Slightly OT - but this does deserve comment. I understand where
@davews is coming from. However as a Christian, my take on it is I condemn the sin, not the sinner. So it then comes down to how people choose to live their lives, compared to the teachings of the Bible. So endeavouring to avoid sin - which can take many forms.
Absolutely.
This does seem to be a concept which is increasingly becoming alien in our culture - either you love and support everything about a certain issue, or hate and despise it. Is it possible to love the person who commits the sin, and yet condemn the sin itself? Increasingly the answer seems to be no. This is the key issue I have with many of the posts people have made on this forum. If "condemn the sin, love the sinner" is impossible, love, in its every form, would not exist, pure and simple.
We are all sinners. We are also all God's children, created in His own image, and loved by Him. Why should we condemn others for being sinful, when we, however much we wish to ignore it, are sinners ourselves? "As I have loved you, so must you love one another." - John 13:34.
Think of the Prodigal Son. The father does not run after his son, but he waits for him to return. Not judgmentally, like the older brother, but still in perfect and unconditional love for his lost son - not his profligacy, not his sins, but for his son - and organises the huge feast upon his return.
Why can we not be more like that - on both sides? We won't ever agree unequivocally with the actions, beliefs etc. of any other person in this world, past, present, or future.
Love and agreement are two different things - and hate and disagreement even more so. Things need not be so black-and-white.
To be clear: I do not support gay
marriage (not necessarily all relationships), I do not support the Scottish identification bill that was blocked, I am very strongly against abortion; it annoys me somewhat when people, after listening to me explain myself politically, automatically assume that I take a liberal approach in such matters (given I'm otherwise a fairly textbook left-winger). This, I think, shows the kind of issues around how polarised this is, shows how black-and-white things are (which I'm not suggesting is due to any particular "side" on this discussion).
Nevertheless, I support "inclusivity", and I think that's where the distinction is going un-noticed. My belief is that the orientation, faith, gender, and age (to an extent) of whoever is driving my train, checking my ticket, operating the doors, emptying the bins, fixing the ticket machines, etc. etc. etc. are irrelevant. And, in an industry that has historically had issues with marginalised groups, I think that a gesture to show how they are committed to it is a good thing, even though I'm not sure about the choice of gesture.
(Not necessarily aimed at you
@A0wen - just prompted by your post.)