What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • Why the cake decision is the right decision

    cakeThere has been a judgement this morning in an iconic legal case in Northern Ireland. A judge has found that a bakery discriminated against a gay customer over their refusal to bake a cake which had a slogan on it supporting the right of gay people to be married.

    The decision was the right one. There will be shrieks of outrage from many. There will be a backlash which may be dreadful. However it is still the right decision.

    It is the right decision because the law is quite clear that people can’t be denied goods or services because they happen to be gay.

    If there were opt outs from this law because of the views of those supplying goods and services then the law would have no effect at all. That’s the whole point of this law. If gay people are going to be able to live in a world where they are not discriminated against then godly Christians don’t get to chose not to have that law. So called bible-believing Christians didn’t ought to have a problem with this because they have an obligation to live under the law. Check out Romans 13 if you don’t believe me.

    This is also not a clash of rights between the gays and the Christians. No. Gay people have a right not to be discriminated against in shops but crucially the same law gives the same right to Christians. If a Christian wants to go into a shop and order a cake then gay owners can’t discriminate against them on the grounds of religion.

    The point of all this is not that gay people are privileged in the law, they are not. The point is that customers, all customers, are protected from being discriminated against due to their sexuality or their religion or indeed a number of other categories too.

    You can’t refuse to bake a cake because your customers want it to say, “God so loved the world that he gave his only son Jesus”. You can’t refuse to have a Christian couple staying in your Bed and Breakfast because you happen to be a pagan or an atheist. And that’s right and proper. You can’t refuse to produce a pro-gay cake nor refuse a gay couple a bed in a B and B. And that’s right too.

    These rights are what we need for a good society to flourish.

    People sometimes remember the kind of signs that used to appear outside premises before the various pieces of anti-discrimination law were passed.

    “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish” is one famous example of appalling discrimination.

    Those in Northern Ireland need to remember that these laws protect us all.

    , , , ,

52 responses to “Inclusive Language – again”

  1. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    Kelvin – that cracked me almost as much as your last tweet on the left of your blog ;-)!

    Reply
  2. Jimmy Avatar
    Jimmy

    Ryan, although you address your comment to Kelvin like I am not there. I assume you are referring to my poem, I can assure you that it does not crack me up watching you making any opinion you may have untenable.

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      No Jimmy – I think Ryan was indeed referring to my last comment, above.

      Reply
  3. Jimmy Avatar
    Jimmy

    Thank you Kelvin and Sorry Ryan.

    Reply
  4. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    No worries! Was indeed referring to the v.amusing coming out day tweets at the side.

    I’m not sure there’s ever existed anyone, anywhere,at any time, of whom it could be said that *all* their opinions are ‘untenable’, so such rhetoric is dehumanising at best. Apropos nothing, I was moved to google the poetic stylings of the great David Brent. Who needs Auden? 😉
    http://murfinsandburglars.com/2009/04/14/bad-poetry-for-tuesday-david-brent-edition/

    Reply
  5. Peter Avatar
    Peter

    Kelvin; no, I think it distracts. It simp;ly reminds us that this is how your mind works: you make connections and delight in that sort of word-play. However, to sharpen up my point. Thank you for helping me to realise that, for some, ‘family’ is not a positive word in the way in which I experience it. For my part, this willl mean that I will be more careful about its use when others might feel excluded (and therefore hurt). Mutatis mutandi can you accept that I feel offended by what seems to be merely a casual linking between family and the f word? These are sensitive areas, but sensibilities are by no means confined to those who find family a painful or unhelpful concept.

    Reply
  6. Simon Avatar
    Simon

    I am slightly nervous aboaut the alternatives to the 1982 Liturgy, not because I don’t share the inclusive sentiments expressed above (I do). I fear that, as so often in the history of the church, the steps we take to avoid one kind of mistake in the way we talk about God can lead us into another. The avoidance of pronouns as a measure to achieve inclusivity produces inelegant, strained and stilted English. How would it be if one were to use it in day-to-day speech? ‘I saw John this morning. I asked John’s how John’s health was. John said that John was over his flu, and hoped to be back at work on Monday’. This may not in itself seem to be a problem. But in fact, what very quickly happens when we adopt this idiom in addressing/expressing God, is that the very idea of a personal God begins to recede. My basic instinct is that the church’s language of pulbic prayer is properly anchored in that of the scriptures. There are dangers in departing from this. The perceived problem (rightly perceived) is perhaps better tackled by good teaching about the nature of God, than by linguistic contortions that produce stilted prayers, and possibly a less real and vivid idea of God.

    Reply
  7. Melissa Avatar
    Melissa

    About the family imagery – another reason to drop it in church is for the sake ones who, like me, do actually have the signifying family relationships.

    There is too much pressure on day to day life with children when that life is forced to serve as some kind of example or testimony or witness to the world – or more likely one’s church friends – about the nature of God.

    I think it sours love because in that kind of scheme loving children is more fundamentally a means to an end.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Jane Russell RIP

    So, the world must say goodbye to Jane Russell. I choose to remember her more for this clip than for her politics: Ain't There Anyone Here For Love by avinot

  • Sermon preached on 27 February 2011

    Here's what I said earlier today in the pulpit. Consider the Lilies of the Field Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today. For the last few weeks we have been reading the Sermon on the Mount and this is the last of the…

  • Christchurch Concert – Monday evening – more details

    Here’s what the press release says: Voices unite for benefit concert for victims of New Zealand earthquake Scottish singers are coming together for a major benefit concert on Monday evening at 8 pm for the people of Christchurch, New Zealand. The concert will take place in St Mary’s Episcopal Cathedral, Glasgow which is an almost…

  • Concert for Christchurch

    There will be a benefit concert for Christchurch, New Zealand in St Mary’s on Monday 28 February 2011 at 8 pm. More details to follow tomorrow.