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

The problem has all come about because of NT's ham-fisted management. There is another historic house that was owned by LGB: for years it has been know as an interesting piece of architecture that had some illustrious visitors and btw the owners were lesbian when naice people didn't do such things. It's an add-on piece of information, not the whole point of the place, which is the proper way to do it.
Plas Newydd

toad Yes it's about LGBT rights, but even that isn't simple.

It's worth looking at @babybarrister's post on page 14. They've summed up some of the issues / interpretations well.

Another way of thinking about it is that I support gay rights, but feel gender identity isn't in the same category. For me there are sexuality issues and gender issues so putting trans in with lesbian, gay and bisexual issues doesn't fit for me. I'm in favour of trans rights and making sure trans people get support they need to transition etc and be accepted, but I don't agree with the trans lobby of mainly male to female trans women claiming that because they call themselves a woman and Wear dresses, they are a woman and so they should be able to be in women's spaces, gains women's scholarships and take places in women's sports.

My view can't be summed up in a daft little badge and I would take issue with being told I'm a bigot because I won't be forced to wear a symbol that oversimplifies a number of issues in order to tick and equalities box

More likely they feel uncomfortable about gay stuff.

nobody should have to convey anything

The question of exactly what the badge is meant to convey is a good one - but, ultimately, I fervently believe that nobody should be forced to hold (or appear to hold) any opinion. No matter what that opinion is.

Should they be forced to obey the law? Absolutely. Is it okay for the National Trust to decline the services of a volunteer who expresses personal opinions which the National Trust feels are contrary to its own? Probably. Should the National Trust be allowed to dictate to others what opinions they have to wear on their clothing? Absolutely not.

In this case I wouldn't necessarily assume that the non wearers are homophobic- I am not comfortable with the extreme trans activism, with children as young as 3 being referred to transgender clinics, for me it's child abuse

Yes, and many lesbian women are sidestepping the rainbow flag preferring the old labrys or intertwined women's symbols because they feel squeezed out of the LGBTQI movement and because it no longer speaks for them.

It seems to me that the badge conveys support for LGBT rights. Have I missed something?

I totally take on board your point BB but nobody should have to convey anything: tell the public about the house, yes; personally identify with it, no.
Would we expect guides at Bluebeard's castle to identify with him?

Babybarrister, totally agree it's not even clear what the rainbow stands for, it's open to interpretation. so how someone can be called a bigot for not wearing it is beyond me.

i think it's dangerous when people start to call everyone who disagrees with them or doesn't wish to go along with something against their will a bigot. To me it's a form of control with people being told to go along with something without having any idependant thought. People have the right to their opinions. In this case I wouldn't necessarily assume that the non wearers are homophobic- I am not comfortable with the extreme trans activism, with children as young as 3 being referred to transgender clinics, for me it's child abuse. I won't wear a badge that now stands for something I don't believe in. I don't like the way the rainbow has been hijacked as a way to push a political agenda. There are people in the LGBT community that agree.

Can I ask a question.
All those saying "if you won't wear a rainbow thingy then you are a bigot": are you wearing a rainbow thingy this morning? And a million other thingies for all the causes you support. Do we really need to wear our hearts on our sleeves?

We went to Blenheim yesterday, the home of the Dukes of Marlborough. Nobody was asking the staff to wear ducal ermine. They wore ordinary clothes and got on with their job. Nobody was asked to identify with the owner of the house.

Overkill by the NT, as they have now acknowledged.

Some very eloquent posts on here.

For my thoughts - I think it is great that the NT do research on previous lives of owners and history of the house &objects. Small exhibitions are interesting and add colour to a visit. But making a film seems slightly over the top - although it does allow more "access" to information - thinking about inclusivity and visitors who struggle to read.

However making volunteers wear badges is just a nonsense. The NT could made them available for staff and volunteers to wear if they chose. A very early PP made reference to suffragettes - yes personally I would like to see more on that with appropriate fan-fare and I expect others will have similar causes.

The NT are heavy handed - do write to them if you are a member. They will probably ignore you but at least they cant be unaware of how people feel.

A final post - I am not prejudiced or bigoted in any way. But I dont need people to be made to wear badges for me to believe that an organisation is being inclusive and open to all.

This is a serious fucking problem. If you don't wear our badge you're a bigot. If you don't use the exact words we say you're a bigot. If you don't think the exact same way you are a bigot.

abigcupoffuckyou puts this very well. If there are bigots in this situation, I'm not entirely sure which side of the fence they are sitting on...

I wouldn't wear the badge either. I care deeply about gay rights and have participated in loads of events supporting that in the past, but can't any more.

Until they drop the T, pride is not for me.

I applaud the NT for trying publicise the history of the man who owned this house. Part of what makes old houses interesting is the lives, generally personal, of the people who lived there. No one would have any beef with publicising the personal life of the average heterosexual nuclear family, so there really should be no issue with doing the same with the life of a gay man. Equality means normalizing these things and so the NT has a responsibility to tell this man's story.

And so I'm sad that the NT has messed up so badly by debasing this important issue into a bit of cheap gimmickry. Accurate presentation of history needs to be kept apart from advocacy. Furthermore, there's nothing liberal or permissive here. It just reflects a value shift. There is just as much intolerance, the target has just changed.

It's a sad indictment of today's society when reluctance to wear a pin badge has you labelled as 'bigot'

Indeed.

Hudson10

Think of being at a dinner party, or a BBQ or something. Conversations move on and devolve. Just like here anonymously.

I don't think it is deliberate, just moveable chat.

nocoolnamesleft.

I totally agree with you.

Abortion is banned as is Gay marriage in NI. Cannot understand how that happened.

But who gives a shit about NI really? Apart from UK taxpayers having to prop it up with 11 BILLION POUNDS per annum.

I often wonder if Mainland folk know this.

if you want to compare rights with NI, what about women's reproductive rights?

total sidestep away from the points raised above.

Hey, if you want to compare rights with NI, what about women's reproductive rights?

Is LGBT some kind of religion now?

It seems that way if people are trying to force their beliefs down others throats.
Remind me again how different that is to major religions imposing their beliefs on a person?

Yay Squoosh.

You seem to be a bit angry.

But you are right (as I said myself anyway), gay rights in NI is an abomination in comparison to the rest of the UK.

So could that mean that the mainland doesn't care about them? I actually think it does. No one cares what they do as long as they get their 11billion per annum subvention to carry on their bigotry.

Dare I say it, but mainland UK doesn't give a shit about NI, some of them think it is part of ROI.

Irrelevant

The point is gay people still cannot get married in NI therefore it's utterly fatuous for you to say 'gay rights have been established. nothing to see here'.

Oh and Squoosh,

Dare I say it, but mainland UK doesn't give a shit about NI, some of them think it is part of ROI.

Took the ROI PM to say that SSM is on the cards there, something the DUP will not allow ever. But they are Christians I suppose with all the love for everyone. Such hypocrisy.

Anyway I don't want a fight, just a debate.