Dammit lol
Patrick Stewart Supports Bakery That Refused "Support Gay Rights" Cake
- Thread starter ShadowKingpin
- Start date
- Status
Dammit lol
Their bromance is so awesome. Not to mention they are both amazing actors, it saddens me they likely won't ever star as X and Mags again.Best and most random part of the article:
Guess they weren't fans of his recent shenanigans?
dead souls
Member
He's right, but Captain Sisko is still my favorite Trek captain.
agiantenemycrab
Member
I can certainly see why Stewart feels this way and I can also see and empathise with those who take the same position, including those in this topic.
That said, the decision of the court was correct in this case, and likely were it to be challenged at a higher court, in either the UK or EU, the higher court would back the earlier decision. The appeal that has been launched will probably fail, as it should.
Those agreeing with Stewart are, understandably, naive. It is very easy to agree on principle that bakers right to freedom of speech or expression trumps the LGBT organisations request. I am sympathetic to that angle but it doesn't take into account the reality of the situation on the ground. Christianity and Christians are a massive majority in Northern Ireland. LGBT people are not, and never will be. By and large whenever a set of majority rights and a set of minority rights are weighed against each other a court will likely find in favour of the rights of the minority.
Speaking on a personal level, as someone who both lives in Northern Ireland and is gay, this case and the fallout from it - along with the referendum result in the Republic - has been an exhausting experience. It is one thing to see and hear elected politicians claim that my existence threatens the very fabric of society, and that I am a danger to children and abominable, but to hear that from the your own family is something else altogether. This is the context of the courts decision, or at least my experience of the context. Its Western Europe minus 40 years of social liberalisation.
Are there any other LGBT posters from Northern Ireland on this board, and if so, would they share their own perspective on the decision?
That said, the decision of the court was correct in this case, and likely were it to be challenged at a higher court, in either the UK or EU, the higher court would back the earlier decision. The appeal that has been launched will probably fail, as it should.
Those agreeing with Stewart are, understandably, naive. It is very easy to agree on principle that bakers right to freedom of speech or expression trumps the LGBT organisations request. I am sympathetic to that angle but it doesn't take into account the reality of the situation on the ground. Christianity and Christians are a massive majority in Northern Ireland. LGBT people are not, and never will be. By and large whenever a set of majority rights and a set of minority rights are weighed against each other a court will likely find in favour of the rights of the minority.
Speaking on a personal level, as someone who both lives in Northern Ireland and is gay, this case and the fallout from it - along with the referendum result in the Republic - has been an exhausting experience. It is one thing to see and hear elected politicians claim that my existence threatens the very fabric of society, and that I am a danger to children and abominable, but to hear that from the your own family is something else altogether. This is the context of the courts decision, or at least my experience of the context. Its Western Europe minus 40 years of social liberalisation.
Are there any other LGBT posters from Northern Ireland on this board, and if so, would they share their own perspective on the decision?
Yes, currently, the business is well within its rights to deny the cake's message.
But that's obvious. The problem is, positive messages regarding a protected minority class should not be considered an offensive message. There needs to be a law that doesn't allow a business to discriminate on their own basis of offensive, when regarding protected minority groups.
Things like "Jesus sucks" or "I hate you" should be freely denied as they are offensive but do not carry relevance to the support of minorities.
But that's obvious. The problem is, positive messages regarding a protected minority class should not be considered an offensive message. There needs to be a law that doesn't allow a business to discriminate on their own basis of offensive, when regarding protected minority groups.
Things like "Jesus sucks" or "I hate you" should be freely denied as they are offensive but do not carry relevance to the support of minorities.
Captain Chaos
Member
Patrick Stewart is wrong. There is nothing offensive about the cake. They are a public bakery - bake the damn cake bigots.
Also Patrick is unfortunately not quite as great as others would think, take 5 out to watch him act like a dick towards James Corden at an awards show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIBUWqSTp90
Also Patrick is unfortunately not quite as great as others would think, take 5 out to watch him act like a dick towards James Corden at an awards show.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIBUWqSTp90
Astral Dog
Member
What was the message?
It must have been something outrageous to refuse service like that.
Was it something against their religion? sexuality? hateful?
It must have been something outrageous to refuse service like that.
Was it something against their religion? sexuality? hateful?
The bakers said making a cake with this on it would be against their religious beliefs.
