For a couple of months the British media seemed to be fuelled by copious amounts of cake, as Mary Berry and Paul Hollywood put a battery of amateur bakers through their paces on the Great British Bake-Off. It was, on the whole, good spirited stuff, except when Northern Ireland competitor Iain Watters' Baked Alaska melted, and Iain himself went into melt-down, followed in due course by huge swathes of the Great British public…
I did think, at the time, that there was a certain irony in
a Northern Irish baker being at the centre of this ridiculously over-hyped story,
given that, in the background another Northern Irish cake-based controversy was in
the making. I’m sure that most of you know the story by now, but for those who
don’t, back in May Gareth
Lee, of QueerSpace went into a branch of Ashers Bakery in Belfast and asked for
a special cake for an Anti Homophobia and Transphobia Week event in Bangor. They requested
that the QueerSpace logo, a photo of Sesame Street’s Bert and Ernie, and the
statement “Support Gay Marriage” be printed on the cake. As I understand it
(and I am prepared to be corrected as I got tired trying to track down anything
approaching a precise timeline of this and so I am reliant on my
oh-too-fallible memory) the order was initially taken, but after further
consideration the owners/directors of the company decided they couldn’t fulfil
the order because it contravened their Christian beliefs, and offered the
customer a full refund. I don’t know what happened in the interim, but the
first I became aware of the whole thing was when it hit the headlines 2 months
later, with the news that the Equality Commission was threatening the bakerywith court action if they did not make some sort of restitution. This then
prompted a question in the Commons by that champion of equality and expert in matters culinary Gregory Campbell (though recently he has been commenting on
curries rather than cakes) and an initial flurry of online comment: for example
former conservative MP and Strictly Come Dancing (though not Bake-Off) competitor,
Ann Widdecombe had her say… which then prompted a comment by Rev. Paul Thompson of the Government and Morals Committee of the Free Presbyterian Church on the 12th of July, a day usually reserved for comment
on other matters that divide this province…
Things then went
quiet while the Great British Bake-Off dominated the media… But not long after Alan Sugar’s craggy features replaced Mary Berry’s smile on a Wednesday evening the news broke that, following legal advice, the Equality Commission were
going to follow up their earlier threat, and take Ashers to court.
Now, before we go
further and I get very serious, and probably lose a few friends, let me make
two comments –
First, regarding
the Ashers Bakery chain - in my naivety I thought that this was something to do
with avid celebrity baker Jane Asher, not a home grown Newtownabbey based organization
named after the Biblical Asher, who was blessed by his father Jacob before his death saying that
"his bread shall be fat, and he shall yield royal dainties" (Genesis
49:20).
This (slightly obscure) reference points to the importance of the Bible and their Christian faith to the family who founded this bakery chain, the McArthurs, and that is laudable. But is there a difference between being Christian bakers (as they are frequently described) and bakers who are Christians? This may seem like I am splitting hairs, but I like to think that a living faith informs everything that a baker, lawyer, painter or whatever who is a Christian might do, without them defining themselves as a Christian baker, lawyer, painter or whatever, which might seem a more exclusive definition. But that is a side issue (although it may be informing some of the confusion in the whole debate).
Second,
is it legal for bakers or printers or anyone else to print copyrighted and
trademarked characters without the permission of the owners of the said
copyright or trademark, never mind append any sort of unauthorized political/religious
or even less contentious message to it? I suspect not. Peter Lynas of Evangelical Alliance and Peter Ould, blogging on the Archbishop Cranmer site, both suggest that this would have been a more straightforward reason to
refuse to make the cake, but I suspect that despite their Christian credentials
Ashers have baked cakes with such unlicensed images before. Mind you, I’m not
sure that I would want to be pursuing a court case in which I admitted that I
was trying to encourage someone else to do something illegal, and seeking
compensation when they refused to do it. Sesame Street v QueerSpace may make for another interesting piece of litigation.
