-A couple of points in response to comments one, two and three:

- Increased legal protection for religion is not intended to protect Christianity from derision. Rather, it is Islam which is the obvious benificiary. Expecting anything else is naive with regard to the current political landscape.

-Quote: "Nor should Hammond be trying to link homosexuality with immorality in public."

 The morality or immorality of homosexuality is a matter of debate - not a police matter. Making it a police matter is a rather flagrant breach of the most fundamental principles of free debate and speech, the principle of reciprocity.

-While there certainly is no party line in christianity wrt. to homsexuality, there is certainly a pressure to conform from the secular establishment on all christians, including using the law to make them conform. Thus, it is hard to know which christians are taking their position under duress and who are open-hearted about their beliefs. 

-It is thus hard to see how legal (and huge informal) pressure on christians to believe certain things is not to be seen as an attack on all of christianity (and to some degree Islam). This pressure exists for muslims too, but to a far lesser extent.

Finally, it is not (or at least should not be) a civil right of any group in society to be liked or approved by some other group(s).

But an attack on free speech indeed.

I do support homos in thier struggle for EVEN rights, but i will always oppose them for acquiring MORE-even rights.

1. And the some-gay-guys have no business trying to link civil rights literature w.r.t. a specific group with gay "literature" (*cough* propaganda *cough*).

If it is actual element of christian belief, that man fuc*g men will never get to heaven why would they hide it? Should we pretend we can't see Stephen Green's right to speak freely was just violeted, becouse some gay people were abused?!

I think that law should state no difference between homo or hetero. Their treatment should be equal. But this includes every aspect. No pro-hetero nor pro-homo regulations at all! So if u can sack lazy worker... u should sack lazy gay worker without any other cosequnces. Or if u can make joke (but i do mean JOKE not offence in both) of your friend being the opposite orientation he actualy is, u could do it whichever orientation he was.

The quoted examples are merely used to give flavour to Melanie Philip's core argument which is that "Christianity is being steadily removed from the public sphere [in Britain]...It is a fundamental onslaught on the national identity and bedrock values of this country." This is typical hysteria from the Daily Mail - it helps to sell papers to a right wing readership that is not literate or educated enough to read the quality right wing press, but yet is too snobbish to settle for The Sun. I would contend that the reverse of Melanie's arguments are true. Britain is a fundamentally secular country whose values are coming under attack from a religious minority (both Christian and Muslim) that currently enjoys unprecedented political influence - witness the increasing amount of public funding for religious schools and the recent attempt by the Government to pass legislation (the original Bill to combat religious hatred) that could have criminalized rational criticism of religion.

I agree with the 'captain' that the conclusion is weak. The facts described in the article do not support the conclusion of an "attack on christianity".  Rather they support the notion of enforcement of a questionable 'diversity' agenda. 

It remains, of course, that the question of who would make "ideal adoptive parents" is a very important one.  And one that should be open to free debate in a true democracy.  The facts described in the article, therefore, suggest an attack on democracy, not on any particular religion.  The most disturbing aspect is that the attack originates from government officials, the very people who are supposedly the guardians of democracy and who have sworn an oath to uphold constitutional free speech.   

1. I'm afraid that Sacranie was making comments that were out of line, especially in light of the aggression and violence displayed by the British Muslim community.
2. Nor should Hammond be trying to link homosexuality with immorality in public.
3. And the Roberts' have no business trying to link civil rights literature w.r.t. a specific group with Christian "literature" (*cough* propaganda *cough*).

I'm afraid that this article is a weak argument for an assault on Christianity, especially as its stance towards homosexuality tends to differ along sectarian lines.

Perhaps the authorities were over-zealous, but these are merely examples of warning believers not to degrade others' lifestyles, least of all in public.

One doesn't see homosexual gangs attacking straight couples out for a stroll, murdering young men off on a date with a girl, or encouraging heterosexuals to be gay. Certainly gays are "extremist," however, these tend to be a minority, unlike the Christian Right.

Those who are against homosexuality are against it period, regardless of any news items. They believe that homosexuality is not only immoral but curable, a stance that will continue to blight these people's civil rights.