MyGayZine - the vindictive pursuit of sexual uniformity
Here we go again.
A Christian printer by the name of Nick Williamson, 28, from Portadown in Northern Ireland, is about to be hauled off to court by another horde of militant homosexualists. Honestly, this is getting beyond a joke. There was a time when a Christian printer could politely decline to print gay porn, and the nice, understanding, empathetic homosexual completely understood, shook hands, and trundled off to find a printer who wasn’t remotely bothered by explicit images of gay men doing what gay men do. It was an era of live and let live; of liberty, tolerance, and the mutual accommodation of difference.
But now we must all be assimilated. Or, rather, the Christians must: the homosexualists haven’t got the balls to find some mosque-based printing outfit in
So it’s easier to bully Christians.
MyGayZine is an online magazine for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in Northern Ireland. They asked Mr Williamson of Blufire Media in County Armagh for a design quotation. But Mr Williamson had a problem with the content of this site. He could have said he was far too busy to accept the job, or he could have provided some outrageously prohibitive estimate of costs. But this would have been lying. And why should Mr Williamson lie? Is he ashamed of his faith? Must he hide Christ under an AppleMac for fear of being insulted and harassed?
So, how is this anti-gay discrimination, exactly?
If a man won’t print pornography of any genre – because it is all perversion – by what moral or legal right does the homosexualist insist that his particular genre of the perversion ought to be privileged?
Ah, but Mr Toner was ‘shocked’ and ‘annoyed’ by Mr Williamson’s rejection of his harmless rainbow website. And let us add ‘hurt’, ‘outraged’ and ‘offended’, for good measure. So the case has been referred to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.
It beggars belief that Danny Toner believes that Nick Williamson should be required by law to print material of a nature that could reasonably be considered to be in direct conflict with the core elements of his religious beliefs. Would he force a Muslim to design and print material that offended his creed? Should the Muslim printer be obliged by statute to assist an anti-Muslim horde in the denigration of Mohammed or the cursing of Allah?
We have become aware over the years that it appears to have become a crime to believe that homosexuality is a sin, and to permit that religious orthodoxy to determine one’s actions in the public square (or your B&B or your hotel [from which His Grace demurs]). We have become used to streaming allegations of homophobia from screaming gayers who insist that their innate sexual preferences should trump millennia of cultural mores and normative religious orthodoxy. But this must be the first case of pornophobia: the first time a homosexualist is hurt and offended because the Christian doesn’t print porn of any description.
No doubt this case will turn on the relative definitions or increments of gay porn – not least because Mr Toner is adamant that MyGayZone has no adult content. In which case we can argue about the definition of ‘adult content’, for many parents might be concerned if their child were visiting this particular site, not least because they tend to promote a certain lifestyle or inculcate certain beliefs and attitudes toward sexual morality which might offend many Christians, Jews and Muslims (not to mention Sikhs, one or two Hindus, and the vast majority of Mormons and Scientologists). Mr Toner will insist that his website talks harmlessly about gay life, travel and culture, with the odd recipe for carrot and ginger soup. But others will find therein the exaltation of a lifestyle to which they strongly object.
And then we’ll get the spinning of the written correspondence, which has already been made public by Mr Toner, no doubt adduced as evidence for Mr Williamson’s bigotry, intolerance, hatred and homophobia. His first response was straightforward: ‘Unfortunately due to the nature of the magazine we are unable to give a quote.’
Difficult to see how that might ‘hurt’, ‘offend’, ‘confuse’ or ‘embarrass’ the recipient. But, sensing a marketing opportunity to boost the profile of his website, Mr Toner sought clarification, to which Mr Williamson apparently responded: ‘To work alongside (even printing for) the LGBT would be in contradiction to my own faith and so I will have to let this quote slide.’
And there you have it. Blatant homophobic discrimination.
In this corner of the United Kingdom, refusing to offer goods or services on the grounds of sexual orientation contravenes the The Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006. This determines that a person (“A”) discriminates against another person (“B”) if –
(a) on grounds of sexual orientation, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons; orSo the degraded and humiliated homosexual Danny Toner is taking the hostile and intimidating Christian Nick Williamson to court in order ‘to fight homophobia and to bring it to people's attention’ (and get a few extra hits for his website). It is nothing but malicious, vindictive, anti-Christian bullying. Why is it that homosexuals, who have endured decades and centuries of sometimes appalling persecution, cannot see the hypocrisy of their militant pogrom?
(b) A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same sexual orientation as B; but –
(i) which puts or would put persons of the same sexual orientation as B at a particular disadvantage when compared with other persons;
(ii) which puts B at a disadvantage; and
(iii) which A cannot show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim; or
(c) A applies to B a requirement or condition which he applies or would apply equally to persons not of the same sexual orientation as B; but –
(i) which is such that the proportion of persons of the same sexual orientation as B who can comply with it is considerably smaller than the proportion of persons not of that sexual orientation who can comply with it; and
(ii) which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the sexual orientation of the person to whom it is applied; and
(iii) which is to the detriment of B because he cannot comply with it.
(2) A comparison of B’s case with that of another person under paragraph (1) must be such that the relevant circumstances in the one case are the same, or not materially different, in the other.
(3) A person (“A”) subjects another person (“B”) to harassment in any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision referred to in these Regulations where, on the ground of sexual orientation, A engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of –
(a) violating B’s dignity; or
(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.