Christian Bakeries that won't bake Cakes reading, "Support Gay Marriage"
Asher's Belfast run by the McArthurs is accused of discriminating
against and demeaning Gareth Lee who asked for a cake to be iced
with "Support Gay Marriage" as a statement against anti-gay hate in
time for International Day against Homophobia. Muppets Bert
and Ernie were to be depicted.
Ashers decided it would make the cake and entered into verbal contract to do
so and then cancelled two days later! It broke its agreement and thus
discriminated against the customer.
It is saying it did not discriminate against a gay person but against a
political message. And Ashers had no way of knowing if political or religious or
just non-legal gay marriage was meant. It is pulling the wool over
people's eyes. It judged Gareth Lee's meaning and punished him
accordingly.
It is lucky though that this test of the
anti-discrimination law is based around a cake. It could have been worse.
What if a Christian hospital would not let a man visit his husband in hospital
on the basis that it implies acceptance for gay marriage?
Also Ashers does not tell us that if the cake were to read, "I am glad to be
gay" and was refused it would be discrimination against the customer. And if it
were a gay wedding cake a couple would be discriminated against. Also, Ashers
does does not tell us that same sex marriage is not just a political issue - it
is principally a rights issue. It is a fundamental human right more important
than any religious rights. Ashers appeals to its right of freedom of conscience
but it is a business and a business is not a person and does not therefore have
a conscience. A business is not a person and though a business may be forced in
political matters individuals should not. The rights of freedom of speech and
conscience and religion applies to people only not business.
It is said it would be cruel to force Ashers to make the cake but that
presumes that supporting same sex marriage can be cruel at least for some. To
sympathise is just to enable homophobia.
It is a business's job to be prepared to produce things that it strongly
disagrees with. Ashers is a business and not a religion and has no right to try
and use religious freedom as an excuse for refusing to print non-violent
messages.
Public service
Ashers was a bakery run by Christians - it is not a Christian organisation
and so it was providing a service to the public. That is the key issue. Does a
non-religious entity have the right to impose the religious beliefs of its
members on the public?
Those who say yes for the public can always shop elsewhere are missing the
point. What about the principle? Principles seem insignificant but abandoning
them has devastating consequences. If Ashers is right then there should be no
place that would bake a gay cake. Remember people with bad principles always
discriminate and make others feel inferior. If your principles are flawed it is
going to affect how you see and relate to others. Principles are kept in the
heart but they are not private.
Some say if Ashers were refusing to print for a football team who they were
strongly opposed do that would be discriminating on the basis of preference not
principle. But for many, being for or against gay marriage is just a preference.
If it is, then Ashers are only pretending they turned down the cake on a point
of principle.
It was not Ashers Message
Everybody knows icing the cake did not imply Ashers really endorsed Gay
Marriage. It endorsed nothing. And even if it did it would be
endorsing the right to ask people to support gay marriage. Freedom of
speech means allowing a person to ask for what you consider to be wrong or evil.
Everybody knows that Christians who run newspapers publish letters
criticising Christianity and Christ that they do not agree with. Publishing does
not imply support for those opinions and views. Ashers like the Christians are
not putting a message out for themselves but for somebody else. It is not their
message.
Ashers knows that not everybody is free to apply individual moral codes for
there would soon be chaos.
Despite the lies of Ashers supporters, Ashers was homophobic towards Gareth
Lee. It said it would bake the cake and then refused and cited biblical grounds.
In other words, it gave the impression it was going to do the right thing and
then reneged. Accepting and refusing and then quoting scriptures that savage
homosexuals is homophobia. And especially when the message on the cake was
totally harmless and not only harmless but loving and respectful.
Ashers does not abhor anti-gay religious violence. If you abhor such
violence you will not regard any book that says it is from God that endorses it
as good but as a disgrace. The Bible God demanded stoning gay people to death
and went as far as to warn his people that he would destroy them should they
fail to heed any of his edicts. Christians do not stone but that is not the
point. They agree with the murders that took place. So whose message comes first
if there has to be a choice? A harmless message asking for people to consider
protecting same sex love in marriage? Or one laden with passive aggression and
hypocrisy and blood drinking?
The Cake was only asking people to consider supporting Gay Marriage, it was
not forcing them.
