By Nigel Boys
A prominent activist of homos*xual rights, who applauded the decision of Irish courts to fine Ashers Baking Company for refusing to decorate a cake for Gareth Lee, a volunteer LGBT activist, has now reportedly changed his mind in favor of the bakers.
The controversy began when Karen McArthur, the mother of the manager of the Ashers Baking Company in Newton Abbey, was approached by a same-s*x “marriage” supporter to bake a cake with the phrase “support gay marriage.” She initially accepted the order, which was for an event in observance of the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, because she didn’t want the man to feel embarrassed, the Belfast Telegraph reported.
The cake was also to feature the logo for the homos*xual advocacy group QueerSpace, but on discussing the matter with another member of the family, the bakery agreed they could not in all good conscience before God, complete the order.
The customer was contacted and offered a full refund with the explanation that gay “marriages” were against their Christian beliefs, Daniel McArthur, manager of the bakery, told reporters.
This week, Peter Tatchell, a prominent campaigner on homos*xuality and free speech, says that he has changed his mind and now supports the rights of the Christian bakery. He claims that while discrimination against people is wrong, rejecting ideas is indeed lawful and the court’s decision against Ashers sets a “worrying precedent,” according to Charisma News.
“In my view, it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object,” Tatchell wrote in The Guardian, just days before Ashers’ appeal is heard in the Belfast Court of Appeals.
Tatchell wrote that while he wants to “defend the gay community,” he also believes he should back “freedom of conscience, expression and religion.” He adds that the legal action against the bakers is “a step too far,” and he now believes the court was “wrong to penalize Ashers, and I was wrong to endorse its decision.”
Since the bakery did not refuse to complete the order because the client was gay, but because of the message he wanted them to put on the cake, Tatchell writes, “There is no evidence that his s*xuality was the reason Ashers declined his order.”
The laws with which the Ashers were found guilty of discrimination, are not only flawed, but set a concerning pattern for the future, Tatchell writes. The reason for this being that he believes the decision against the Ashers was based on “political discrimination,” he adds.
The law was never intended to “compel people to promote political ideas with which they disagreed,” Tatchell commented.
As a further example of what he means, Tatchell asks, “should Muslim printers be obliged to publish cartoons of Mohammed? Or Jewish ones publish the words of a Holocaust denier?”
While Ashers’ Bakery has said that it is willing to serve homos*xuals in general, they don’t believe they should be forced to decorate cakes with messages that urge others to “support gay marriage,” because it is in violation of their faith.
Tatchell wrote that if the verdict against the Ashers stands, it could set a worrying example and encourage far-fight extremists to demand that bakeries and other business facilitate the promotion of anti-migrant or anti-Muslim opinions.
“In my view, it is an infringement of freedom to require businesses to aid the promotion of ideas to which they conscientiously object,” Tatchell wrote in conclusion. “Discrimination against people should be unlawful, but not against ideas,” he added.
Source