Astral Dog
Member
The real reason though, could have been because that's a hideous design !
The bakers said making a cake with this on it would be against their religious beliefs.
Magicgamer101
Member
I agree with him. I don't believe in forcing people to do things against their beliefs.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
What legal jurisprudence dictates is not necessarily congruent with people's principles, though. Cake decoration is a skilled form of expression, and the mere fact that such a skilled person opens their skill up for the public to avail themselves of it should not remove their right to refuse to express a particular message they find distasteful, whatever the reason.
Having and maintaining principles that may result in negative consequences for some is not naivety. They're principles for a reason, not, "Eh, we'll fit'em in at the end, provided there's room"s.
BobbyRobby
Member
I think it is a stretch for the title to say Stewart 'supports' the bakery. He is defending a right he believes they have.
excelsiorlef
Member
Wow what the fuck was that (though apparently Corden made a gay joke about Patrick Stewart earlier but still)
but it did get this out of it which is bizarre as fuck.
https://youtu.be/rFtVqXyOYI4
Captin Quacker
Member
So this is what the captain does alone on the holodeck.
The number of people doing quick quips in previous threads and the amount of people that are *now* saying "I agree with him" kinda feels like we didn't have a robust discussion on these matters...
Reminds me of this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=815878
Reminds me of this thread: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=815878
Huw_Dawson
Member
Ultimately he is actually incorrect, but not hugely so.
Refusing to support gay marriage is a personal choice, so naturally the mind is led to think that you need to enshrine the choice
as a personal liberty, right?
In actuality this damages other people. The belief has led to action, and the action was to deny an opportunity based on sexuality.
It is important to recognise and enshrine personal liberties, but (speaking as a Lib Dem) it is also important to recognise that attitudes that run contrary to the liberal goal of an end to all discrimination and privilage need to end.
Refusing to support gay marriage is a personal choice, so naturally the mind is led to think that you need to enshrine the choice
as a personal liberty, right?
In actuality this damages other people. The belief has led to action, and the action was to deny an opportunity based on sexuality.
It is important to recognise and enshrine personal liberties, but (speaking as a Lib Dem) it is also important to recognise that attitudes that run contrary to the liberal goal of an end to all discrimination and privilage need to end.
agiantenemycrab
Member
I meant naivety in the sense of not having an understanding of the situation on the ground.
On the subject of principles: I accept that maintaining principles will ensure that some groups suffer. I think that in all cases where there is a tradeoff between a majority and a minority that the majority should carry the suffering and the minority should be protected. The majority already has all the priviledge inherent in a majority whereas the minority already suffers all the limitations inherent in a minority.
ProfessorLobo
Banned
So illegalize the personal choice to not support gay marriage?
The situation on the ground was that the bakery passed on the order to another bakery. They got their cake.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
It's a shame we have to have discussions about the legality/validity of hate.
Of course bakeries are free not to bake cakes with messages they don't agree with, just sad the opposition remains.
Of course bakeries are free not to bake cakes with messages they don't agree with, just sad the opposition remains.
hobblygobbly
Member
I don't see what's wrong with the act of refusing, you should be able to refuse but that doesn't make you right. Refusing is a freedom you should have but doesn't mean you won't be free from consequence. I don't agree with the bakery but I think the bakery should have the ability to refuse... whatever consequences that come that is whatever it is and they have to deal with that on its own.
That's what I think Stewart is saying too, he's not saying their reasoning/justification for refusing is right but they should have the freedom to refuse an order just like they have the freedom to refuse an order on a myriad of other things.
I still wouldn't support the bakery because that's a consequence from their action, but they should be able to do so if they wish. Doesn't make it right. It's just unfortunate that people still think like this, especially regarding business. Trying to oppose people from the freedom to not have a personal choice/opinion about gay marriage is a fine line to having thought crime, one I think shouldn't be straddled with.
That's what I think Stewart is saying too, he's not saying their reasoning/justification for refusing is right but they should have the freedom to refuse an order just like they have the freedom to refuse an order on a myriad of other things.
I still wouldn't support the bakery because that's a consequence from their action, but they should be able to do so if they wish. Doesn't make it right. It's just unfortunate that people still think like this, especially regarding business. Trying to oppose people from the freedom to not have a personal choice/opinion about gay marriage is a fine line to having thought crime, one I think shouldn't be straddled with.
