A couple of months ago, Finance Minister Paula Cox famously said words to the effect that she did not see the need for homosexuals to be protected under the Human Rights Act because she was unaware of them being discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Presumably that was before the Government committed its own act of discrimination this week when it barred drag queen and prominent gay Sybil Barrington (aka Mark Anderson) from taking part in the Bermuda Day Parade.

Government?s reasoning was this: ?Given the longstanding cultural mores of the annual Bermuda Day holiday and local sensitivities, it was considered inappropriate for Mr. Anderson?s entry to participate in the parade?.

This came after a number of Gombey groups had threatened to boycott the Parade if Mr. Anderson participated.

As it was, Mr. Anderson crashed the parade and, wisely, no one tried to stop him.

But this is exactly the reason why Renee Webb?s amendment to the Human Rights Act is needed.

If Ms Cox and others needed it, it shows how easy it is to discriminate against gays. Bigots can cite ?cultural mores? and ?local sensitivities? all they want. In the end, it is just another form of discrimination, and not better than the days of segregation in Bermuda when blacks were barred from restaurants and hotels because of the ?cultural mores? and ?sensitivities? of American tourists.

Still, the decision by the Government indicates just how much chance Ms Webb?s bill has of getting support from the Progressive Labour Party. While some MPs may back it, the guessing here is that the majority will once again show just how anti-progressive they are.

A similar split is likely on the other side of the floor where, if anything, the United Bermuda Party is less liberal on social issues than it was when the Stubbs bill was passed.

That?s too bad.

Mr. Anderson? banishment from the Bermuda Day Parade may serve as a symbol of this debate, but it pales in insignificance compared to gays who lose their jobs, are barred from housing, are refused service in restaurants and face outright discrimination in every facet of their lives.

This newspaper respects the views of those who oppose the amendment based on their religious views, but would remind them of the golden rule and ask them how they would like to be treated in similar circumstances.

The AME church has recently raised concerns that this amendment would pave the way to gay marriages and to the use of ?hate crime? legislation against churches who oppose homosexuality. It is for the MPs who support the amendment to set the church?s minds at rest and to show that preventing discrimination under the Human Rights Act does not automatically lead to other changes in the law.

Instead, this amendment would enable homosexuals and lesbians to lead their lives in ways that heterosexuals take for granted ? to be hired for jobs based on merit, to have shelter and to pursue some degree of personal happiness. Surely there is nothing wrong with that.

It is worth remembering that this legislation also protects the rights of heterosexuals. It may seem unlikely, but it is perfectly possible under the law for a homosexual to refuse a job or a home to a heterosexual on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Passing this law will demonstrate Bermuda?s tolerance and willingness to keep an open mind. Rejecting it will send the opposite message to the world.