Politicians’ spineless silence over Gay Cake D-Day

Oct 9, 2018 by

By Alastair Thompson, The Conservative Woman.

Tomorrow [10th October] the Supreme Court will rule on the Ashers Bakery case. This is after the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland (ECNI) decided to sue the owners of a family bakery who declined to produce a cake carrying a picture of the Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie cuddling and the slogan ‘Support Gay Marriage’.

The Christian owners of the bakery, the McArthurs, said that making the cake would amount to endorsing the campaign for the introduction of gay marriage in the region and thus go against their religious convictions.

The man who placed the order, Gareth Lee, an activist for the campaign group Queer Space, was able to purchase a cake in the requested design from another bakery. Despite this the full apparatus of the state was turned on this small business, dragging the owners through the courts for the last four years.

Had it not been for the support of the Christian Institute, the people of Northern Ireland and many more, including The Conservative Woman, I am sure the McArthur family would have been forced to give up a long time ago.

Setting aside the hundreds of thousands this has cost the bakers and the taxpayer, which has been widely criticised, the implications for freedom of speech will be profound whatever the UK’s highest court decides.

In 2015, the Christian Institute asked leading human rights lawyer Aidan O’Neill QC what would be the impact of a ruling against the McArthur family.

Mr O’Neill was clear that a finding against Ashers Baking Co would open the floodgates to similar complaints across the UK and diminish the ability of business owners to act in accordance with their morals and beliefs, while opening them to constant intimidation and bullying.

For example, an atheist web designer could be taken to court for refusing to design a website presenting as scientific fact the claim that God made the world in six days. Or a Christian film company would not be able to refuse to produce hardcore porn. A clothing company owned by a LGBT couple would be unable to decline an order for T-shirts carrying a message describing gay marriage as an abomination.

And what about a printing company owned by a vegan who believes the production of halal meat is particularly cruel – should this person be forced to print leaflets for a butcher who sells these products?

Read here


Related Posts


Share This