Storm in a tea-cake

I wrote about the right to discriminate last week. I do believe strongly that individuals and private businesses must be able to exercise discrimination in their affairs, otherwise what is established is not the absence of discrimination but the subjection of the majority to discrimination in favour of certain pressure groups.

It was interesting to be reminded today of the difficulties being faced by a Belfast based bakers, Ashers Baking Company. Due to the owners objection to “gay marriage”, they turned down an order for a cake which was ordered by a gay activist and would have had the words “Support Gay Marriage” written in icing over it. Of course the gay activist in question, Gareth Lee, could have found another bakers in Belfast who might have been willing to produce the confection as requested, but as is the wont of gay activists, he decided that contacting the Equality Commission was the better way forward, and shortly afterwards the bakers, Colin and Karen McArthur, received a call informing them that legal action would be taken against them.

Of course this is just one example of what seems to be an increasingly common occurrence. A small business is targeted by gay activists, or other minority pressure groups, and is placed in a situation where it will face severe financial and even criminal sanctions if it sticks to the principles held by the owners. This is often a cause of anger and frustration among conservative minded people.

But things seem to be changing. A poll has just been conducted by ComRes asking questions about this incident and the issue of the criminalising of discrimination in general. The findings suggest that the public mood is changing, and that the population is increasingly willing to speak out against the subversion of ordinary, common-sense relations that were the foundation of British society.

The interesting results are that 60% of respondents thought that the Equality Commission were acting in an heavy-handed manner, and only 14% thought that they were acting proportionately. 54% believed that David Cameron was wrong to say that people who objected to “gay marriage” would not be discriminated against, and only 19% agreed with him. 56% did not believe that businesses which refused to promote “gay marriage” should be prosecuted, while only 21% thought that they should. 41% disagreed that equality should take precedence over conscience, with only 30% agreeing, and it is noteworthy that 50% of men believed conscience should come first, with only 28% of men disagreeing. 45% agreed that Christian businesses were being targeted, while only 25% disagreed. Again, among men, 54% believed that Christian businesses were being singled out by activists. Finally, 54% agreed that protection in law should be provided for those who did not wish to provide goods or services that violated their sincerely held beliefs, rising to 64% among men, with only 22% disagreeing.

What does this mean? Surely that the public are willing to speak out against the social-engineering which all the main political parties are engaged in. It is clearly understood that businesses which do not wish to support particular and social minority agendas should not have to do so, and are not guilty of the sort of discrimination which various activists will try to insinuate. Refusing to bake a cake supporting “gay marriage” is not the same as dressing up in a white hood and burning a cross on someone’s front lawn. The British population know this, and it seems are now willing to say that they know the difference.

There is still hope.