More Homosexual Privilege

Over the past four decades or so we have moved from the criminalization of homosexuality to a position where the criticism of homosexuals can be deemed a 'hate' crime. The promotion of 'gay' rights has been a fundamental component of the cultural Marxist agenda to transform and subvert a once well ordered society. This post attempts to explore the extent to which rights for homosexuals should override the rights of others, in particular Christians, who find the practice of homosexuality sinful.

This blog is not a defender of Christian belief, which to a significant extent is based on superstition. Nor does it share the view of Christians that the practice of homosexuality is in itself sinful. The Christian churches have a history of denouncing any overt interest in sex of any kind as encouraging lust and which is thus sinful. In the not so distant past this outlook condemned millions of normal people to sexual guilt, for the quite natural desire of finding another person physically attractive. The Christian churches also have a history of attempting to impose their views on this subject onto a wider society which does not share their faith. So it could be argued that the judicial decisions outlined below have given Christians a taste of their own medicine.

Three legal rulings relating to homosexuality and Christian belief have gained wide publicity. The first relates to the owners of a guest house who were fined for refusing a room to a homosexual couple. The second relates to a couple who were refused consent to adopt a child because of their expressed belief on the sinful nature of homosexuality. The third concerns a bakery that refused to bake a cake with a message supporting same sex marriage.

With regard to the guest house case it is unclear why the owners assumed that two men sharing a room together should be sexual partners. It is in any case none of their business, and potential guests have a right not to be quizzed on the matter. Ironically, in the pre-permissive past, it was unmarried persons of the opposite sex who encountered problems with moralistic guest house owners. It could be argued that guest houses should comply with the law in the same way as hotel chains. However, this outlook demonstrates unacceptable inflexibility, since the guest house is the owners' home, and in a free society they should enjoy the right to decide whom they invite into it without having to give their reasons. With regard to the adoption case, things have come to a pretty pass if couples are now to be subject to a test on their political beliefs before they can adopt a child. Such behaviour is the hallmark of the actions of totalitarian states, a position to which this country appears to be now heading. Totalitarianism can be defined as centralized and dictatorial system of government which requires complete subservience by citizens to the demands of the state. This ruling demonstrates the extent to which ordinary people have been cowed and intimidated by the politically correct juggernaut which now aims to control us all.

With regard to the Northern Ireland bakery case the alleged discrimination here was not against the homosexual who made the complaint, since the bakery was happy to serve him with any of their products other than the one he requested. Instead, the bakery objected solely on religious and conscience grounds to a message supporting same sex marriage. It is surely a matter of fundamental liberty that businesses can turn away a customer request to which they object. Just image the outrage in some quarters if a baker had accepted a request to bake a cake with a message supporting a reduction in the age of consent. It is ironic that this incident took place in the only part of the British Isles which has not yet succumbed to the homosexual marriage fallacy.