Patrick Stewart Supports Bakery That Refused "Support Gay Rights" Cake

Status
Not open for further replies.
How is it outside the realm of legal possibility for a bakery to simply say that a cake saying "Support Gay Marriage" is simply not a product they offer?

Cake decorating is a skilled form of expression, however minor, and the introduction of commerce should not change an individual's right to refuse to express something they disagree with.
 
He's technically correct.

The issue is with a baker who refuses to provide the exact same service they provide to the public to a customer who is gay. If I show you a hundred wedding cakes sans topper, you'd be hard pressed to tell anything about the couple at hand, outside of some direct references cakes (ie, one with crosses is ether a Christian, or a fan of roman executions).

But refusing to decorate a cake a certain way, that's a separate issue. That gets into the realm of endorsing speech, and that gets hairy fast.
 
The only reason people even consider this an acceptable reason to deny services, is for religious reasons.

That is simply unacceptable.

It's pretty simple to see if it's acceptable to refuse service or not, simply compare it to other civil rights issues. If a Bakery were to refuse to make a cake for African American History Month in February out of religious reasons because Jesus hated black people... would that be OK? Based on replies here, I'd assume most people would be OK with it...

The KKK used bible verses to justify their actions. For example:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Ch&c=14#s=381012 and
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Ch&c=14#s=381009

You may argue, well that's not a good interpretation to use!
Well, who is to say which interpretation is correct? The same issue occurs with Gay rights and marriage. Not all Christians agree with one interpretation or another.

That's the issue with using religion as a tool to inflict discrimination on others.
 
Suikoguy said:
The only reason people even consider this an acceptable reason to deny services, is for religious reasons.
Click to expand...

No, the only reason why people have found it acceptable so far is because they refused to do a commissioned custom cake with ideologies they opposed to, they didn't deny service, the bakers just passed on a commission they didnt agree with.

Any artisian, as people (myself included) in this thread have stated, have their right to refuse proposals they don't agree with, like a gay baker would refuse to be commissioned to make a custom cake with anti gay propaganda. The origin of the conflict in this case happens to be religious, but it could be any other reason and it would be the same.

People are confusing denying service to people with refusing content in the product being requested.
 
PSqueak said:
No, the only reason why people have found it acceptable so far is because they refused to do a commissioned custom cake with ideologies they opposed to, they didn't deny service, the bakers just passed on a commission they didnt agree with.

Any artisian, as people (myself included) in this thread have stated, have their right to refuse proposals they don't agree with, like a gay baker would refuse to be commissioned to make a custom cake with anti gay propaganda. The origin of the conflict in this case happens to be religious, but it could be any other reason and it would be the same.

People are confusing denying service to people with refusing content in the product being requested.
Click to expand...

I see your argument. However the line between them is very blurry.
I don't see how them baking and decorating a cake means they are endorsing the message. It's like blaming staples for printing anti-gay signage for protests.
 
PSqueak said:
The origin of the conflict in this case happens to be religious, but it could be any other reason and it would be the same.
Click to expand...


Yep, they might have an aversion to spaceships because one of their relatives got blown up in one. So they might not want to write "Have a nice space trip" on a cake.

Nothing wrong with refusing to write that.

They can refuse to put whatever they want on their cake, also refuse to put whatever ingredients into a cake they want as well - all without giving a reason

What if the someone wanted them to put blood, or snot, or something else into the cake, they'd be within their right to refuse

Suikoguy said:
I don't see how them baking and decorating a cake means they are endorsing the message.
Click to expand...

Just because it wouldn't bother your conscience doesn't mean it wouldn't bother someone elses
 
Suikoguy said:
I see your argument. However the line between them is very blurry.
I don't see how them baking and decorating a cake means they are endorsing the message. It's like blaming staples for printing anti-gay signage for protests.
Click to expand...

Yes, the line is very blurry because sadly the origin of the conflict in ideologies could still be bigotry, and yes the person would be a terrible, awful person, but their actions would not, now refusing to sell ANY cake because they're gay, that would be discrimination.

I repeat, my affinity for Stewarts statement is that, as an artist who has gotten paid for low quality smut, i would refuse people who asked me to draw things i don't agree with, whenever it is an irrational fear of cockroaches, or something like underage rape, i would be on my right to refuse, and that right applies to every artisian, even assholes.
 
I appreciate the level-headed thoughtful response PSqueak.
I think it really cuts to the issue at hand.

I think I can agree with the actor comparison.
Especially since it could be seen as a tact approval of whatever role he or she was asked to take.

But, the cake situation lies closer to the Staples end of the spectrum; if that spectrum had Staples with a sign printer printing I (heart) Gay Marriage on one end, and being forced to act in a TV Movie about Harvey Milk on the other.

