Genesis chapter 49, verse 20 supposes that “Bread from Asher shall be rich and he shall yield royal dainties”. It is on this basis that a Northern Ireland family setup a bakery in the 1990s with the name Ashers Baking Company. And it is on the basis of the book in which this verse is contained (as well as the sixty-five others) that that family have operated their business for the past twenty years.

Imagine the family’s dilemma, then, when a would-be customer requests a cake to be made that expressly advocates same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland – something that is still merely aspirational rather than actual. The Bible’s teachings on homosexuality are well-documented, at least by those who trust its authority and its historical interpretation, and require no further elucidation here. Suffice to say that the business would have had to consider their religious duty as well as their commercial duty in deciding whether to bake such a cake. In spite of assistance from legislation prohibiting discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of sexual orientation, the bakery defied the law to obey, instead, the law of god. Their defiance elicits a discussion on the impact religious doctrine and dogma have on a society that is moving away from adherence to ancient texts.

The company’s 24 year old General Manager attempted an explanation for its decision to refuse custom on this occasion albeit one that was shrouded in religious sentiment that, by definition, makes little effort to justify itself other than by stating: “this is what we believe”. At a time when society is urged to educate itself on so many facets of daily life – education, health, money, career, relationships – such a response leaves much to be desired. First, we are told that by complying with this order, the bakery would have been put “at odds with what the Bible teaches us”, namely the reservation of marriage for heterosexual men and women. One wonders whether any of the following requests would have been rejected given their explicit approval by the Bible:

  • Sponsorship of the ethnic cleansing and genocide of thousands of non-Jews
  • Sponsorship of the immediate mutilation of a newborn baby’s genitalia
  • Sponsorship of the subjugation of women and their reduction to chattel
  • Sponsorship of slavery with the inscription ‘Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling’ piped in pink icing (Ephesians 6:5)

By reference to these few examples (believe me, there are more) it is society that has learnt to distance itself from such violent and grotesque policies against the individual and against communities. For this reason, the bakery would no doubt have rejected such requests, but certainly not on the basis that they were at odds with what the Bible teaches them. Further justification is provided by Ashers for refusing this cake by stating that they have refused other cakes in the past including those containing pornographic images and obscene or foul language (I am glad to learn that this policy is a principled one at least). This implicit connection between pornography, profanity and homosexuality is not only resentful but also dubious. One would like to think that mere registration of a business with Companies House does not result in the immediate and absolute prostitution of a business’s ethics or sense of decency (although a socialist would not be so sure) and so I fail to see the connection made with previous examples of customer refusal. The last thing to be said on this point is that businesses do have a certain “take them as you find them” obligation to customers and this much is affirmed by the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (NI) 2006 that provides the legal foundation of the Commission’s complaint. The bakery’s beef is with the idea of same-sex marriage but the complaint itself only concerns the commercial relationship between seller and purchaser. Regardless of personal belief, the law is clear on this point at least.

As with many controversial news items, extreme viewpoints do not take long to rise, oil-like, to the surface of public discourse. At one remove, Christian organisations are asking their flock to pray for the good work being done by the baking family. A proposed prayer template might read something like this:

‘Dear Lord, please continue to support Ashers bakery in their mission to provide biblically-

approved pastries to the Northern Ireland public. I know you are busy with all those kids in

Africa but if you can find the time to stop homosexuals from ordering equality-based “dainties”,

it would be much appreciated. Amen.’

From elsewhere, the same DUP faces are wheeled out of their political pews to provide some light bigotry during PMQs in the House of Commons. Without crediting David Cameron with too much, he was politically savvy enough to avoid the stealth homophobia for which Gregory Campbell attempted to garner support. Judging by the reaction of his fellow MPs, it didn’t go down very well. The Christian response, though, accords with similar retorts from previous debacles. It follows the same pattern of taking action on the basis of a damaging and antiquated belief, and then responding to general disdain at this belief with admonition and accusations of victimisation against them including mild reference to Christian persecution. Religious sects, and Christians in particular, have always made much of the Bible’s promise of total religious dominion and this appears to have re-entered Christian arguments against the threat of impending global secularism. However, it would no doubt be more sensible for religious apologists to self-censor before actualising beliefs in a world of personal responsibility and individual rights. Although they can acquit themselves from guilt by professing to action ‘the Word of God’, this does nothing to pacify those who find themselves discriminated against, not by a god, but by people. It is unfortunate for us that this god, who has so many fans, cannot be here to clear up the whole sorry mess.

I, for one, find stories like these to be both helpful and unhelpful. They are unhelpful because of the incendiary license they provide to those who profess a higher authority that ordains such prejudice but they are also helpful for the very same reason. The prejudice is starker against the backdrop of an increasingly accepting society. Although we cannot do away with religion (I am sure that on an individual level at least, it has its benefits if nowhere else and I would not wish to stop someone from having beliefs) the divide between personal and interpersonal is so blurred in this instance that that which is socially and, more importantly, legally acceptable must have the winning vote.