Anyway, back to
the decision by the Equality Commission to back the legal case against Ashers. It has been characterized as a David and Goliath affair by the owners of
Ashers (in suitably Biblical terms), but given that they have been backed from
the beginning by the substantial campaigning and fundraising power of the
Christian Institute (who have the financial clout to advertise on Facebook thus
clogging up my newsfeed) I think that David may go into this fight with more
than 5 smooth stones in his armoury. Also it seems as if the entire New Israelite
army will be cheering David on, with the Free Presbyterian Church in Ulster, the
Presbyterian Church in Ireland, sundry Anglicans, the Evangelical Alliance, the
Catholic Church in Ireland and the Council of Social Responsibility of my ownMethodist Church in Ireland, weighing in, if not in support of Ashers, at least
in opposition to the Equality Commission decision. Even the First Minister hasdescribed it as “Bonkers!” and given that responsibility for equality falls
within the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister we know that he is a
tireless champion of equity and fairness for all (?)…
Language such as that and much of the rhetoric around this case has been less than helpful. Repeatedly
it has been said on radio phone ins and on social media comment sections that Ashers and those who support them are homophobic and
discriminating against the LGBT community. I even listened last Sunday as
Father Tim Bartlett was accused of discrimination on Radio Ulster by one gay
activist because, in protest at the ongoing case Tim had announced that he waswithdrawing from some focussed dialogue between the Catholic Church and theLGBT community. On the other side there are those who have characterised this
as “persecution” of Christians by the LGBT community and the liberal elite. Meanwhile Ian O’Docherty, a columnist for the Irish Independent described the original issue as a “posturing ambush” where Ashers bakery had
been targeted by gay rights activists deliberately asking “for a service
they know will be refused,” and then working with “an arm of the State” in a calculated “shake-down”, “bullying” the Bible-believing bakers.
I have seen no targeting of Ashers as
a Christian Company. Presumably Mr. Lee who placed the order was as ignorant as
I was as to the origin of the name, and he seems genuinely surprised that the
order was ultimately refused and a refund offered. But equally there does not
seem to be a specific act of discrimination on the grounds of sexuality. Mr. Daniel
McArthur, general manager of Ashers has clearly stated from the outset that
they are willing to serve any customer irrespective of religion, sexual
orientation or political belief, and that it was the statement on the
cake rather than the purchaser of the cake that was the issue… I find myself in
the unusual circumstance of agreeing with Ms. Ann Widdecombe in the Daily
Express, where she said “If the baker had refused merely to bake a cake
because the customer was gay then that would indeed have been both unpleasant
and illegal but the refusal was specific to the message requested for the
cake."
Would the order have been refused had
it been a heterosexual person asking for a cake in support of gay marriage?
From what Mr. McArthur has said, the answer appears to be yes. Is that in
itself discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as the Equality
Commission seems to allege? Without any other evidence I would suggest not.
Would the order have been refused had
it been a heterosexual or homosexual person asking for a cake for a civil
partnership? That question has, so far as I am aware, never been asked, but had
it been it would have opened up a whole other cake of worms…
But the case/cake under consideration
is one making what might be seen as a political statement on the subject of gay
marriage… Ann Widdecombe in her column, went on to say “Surely it is
an elementary feature of true democracy that nobody should be obliged by law to
affirm that which he or she does not believe… In a free country the baker
should be able to refuse to take part in what is effectively PR for gay
marriage...” But actually in Northern Ireland I am not sure that we are at
liberty to do that given that in the political powderkeg that is
this province, political opinion is a so-called “protected characteristic”, meaning that we cannot be
discriminated against on the basis of our political (or on exactly the same
basis, religious) opinions in the provision of services. There has been a lot
of nonsense talked/written about whether Ashers would have been at liberty to
refuse to make a cake in support of Nazis/Fascists/PLO/Israel/ISIS/Sinn Fein
(delete as applicable), but as I understand it (and I am not a lawyer) Northern
Irish law offers little leeway to political discrimination, except where there
is implied support for violence (although whether that would allow them to
refuse an order of a cake in support of Blair’s Invasion of Iraq, if you were
sick enough to order such is uncertain). Peter Lynas of Evangelical Alliance
(who is, or at least was a lawyer) is correct in asserting that this addition
to the Equality Laws of Northern Ireland
“was designed to give extra protection against sectarianism” but
it is framed in such terms that it actually acts as potential cover to a wide
range of political opinions, some which I might see as morally bankrupt (and I
don’t mean conservatism). So as I see it, if you are not
prepared to print/bake all hews of political opinion then you cannot, in
Northern Ireland print/bake any. And given the wide definition of what
constitutes politics here (including poppy-wearing, flag-waving, football team
supporting, language-using) that may radically restrict your range of
personalised cakes. (Rev. Peter Ould seems to
disagree with my assessment, but I’m not convinced, and assume from the fact
that the Equality Commission have added the political discrimination to the “charge”
suggests that their legal advisors agree with me … although I do agree with him
that the Christian Institute’s characterisation of this as a “clash of cultures”
may be ultimately damaging to an authentic engagement on real issues of
discrimination against Christians).
