Sir, The Government’s proposed regulations against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the provision of goods and services, the public consultation period for which ended yesterday, is cause for serious concern. It will prohibit anyone who provides goods, services, facilities, premises, education or public functions from discriminating “on grounds of their sexual orientation whether they are homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual”.

The Equality Bill raises a raft of issues: should homosexuality have equal time and treatment on the school timetable; should gay bars be required to open their doors to heterosexuals; should a Muslim who disapproves of homosexual practice on religious grounds be compelled to provide beds for gay and lesbian couples in his privately owned hotel; should private clubs be allowed to close their doors to those of a particular sexual orientation?

The great danger in this proposed legislation is that it has the potential to deny all the basic human freedoms enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion . . . and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching practice and worship”.

By telling us that there is only one way to think on moral issues the Government is dangerously near to becoming the Orwellian thought police. By attempting legislation to cover such a range of eventualities, the right of conscience and conscientious objection is inevitably infringed. By outspoken advocacy that all sexual orientations are equally valid, the Government is denying freedom of religion to the great majority of Jews, Christians, Muslims and numerous other smaller religious groups whose sacred texts clearly do discriminate against homosexual practice. Perhaps it is well to remind ourselves that Magna Carta granted freedom of religion “for us and our heirs for ever”.

THE REV DR NIGEL SCOTLAND
Cheltenham, Glos

Sir, Britain is frequently trumpeted as a “tolerant society”. The concept of tolerance which would appear to underpin such an assertion is, however, very limited in its objective. If I “endure” — or “put up with” — my neighbours and their views, as Catriona Malcolm appears to suggest (letter, June 5), I am not in fact doing a very great deal, even if I am adhering to the traditional dictionary definition of the word tolerance.

Surely the complexity and conflicts of our 21st-century world demand that we go beyond merely putting up with one another? Since we urgently need to discover what the Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, has rightly termed “the dignity of difference”, let us actually be intolerant of tolerance, and embrace a far nobler and exacting goal: mutual respect which may yet see us achieve the understanding and peace we all crave.

CANON CHRIS CHIVERS
Blackburn Cathedral

Sir, I do agree that toleration is “a willingness to allow people to think and act in ways of which we may disapprove” (letter, May 31). But toleration is much more than that. Toleration is a goal of personal autonomy and governs how people should interact. It also offers a balanced society as powerful interests can be countered and moderated by opposing views.

However, it does not imply an acceptance of all views. As we are living in a liberal society, we should oppose toleration of intolerant views, which threaten to make society less tolerant. We do not live in a country that preaches the “anything goes” philosophy, but one that preaches tolerance.

UST OLDFIELD
Crediton, Devon

Explore Letters

• Feedback