You can hear the whole podcast from which this is taken here –
The Blog of David Robertson
You can hear the whole podcast from which this is taken here –
Perhaps the Scottish Christian Party should make a complaint and kick up a fuss rather than meekly roll over in order to ‘keep the peace’ as Christians generally do!! In the end everyone suffers when those who should know better remain silent.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Interesting point – so then that surely questions how we engage with our culture and with any kind of media. Perhaps just accept that this is the way it is, that’s part of being different, delight that this marks you out as being a follower of Christ, have your say to the offending printing company and go to another printer with a skip in your step and a joy in the Lord?
“If any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.” Mk 6:11 “For Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong”. 2 Cor 12:10.
Adam – thats not the issue. Thats what they did. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the general culture…
Then we see things differently David. What you allege is not the issue is what I perceive to be important. That is, what is an appropriate way to engage with discrimination.
As mentioned before, the way to eliminate the darkness is with light. I think having joy in the Lord is light.
I hear your the point you want to make about hypocrisy and I don’t disagree with you about that. Surely as well as making that point, what to do about it is relevant and worth a mention?
Its an interesting point and the equalities law probably does need more case law to iron some issues out.
As for the examples I think it goes back to some of the things I have pointed out on your blog. Basically there is a difference between having and voicing a position that says I “support/believe” something (let’s say same sex couples getting married which is an action that harms no-one and has not affected a single opposite sex marriage ever) and having and voicing a position that says I “support/believe something and because I have support/believe it, I therefore have the right to deny (or demand that others) a service or product based on that. This denial causes harm.
Now, I am not saying that religions have to do same sex marriages as that would cause harm as it undercuts the foundations of a religion.
However, printing a leaflet that seeks to define what is a REAL (capitals on the leaflet – really?) marriage is seeking to do harm to those who are married or who want to get married. Therefore I would argue that it is not discrimination to decline to print it. But baking a cake that promotes something that does not cause harm (despite their *personal* beliefs) and saying no is.
Douglas = you are missing the point. Ashers were NOT refusing to bake a cake…they were refusing to bake a cake with a message on it which they profoundly disagreed with. The Scottish Christian Party were refused their leaflet being printed because the printers disagreed with the message. Can you tell us why they are different? Other than the fact that you agree with one message and not the other? I think SSM does cause harm. You think it doesn’t. Why should your opinion be law?
I was taking the baking of the cake to include the message on it. Just as its not printing the leaflet that was the problem but the actual words being printed….
Whether or not I disagree with the message is neither here nor there. To be discriminatory requires a demonstration of harm. Regardless of your *opinion* that SSM causes harm equalities legislation and marriage legislation disagrees, it is harmful to act in a discriminatory way which is what the bakers were doing. The bakers have excluded one class of people from the services they provide (cakes with messages on them) so are discriminating against people so are causing harm. The people asking for a cake to be baked are not causing harm because it is not a Christian (anti-SSM version) Bakery that advertises itself as such and only takes orders from Christians. It is a bakery that is discriminating. Like a landlord saying No Irish or No Blacks…..
The printer, however, is not discriminating against Christians (REAL marriage version – I do like the capitals in their leaflet). It is saying it won’t print that leaflet because a message that can cause harm as its discriminatory. If the Christian Party wanted a leaflet advocating daily prayers in Scottish schools, for example, then it would have been fine as that message itself is not discriminatory (implementing it if they got into Government would require opt-out procedures but the law itself could be passed).
My opinion is not law. Laws have been passed by the people elected to pass them. The laws are there and can be challenged and the people who passed them are up for re-election. New people can be elected to pass new laws and revise old ones.
The bakers have not excluded one class of people. They have excluded one message. And you excuse the printers on the basis of what THEY deem to be harmful. What if the bakers consider SSM to be harmful? By the way if the humanists get their way it will soon be the case that laws won’t be able to be democratically challenged – we will be run by elites who use the courts to ensure that that cannot happen.
