Posted on 10/02/2021 3:49:48 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Carrie Johnson will give an LGBT rights speech at the Conservative Party conference next week, it has been revealed.
The prime minister’s wife, 33, has been named guest of honor at the party’s Pride reception in Manchester.
Mrs. Johnson, who is currently pregnant with her second child, is “a longstanding ally”, according to Elena Bunbury, chairwoman of the LGBT+ Conservatives. She told The Times: “Carrie has always been a good sport to LGBT+ Conservatives. She even judged our virtual lip-sync last conference. We’re thrilled she’ll be joining us in person this year in Manchester.”
The LGBT+ event will be held in partnership with Stonewall, a charity that sparked controversy over a scheme for “diversity champions” in Government.
The speech is a rare appearance for Mrs. Johnson, who rarely involves herself directly in politics despite being a former director of communications for the Tory party.
It comes after the PM last week finally admitted that he is the father of six children after years of speculation about the number of children he had. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Gross and shameful
What rights are they missing?
LGBSTD
All people in a civilized society have the same rights. Government has a responsibility to protect those rights. I don’t care what color, creed, nationality, heritage, religion, sexual preference, identity or anything else. We all have some or another identity.
But sorry, we all live in this world together so just accept that fact that some people will be more or less judgmental of something or another about you. That’s just human nature. I have no problem if individuals and freely-associated groups of individuals want to lobby the public at large. That is their right. But justice should be totally blind to issues that are not a matter of law, and politicians should not inject personal issues into the law that really should not be there.
We are human and we are flawed that is why we need clearly defined legal rights we all understand and agree too. That is the brilliance of the Founding Fathers despite their flaws and the flaws of society at the time. There are cases of injustice that need to be cured but we should not be singling out different classes of people as public policy. We should only preach universal truths and universal rights.
Perhaps (not just “perhaps”, though) there’s a God in heaven that does care about things like “sexual preference”. Do we want to make an enemy out of Him?
God will not be mocked.
I understand what you are saying, but that is His business. It is not mine. But it is my point. People are going to do what they do. They are just people, good or bad, right or wrong, smart or dumb, virtuous or full of vice. It is not the role of government to regulate it. That is His domain, not mine and I don’t want a government that tries to control it or influence it.
Now we know what happened to Boris.
It’s always the wife!
Sigh. They don't make Tories like they used to. She better turn in her membership card.
Yes, and our business is His too (and vice versa) since we are His creation. Everything and everywhere is His dominion.
It may be (and is) that people willfully go against the God that made them, but it is never the case that they (or even the whole country they live in) escape unpunished. They end up taking the rest with them. Giving tacit support to the behavior of the rebels is, frankly, accessory to those evils. I hope you don’t think the Founding Fathers were accepting of “sexual preference”; certainly, John Adams pointed out that the US Constitution “was made only for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”, although I will say it is not inadequate to the punishment of any other if applied.
That doesn’t absolve Boris of what he does of his own volition.
There is an off color phrase for this. That phrase includes the word "whipped".
Boris was always a CINO. FReepers didn’t notice until after he got Covid. If they looked at his record and past history as Mayor of London, they would have realized he was NOT the “British version of Trump”.
“LGBT+ rights” sounds right since that group seems to have more rights, more protection and more representation than 95% of the population.
I don’t disagree, but as I said this is a social or societal issue. People in a society will make their own personal and group judgment about individuals. And I understand this will make some people uncomfortable. But sorry, that is human nature. It is not the role of government to regulate human nature. Just my opinion.
I subscribe to the “no evil tongue” doctrine. Gossip is what ruins us, on whole. Murdering a person’s reputation is the worst thing we can do short of actual murder, but it happens constantly and incessantly. I do all I can to avoid it.
BTW, for FReepers who think BJ USED to be an upstanding Trump style, no-nonscene kick-@$$ conservative and then he “changed” after he got Covid:
During his first Mayoral term, Johnson was perceived as having moved leftward on certain issues, for instance, supporting the London Living Wage and endorsing an amnesty for illegal migrants. He tried placating critics who had deemed him a bigot by appearing at London’s gay pride parade and praising ethnic minority newspapers. In 2012, he banned London buses from displaying the adverts of Core Issues Trust, a Christian group, which compared homosexuality to an illness. In August 2008, Johnson broke from the traditional protocol of those in public office not publicly commenting on other nations’ elections by endorsing Barack Obama for the presidency of the United States.
And that’s only his FIRST term as Mayor. I won’t get into the second one or his “conservative” record in Parliment before he was Prime Minister.
It’s always the wife!
**************************
Melania came out a month before the election and proudly announced that Trump was the first president to enter the office supporting gay marriage.
I’m not saying that God said the hell with us at that moment but it certainly didn’t help.
I’m very acquainted with human nature. But you can’t go around redefining what behavior is criminal (i.e. calling good evil and evil good), or else society will collapse; and that falls into the purview of government, which as the Declaration of Independence states is “instituted among men … to secure these rights”, and not all human behavior that human nature tends towards is a right that God gave mankind although what is given from God is the right to choose whether for good to preservation of life or for evil to destruction.
And one does need to distinguish between evil tongue and good, especially in light of the good increasingly being suppressed by government-aligned media. The prophets of old often were killed for speaking good when the people heard it as evil.
Until the dictators say they do not. Take a look at what’s happening in Red China right now; the leftists here that stole the government (for now) have the same ideological bent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.