Donations are essential to keep Write Out Loud going    

Fairy Cakes

entry picture

Fairy Cakes

 

They believed in a mythical being,

who supposedly loved his creation.

Omnipotent and all seeing -

His will needing no explanation.

They followed his lore from an old book

written by disciples raising the stakes -

that one thing they just shouldn’t cook

were those sinful and bad fairy cakes.

 

“Good will to all men” they proclaimed

(but the women didn’t get a mention),

yet the white bearded god was acclaimed

for his homo-erectus invention.

Famine, starvation and war

were delivered for all of our sakes

but don’t ask a bakery store

to decorate those bad fairy cakes.

 

So they prayed for divine intervention

to rid them of this abomination

(peace and love didn’t get a mention

as they beat out their biblical frustration).

They sprinkled their mixture with bile

and threw in the nuts and the flakes

but no way on God’s green earth

were they going to bake bad fairy cakes.

 

The priests were getting quite frantic

(momentarily forgetting the joys

of their extra-curricular antics

with unwary, young choirboys).

But when the devil is hungry,

you do whatever it takes

to keep him away from the bakery

and those blasphemous, bad fairy cakes.

 

The god squad were all up in arms

at the thought of all of those “queers”

messing with their teacakes and barms -

it resurrected disturbing fears

that at the last supper it’s written

there were no hens, only drakes,

and who knew if they were smitten

by a batch of those bad fairy cakes.

 

 

 

support gay marriagebakerrefusal to bakereligionhypocrisy

◄ Mynydd Du

Red Poppies On An Autumn Day ►

Comments

Profile image

Ian Whiteley

Mon 31st Oct 2016 14:51

thanks for commenting chaps
guess what - I agree with you both
this wasn't written as a means to either support or decry the case decided in the courts last week - I'm not too bothered which way that went and agree that the triviality and cost involved in reaching a dubious to enforce outcome doesn't seem worthy of it - even gay rights protesters are railing against the restriction of free decision making.
NO
the thrust of this piece is the fundamental issue of a mythical god being - used as a justification to prejudice real, human, caring people - it is illogical to quote biblical justifications of demonising sodomy or homosexuality as deviant - when there is so much human hypocrisy flaunted and practiced in those very same archaic 'religions'.
By all means let people 'believe' in what they want - but not at the expense of real, complex, justifiable emotions between 2 human beings.
If there is a 'God' I would hope it was pro love and humanity - if it wasn't then it's not a 'God' for me.
Here endeth the lesson of Whiteley to the WriteOutLoudians *wink*

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Wed 26th Oct 2016 22:18

The essence of the law should be to translate "rights" &
"beliefs" into social well-being so that sense and respect
are maintained in society.
Now that the law has caught up with "equality", it has
an unenviable task applying that mercurial term to the
way we live now. I'm uneasy with a term like "devout"
which indicates an unforgiving unbending attitude that
says "It's my way or no other": hardly likely to produce a
progressive sensible society that promotes a live and let
live tolerance that humanity everywhere deserves.
The bakery in this case could have declined the original
order without giving either excuse or offence, without
its owners parading a pious religious position to justify a
subsequent refusal to produce the order and its statement...the icing on the cake in dispute!
The intransigent position taken by the plaintiffs is surely
encouraged by the progress made in recent times to
understand and allow behaviour that was previously
frowned on at best and unlawful at worst. The court's
verdict, whilst stating that a decision preventing the
the completion of a lawful business order by reason
of sexuality is unlawful discrimination, may be seen, for
better or worse, as a worrying extension of the old joke:
"They've made homosexuality legal. How long before
they make it compulsory?" - and do genuine liberal/
progressive thinking a damaging disservice.
To borrow from the Bard "Methinks they doth protest too
much" - and I'll leave it to others to decide to whom that
applies.

Profile image

Stu Buck

Wed 26th Oct 2016 19:23

i dont know.

i dislike religion and am as tolerant a person as there can be but i just cant get on board with this.

i have read quite a bit on this, as i am genuinely torn on the debate. i think the most reasonable thing i have read is the link i will leave at the bottom of the comment. its certainly worth a read and does make me wonder who is right and wrong. it goes quite in depth on the case, after stating how silly it is that taxpayers money was wasted on such a pointless debate. one of the best points it makes is how gay rights were achieved through force of will and protest, not through the law. but why now is a gay man using the law to alter someones belief system?

they owned the business, they have beliefs which are beliefs that are held the world over. should they have to cast aside something that is vital to the way they live their lives.

a democracy should allow people of all faiths and creeds, all sexualities and all colours to have the right to their point of view and their belief system. surely this is undermined by this case?

i think ultimately the entire thing could have been handled differently by both sides.

its a great poem by the way and it causes me much consternation to have this view, but i dont think they should have had to make a cake if they didnt want to.

i welcome any other opinions.

anyway, the article, written by a gay man, is below

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/24/as-a-gay-man-im-horrified-that-christian-bakers-are-being-forced/

edit - if you cant read the entire thing, the first two paragraphs sum up the feeling of the piece, and of myself, quite succinctly

'there are some pretty silly laws on the UK’s statute books. But the Court of Appeal in Belfast has today confirmed one that might be the silliest of the lot: if you’re a gay man, you’re now legally entitled to force a devout Christian to bake you a cake.

I am a gay man. I support equality under the law for people of all sexual and gender inclinations. More to the point, I love cake. Nonetheless, I’m siding with the Christians. This gay plaintiff is wrong; the law is wrong. Nobody should be forced by law to bake anybody else a cake. Ever.'

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Tue 25th Oct 2016 14:09

I have always taken exception to the way that biblical
teaching is so selective about the word "love".
These lines are an entertaining comment on the half-baked
court case involving the order for a cake with wording
that celebrates a certain sexuality. Once taken, the order
becomes subject of the law of contract. The bakery could
have avoided the kerfuffle by declining to accept the order at the outset - for all manner of reasons.
The judgement made a good point - citing a Halloween
cake. Taking such an order does not signify any sympathy
with the "message" or the reasons for ordering it. Business
is - or should be...just business!

If you wish to post a comment you must login.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Find out more Hide this message