Here’s my reply to Robertson from my Blog:
Free Church of Scotland Moderator, David Robertson, has written a piece concerning the now infamous Ashers Bakery “gay cake” case.
You can read the Ashers judgment here:
You can find Robertson’s article here:
Upon reading this, I tweeted in frustration:
“Yet another commentator who hasn’t bothered to read the judgment….”
To which Robertson replied:
“yet another tweeter who presumes ignorance. Feel free to answer the points made in the article. If you can.”
Robertson’s central point is that the ruling of the judge is an example of double standards being imposed. But before we get to that Robertson makes a few comments:
He states: “Ashers did not refuse a gay person a cake. They refused to bake a cake with a message supporting gay marriage. And that changes everything.” This is flat-out false; it doesn’t change anything, not under the law. Ashers offered a service whereby a customer could design their own cake and Ashers would bake it and print the design. In this case the customer – a gay man – chose a slogan – “support gay marriage” – which is defined as “political opinion” under the law, and Ashers, after first accepting the order, refused to follow through. In other words, they discriminated on the grounds of sexual orientation and political opinion – both protected categories in Northern Irish law, made abundantly clear in the judgment Robertson claims to have read. Moreover, Robertson ignores the fact that in law Ashers is a commercial business which exists for profit. Commercial enterprises are not legally identical with their owners. Ashers therefore doesn’t have a religious conscious which is protected by the European Convention on Humans Rights, and it isn’t a religious organisation which can appeal to certain legal exemptions. Again, the judgment makes this abundantly clear.
Next, Robertson asks:
“Does this ruling now mean that a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a cake with a Swastika on it for the BNP (neither the sign nor the party are illegal in the UK)?”
If Robertson is speaking of the wider UK, then the answer is: no, because political opinion is not explicitly a protected category in England, Scotland or Wales. In any event, a Jewish baker could quite easily adopt a policy – which Ashers didn’t do – of rejecting all political or religious slogans, which is entirely legitimate under Northern Irish law.
Robertson’s other example also betrays a misunderstanding:
“Would the equalities commission sue a Muslim baker who refused to bake a cake with a cartoon of Mohammed on it, for a Charlie Hebdo party?”
Firstly, Robertson incorrectly identifies the Equality Commission as the plaintiff in such cases. In the Ashers case it was not the Commission who sued – it was the customer, which again should be abundantly clear from the judgment. In any event, since a picture of Muhammad would not represent anyone’s genuinely held religious belief, political beliefs, or identity, it would be difficult to make a case for discrimination here. And, of course, a Muslim-owned bakery is perfectly entitled to refuse all religious slogans (and probably would).
Robertson’s misunderstandings continue to pour forth, as he claims that “it is ridiculous for a Christian who thinks that Same-Sex Marriage is against the Word of God to be compelled to bake a cake with a message supporting it.”
Again, this isn’t true. Remember, the issue is not with a private individual but with a commercial entity. Anyhow, Ashers cannot be compelled to bake a cake with a message supporting same-sex marriage. It has been announced today that Ashers are now only printing birthday and Christening cakes – and no one can compel them to put “support same sex marriage” on a cake. Why? Because they no longer put any such slogans on their cakes. However, the problem before was that they did offer a service, which they then denied to a gay man on considerations pertaining to sexual orientation and political opinion.
Robertson then points out that in his view there was no discrimination in this case because “a heterosexual asking for such a cake would also have been turned down.” However, the judgment makes it explicit that this is not relevant. After citing a number of case law authorities the judge said: “it is my view that….the correct comparator is a heterosexual person placing an order for a cake with the graphics either “Support Marriage” or “Support Heterosexual Marriage.”” The judge deemed it clear that Ashers would have made such a cake for a heterosexual, and thus were making decisions based on sexual orientation in refusing Mr Lee (a homosexual) his cake with the slogan “Support Same Sex Marriage.”
