A Turd In The Cake Mix

Larry Hughes gives his take on the Ashers cake case and what he terms the homosexual  equality agenda. Larry Hughes is a history and politics enthusiast. 

The media saturation in recent times concerning the Asher’s court case ruling combined with recent television debates has brought into sharp focus the referendum on same sex marriage. The yes campaign has received the endorsement of the party leadership of all the main parties. After recent developments however there appears to be a growing concern that what is being presented as a civil rights and equality issue may in fact be just the beginning of a much greater onslaught by the homosexual equality agenda.


Perhaps the conduct and attitude of the yes campaigners is in itself reason for the vast majority of people in our society to take a step back and consider what we are being asked to approve of on a pretext of decency and sentimentality to a minority pressure group. A group which itself has shown almost zero respect or consideration for anyone else’s feelings and values. It is a campaign that very much tells us if we are not with them we are against them. What exactly is going on behind the homosexual agenda disguised in a cloak of modernity and trendy liberalism and what sort of Pandora’s Box might a yes vote open up?

It is difficult to deny anyone the right to be happy or to love another human being. Gender or sexual preference is an irrelevance on this score and rightly so. Same sex marriage is unobjectionable on face value. Why shouldn’t homosexuals be as legally miserable as the rest of us? It is instinctive and humane to be drawn to the positivity and simplicity of this message. The reality is though that in recent televised debates some light was shed upon a homosexual agenda regarding the desire to adopt children and the ‘right’ to have a family. It has been stated that it was identified that legal status in marriage for homosexuals would be required as a first step in order to progress on this front. Others have labelled this a red herring and a scare tactic by the no campaigners. It has raised the issue of the desirability for legal clarity on the adoption and family law area in advance of the referendum taking place. Seemingly several attempts were made to amend the referendum legislation in this regard but were summarily rejected. Why?

All the political leaderships have jumped on the same sex marriage bandwagon as the trendy and just option. It is difficult to judge if this is from political opportunism and the desire to be seen as trendy by career politicians with no real interest in anything but the next vote, or from a fear of the PC brigade. The yes campaign on closer scrutiny has been a negative and quite rude one. If you are not in support of homosexual same sex marriage and even worse have the audacity to raise questions regarding the issue then you are ‘archaic’ and a dinosaur living in denial of the modern new trendy and cool world. Not a good approach when votes are required. If they are so rude now what will they be like after a yes vote? Let us just take a look at this. It is surely about time that someone did so.

I am using the term homosexual agenda here rather than ‘gay’ until someone can perhaps enlighten me as to why two grown men engaging in anal intercourse is something to be celebrated by the rest of society as ‘gay’. Not to mention, where and when exactly did the rainbow become the designated emblem and property of the homosexual minority? Something disturbing in the cake debacle is that a couple of kiddie’s television characters were used to advance a homosexual agenda. No one seems to feel able or confident enough to raise such questions for fear of the wrath of the ‘not so gay’ homosexual community and liberal brigade raining fire and brimstone upon their heads. 

Arguments have been made for and against the judgement in the Asher’s court case. With the verdict in their favour the homosexual campaigners are very forthright in their support of the law and haven’t missed an opportunity to cite the ‘law’ now in their favour. Others may find the saying the ‘law is an ass’ particularly apt in this case. The bigger picture is that if this is an indication of what a favourable verdict will bring on a cake icing issue then perish the thought of what will happen once homosexual marriage is given equality under family law. Red herring indeed!

For some time now homosexuality has had its agenda forced into everyone else’s lives. It is impossible to watch a television programme or a film these days without being exposed to homosexuality. It appears that there is a written rule somewhere that all media content has to include a compulsory homosexual component. East-Enders at 2pm on a Sunday afternoon and there they are, the two oiled up homosexual men going at it full pelt. All the soaps now have the obligatory homosexual relationship being forced into our living rooms. We have no choice but to either watch it or switch channel.

