To feel sympathy to the National Trust volunteers at Felbrigg Hall?

It is an emblem for equal rights based on sexuality, which is one part of equality. I personally wouldn't want to wear one unless there were also ones for equality for women, race etc. That is why I object to the adopting of a single badge. Maybe I'm in the minority on this one.

They're not necessarily bigoted if they don't want to wear it. Have a look at what the Pope has recently said about gay people and how the church needs to apologise for their treatment and that Catholics should not judge:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/26/pope-francis-says-christians-should-apologise-to-gay-people

The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is not a sin but homosexual sex acts are, along with all other sex acts which are not for the purpose of procreation. So many Catholics may feel they have absolutely no problem with homosexuality and do not judge even those who are sexually active as the pope has said they must not. But as homosexual sex acts are still seen as a sin wearing a badge to celebrate their legalisation may feel a step too far for some Catholics.

It's the old adage isn't it? We will tolerate anything except dissent. It's just swapping one set of intolerances for another. In this case religious views.

I actually think the NT has handled this well with it's opt out.

They are obviously singling out one emblem, because of the previous owner.

Why single out one emblem of a cause, brasty?
Have an equality policy, manage your volunteers to ensure it is followed. Deal with any discrimination if it occurs.

Ovaries, I'd rather just walk in, see a group of volunteers wearing just a name badge and let the way they treat me speak as to whether they are welcoming or not.
That volunteer not wearing the designated lanyard might have many reasons for not doing so. It tells me zip about their attitude towards LGBT visitors.

And godson hardly equates with families wishes.

An emblem of a cause? The cause is about equal rights, that is all.
Would you also refuse to wear a badge about equal rights for black people, because it is a cause?

And I have heard so many history talks where a straight persons sexuality has been the defining point of what we are told about them, including at NT properties. Funny how no one seems to object to that?

Saucery- well said.

If I walked in and saw some staff members wearing the rainbow badge and lanyard and others not, I'd assume that those who aren't wearing it have personal reasons for doing so and I wouldn't feel welcome there.

They have the right to choose whether to wear it or not, but I have the right to feel uncomfortable and go elsewhere if there appears to be anti-LGBT sentiment among the volunteers. It's up to the NT then to decide whether they'd rather piss off volunteers or visitors, and to decide their policies accordingly.

Truly private people don't tell anyone they are gay.
People who were out when being gay was illegal, told friends and those they could trust. He actually sounds pretty out given the circumstances.

I agree Op, I am no homophobe but would object to being told to wear something. Nobody should have anything foisted upon them. There is a subtle but distinct difference between being accepting of other people's choices and being forced to wear something that is an emblem of a cause.. I also agree with pp who make the point about the family's wishes in regard to the particular stately home. A persons sexuality is just a part of them and I get rather irritated if it is used to define them.

The National Trust should be open and welcoming to everyone and it shouldn't need a badge for one group and not the others. Particularly as some have experienced racism at properties and I have had to deal with a casual disablism at a couple of them that frankly should not still be happening in this day and age.
A badge pays lip service to one aspect of society only.

tristrampowell.com/
this is his godson

I hope the volunteers at the local NT property walk out and they get some who genuinely are welcoming to everyone. I would volunteer but not to work with the ones who are there now.

This thread makes me realise that if you scratch the surface, there is still a lot of homophobia around. I do know that those who have made comments that show that will be thinking - I am not homophobic but....

And I have no problem with volunteers in a public-facing role being obliged to wear a badge indicating that LGBTI+ visitors are welcome.

Yes, I would if I felt like that. Yes they are bigots, but neither should they be forced to wear something against their wishes.

His godson says he would have hated it!!!
I doubt his godson has any idea. This man left his papers to the NT, was open with his friends and out, and implied he would have been really out if not illegal.
A godson is unlikely to know how he felt about this stuff.

Aeroflot as you say, they don't have to wear anything as they can walk out. This is democracy surely...?

No, don't shut up, it's all really interesting!

Actually, I've read a few more articles and I've changed my mind about this. Although I think that there are probably a few people with genuine concerns, the vast majority of statements I've read objecting to the campaign snack of "I'm not homophobic but..." and the only comments I can find from family members weren't particularly close ones, and some are arguing that the NT have no proof that he was gay.

I agree with you, they should not be forced to wear anything, it should be an option. Treating volunteers giving up their spare time like this. If I were them, I would walk out! What's happened to democracy!

Regardless of the cause being espoused, this is yet another example of the NT treating its (mostly elderly volunteers) like shit. Refusing to wear a badge does not = bigot.

I don't think they are treating them like shit. They're giving them an opt out from an event they may feel uncomfortable with.

Sorry this has clearly struck a nerve with me! I shall shut up now!

Am I the only one who goes round old houses, looks at the lives of the owners and how the property was passed about and sometimes considers that they might have been gay? Just in passing, not as an ooooh, bet they were gay!. With a basic knowledge of social history and what was considered right and proper at the time it really doesn't need to be brought to any more prominence than any other part of a family's history.