Why Tesco should resist pressure to discriminate against Asher’s bakery
The old maxim, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, was intended to restrain the lust of the outraged for vengeance, in order to prevent an escalation of conflict.
Earlier today, 719 people had signed a petition at Change.org, urging Tesco to punish Asher’s Baking Co Ltd, for having discriminated against a Mr Gareth Lee (whose occupation is said to be being activistly homosexual), in the matter of the decoration of a certain cake.
One cake.
One of a growing number of what the media have taken to calling “gay cakes”, mind you, so many of these “gay cake” staged court cases have there been, the world over.
Not only does the “support gay marriage” political lobby represent a belief that appears to pass the Maistry test nowadays, it also seems to pass the “pastry test”. It is good for earning a few bob of pocket money, provided a gay activist like Mr Lee can still find a baker somewhere in the world who is opposed to same sex marriage and who hasn’t yet wised up to this particular hackneyed method of ambush, so repetitiously deployed in today’s culture warfare.
The 719 petitioners implored Tesco to retaliate, by doing a bit of discrimination of its own, against Asher’s. Forever, if they had their way, I dare say. By not buying from Asher’s any of the thousands of cakes or other products that Tesco might otherwise continue to buy from Asher’s, if it didn’t start a bit of discrimination of its own. Not “a cake for a cake” proportionate vengeance. Every single potential future cake order not to be placed with Asher’s, as a punishment for Asher’s not having sold one particularly controversial cake, on one particular occasion!
Fortunately, shortly after the “all future cakes for one cake” nuclear-scale vengeance petition was started, what I call a “don’t be silly, Tesco” petition was started, appealing for calm and business as usual, not the escalation of the discrimination wars the other petition was urging. Fortunately, in the time the earlier petition had gathered 719 signatures, the counter-petition had gathered 5,516 signatures. When I signed it, I gave my reason that I would find it inconvenient to stop shopping at Tesco. The truth is, I probably won’t boycott Tesco, even if Tesco does heed the 719, and ignores the 5,516. I’ll probably just feel guilty about not boycotting Tesco, and wear a hoody, and visit Tesco at night, hoping nobody recognises me, rendering unto Tesco, the things that are Tesco’s, since it is the only shop in town that is still open at midnight.
Cet animal est très méchant. Quand on l’attaque, il se défend.
JohnAllman.UK 
I just wish the nonsense of overt sexuality would disappear from the public eye. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own four walls is their business – just do not inflict it on me. In my naive view; marriage is between a man and a woman; partnerships can exist between anyone and anything.
The point in the original post is more than a little silly. If Ashers had declined to provide a wedding cake to an interracial couple, and Tesco had organized a boycott, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be making the argument that, well, Ashers only declined to provide cake to ONE interracial couple. Do you not realize how stupid that argument sounds when applied to a range of different scenarios? “Donald Trump only molested ONE woman.” “This private school only rejected ONE Muslim student.” “This health club only barred ONE woman from entry.” Come on. Surely even you have to admit counting cakes is ridiculous.
So, let’s be honest here. The truth of the matter is not the number of cakes but the fact that you don’t think it was a problem for Ashers to decline the cake. For those who thought it was a problem, the principle (not the amount of cakes declined) matter.
@Maureenjenner, this notion that LGBT folks are “inflicting” their sexuality is curious. I’m pretty sure they don’t perform sex acts in front of you. If what you mean is PDA, I’ve seen a lot more straight folks kiss/grope/touch in public than gay ones. If what you mean is LGBT folks and allies making arguments for equal rights (and that’s “infliction”) – yeah, that’s a democracy – get over it.
The “point in the original post” isn’t just “more than a little silly”, as you put it. It is, in fact, intendedly whimsical.
Ashers hadn’t declined to provide a wedding cake to any couple at all. They had sought to rescind a contract to embellish a cake with a controversial political slogan with which they disagreed. Their consciences required them not to facilitate the political campaign that they hoped would fail in their country.
Many are flabbergasted by the judgments at first instance and at appeal. I think that there is every chance that this case will go all the way to the ECtHR, and that the final winner may be Ashers. Given how finely balanced the courts’ decisions have been, the depths of sophistry plumbed by their lordships, and the prevalence and prestige of gay lobbyists who agree wholeheartedly with the Christians on this one, this case is poor choice of opening for spiteful gloating, still less a boycott campaign designed to harm the Ashers business. Those who are gloating now, and wishing ill upon Ashers, may have as much cause to regret it as the misandrists did, when they had siezed upon the comment pages around Ched Evans’ dodgy rape conviction for use as a gender wars battlefield, only to live to see the cherished trophy, the rape conviction, quashed, and Mr Evans acquitted by a jury at the re-trial.
Pingback: What a difference a day made! | JohnAllman.UK