The human rights of homosexuals now take precedence over the vast majority of people’s right to personal feelings or values. There is no sanctuary from the homosexual onslaught in our society. Get a room and get out of our faces simply doesn’t seem to apply. We have no right to be offended or repulsed. We must accept homosexuality and tell our children who are subjected to it without our consent through almost every TV show broadcast these days that it is in fact natural. If we don’t we are uncool and archaic. Who are these people exactly? They are determined to deprive other people of their values whilst pushing their sexual preference and orientation in everyone else’s face relentlessly. What kind of society do they envisage creating for the majority of us in the coming decades?

People need to take a step back and not let the natural tendency towards decency and fair play be cynically manipulated by a long running homosexual rights agenda into voting through legislation on impulse. The rights and values of the majority are being trampled upon at every turn and it will be open season in the family law courts if a yes vote is secured. The cake case has whetted the appetite for the legal avenue.

Society has boundaries and common sense has a place in society also. The homosexual who placed the order at Ashers to my mind did so deliberately to get the reaction he did and then begin the legal case and gain publicity. I don’t care what some magistrate with a PC phobia said. I believe otherwise and I don’t need anyone’s permission to do so. If I walked into a bar on the Shankill Rd in my Celtic shirt I know what would be the likely outcome, and I’d deserve it too. A polite refusal would be a blessing! But reality doesn’t apply in the liberal homosexual new world order, where two men engaging in anal intercourse CAN result in children and a family. As for our politicians advice; were these not the same ever-present ‘faeces’ in the Dail who were telling us to get on the property ladder ASAP before we missed the boat and then bailed out the bankers at the people’s expense? Be careful what you wish for, and even more careful what you vote for!

220 comments:

  1. FFS Peter

    I only wanted to use a phrase with homo in it!

    Plain English Peter; anything that exposes these parochial dimwits to a bigger world might discourage them from tarring everyone not like themselves with the same brush.

    If they experienced more of life and encountered more of the richness of the new and exotic they might then find it easier to let others live.

    Its only, I believe, by completing the first part of the admonishment "Live and let live" that one can come to fulfil the second.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wheyhey 200 !!!!
    Brucey bonus for me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wolfsbane,

    if it is the law as in the Ashers case notwithstanding the appeal outcome I would be legally obliged. Should there be room for conscientious objection? Of course but our conscience must come with a price tag as Henry Joy pointed out otherwise society would be wholly dysfunctional with all and sundry inflicting their prejudices on everybody else and claiming conscience. The higher the cost we pay for our conscience the more we can be believed it is genuinely conscientious and not availing of the easy opportunity to inflict our prejudices.

    In real life I am not sure how consistent or rigorous we would all be about these matters. I know if Willie McCrea, a self proclaimed Christian, was selling cakes I would ask for a dozen with god bless the devil type inscriptions. If Brian Kennaway, another self proclaimed Christian, was selling cakes, I would tiptoe around his shop and take the attitude of let him get on with it.

    My reason for that would be that I would regard McCrea as someone who uses religion for the venting of hate, whereas I see Kennaway entirely differently.

    The human factor does distort a more objective view of these matters.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anthony, I'm still trying to get you to the real point.

    I'm not asking if you WOULD be legally obliged, but SHOULD you be legally obliged: 'IF you were providing a service (a printer, a cake decorator, a publisher who took ads), should you be obliged to take the one I presented?'

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wolfsbane,

    I no longer know what one you are talking about in terms of what "you presented". If you mean your biblical verse, I should be legally obliged not to refuse on grounds of conscience that would discriminate against you simply because you are a Christian, if I was printing versus from the Koran for somebody else. In short I don't think I should be legally permitted to discriminate against a group of people on the basis of prejudice/conscience. How that works out in every case I do not know: whether it would give me the right as a Liverpool supporter to refuse to bake a Manchester United cake.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anthony, thanks, for clearing that up. You take the Peter Tatchell position. No more freedom of conscience allowed in business.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wolfsbane,

