I was just reading an article in the UK news about a couple that has been charged with discrimination for not baking a cake that had a slogan on it about supporting gay marriage see (Baker ruled discriminatory). So I was thinking about this (especially after reading some of the comments) and decided to put my thoughts down.
To summarise the situation; a gay couple were getting married and they decided it would be nice if their cake had Bert and Ernie (from Sesame Street fame) on it along with a slogan to support gay marriage. They did not go to a baker that would make the cake no questions asked instead they went to a baker that (I suspect) they knew did not share their beliefs. The baker refused to make the cake on grounds of conscience. It did not fit their religious beliefs. They were taken to the anti-discrimination board and were told that they were, in fact, being discriminatory.
The standard comments for and against same sex couples getting married were shown in the comments section and the usual homophobic cries were written for anyone who did not agree with this decision. Some commenters stated that “..it is none of our business if two people love each other and want to get married…”. Some stated that religion has no place in society. Some stated that if you are in a business you must do what the customer wants.
Here is what I think about the situation and some of the commenters;
We are now treading on dangerous ground. If we accept that this baker cannot refuse someone based upon their sexuality then we must also accept that any demand for services that are not in accordance with your views must be undertaken when asked by a customer. For example, and I will try to use like for like, I can now go into specific bakeries and demand a wedding cake, birthday cake, divorce cake or any other kind of cake and have the following images and slogans put on them and the baker cannot refuse me on grounds of sexual discrimination:
- A muslim run bakery and demand a cake with a image of Muhammad and the slogan “support feminism in Islam, ban the burka”
- A catholic run bakery and demand a cake with a slogan “support abortion and pro choice for women”
- A gay run bakery and demand a cake with a picture of the Pope with a slogan “support the traditional family and vote no to gay marriage”
- A secular run bakery and demand a cake with a picture of a child and a slogan “support child molesters an vote for lowering the age of consent to 6”
- A feminist run bakery and demand a cake with a picture of a man standing over a woman and a slogan “support no women in the workforce”
The discrimination council would have to prosecute those bakers above who did not make the cake because the precedent has now been set.
Some commenters that stated “…it is none of our business if two people love each other and they should be allowed to marry..”. Using this line of defence we have to accept the following possibilities:
- Dad loves his daughter and she loves her dad so they can get married
- Dad loves his son and his son loves his dad so they can get married
- Mum loves her daughter and her daughter loves her mum so they can get married
- Mum loves her son and her son loves his mum so they can get married
- Brother loves his sister and his sister loves her brother so they can get married
- Uncle, Aunt, cousin, grandmother, grandfather, father-in-law, mother-in-law etc love each other so they can get married
As you can see by the above just because two people love each other does not automatically allow for them to marry or, for that matter, the redefinition of marriage.
Also, why stop at just two people loving each other why not include three or more people who love each other? Heck why not whole communities?
This is not really about whether or not a same sex couple has the right to marry it is about destabilising and secularising society by turning the old immorality into a false morality where non compliance is punishable by law. The fact is that no matter what “news-speak” and laws you pass to fit this you can never alter the fact that immorality does not change over time and morality does not change over time. By forcing people to accept immorality does not change the immorality nor does it change the right of people to do what is morally correct. More moral people will be forced to break the law in order not to break their moral conscience.
My concern is that if society is hell bent on going down this path, and I have no reason to suspect otherwise, then large religious organisations such as the Catholic Church (should it have the courage) will have to close its hospitals, hospices, aid agencies and donations to protest this discriminatory nature of our society.
I pray that the Church certainly does go down this path as secular society really needs a shake up of biblical proportions.
One more question it raises for me personally is do I tell my sons and daughters that if ISIS (or the like) come to Australia to establish their caliphate, they are not to fight them as Australia has nothing worth fighting for?
How many religious people fought and died in two world wars only to end up with a society that states “religion has no place in society”?
How many governments and individuals will expect those same religious people (who have no place in society) to fight along side of them to protect their evil perverted ways?
God help us all…