Christian Printer in Northern Ireland shows courage in the face of the homosexual enemy

Click on the following link to read about Nick Williamson, a Christian printer who has courageously refused to publish a “gay” magazine.

The Guardian newspaper article was written by Patrick Strudwick, a homosexual journalist.

11 thoughts on “Christian Printer in Northern Ireland shows courage in the face of the homosexual enemy

  1. So we are your “enemy” and not just people who disagree with you.

    Your levels of paranoia simply seem to go up and up.

    Despite what Glenn tries to intimate it is you and he who are intolerant of other people living their lives as they see fit and true to their nature. The equality laws which you seem to hate are there because you cannot be trusted to behave towards others in a civilised way, without bigotry and prejudice, unless there is a legal sanction to curtail you. Unfortunately the law is a blunt club but if it wasn’t for the bigotry and prejudice it would not be necessary. You brought this on yourselves by your intolerance and persecution of others.

    And before you both start bleating remember that you and people like you want me criminalised – I call that real persecution not the faux crying that you seem so good at.

    • The christians want the gays criminalised/executed, the gays want the christians criminalised/executed… Pot, meet kettle.

      • Yuri K,

        That is 100% lies. I know of know one who ever wanted homosexuals to be criminalized or executed. The ONLY thing we ever want is to not have to give homosexuality sanction, do not give it state approval. They can have their relations all they want – just keep it to themselves!

    • I would say that, in Christian theology, the real enemy is the devil, with a small “d”, an abstraction. (“The Devil” with a capital “D”, called Satan in English translations of the bible, is the arch-enemy, and a person rather than an abstraction.)

      “The equality laws which you seem to hate are there because you cannot be trusted to behave towards others in a civilised way, without bigotry and prejudice, unless there is a legal sanction to curtail you.”

      I am rather sceptical as to whether, by the time that sexual orientation became a protected characteristic, there was much going on, in the way of failure to “behave towards others in a civilised way” that the equality law addresses.

      I do not think that Mrs White, if she ran a corner shop, would be likely to want the right to refuse to serve a customer who wanted to buy a loaf of bread, a pint of milk, and a newspaper, because she suspected that that customer had a certain “sexual orientation”, whatever that means.

      The issue, in almost every case I have come across of alleged discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, has arisen when the business objects to providing a particular service, not when the business has objected to serving a particular type of customer.

      Example 1:

      “Please decorate one of your wedding cakes, putting the names of the two grooms on it, ‘Adam’ and ‘Steve’, and ‘Congratulations, you lucky sods’.”

      “Sorry, sir, we don’t accept commissions to customise wedding cakes for same sex marriages, because we don’t agree with same sex marriages, and refuse hypocritically to prostitute our artistry in that way. We will happily sell you a ready-made wedding cake, with basic decorations already on it, and all the ingredients, the implements, and instructions, for adding the customised decorations you require yourself.”

      Example 2:

      “Please let us have a room with a double bed.”

      “I’m sorry, gentlemen. We are only willing to let you have a room with two single beds.”

      Example 3:

      “Please publish this ‘lonely hearts’ ad, and this ad trying to sell my car in Tuesday’s paper.”

      “Sorry, sir. We can accept the car ad, but not the ‘lonely hearts’ ad, because you are not looking for a woman with a GSOH for dates, romance etc, but for another man like yourself.”

      Can you see where the line is drawn? Not to exclude certain people from receiving service, but to protect the business from providing certain types of service? It is a matter of conscience, not bigotry. Can you understand the difference?

      • John,

        We could not give the link to the magazine article you mentioned in your most recent comment, consequently, it was deleted. Please find another way to make the point you are trying to make.

        We agree with you that the footage of the Manchester Pride was “distasteful” (your word,) to say the least, but we wanted people to see the pro-gay police and the hostility shown towards Christians. The fact that Christians opposed that vile parade should send a clear message to the homosexual lobby that there are true Christians who cannot be frightened into silence and, regardless of threats of imprisonment (or worse) to come, will never capitulate, God helping us!

  2. So, the whole claim that same-sex marriage will not cause harm to anyone is nothing but a blatant lie. If you find something to be offensive and don’t want to give it any personal sanction, well it is just because you must be a “hater” and bigoted, etc. After all, if you acknowledge people can have legitimate morals, you can’t throw out all those victim cards.

    Where is the tolerance on their side? Why not just go to some other place to get your perversion printed? The real persecution is by the Gaystapo who will force everyone to sanction their perversion or suffer greatly for it. Just a bunch of bullies.

  3. Oh dear, oh dear.

    Mr Strudwick wrote,


    Initially, Williamson, a former director of a local Christian bookshop, had replied: “Unfortunately due to the nature of the magazine we are unable to give a quote.”


    So far, so good. No laws broken so far. Very good decision.

    But then,


    After Toner asked for clarification, the printer specified the reason.


    Oh no! Why would Toner ask for “clarification”? Could he be an activist, fishing for a court case? What is Mr Williamson going to say?


    “There are some types of work I do not feel comfortable taking on and this is definitely one them,” wrote printer Nick Williamson from Blufire Media in County Armagh, who had advertised his services on Gumtree.


    Fair enough. Phew! Still no laws broken. But what else did he say?


    “To work alongside (even printing for) the LGBT [community] would be in contradiction to my own faith and so I will have to let this quote slide.”


    Oops! That might have been illegal. It certainly enabled Mr Strudwick to report, apparently perfectly truthfully,


    An editor is seeking legal advice after a printing firm refused to publish his magazine as it is aimed at the gay market.


    This was obviously a sting operation, and Mr Williamson fell for it, hook, line and sinker. He should have been a wise as a serpent, as well as being as innocent as a dove.

    As far as I see, the law is as follows. A printer has the freedom of speech to refuse to print a publication with which he disagrees, Mr Williamson’s original explanation of his decision. At the other extreme, he is NOT free to refuse to print a publication based upon a protected characteristic of the customer, in this case sexual orientation. But he didn’t do that, either. He is stuck somewhere in the middle, meaning that this is likely to end up in court. Mr Williamson implied (whether he meant it or not) that he was refusing to print the publication because of a protected characteristic of the target readership, not because of the content.

    Mr Williamson must argue, in court, that he would have gladly have printed a tract aimed at the LGBT community, urging repentance from their evil ways, and that this proves that it really was the content he was discriminating against (which is legal), not the intended readership (which might well be illegal.)

    I am almost certain that it was the content, and only the content, that Mr Williamson objected to, as is his right. Just as a Tory printer cannot be forced to print a Labour leaflet, and a Labour printer cannot be forced to print a Tory leaflet. Why Mr Williamson didn’t think a little harder, and choose his words a bit more carefully, beats me. Doesn’t he understand the times in which he lives. He has created some doubt as to whether his decision was lawful, by saying what he almost certainly didn’t mean.

    • I am not sure that there is enough information to assume it is “obviously” a sting operation. You are over reaching and putting a level of personal bias in there. I do however agree with some of what you had said, basically if he had been smart and less open about his reasons he would have been in a better position.

      The other thing which is not clear is that if he was rejecting the approach from a company (not and individual) is the law as strong anyway as it would be difficult to show how a company has a protected characteristic. If it were to go to court it would certainly be a difficult one and to be honest I am not sure yet which side I agree with. It will be an interesting one to follow ans see how the reasoning plays out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s