    I am not even sure I can commit to that position as easily as you imply because there is a struggle with the implications that flow from either argument. We could play Russian Dolls with this forever and will always come with scenarios that are challenging to each position: an exception that seems to defy the rule. For example, I just feel that a Catholic does not have the right to refuse to serve a Protestant a cake on which the customer wants the inscription "The Pope is Not Infallible" and cite conscience to do so. To me it is discrimination based on prejudice. At root, I take the view that people should voluntarily desist from practicing their religion on others who do not want it practiced on them. There are other things you asked me in an earlier comment which I have still to get back to you about. Just can't recall what they were at the minute. I will revisit.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ian says

    "I'm not asking if you WOULD be legally obliged, but SHOULD you be legally obliged"

    Your question at one level I guess reflects the degree of perplexity the whole Ashers question seems to be causing you ... and indeed the ensuing level of frustration its may be causing you too.
    More alarmingly it could also suggests a retreat from reality into some sort of denial. The 'SHOULD you be legally obliged' implies that you are requiring that it ought not be legally obliged. Notwithstanding the pending appeal, such attitudes and thinking reflects a disconnect with the actualities of the law as it currently stands. Its somewhat akin to bemoaning the fact that it rained on ones birthday garden-party or barbecue.

    Whining that 'it shouldn't be this way' or 'its not fair' are generally symptomatic of resentfulness or of some neurotic attempt to disconnect from facing life on life's terms.

    Whilst not entirely unsympathetic to the angst this ruling poses for people who are by most reasonable measurement essentially good and decent I'd suggest you park this one up Ian. Take a breather, allow yourself to calm down and await the results of the appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Henry, you are arguing that one should be content with whatever law is passed. So to object to a law banning criticism of the Government would be whining that 'it shouldn't be this way' or 'its not fair' and generally symptomatic of resentfulness or of some neurotic attempt to disconnect from facing life on life's terms.

    I don't agree. To disagree with a bad law is symptomatic of a healthy conscience, one that is looking to improve everyone's life.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anthony, that indeed shows the difference in our outlook.

    I would be ashamed to demand a Catholic bake a cake with the inscription "The Pope is Not Infallible", and view any such attempt as a wicked imposition on his/her conscience. I fully agree with the inscription,but if I want such a cake I should find a baker whose conscience permits it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wolfsbane,

    it would be as wicked or not as the Christian who might walk into a Satanist run shop and ask for a cake with the inscription god is good.

    the gay in the Ashers case might think the refusal is a wicked imposition on his conscience and a religious attempt to introduce costumer apartheid into service industries. He might as a matter of conscience feel that in the spirit of Rosa Parks he would not be told where to sit on the bus so that those opposed to rights extension like Strom Thurmond could argue that "all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, into our schools, our churches and our places of recreation and amusement.": the judge might have felt that in all conscience she had to rule against Ashers because no legal right exists to discriminate. Whose conscience is to prevail in such circumstances? Why should Christian conscience have any more to recommend it than other consciences and how is society to decide?

    Nor does it imply a difference in our outlooks to the point you suggest. Because I would not be running around bakeries looking for people to offend. I have argued on this site previously in respect of offence - people who like to offend and people who like to be offended leave in my opinion little to choose between. The difference in our outlook is that I believe a person has a right to their conscience or their religion but they cannot inflict it on others if it amounts to discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Now, now Wolfsbane lets not conflate some imaginary piece of dictatorial legislation and existing Equality laws.
    By introducing imaginary draconian curtailments on free speech you attempt to stand up a straw man.

    What you criticise is in fact Equality law as enacted by national parliament and also upheld by EU law. This law is to protect citizens from acts of prejudice or discrimination on the grounds of religious, ethnic and sexual difference. At this point in time the courts have decided that the customer was indeed discriminated against by Ashers.

