No Fairy Cake

We discussed before an increase in attacks by minority interest groups on those who don't conform to the new ideology on such matters as 'Gay Rights', 'Race' or 'Gender' issues, and any other such matters that certain groups consider to be 'their rights'.

They Found Another Cake Maker ...

 

So we saw both the chairman of Mozilla, and the chairman of the Premier League, hounded by the mob, in what increasingly looks like a deliberate and long campaign of intimidation of anyone brave enough to stick up two fingers to the madness of the forced conformity of views that this fascism will inevitably lead to. Oddly, the group who advocate the killing homosexuals, locking women in the home, or genital mutilation to deny women's sexuality, are not attacked in this manner ... mainly because the protesters are terrified of the reaction of the bearded madmen, who come streaming out of their strongholds at the drop of a hat, threatening immediate violence to any luvvies who stand in their way. 

A recent example of the cowardice of the mobs targets, is the attack on the the Christian orientated Ashers Baking Company in Northern Ireland, who earlier last year had the outright temerity to decline to accept an order for a cake from a customer. The reason for the refusal was that as a 'Christian' organisation they don't support 'Gay Marriages', which incidentally are also still not legal in Northern Ireland (or at least weren't at the time), and so they declined to bake a cake decorated with pro gay slogans supporting such ideas.

It gave the reason to the customer as the order request being "at odds" with its Christian beliefs, and presumably they suggested that the customer try on one of the hundreds of local bakery shops who  would have been happy with such a commission. But in an action which suggests that this was a deliberately provocative and targeted order, the customer demanded financial compensation for the 'upset and inconvenience caused'. 

 

 Now as they had never done more than simply refuse the order (which is no different to them saying, 'sorry our order bookings are full for the next xx months', please try another supplier), then how the customer could have been any more inconvenienced than looking in the 'Yellow Pages', and making another phone call, its hard to see. In fact had the shop simply lied, and used that excuse, then presumably the customer would have had no obvious reason to complain. So this matter lies purely on the fact that the cake was being ordered by an 'unnamed' (funny, he ~ I am assuming its a 'he' ~ can be unnamed, but the company name gets plastered over the press), 'gay activist' for a civic event in Bangor, County Down, marking 'International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia'.

Once he or they had been refused the 'modest damages for the upset and inconvenience caused', he immediately reported the matter to the Equality Commission, which presumably had little to do in Northern Ireland now that the 'troubles' have subsided, and said that after contacting the firm and its solicitors, who are robustly defending their clients, that it was to begin civil proceedings against them.

And in another example of the double standards that one side always seems to employ, the chief commissioner of the Equality Commission talked quite openly about the 'Ashers case' during the 'Gay Pride' debate in Belfast, but has since claimed he is not free to talk about it in a public debate.

Now, I am bothered by several issues here, but not the the legal rights and wrongs of the arguments ... whether either side has the law on their side, is for a court to determine. No, the issues that bother me are:

Not only is this new attempted interpretation of the law, saying that not only can't you discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation, but that you can be forced to propagandise (being forced to make products promoting a lifestyle is propagandising), on behalf of those beliefs, even when they are against your own.

I am not against 'gay rights' where that says that someone's sexual orientation is entirely their own matter, as long as it hurts no one else or infringes on no one else's rights. But taking it from the bedroom to the workplace, or demanding that others conform to the idea that homosexual behaviour is unchallengeable, is pressing against what I believe is the fundamental freedom of conscience. Just as a for instance, would a conscious objector still be allowed to not fight in a war, if this was based upon their 'Christian ideals', now that this same set of ideals is not sufficient grounds to defend against being forced to commemorate or propagandise for 'gay rights'?

These sorts of discussions open up many questions that we have discussed before, and which libertarians should be able to answer, but can't:

Q: If we say that 'equality rights', always supersede and override the rights of those people who claim that an action is against their own beliefs, where is the balance?
Q: Can you be forced by law to propagandise for practices that are against your own beliefs?
Q: Do homosexual rights trump all other rights, such as freedom of religion?
Q: Why are another group, some of whom openly preach against homosexuality, not subject to the same pressures as Christian groups?

When minority pressure groups start hunting down 'soft targets' such as cake shops, where is the bottom line? Will they start picketing individuals homes, harassing their children, sending hate mail, trolling on social media? ..... Just where does it legitimately end?

Its a very disturbing trend that does nothing for equal rights, and seems very like the sort of thought fascism that holds Islamic countries in thrall. It feels as though the very idea of freedom of conscience appears to be under severe threat with this 'unequal' rights legislation.