On Monday, October 24th 2016 the Court of Appeal in Belfast upheld the initial ruling that Ashers Christian Bakery had discriminated against gay activist Gareth Lee for declining to make him a cake saying “Support Gay Marriage”.
The decision was met with general disapproval from both sides of the political spectrum with mildly critical articles being published in fiercely progressive newspapers such as the Guardian and the Independent with more voracious criticism coming from socially conservative media.
What is so astounding about this case is that discrimination law has been successfully used – not to protect a person, but to uphold a political view. In other words the government has successfully prosecuted members of the electorate who hold a political viewpoint that is contrary to government dictates.
This ruling was not about a Christian business refusing to serve somebody because they were homosexual, as many a casual inquirer may be misled to assume by progressive propaganda. This case was about a private business refusing to endorse, through its products, a political viewpoint that the current government supports.
How can a democracy function if the current government is allowed to prosecute people who refuse to promote its values and political opinions? It should be obvious to even the most apathetic member of the electorate that this ruling is a SERIOUS attack on democracy in Britain!
This disgraceful decision by the Court of Appeal in Belfast is anathema to the principles of freedom and individual liberty on which our nation was founded and is devastating to our democracy. Sadly, most of the British electorate are too busy being hoodwinked by the progressive propaganda emanating from their TVs to even realise the severity of this attack against Western freedom and the British way of life.
Whilst I am glad that progressive media outlets have published material somewhat critical of the Ashers ruling, I am aghast that they cannot join the dots from the Equality Commission, to this decision by the Court of Appeal, to their own progressive, “big government”, collectivist ideology.
This ruling is the natural conclusion of progressive socio-political views yet many commentators who self-identify as progressive are now criticize this ruling for its attack on individualism and freedom of expression. Progressivism has achieved a great victory with this court decision, a collectivist victory at the expense of individual liberty, private property rights and freedom of expression.
Those self-proclaimed advocates of the oppressed, who look to Big Brother to fix all their ills and happily refer to themselves as “progressive” need to take a long hard look at the value system they have so gleefully and uncritically espoused before they drag us all into George Orwell’s despotic dystopia.
Progressivism is at its heart collectivist/socialistic. When push comes to shove it has no room for individual liberty, personal responsibility or even private property. It is about the marginalisation of the individual and the elevation of the majority.
Progressives seek to inextricably equate the will of the majority with government in the minds of the masses. From this they argue that it is every citizen’s social responsibility to give unquestioned ascent to everything the government ordains – since government is acting on behalf of the majority after all, anything else would be antisocial! De Tocqueville warned us of despots like these in coining the phrase the “tyranny of the majority”.
If recent events in British politics such as the Redefinition of Marriage and Brexit have taught us anything it is that the government and the will of the majority are most certainly not one and the same.
Whilst progressive propaganda presents this court case in terms of the religious-bigot bakers who got their “just desserts”, the ideological forces behind this case are far more involved.
The real issue here is a centuries long war between collectivism/socialism and capitalism/individualism – homosexual relations are just the pretence.
This ruling demonstrates the successful infiltration of a far more subtle, more “progressive” form of communism into the West, than the violent and revolutionary communism we learned about from Sean Connery in James Bond movies.
Rather than a full-frontal attack, this style of communism gets its tactics from Italian socialist Antonio Gramsci and seeks to creep into the culture “progressively”, transforming the nation from within. Anti-freedom, anti-capitalist, anti-freemarket progressives have been undertaking the Gramscian “long march through the institutions” for decades and the reprehensible outcome of this court case is the fruit of their labour.
Feminism, racism, homosexual discrimination are all weapons of these subversives in their ongoing battle against Western/Christian notions of individual freedom and personal responsibility.
Thanks to these people we now have a country in which the government has the right to impoverish or imprison any person who does not uphold and actively express its moral and political beliefs.
Whether you consider yourself a “communist” progressive or not – well done – this “progress” is all yours!
Judgement may “begin in the house of God” (1 Peter 4:17) but in the end everybody will pay the price of this poisonous ideology!