Some bakers in Northern Ireland say they won’t bake a Bert and Ernie cake for a gay couple as it’s out of line with their beliefs, given to them by the bible. This begs a question – does religion create bigots or do people who are bigoted use religion as an excuse for their ideals?
Personally speaking, I’m not religious. The bible has a giant in it and contradicts itself so often as to be disregardable. I’ve read a fair chunk of it to understand where people are coming from but cannot see how it could encourage you to devote your life to it or those people depicted.
I’m of the mind that you should treat others the way you want to be treated. Be nice to people, understand their point of view and consider if your views are what you truly believe or what you’ve been told.
Just bake the cake and make people happy. What would Jesus do?
It’s no fun to be offended. I’m all for being offended if something offensive has been said to you, it’s your right to take issue with what other people say to or about you. However, many people seem to just love being offended and perhaps seek it out (I’ve gone on about this before…).
In this case, it involves another of my favourite least-favourite things; religion. And not just any religion. Catholicism.
During the 2010 Papal visit to the U.K., an exec at The Times shouted “Can anyone tell me what’s happened to the fucking Pope?”. Ok, not the nicest choice of language but hardly something to offend your beliefs or sensibilities you’d have thought, wouldn’t you?
Not in this case. A Catholic sub-editor decided that it was “harassment on the grounds of religious belief”. This was, of course, thrown out by the employment tribunal who oversaw the case. Unperturbed, the complainant took the option to appeal whereupon the decision was upheld.
The decision said, quite rightly, that the complaint was not a case of victimisation on the grounds of being a Catholic. Also, the claims that the remarks were “violating his dignity” or creating a “hostile or offensive environment” were also dismissed.
Fair play, I suppose, to the complainant. To have taken this to two tribunals shows a remarkable belief in what they must have regarded as a massive injustice but it’s clear to see that nothing said was intended to be, or indeed was, offensive to someone on their grounds of being a Catholic.
Swearing is a part of everyday life. It is shown to reduce stress levels and we have words like that for a reason, though quite why the exec felt the need in this case is a bit weird, unless he’d already asked a number of times and wanted to ensure he was heard. (Note: As is the way with these things, swearing is also shown to increase stress. What are we to do?!)
As Roy Greenslade says in his article, good sense has prevailed.
This is an open letter to The Guardian’s website editors.
Your current comment layout is shit. Please revert to the old, chronological style.
Now, I don’t usually have cause to complain about The Guardian and the ethics of their reporting but something’s caught my eye today.
Yesterday, related the the suicide of nurse Jacintha Saldanha, they ran a story about The Samaritans reissuing their advice to the reporting of suicides. As The Guardian ran the piece, I assumed that they agreed with their stance.
The Samaritans have detailed guidelines on reporting suicide, including to avoid technical details or speculation of the method. The guidance warns against reporting suspected reasons for a suicide and advises not to disclose the contents of any suicide note.
So, today I see this, which contains:
One of three apparent suicide notes left by the nurse at the centre of the royal hoax phone call criticised staff at the King Edward VII hospital where she worked, the Guardian has learned.
Come on now, Guardian. You should be better than that.