This may be the Achilles Heel of Ashers case, and if so they may end up being prosecuted under a very clumsy piece of legislation which ultimately may restrict the exercise of both religious and political conscience in the public square. The Methodist Church’s statement on this matter, which is what finally roused me from my blog-free slumber, suggests that at the heart of this is a “matter of conscience for Ashers” and commends them “for their willingness to take a stance” on the basis of that conscience. Ian O’Docherty, in the Irish Independent also suggests that “The heart of this case is the right to dissent and to follow your own conscience as long as you're not going out of your way to make someone's life more difficult,” whilst Norman Hamilton, former Presbyterian Moderator and Convener of their Church and Society Committee makes a plea for “much more scope to exercise freedom of conscience in such situations.” In this he explicitly argues for the much vaunted ‘reasonable accommodation’ as suggested by Baroness Hale reflecting/repenting at leisure after a muchpublicised prosecution for discrimination of Christian B&B owners, where she argues for a "conscience clause" to the equality legislation. This seems to be what Gregory Campbell was also asking for in the PMQ back in July, but I am with Peter Lynas in his belief that the reasonable accommodation argument actually concedes that discrimination has occurred but seeks a “get out of gaol free” card for it.
This may be the Achilles Heel of Ashers case, and if so they may end up being prosecuted under a very clumsy piece of legislation which ultimately may restrict the exercise of both religious and political conscience in the public square. The Methodist Church’s statement on this matter, which is what finally roused me from my blog-free slumber, suggests that at the heart of this is a “matter of conscience for Ashers” and commends them “for their willingness to take a stance” on the basis of that conscience. Ian O’Docherty, in the Irish Independent also suggests that “The heart of this case is the right to dissent and to follow your own conscience as long as you're not going out of your way to make someone's life more difficult,” whilst Norman Hamilton, former Presbyterian Moderator and Convener of their Church and Society Committee makes a plea for “much more scope to exercise freedom of conscience in such situations.” In this he explicitly argues for the much vaunted ‘reasonable accommodation’ as suggested by Baroness Hale reflecting/repenting at leisure after a muchpublicised prosecution for discrimination of Christian B&B owners, where she argues for a "conscience clause" to the equality legislation. This seems to be what Gregory Campbell was also asking for in the PMQ back in July, but I am with Peter Lynas in his belief that the reasonable accommodation argument actually concedes that discrimination has occurred but seeks a “get out of gaol free” card for it.
That isn’t real conscience. Real conscience costs… In all of this outrageously long post I have avoided offering my opinion
on the issue of same-sex marriage, because ultimately this isn’t actually about
that… it is about the right of people to exercise any sort of political
discrimination based on religious conscience in the public sphere… But when it
comes down to it I believe the government is at liberty to change the definition of civil
marriage any time it likes. Whether that matches with the church’s definition
of marriage is another question altogether… But the church cannot have it both
ways… It cannot exercise its conscience to define marriage in its own terms
AND continue to act, as many denominations do, as civil registrars. That is seeking to have our conscientious cake and eat it.
