News has come through that the Ulster Appeal Court has published its judgement on the case of the Protestant Bakery fined for refusing to ice homosexualist propaganda onto a cake. The conviction stands. So does this mean that the homosexualists will be able to queue up outside the bakery daily to make the the same requests until the fines and damages bankrupt the business? The 'Gay Marriage' which the cake was intended to demand is in fact not legal in Northern Ireland; so will followers of other non-legal causes such as paederasts or murderers be able to employ the same logic and order cakes with the message "Free Inter-generation Love" or "Cacothanasia Now", and profitably take their cases through the courts?
Incidentally, has the Catholic hierarchy been speaking in sympathy for these Protestants who, at personal risk, espouse the teaching of the Church on some sexual matters? Is it not part of the Church's ecumenical policy, since Vatican II, to affirm with joy those "elements of the Church" which may be found among Separated Brethren?
At the same time, we have another trendy policy: the suppression of the convictions of subjects of the Crown who were convicted of homosexual acts back in the days when such acts were illegal. I rather wonder how far back these historical amnesties will go. Will they merely encompass those still alive? I could see a certain human kindliness in that. OK. But if the game goes back to embrace the now dead (as it did in the case of the pardon granted to Alan Turing), the additional question, surely, arises of How Far Back Do We Go? What logic could there be in having any particular cut-off point anywhere? Similar questions arise with regard to the granting of Free Pardons to those shot for cowardice during the First War.
And what about the women burned as witches? The Protestants burned under Henry VIII and his off-spring and the Catholics HDQed under Bloody Bess? Titus Oates' victims? Those executed after the '45? Casement and Lord Haw Haw?
But, of course, under our Constitution, Parliament can do anything. What a lot of problems this can solve. Changing the Past is a prime example of what the ancients called an adunaton, an impossible thing. If all the adunata are now potentially dunata, why stop at any fashionable or convenient fantasy? Why only reconstruct the Past by decree? Why this prejudice against also reconstructing by administrative fiat the Present and the Future? Why doesn't Parliament just enact that Global Warming has never happened and is not happening? Instead of erecting expensive flood defences, why don't we just have an Order in Council enacting that the Somerset Levels will not be flooded? We could all live happily for ever after, in Fairyland, especially the people of Somerset, who would be comforted by the sure and certain reassurance that the water swirling round their necks could not possibly be a flood.
Winston in 1984 spent his entire working life rewriting the past. I wonder if Orwell ever suspected how soon his sick prophecy would be made into a gruesome reality.
I don't for one moment think there is any real desire for 'justice' involved in daft attempts to rewrite the past.
It is simply a matter of the homosexualist ideologues making clear "We are the Masters now, and we want to watch you bastards squirm". In the idiolect of the Zeitgeist, this is called "Diversity".
What a very unpleasant spectacle it all is.
24 October 2016
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I think it was Bishop Hoadley who slyly noted that the Church of England was Trinitarian, but, by Act of Parliament, could become Unitarian.
This is now a serious matter closely associated with the new legislation on so-called hate crime, discussed elsewhere.
Conspiracies sadly do and have always existed. The possibility you suggest is now highly likely if the judgement goes against the baker.
Active homosexuals and other groups on what is still the fringes of our society (in spite of what the Telly would have us believe) are likely to seize this opportunity. Sadly the Catholic hierarchy in the UK and elsewhere, is silent on this as in so many other issues, something for which, I think, they will be answerable.
The quotation at the end of your note starting ”We are”, what, eh, verse is that?
The Shariasts will eventually sort that lot out. The perverts may look back nostalgically to the days when the worst they faced was a slight possibility of prison. Of course there will be problems for the rest of us as well.
I wonder if the real solution for small business people who would prefer not to write slogans with which they disagree is to write them, but do so in an illegible manner.
I have always found that the best way to not be asked to do a job is to make a mess of it the first time I was asked.
The court said that the bakers would have been willing to bake a cake which promoted heterosexual marriage so, by refusing to bake a cake which promoted so-called same-sex marriage, they discriminated. The Christian Institute’s deputy director, Simon Calvert, asks the question: "What about the Muslim printer asked to produce cartoons of Mohammed?” Well, if the court were to be consistent the same court would have to say to the Muslim printer: “You were willing to print cartoons of X, Y and Z so by refusing to print a cartoon of Mohammed you were discriminating.” But would they?
On another point it is about time that we started a campaign for a pardon for St Thomas More, St John Fisher and all the other martyrs of the so-called Reformation. And why not Cranmer and co? If the government can pardon homosexuals for committing crimes which are no longer crimes, then why not people who were executed just because of their religious views? That’s no longer a crime. Is it?
I admit I'm puzzled by the ruling. The decision by the bakers surely has nothing to do with the customers as homosexuals, since they would presumably have similarly refused a heterosexual customer who had requested the same message???
On pardons, I think the conundrum for the secular power is this. The legislation which equalised the age of consent for gay men had a sting in the tail. To deflect criticism that it would permit randy gay schoolmasters to leap on sixth form boys, David Blunkett similarly criminalised randy schoolmasters who leapt on sixth form girls (and lesbian schoolmistresses likewise) by introducing the "position of trust" provision. So, in 1974 when I was a straight teacher, I could perfectly legally have formed a sexual relationship with my 17-year-old leading lady in the school play. A gay teacher doing the same with a boy of the same age could not. Should our hypothetical gay schoolmaster be pardoned, or remain a criminal because the same conduct by a heterosexual man has subsequently been criminalised?
If baking cakes is not an artistic act, and it is impossible to pick and choose between commissions for cakes, why is the Great British Bake-Off so obsessed with unique bread and cake decorations?
Shouldn't their aim be teaching exact copies of cake decoration, or better yet, having students print off all cake decorations from a computer decoration program attached to a 3D sugar printer?
If someone went to an openly homosexual baker and requested a cake with certain Scripture quotes on it, not only would they probably refuse with impunity, I bet they would cry "homophobia" and "hate crime". UK law no longer has any basis in objectivity or rationality, and therefore no sense of honest justice, let alone of true morality. It has simply become a tool for those who shout the loudest and manipulate popular opinion to their own ends and which they use to suppress and oppress any opposing arguments: the "dictatorship of relativism" indeed.
Post a Comment