    Your characterisation of the legislation as "bad law" and bemoaning the fact that this ruling shouldn't have happen is just mental musterbation on your behalf and makes you blind to current realities.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is just a sense that the advocates for Ashers in general are experiencing difficulty finding a piece of ground they can dig into that does not shift away beneath their feet the minute they seize it. They seem to argue the case in the way that Young Earth Creationists argue their own: it might appeal to YEC types but virtually nobody not of that mindset. Self referential perspectives find it hard to make ground. I don't think the Ashers verdict is a great shake just as I would not regard their having won it as such either. The tide is going in a certain way within society and the lines drawn by religious types are like faces drawn in the sand, they wash away once the tide reaches them, regardless of what the law says about tides. If Ashers are really conscientious in their objection it will be borne out the next time a person comes in to the shop and asks for the same type of cake. They either shut up shop or they go to jail for their conscience. If they do either they will have a lot of admiration. If they bake the cake it will be matter of profit before prejudice. We shall see.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anthony,

    I don't want anyone to be forced to print/make slogans they find offensive. I don't care if their idea of right and wrong is opposite mine. I don't regard them as discriminating against me if it is the content of the slogan that is the problem, not my religion, sex, sexual orientation, politics, disability or what ever. You think they should be forced.

    And yes, it will be a test of their courage and morality when they are presented with a similar request. They have made it clear they will not be complying. Not for gay cakes, nor nazi cakes, nor any cake promoting things contrary to Christian conscience.

    It will be a big shake when Christians or atheists will be jailed or put out of business from refusing to print such slogans.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Henry,

    So you think there is no such thing as bad law, that we all should be content with all laws or be guilty of mental masturbation? Or is it just laws you disapprove of that can be challenged?

    As for 'imaginary draconian curtailments on free speech', I simply point to the countries where this liberal fascism has already been played out - why would you think our country will go any differently?




    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/04/14899/

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3099487/Christian-preacher-arrested-held-cell-11-HOURS-lesbian-falsely-accuses-homophobia.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wolfsbane,

    Thank you.

    I think the exchange has now been drained of novelty from either side.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ah, Anthony, what a bummer!

    But it has been an enlightening exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ian

    as AM says, I think we've reached an impasse on this.
    Of course one can have certain sympathies with the likes of the McArthurs and yourself in this matter but just as you perceive the 'greater good' not being served by the ruling I hold the opposite opinion.

    I can't see how a 'conscientious objector' clause can be worked into equality legislation as that in itself creates some sort of hierarchy.

    (Musterbation is a term coined by Albert Ellis to reflect the expression of should's, must's and have to's in language which reflect rigid rules for living and demand thinking).

    We all have the right to hold personal preferences but we don't have the right to impose them on or demand them of others. Legislation is sometimes required to curtail this very human trait.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If Ashers, or any other company where a similar situation might arise, wish to select what they're prepared or not prepared to put on a cake or whatever then they have to advertise their business accordingly. It's as simple as that. They are guilty of discrimination, regardless of how sympathetic we might be to their predicament or the overall argument. It couldn't be any simpler, the argument to the contrary is wishful thinking

    ReplyDelete
  20. DO YOU NEED HELP TO BRING BACK YOUR LESBIAN OR GAY PARTNER?

    I want to thank Dr Ken for bringing back my lesbian partner, we broke up for more than 4 month and she told me that she never want to see me in her life again. i love her so much to the extend that i could not do any thing again, i was confused and depress due to the love i had for her. i did everything i could do to have her come back to me but all went in vain. so i decided to contact a spell caster, i did not believe in spell casting i just wanted to give it a try, may be it would work out for me. i contacted Dr Ken for help, He told me that he have to cast a love spell on her, i told him to start it. after 3 days my sweet lesbian lover called me and started to apologize for leaving me and also she told me that she still love me. i was very happy and i thank Dr Ken for helping me get back my ex lesbian lover to my hands. His spell is the the greatest all over the world, it was the love spell he cast on my ex that made her come back to me. All you ladies and guys who want their ex partners back should contact Dr Ken for help with the following email address and get all your problem solve. No problem is too big for him to solve. Contact him direct at supersolutionhome1@gmail.com or supersolutionhom@yahoo.com or view through his website and Contact him there: supersolutionhome.webs.com His phone number +2348074433380. Thanks to DR. KEN. He's one of the few genuine ones out there. I can attest to that.

    ReplyDelete