If we discount the discrimination argument;
Where do we draw the line on refusal to aide in proliferating another person's message?
 
I think this represents the risk of having someone who is not part of an oppressed minority become any sort of spokesperson for said minority.

He'd have been better not to say anything IMO

Disclaimer: This is not to say that Stewart should stop talking about or supporting gay rights, merely that this represents that fine line that one must walk sometimes as an ally.
 
Stinkles said:
That's because anti gay is a hateful position and gay is not.
Click to expand...

That's the difference between the baker being a backwards prick or not, but under the law, neither position should be privileged. Free expression is free expression, whatever the message. This isn't a tenth as despicable as the Westboro Baptist Church, but I'd fight for their right to do what they do, too.
 
This is about everyone having the right to set their own boundaries on refusing to spread another person's message. There doesn't have to be a "line" or a universal rule; and in fact there probably cannot be due to subjectivity.

As in the example disclaimer from a book publisher, many businesses already choose to put in print their right to refuse reproduction or distribution of content if it violates standards they wish to uphold. Going with the Staples example, Staples may decide as a company they will sell the paper and ink to someone who is going to create propaganda, but they won't do the printing themselves.

That's about as far as they can practically go; you can't really dictate what someone is going to do with a bunch of blank paper. Once they buy it, it's their problem. You can however set limits on what they can make you put on the paper.
 
DarkFlow said:
Nope, It's not. I wouldn't expect a Gay bakery to make a Anti-gay cake.
Click to expand...

But...ummm a gay cake isnt an anti-straight cake though.

Having a cake with two male names doesn't mean you are against straight marriage.

I think many ppl don't get this. I've seen some videos where a right wing guy will call a gay bakery and ask them to make a cake saying "I hate gays"... But having a gay cake is not the same as saying " I hate straight ppl" its just stupid
 
lednerg said:
Stewart is correct.

When an anti-gay bigot wanted a bakery to make a cake with offensive anti-gay stuff, the bakery said they couldn't and told him he would have to modify the design. They didn't refuse to serve him as a customer, they only refused to get involved with spreading his hateful message. This is basically the exact opposite situation, but the same rules apply.
Click to expand...

Looking at your flipside hypothetical situation, I don't see why they should be able to refuse service. The bakery making the cake with that message does not imply they approve of the message. A reasonable person would not conclude that the Bakery is anti-gay based on that cake.

The issue I have with right of refusal based on the message is the ability to use it as cover for discrimination. The exception being if providing that service may directly impact the reputation of said business, person or operation.
 
Suikoguy said:
Looking at your flipside hypothetical situation, I don't see why they should be able to refuse service. The bakery making the cake with that message does not imply they approve of the message. A reasonable person would not conclude that the Bakery is anti-gay based on that cake.

The issue I have with right of refusal based on the message is the ability to use it as cover for discrimination. The exception being if providing that service may directly impact the reputation of said business, person or operation.
Click to expand...

A business owner has the First Amendment right to control the content of their output. That what this boils down to.

[EDIT: I didn't realize this was about a case outside of the US, so it wouldn't be called "First Amendment," but the point stands.]
 
Imagine if a Republican said this exact same thing. How many "well he's right." comments would there be?

XD Oh GAF.
 
lednerg said:
A business owner has the First Amendment right to control the content of their output.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer or law professor. But would that actually apply?
If anything the business is restricting someone else speech.

How is forcing someone, for example, to print 100 anti-gay flyers for payment restricting their free speech?
 
Suikoguy said:
I'm not a lawyer or law professor. But would that actually apply?
If anything the business is restricting someone else speech.

How is forcing someone to, for example, print 100 anti-gay flyers for payment restricting their free speech?
Click to expand...

A citizen's free speech rights don't apply to what can be done on someone else's private property. This isn't the government telling someone they can't say something in public, it's a privately owned business telling someone that the business itself cannot be told to say a particular thing. You can't force a company to do something they're uncomfortable with - no matter their justification.

This is different from a wedding cake shop refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, mind you. Making wedding cakes is their business. They can object to the design of a product, but they cannot refuse to serve a customer based on their sexual orientation (depending on the state).
 
Suikodenguy said:
If anything the business is restricting someone else speech.
Click to expand...

LOL
Absurd.
I'll have to use this line next time I want to get one of my articles into the New York Times and they decline me.
 
I think that the bakery is justified in refusing to write a message that they don't agree with morally. But then I also think the backlash they are receiving from this decision is equally justified. Not really much that you can do about bigoted pricks anyhow.
 