The g Word
Ashers had a problem too with the word gay on the cake. Christian belief is
that a homosexual does not have a gay life for it will lead only to unhappiness
in the next life if not in this one.
Political?
And people need to stop saying that the statement on the cake was a
political statement. Support Gay Marriage does not clarify if it means civil
marriage. We know there are other kinds of marriage not just civil marriage. For
example, the Catholic Church can annul a marriage recognised by the state and
let the couple marry new spouses whose weddings are null and void in the sight
of the state.
It was about trying to make Lee feel like dirt
The McArthurs got the order for the Support Gay Marriage cake Gareth Lee and refused him in such a way that he felt like a lesser
person. He said that.
Now for all they knew the cake could have been meant to give to somebody at
a party as a wind-up. It was not their business to decide if the message was
serious or not. If the cake was a joke and they knew that they would have had no
problem baking it. They were homophobic for they hated the message so much that
they would have hated it even if it were in jest.
Gareth Lee was a regular in their premises. They must have known or had a
good idea that he was gay. He would have been taking the boyfriend there or gay
friends. The cake confirmed their suspicions and they declined his order. Do not
forget they broke their contract with him. They agreed to do the cake and then
declined. That made him feel that his custom was being insulted and he was
right. What they knew or did not know was not provable so it did not come up in
court.
And as for their deeply held belief that gay marriage is wrong the fact
remains that if their belief runs too deep it amounts to bigotry. And such
bigotry is definitely against persons not ideas.
As for their attempt to get away with it by pretending their faith is so
important to them, that is a further ongoing attack on Mr Lee. And how can you
be sure that a person really believes what they say and think they believe? Is
it the law's place to take them at their word? Would they respect Mr Lee if he
said he was getting apparitions and was told that the cake was part of God's
unusual and mysterious plan to save the world from a Satanic attack?
Ashers already bakes cakes it disagrees strongly with
Ashers should bake items with non-violent messages period.
I'm sure they have no problem in conscience with giving a
type one diabetic a cake! Bigots.
It is odd when Ashers bakes first communion cakes though it sees Catholic
communion as an unbiblical counterfeit for receiving Jesus and idolatrously more
interested in uniting with Jesus' flesh than in becoming him spiritually and
does not bake cakes for gay marriage. What if the cake was for Mormons and read,
"God is not a spirit but a man of flesh and bone" You can be sure it will bake
it.
The cake did not endorse anything harmful but something many people
experience as good - same sex marriage. It is not the same thing if somebody
comes in wanting a cake saying, "Support the Racist Party". We must remember
that Ashers want the right to condemn something good. Their sympathisers may not
admit it but they feel Ashers should be allowed to discriminate against gay
people and they reason they feel it is because they are not convinced that gay
people are really capable of being good or married.
The difference between a cake saying, "Migrants Out" and "Support Gay
Marriage" is that the first opposes fundamental human rights and the second
endorses a fundamental human right. The slippery slope fear is scaremongering.
Where is the line to be drawn if we agree with Ashers that one is as bad as
the other? Would Ashers have the right to refuse to bake communion bread for
Catholics in view of the fact that the Catholics will worship this bread as
Jesus himself? The Bible ban on idolatry is very stern. Ashers knows by now that
it is in the wrong and it still keeps trying to get the right to discriminate.
While worrying about a slippery slope it is not afraid to put the nation on a
slippery slope.
A troll commented on an article opposing the bakery's action as follows
"What the bigots posting here failed to have noticed is it is the message that
the customer wanted on the cake that the bakery objected to not Mr Lee."
According to her, the bakers were not discriminating against anyone. They were
merely asserting the right to refuse to make a cake that contradicted their
conscience.
Even if she were right, the fact remains that the bakery has no problem
approving and supporting a hypocritical religious and political system that
tells lawyers who know they are defending evil monsters and trying to get them
off the hook to condone the evil and tell themselves that the monsters are good
people. After all, a good lawyer has to believe his or her own lies to be
convincing and to convince others. Christianity does not really believe in
freedom of conscience and virtue except when it suits its prejudices.
The fact remains also that Mr Lee was discriminated against in the sense
that his right to marriage was being insulted. It might be a bit indirect but it
is still discrimination.
Some say you could not expect Ashers to fill an order to bake a cake with a
pornographic picture on it. But to compare a loving message of support for same
sex marriage to pornography is distasteful.