I agree completely.
I see no more need in any case for Gay Pride marches, Carnivals etc. Time to stop defining ourselves by our sexual preferences.

I think the problem lay not so much in refusing to wear the badges but in their expressed reasons for refusing to support the campaign. Unfortunately some people still see homosexuality as something that is wrong and I have heard "disgusting" "perverted" "sinful" applied to gay friends.
Would it be acceptable if they had refused to wear Black History badges or support a campaign that celebrated the Suffragette movement.
If their role involve meeting with all sections of the public there should not be any doubt that they are able and willing to treat everyone with respect.

Imperfect - think I understand you. I suppose its similar to women trying to undo centuries of male dominance, misogyny and downright cruelty. Perhaps the pendulum has to swing a bit further to the other side to hopefully redress the balance.
That being said I too feel our sexuality/sexual identity etc does not need to be 'out there' for all to see and comment upon - although am just remembering a very embarrassing moment a few years ago when female co-worker took a huge and very embarrassing shine to me and I pretty much needed to shout....I'm 100% heterosexual!
That being said its a pity we cannot all just be what we want to be as long, as my Granny used to say....we don't frighten the horses.
Also just because someone is part of a minority group it does not make them somehow particularly tolerant towards others. I have a very politically active gay acquaintance who has some pretty unpleasant views about Transsexuals....seeing them somehow as odd and unsavoury!!! He fails to see the irony of his frequent posts about Pride marches he has been on!
Hey ho......yes I do not want to be made to feel I have to defend my sexual preferences but perhaps given the history of gay issues we should let it wash over us a bit more...after all its within living memory of many that there were times when lives were lost or radically altered because of their sexual preferences.

Then I expect you are glad you are not in Brighton this weekend as it's the biggest Pride Carnaval in the UK.