From last week's Sunday Times of London: Discrimination
Bill Snubs Gays to Save Muslim Vote:
Gay rights campaigners have been snubbed by the [Labour] government for fear of upsetting Muslim voters who are regarded as more important to Labour's election campaign.
This week a new bill giving Muslims protection against religious discrimination will be published, but there will be no equivalent right for gays, as had been planned by ministers. Downing Street fears that Muslims, whose votes could be the key to saving the seats of many Labour MPs, might feel offended if they were "lumped together" with homosexuals....
Under the bill, it will become illegal for the provider of any goods or services �?? such as a hotel, shop, pub or restaurant �?? to refuse to serve someone on the grounds of their religion. It is already illegal to do so on the basis of race or gender.
I didn't realize that Britain, which recently passed a civil partnerships bill, lacked (private-sector) anti-discrimination mandates for gays. Of course, the right to government recognition of one's relationship is, I believe, of far greater importance than the dubious merit of telling private employers whom the can or can't hire. Nevertheless, this cave-in by a left-leaning government further demonstrates Miller's theorem: political parties are responsive to those whose votes they most crave. Period. Which is why the rise of Eurabia should be of real concern to European gays. (hat tip: Dainel Pipes)
Update: In our comments area, Craig in
Wellington, N.Z. writes: "New Zealand Labour's Muslim MP, Ashraf
Choudhary, voted for our Civil Union and Relationship (Statutory
Reference) Bills, and abstained when it came to decriminalisation
of sex work." Point taken.