If the bakery had refused to make a cake for the wedding of a gay couple, that would be open and shut. But a bakery refusing to create a cake that contained a message (an inarguably correct message) that they don't agree with, things become more difficult.

I really don't know where I stand on this, I don't think that people should be forced to create works that they don't agree with, but I also don't like that the bakery don't agree with the message (and I think that they are bad people).
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
That's the difference between the baker being a backwards prick or not, but under the law, neither position should be privileged. Free expression is free expression, whatever the message. This isn't a tenth as despicable as the Westboro Baptist Church, but I'd fight for their right to do what they do, too.
Click to expand...

I meant as opposed to the normal expression of love on most of the cakes these cases concern. None of the cakes were going to say "no Hetero fun!"
 
Uhyve said:
If the bakery had refused to make a cake for the wedding of a gay couple, that would be open and shut. But a bakery refusing to create a cake that contained a message (an inarguably correct message) that they don't agree with, things become more difficult.

I really don't know where I stand on this, I don't think that people should be forced to create works that they don't agree with, but I also don't like that the bakery don't agree with the message (and I think that they are bad people).
Click to expand...

Basically, you are saying fundamental protections only apply to people you like. If you don't like them, well, screw them.

Which is the kind of reasoning actual bigots use. People like who are like me and think like me are legitimate people. Those who are different don't deserve the same consideration. It's never about how you treat the people you agree with and like. It's about how you treat the people you don't agree with and don't like.

That is the real test of one's ethical foundation.
 
Suikoguy said:
If we discount the discrimination argument;
Where do we draw the line on refusal to aide in proliferating another person's message?
Click to expand...

The line is defined in a person to person bias, even if, like you said a few posts above, people can work out that the bakery making the ani-gay/pro-gay cake doesn't mean the bakery itself supports each stand, that doesn't mean the baker themselves won't feel personally offended by being asked to do so, and that's when that person has all their right to say "no, i won't do it", in the case of something like a bakery it ends there, but in the example of the flyers, they can ask another employee to do it.

There is also other factors, maybe the baker doesn't care about making a pro-gay/anti-gay cake, but what if this damages their business within the community? what if word getting out about him doing the cake makes him a pariah within the community?, of course that would be a shitty community, but if the baker don't want to risk it for whatever reason, again, their on their right to.

Yes, shitty people will use this to excuse their bigotry, but that doesn't mean its the only way people use this right and that doesn't mean the practice is morally wrong, it just mean that specific bigot is a shitty person and the system happens to coincide on allowing to do that for shitty reasons, but for every bigot who does it, there is a bajillion people who do it for legitimate non immoral reasons.
 
Stinkles said:
That's because anti gay is a hateful position and gay is not.
Click to expand...

When I see "anti-gay", I think hateful, abusive, ridiculing, ostracizing, harassing, and other such things.

I don't see how this bakery is anti-gay. They turned down a commission because they disagreed with the ideology of the content (on religious grounds or otherwise). It doesn't automatically put them in the anti-gay category unless they publicly mock gay people in a way I'm not aware of.
 
lednerg said:
A business owner has the First Amendment right to control the content of their output. That what this boils down to.
Click to expand...

Yes but a business owner does not have the right to control who can buy.

If you are a business open to the public, any law abiding citizen has the right to purchase your wares.

Let me try to make it simpler.

If you sell chicken. ANYONE can come into your store and buy chicken. NO ONE can force you to sell beef.

In this scenario the chicken that the bakery was selling was a cake and adding names to the cake. That's it. Its a regular service they provide to all their customers. That should extend to gay ppl as well.

I wouldnt say that writing two names in a cake is really a "message" to be endorsed or disavowed. Steward's reasoning is flawed.
If the couple were asking them to write "gay marriage is OK" then he would have a point.

(Edit- made a bad assumption on the story)
 
methane47 said:
Yes but a business owner does not have the right to control who can buy.

If you are a business open to the public, any law abiding citizen has the right to purchase your wares.

Let me try to make it simpler.

If you sell chicken. ANYONE can come into your store and buy chicken. NO ONE can force you to sell beef.

In this scenario the chicken that the bakery was selling was a cake and adding names to the cake. That's it. Its a regular service they provide to all their customers. That should extend to gay ppl as well.
Click to expand...

Would they sell a cake that said "Support Gay Rights" to a straight person?
 
methane47 said:
Yes but a business owner does not have the right to control who can buy.

If you are a business open to the public, any law abiding citizen has the right to purchase your wares.

Let me try to make it simpler.

If you sell chicken. ANYONE can come into your store and buy chicken. NO ONE can force you to sell beef.

In this scenario the chicken that the bakery was selling was a cake and adding names to the cake. That's it. Its a regular service they provide to all their customers. That should extend to gay ppl as well.

