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 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!
Implacable hostility often isn’t mutual.
It is a myth promulgated by a cliché, that implacable hostility on the part of one of two separated parents towards the other, must necessarily, or even usually, be reciprocated. Most parents who separate manage to consider their children’s interests, alongside their own emotions. Unlucky indeed is the child with two alienating parents, caught in a “tug of love”.
Ricky Dearman speaks fondly of Ella Draper!
In the court’s judgment in Re P and Q (Children: Care Proceedings: Fact Finding), the Hampstead Witch Hunt case, at paragraph 63, Mrs Justice Pauffley wrote:
- Mr Dearman was taken in evidence to the entire series of sexual and other allegations made against him. He denied there was truth in anything suggested. He does accept that the breakdown of his relationship with the mother both at the time and subsequently was acrimonious. But, said Mr Dearman, “There are two sides to the story. I’m not perfect. I’m a decent guy and a good father.” Of the mother, he said this – “When Ella is not doing crazy stuff she is a really beautiful person.”
Not content with redefining marriage, as if this wasn’t presumptuous enough, the powers-that-be have now painted themselves into a corner, in which they may end up having to redefine the United Kingdom. And this, to my horror, less than a year after I acquired the domain JohnAllman.UK for this blog. And they will have to re-define the UK in such a way that an independent Scotland can remain in the UK, and hence in the EU, and in such a way that the British Commonwealth, like too many children nowadays, can have (so-to-speak) two mothers (i.e. mother countries).
When did the United Kingdom come into existence? Was it in 1603, when James VI of Scotland started to wear a second crown on his one head? Or was it in 1707, when the Scots and Westminster parliaments both voted to merge?
If the former, cannot Scots independence be viewed merely as redefining the UK to be the nation it was from 1603 to 1707?
I have not heard anybody comment upon the significance of a “yes” vote in the Scots referendum upon the Privy Council, for that matter. Nor whether there will be two Royal Prerogatives in future. And so on.