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!
Trigger warning: This post is of a technical nature, albeit about an emotive subject. The post is about particular British legislation. It links to the sections of the relevant statute law that the article is about. It is not the rant of a “rape apologist”. Some have obviously completely misunderstood the argument that is carefully developed in this piece. They have reacted emotionally at an early stage of reading, to the naturally distressing subject matter, instead of taking the trouble to read and to understand the entire article, before expressing anger at what they mistakenly think that the article is saying, without having read it and understood it. Please read no further, if you cannot think about rape without becoming so angry that you lose your ability to reason, or to understand a quite subtle argument, of the sort that might be raised at the Committee Stage of the passage of a Bill through Parliament. If that is you, then this article is not for you.
The said Swedish midwife got sacked, for her conscientious objection to participating in the abortion industry. I have decided to sign a petition about this, not so much because I expect the people who sacked Ellinor to take any notice of any outrage of mine, as that I wanted thus to congratulate this noble martyr to conscience on making the sacrificial stand she did. Far too few are they who nowadays thus place morals above career.
I invite every one of my readers, even those who are unrepentant abortion industry apologists, who don’t care a fig that their foetal fellow-humans are nowadays being killed by the million, to sign here the hopeless petition designed to cheer this career martyr up more than to bring Swedes to their senses. Sweden is clearly in the wrong here.