Now beginning to lose the run of himself, Robertson claims that the real discrimination in this case is against “the Christian baker who is being told he will have to close down if he is not prepared to provide cakes with messages that contradict his beliefs.” Again, this is simply flat-out factually incorrect. The baker was not told to bake cakes with slogans contradicting his beliefs or close down. Remember, the entity in question is a commercial “for profit” business – which in law does not have religious beliefs that can be protected under the European Convention of Human Rights (as the judgment – which Robertson has read – makes abundantly clear). In any event, as I’ve already explained, Ashers will continue to bake and sell cakes and will not have to print any slogans with which they disagree.
Anyhow, to the crux of Robertson’s point: “There is a double standard in British society.”
To demonstrate this double standard Robertson mentions the example of The Scottish Christian Party (SCP), who during the general election had their election leaflet rejected by a printer because the printer, says Robertson “did not agree with the messages on it,” and that “The messages were not illegal but nonetheless they refused. Could they not be sued for the same reason?” Robertson laments that “The fact is that there is a double standard in British society just now. The law is being interpreted and enforced in one way for those who represent the cause celebres of our culture, and yet used in a completely different way for those who don’t agree with the shibboleths of our elites.”
Now this baffles me entirely. Robertson is comparing apples with oranges. There are several significant disanalogies between the two cases. Firstly, the Ashers case involved a private individual with rights under the European Convention. The SCP is a political party which, like a commercial business, enjoys no such protection. Secondly, the two cases emerge in different legal jurisdictions! It’s astounding that Robertson hasn’t noticed this fairly obvious fact. Ashers were brought to court under the following pieces of legislation:
The Fair Employment & Treatment Order (Northern Ireland) 1998, and the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006.
Both pieces of legislation are mentioned in paragraph 1 of the Ashers judgment (maybe Robertson skipped paragraph 1?). Notice that both are uniquely applicable to Northern Ireland. They do not apply to Scotland. This clearly isn’t an instance of the law being interpreted and enforced differently in one case than another. It’s a case of different law applying in different legal jurisdictions! Perhaps Robertson misunderstands the nature of the United Kingdom. Our country is the United Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland & Wales) and Northern Ireland. There is some legislation that applies to all jurisdictions, some applies fully to some jurisdictions and only partly to others, and some that is only applicable to one jurisdiction (which happens increasingly these days since Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales have their own regional assemblies with certain legislative powers). So, the legislation in the Ashers case simply doesn’t apply to Scotland. Scotland has its own equality laws. Note further that in the case of the SCP no case was brought before the courts, so unlike the Ashers case there was no legal interpretation or enforcement taking place at all. So, why didn’t the SCP case go to court? Simple: under Scottish law, political opinion is NOT explicitly protected as it is in Northern Irish law. The reason for political opinion being protected in Northern Ireland traces back to our political tensions and the grief that has come from political disputes here. Clearly Robertson has made a blunder. The law simply isn’t “being interpreted and enforced” differently in different cases, and certainly not to suit some grand anti-Christian or politically correct conspiracy. The laws in each jurisdiction are simply different, and thus cases that occur in Northern Ireland will be treated differently.
[It’s worth noting in passing that the Scottish Christian Party member in question – John Cormack – gives a slightly different reason for the rejection than Robertson gives. Cormack says, “The printer I had lined up refused to print the leaflets for me because they have a policy of not printing material that might offend people.” He claimed further the printer was afraid to print the leaflets – not that they refused do so for the reason Robertson claims “[they] did not agree with the messages on it.” Given that the Scottish Christian Party is borderline homophobic – it’s election material spoke of REAL marriage – capitals in the original – as opposed to, presumably, “fake” (though legal in Scotland) same-sex marriages – it is entirely legitimate for a printer to err on the side of caution and not print material which is potentially inflammatory or homophobic. Anyhow, I digress….]
I agree with Robertson in his desire that our Christian freedoms not be eroded, but what he splendidly overlooks is that he lacks no right or freedom whatsoever that a non-Christian enjoys. The law applies equally to Christian and non-Christian alike. And this was upheld by the Ashers judgment.
Stephen J. Graham