Being, as we are around here, liberal we’re of course just fine with gay marriage and whatever else it is that consenting adults wish to do. Being liberal, as we are around here, we’re not OK with what consenting adults don’t consent to. Thus which side of the gay marriage cake case to take is pretty simple. The bloke asking for the cake to be made has the absolute right to so ask. The people asked have the absolute right to refuse.
The implications of not running things this way are significant:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] The lawyers contend that no reasonable person would equate producing the cake for an individual private customer with the bakery supporting the pro-gay marriage message on it. Phoenix Law will argue in Europe that the cake, which was made by another baker subsequently, “was not displayed in the shop window. It was for personal use by Lee and became his private property upon payment and collection.” The firm will also argue that “there is no such a thing as a ‘Christian business’” and therefore should not be given legal recognition by a court. On the latest twist in the saga, Lee said: “I’d fight for the rights of business owners to be able to hold their own religious beliefs. I have my own beliefs. But that’s not what my case has ever been about. “This is about limited companies being somehow able to pick and choose which customers they will serve. It’s such a dangerous precedent.” [/perfectpullquote]Well, yes, it is a dangerous precedent. Freedom and liberty always are dangerous.
Now, to give us the same situation but a slightly different tinge to it. Take Facebook. Or if you prefer, Twitter. Someone says something that it is entirely legal to say. It appears on that platform. Then some say that it’s hurtful, or hateful, or not up with the latest thinking on trans, or LGBT, or some other such issue. The account of the person who said it is closed and thus that WrongThink is deleted.
We do support the freedom of the platform to do this, do we? Actually, the very same people who argue the baker must make the gay cake are those who argue that Twitter must not carry WrongThink, aren’t they?
So, to ask the correct question. If we are to force a Christian baker to make the political statement “Support gay marriage” then why aren’t we forcing someone to host 8chan? Hmm, what was that? Your answer is that yes, you are indeed a hypocrite? Excellent, having established that then what do we do about this?
Obviously, be liberals, consenting adults have to consent.
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
The other day I was thinking through the "my dad raped my mum, I want compo!" case.
For centuries we've been destroying the Old Testament principal of the sins of the father descending on the children. For decades we've been destroying the principal that being a bastard is your fault. This case is turning that on its head. If it succeeds it allows people to sue their parents for being unmarried when they were born, it allows the descendents of slave-holders to sue for being the descendant of a slave-holder.
It was never the case that being a bastard was your fault (as Ramsay MacDonald pointed out) - it was merely an indication that your parents had lax moral standards. Many "royal bastards" became successful generals for their half-brothers or half-sisters.
Incidentally the OT principle was "unto the third or fourth generation" so no African-American can use the OT to condemn the descendant of a white 18th century American, let alone an Englishman.
It is a deliberate falsehood to say that the cake was for Lee's personal use and private property, no very public property - it was for public display and intended to be consumed by third parties.
"There is no such thing as 'a Christian business' ..." - apart from Ecclesiastical Insurance and hundreds of other examples. There was for many years, next to City Temple on Holborn Viaduct, a bookshop called "Christian Literature Crusade" which certainly believed that it was one and any London-based lawyer is likely to have noticed; Southwark Cathedral Refectory could have been noticed on their way to "Shakespeare's Globe"; has anyone noticed Port Sunlight?
Phoenix Law's submission should be thrown out on the grounds that it attempts to mislead the court.
As I remember it, this is the reason I didn't vote yes in the referendum/survey whatever on gay marriage here in Oz.
I didn't have any particular objection to gay marriage. Indeed I remember saying that I didn't care whether someone married a man or a woman; or a sheep, camel or alsatian dog.
However the howls of the gay marriage advocates became so ferocious, and their glee that now they could punish the ungodly so vicious, that in the end I voted no.
Exactly. Gays are writing a script for the reversal of the gains they've made, by screaming that no one may be allowed to refuse to serve them in any way they please. People are in the process of getting really sick of this excess. I'm very sorry this is happening, but gays have no one but themselves to blame.