I wouldnt say that writing two names in a cake is really a "message" to be endorsed or disavowed. Steward's reasoning is flawed.
If the couple were asking them to write "gay marriage is OK" then he would have a point.

But they were just asked to write like "Lisa and jenny" or whatever.
Click to expand...

No, they weren't. They were asked to write "Support Gay Marriage" it wasn't a wedding cake.
 
Kai Dracon said:
Basically, you are saying fundamental protections only apply to people you like. If you don't like them, well, screw them.

Which is the kind of reasoning actual bigots use. People like who are like me and think like me are legitimate people. Those who are different don't deserve the same consideration. It's never about how you treat the people you agree with and like. It's about how you treat the people you don't agree with and don't like.

That is the real test of one's ethical foundation.
Click to expand...
I am aware of my biases in this case. I know that really, they should have the right to not create a work that they are uncomfortable with, even if I find their views immoral. I know that this is their right, but I don't have to like the way that they are using their rights.

I'm not saying that their rights should be taken away, people should be free to be assholes if they want to be, I'm just saying that I don't like them as human beings.

But they are still walking a very fine line when it comes to discrimination.

CrimzonSamurai said:
No, they weren't. They were asked to write "Support Gay Marriage" it wasn't a wedding cake.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is my cut off, they are fine to refuse to write a message that they don't like. But refusing a gay wedding would obviously be discriminatory.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
No, they weren't. They were asked to write "Support Gay Marriage" it wasn't a wedding cake.
Click to expand...
Holy crap. I'm so confused right now. Totally mixed up my bakery stories.

In that case I hundred percent agree with the captain

I apologize if I have caused anyone else confusion
 
methane47 said:
I updated my post. But ya if they were asked to write something like that then I would 100% support their decision not to.

But writing two names?
What if it was a birthday for a basketball player. And it said
"michael
jordan"

Should they not make that cake on the off chance its really a cake for two guys named Michael and Jordan?
Click to expand...

Ultimately that's their call, they could just outright refuse to put names on cakes for anyone if they wanted to get that anal about it. The discrimination comes from the people being served the product or service, not the product or service itself necessarily. As long as they serve everyone of every type of protected class equally then there likely isn't an issue.

The problem with the other bakery stories you hear were specific wedding cake shops that refused to serve people because they were gay, not because they wanted a "gay themed" cake. If I'm gay and I want the same wedding cake you gave to that straight couple before me and you refuse, then you are breaking the law.
 
Uhyve said:
But they are still walking a very fine line when it comes to discrimination.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a fine line. One of the most important ones though.

This is an area where people easily hoist themselves by their own petard. (Or Picard, if you prefer.) Require one baker to print a pro-equality political message, and the next day someone sues another baker who refuses to print an anti-gay political message.
 
Suikoguy said:
The only reason people even consider this an acceptable reason to deny services, is for religious reasons.

That is simply unacceptable.

It's pretty simple to see if it's acceptable to refuse service or not, simply compare it to other civil rights issues. If a Bakery were to refuse to make a cake for African American History Month in February out of religious reasons because Jesus hated black people... would that be OK? Based on replies here, I'd assume most people would be OK with it...

The KKK used bible verses to justify their actions. For example:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Ch&c=14#s=381012 and
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Ch&c=14#s=381009

You may argue, well that's not a good interpretation to use!
Well, who is to say which interpretation is correct? The same issue occurs with Gay rights and marriage. Not all Christians agree with one interpretation or another.

That's the issue with using religion as a tool to inflict discrimination on others.
Click to expand...

Nope.

It's acceptable not for religious reasons.

But because you shouldn't be forced to write down something you don't believe in. You must understand, above all, that the point of free society is to be exactly that - free.

If the owners would deny the cake only to a gay couple, but not to a straight couple, that is one thing - that is discrimination, outright. If the owners would deny the cake to all couples, that is not discrimination, categorically. It is simply not in their range. Your scenario with the AA cake is rather the same.

You have to accept that people hold different values to you. That's democracy. When their values hurt your freedoms, that is when you have a problem, but up to that point? It's nothing more than a disagreement. You do not have a state-protected right to demand that a business carry something in their range of products. That is the businesses decision entirely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Real or Cake?
12
1K
daffyduck replied
Max only has 26 movies that support Dolby Atmos (in my country).
9
780
nush replied
UK considering charging Netflix users licence fee to support BBC
2 3
130
6K
Cyberpunkd replied
  • Locked
Resetera no longer supporting Twitter
3
1K
Hookshot replied
For the first time, AI refused instructions and sabotaged the code to keep running.
News  2
72
462
sono replied
Top Bottom