THE letter (February 4) by several of my esteemed colleagues regarding the welcome non-appearance of Franklin Graham mystifies me. They attempt to tie Franklin to the meetings run under the auspices of his late dad, Billy Graham. Having been a fire steward at Celtic Park when Billy preached there some years ago I can say that the famous Billy showed none of the arrogance of his son. Billy was humble and spoke to me and my team every night.

However, Franklin has displayed disdain and has provided a theological basis for homophobia. Accusing the council and those bodies which objected to Mr Graham’s visit of being intolerant and of moving towards what they term a “less free society” is entirely disingenuous. They need to learn that there is a difference between freedom of speech and freedom of thought.

My colleagues have joined Franklin Graham in providing a theological justification for homophobia. They need to go and read about our boss (remember him). My colleagues do not speak for me or for any disciple of Christ. They serve only their theological egos.

Revd John Nugent, Wick.

THE cancellation of Franklin Graham's venue booking in Glasgow is presented by correspondents as antithetical to freedom of speech. It is not.

Mr Graham has called the "homosexual agenda" a threat to children, has endorsed pulling children out of schools which present LGBTs in any kind of positive light and wants his audiences, including children, to believe that homosexual relations will be punished by his "loving" god with eternal torture.

This aspect of his preaching is toxic enough to justify venue managers' moves to protect their own freedom not to host it.

The cancellation of a booking does not deprive Mr Franklin of speech, and any church leaders who see his message as wholly Christian are free to offer their churches as perfectly suitable places for it.

Moreover, if they conflate freedom of speech with freedom of venue booking, they could show their commitment to both by allowing LGBT activists to hold events in their churches. Or would they prefer the freedom of speech to say "No"?

Robert Canning, Chair of Secular Scotland, Edinburgh EH1.

IN reply to Joseph Yule (Letters, February 5) this heterosexual, practising (i.e. still hoping to get better at it) Methodist pensioner thinks there's nothing either hopeful or lovable about homophobia.

Rachel Martin, Musselburgh.