Peter Lynas doesn’t believe that illegal discrimination has occurred, whilst I do (although again, he is the one who was legally trained), but both of us believe that the legislation under which Ashers are likely to be prosecuted is seriously flawed. We do not need a conscientious objection opt-out of equality, but we do need more sensible legislation. Indeed Norman Hamilton “wants to encourage thoughtful, gracious and yet rigorous discussion about how Biblical faith should relate to equality legislation” and that “There is a need for Churches and Christian people to engage with these issues and indeed be to the fore in promoting such equality and human rights.”
Frankly I was disappointed that the Methodist Church did not make such a plea in its own statement or affirm its commitment to equality for all… Perhaps, on the basis of our track record there was a feeling that they didn’t have to, but for those who know nothing of the Methodist Church’s continuing dialogue on such matters, our statement might be misconstrued as buying into the Christian Institute’s assessment of this as a clash between Christian conscience and homosexuality. But there is no unanimous Christian position and hence conscience on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage (and indeed there is no unanimous position on same-sex marriage within the LGBT community). Indeed it was ironic that on the Irish Methodist website the news of the Council on Social Responsibility’s statement re the Ashers Bakery issue lay adjacent to an advert for an event tonight in the Agape Centre, where I am Superintendent, run by the Accepting Sexuality Group.
Peter Lynas doesn’t believe that illegal discrimination has occurred, whilst I do (although again, he is the one who was legally trained), but both of us believe that the legislation under which Ashers are likely to be prosecuted is seriously flawed. We do not need a conscientious objection opt-out of equality, but we do need more sensible legislation. Indeed Norman Hamilton “wants to encourage thoughtful, gracious and yet rigorous discussion about how Biblical faith should relate to equality legislation” and that “There is a need for Churches and Christian people to engage with these issues and indeed be to the fore in promoting such equality and human rights.”
Frankly I was disappointed that the Methodist Church did not make such a plea in its own statement or affirm its commitment to equality for all… Perhaps, on the basis of our track record there was a feeling that they didn’t have to, but for those who know nothing of the Methodist Church’s continuing dialogue on such matters, our statement might be misconstrued as buying into the Christian Institute’s assessment of this as a clash between Christian conscience and homosexuality. But there is no unanimous Christian position and hence conscience on the issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage (and indeed there is no unanimous position on same-sex marriage within the LGBT community). Indeed it was ironic that on the Irish Methodist website the news of the Council on Social Responsibility’s statement re the Ashers Bakery issue lay adjacent to an advert for an event tonight in the Agape Centre, where I am Superintendent, run by the Accepting Sexuality Group.
Entitled “The Christianity of Gay and Lesbian Truthfulness:
Magnanimity and the Undoing of Scandal” the blurb claims that the speaker James Alison, a Catholic theologian, will explore how those
who have been opposed to, hated, or frightened of, the LGBT community, might be encouraged by them, into what
he describes as a fuller inclusion. Unfortunately, although it is taking place in my church, I cannot attend because I was
already scheduled to be chairing a meeting elsewhere when this was booked. But I am strongly
tempted to re-schedule, because this sort of generosity of spirit, is exactly
what I would like to see practised in this whole debate.
Again I agree with Peter Lynas of
Evangelical Alliance that the Commission’s approach,
insofar as it has been portrayed in the media, has been adversarial from the
start and as such, deeply unhelpful, and as Norman Hamilton suggests it potentially “undermines and shuts down the kind
of respectful wider debate and discussions that are necessary.”
But is the onus of grace/generosity and the imperative of inclusion
on what Ian O’Docherty calls an “arm of the state”?
Or is it actually on the church, and those who claim to be followers of Christ, citizens
of the Kingdom of God, whether they are Methodists, Presbyterians or Anglicans,
Evangelicals or Catholics, butchers, bakers or candlestick makers?
Shalom
Comments