Refusing for any reason is a freedom a person should have but not one that a business should have.
ProfessorLobo
Banned
If you owned a bakery would you be comfortable with making a white power cake?
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
Businesses, especially small ones like bakeries are not robotic entities, they're run by people. This sounds obvious but it should illustrate people running those businesses don't all of a sudden shut off their political what have you. Would att agree to form a sponsorship with a celebrity that was an outspoken bigot? Of course not. An ironic example admittedly but it goes both ways.
way more
Member
Baskin-Robbins not only told me they would not make this cake but they said they would call the cops if I showed this picture to Chelsea or other customers again.
They said they didn't have the skill to portray her at a 800x600 level. Pretty sure they are just a bigoted hate group. They had a flavor on rotation known as Pro-Life Praline last month.
They said they didn't have the skill to portray her at a 800x600 level. Pretty sure they are just a bigoted hate group. They had a flavor on rotation known as Pro-Life Praline last month.
Exterminieren
Banned
The main question here is did the bakery attempt to organise a different slogan or design for the cake in collaboration with the commissioners?
If so, then Stewart has a point. If not, it's open and shut discrimination.
If so, then Stewart has a point. If not, it's open and shut discrimination.
Ted Striker
Neo Member
Wrong thread
Joel Was Right
Member
Such a disingenuous comparison
way more
Member
What if the cake said "I'm Pro-Choice"
Dude Abides
Banned
It's called an analogy and it's an apt one. Either the bakery is free to refuse to write political messages on cakes or it isn't.
Out of curiosity then, should they be free to decline such slogans or not?
excelsiorlef
Member
How so?
Succinct Verbosity
Member
First of all, the argument being made is that it was the slogan that was being refused not the right for gay people to buy a cake. In that sense I personally think a baker should have the right to decline any political slogan. It's not workable otherwise.
However, in terms of analogies, it would be something that deeply affects a person's own conscience. Presumably the baker felt he would be participating in a sin. If he genuinely believed that, then I can imagine it would be a very uncomfortable situation to be in.
In the same way, you could imagine for instance a gay baker refusing to bake a cake with an anti-gay slogan. He would be doing so because it deeply affects his own conscience.
excelsiorlef
Member
I'm not saying it was a bad analogy, only that it is not necessarily the most accurate analogy.
excelsiorlef
Member
I'm also not really asking you.
And your response didn't even make a case for accuracy either. I just side stepped it to say why the cake denial was fine, which whatever not my question at this moment.
The owners of the bakery objected to the content of the order, not the staff who initially accepted it.
I thought it did. Does serving a person who is of a different race deeply affect a person's conscience? People seem to treat it like any other bigotry rather than a genuine religious conviction.
Edit.
……forgetit
Member
Please add this to the OP, it would really streamline discussion here.
It was still a director (and family member of the owners) at the company who took the order, not some lowly sales assistant. As well as that, she admitted she took the money for the cake knowing it wouldn't be baked.
If they hadn't taken the money they might have won he court case, but they did and formed a contract with the customer to bake it regardless of how they felt after the fact.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/n...-meant-by-offer-acceptance-and-consideration/
The title is sensationally misleading.
Patrick Stewart supports the bakery's right to refuse the cake. He doesn't support the bakery's decision.
Also, he doesn't go into detail in the business side of things. The bakery seems to have knowingly taken money for a cake they wouldn't make, and yes, that's douchebaggery.
Patrick Stewart supports the bakery's right to refuse the cake. He doesn't support the bakery's decision.
Also, he doesn't go into detail in the business side of things. The bakery seems to have knowingly taken money for a cake they wouldn't make, and yes, that's douchebaggery.
Not seems to, they did do exactly that.
That's over-simplification. People are running that business and it's not unprofessional to not do work that is not in line with their beliefs. Would they be unprofessional if they refused to make a vagina shaped cake? Where do you draw the line? What is the percentage of people required to think in the same line with you on a subject to not be considered unprofessional when refusing anything? Professionalism cannot necessarily be measured as accepting any kind of work required by the customer. However, the bakery is at fault here for taking the money.
I re-iterate that taking money with the knowledge that the cake wouldn't be made according your customer's need is the problem here, not their refusal.
Well, that's very wrong of them. I don't think Patrick Stewart would support that.
- Status