Support NeoGAF

[CornBurrito]

I agree with Patrick Stewart. The owners can hate and refuse service to whoever they want, even gays. That doesn't mean they're right though

You can't even read if you think that is what Patrick Stewart said.

He basically thinks you can't refuse to serve gay customers because they are gay. He doesn't think they should have the ability to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.

What he does think is that they can refuse to make a cake that has a specific message put on it like "God Hates Fags" or "Support Black Rights".

 

[Templar Wizard]

But the people he's talking about didn't refuse to serve a gay couple. They refused to put a specific message on the cake. Should we force people to make products supporting causes they don't believe in?

and this is the point! they can respect a persons right to do what they want, but on the other hand, they should be allowed to do what they want.
if they don't agree with it, why should they be FORCED to do it, why cant that be accepted?

 

[CornBurrito]

They are using a picture of two popular children's tv puppets as gay mascots. Sounds pretty twisted and shitty to me.
I don't blame the bakers objecting to that.

Why is it "twisted"?

 

[Krejlooc]

I feel like people are making this out to try and imply Patrick Stewart supports those baker's sentiments, which isn't what is going on.

 

[Goodstyle]

No. God almighty, no. I do not abide by this. All these people agreeing with Stewart have to be kidding here.

I think this is pretty cut and dry with Patrick being in the right. If you think a bakery should be forced to write a message they disagree with, there's nothing to stop Westboro Baptist Church going into gay-owned or gay-friendly bakeries and making them make cakes that say "God Hates

Spoiler

Fags

"

That isn't even close to being the same. This is like if a black civil rights lawyer went to a deeply religious Mormon bakery and asked for a cake with a message supporting equal rights for minorities, but he's refused because of the baker's adherence to archaic and screwball beliefs.

A cake celebrating marriage equality is a good thing that our society could use more of, your lame example is something that perpetuates a disgusting notion. By supporting the bakers who refuses to do their damn job for despicable reasons, you are just tacitly approving of their warped mindset.

I want to live in a world where it is not OK to feel that homosexuals should have less rights than straight people, and calling the baker's out on their garbage seems like a great way to do just that.

 

[PSqueak]

Why is it "twisted"?

Note: i personally don't give a shit if people use Bert and Ernie as gay icons

Because they're appropiating two characters and using them in ways not intended by the author to further a political message. It's kinda like fanart, which is why 90% of the people in earth wouldn't give a fuck, but the remaining 10% would.

Imagine if they took a gay character, say, Kurt from Glee, and put his face in a cake that said "ban gay marriage" wouldn't you agree that is misusing the character for twisted purposes?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

But the people he's talking about didn't refuse to serve a gay couple. They refused to put a specific message on the cake. Should we force people to make products supporting causes they don't believe in?

They're not actually supporting a cause(which they would be supporting, if they didn't suck so much), they're baking a goddamn cake. Oh well, fuck 'em, go support a bakery that isn't ass backwards instead.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

No. God almighty, no. I do not abide by this. All these people agreeing with Stewart have to be kidding here.



That isn't even close to being the same. This is like if a black civil rights lawyer went to a deeply religious Mormon bakery and asked for a cake with a message supporting equal rights for minorities, but he's refused because of the baker's adherence to archaic and screwball beliefs.

A cake celebrating marriage equality is a good thing that our society could use more of, your lame example is something that perpetuates a disgusting notion. By supporting the bakers who refuses to do their damn job for despicable reasons, you are just tacitly approving of their warped mindset.

I want to live in a world where it is not OK to feel that homosexuals should have less rights than straight people, and calling the baker's out on their garbage seems like a great way to do just that.

They aren't being discriminatory as long as they don't bake that cake for anyone, gay or straight.

"I won't bake a cake for you because we don't make cakes with that message on them"=not discrimination.

"I won't bake a cake for you because you are gay and will use it for a gay wedding"=discrimination

 

[BlitzerRadic]

This is so simple.

An artist has the right to refuse to make something that is religious/political/vulgar/etc. What they can't do is refuse service based solely on the person making the order.

How bout this scenario:

Non-white customer walks in asks for a cake with the message "equality for all races." White cake maker refuses to make cake, invokes right to refuse service due to religious/political/moral beliefs.

Is the cake maker refusing based on the message or is it just discrimination?

 

[Krejlooc]

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.

So, this bakery, as an example, shouldn't be allowed to decline to bake a cake that says "White power" on it? Or "God hates fags?"

 

[PSqueak]

Man, people who don't understand Stewart's point of view must not be artists, nor have artists friends, nor be familiar with the concept of commissioned work.

 

[CornBurrito]

Note: i personally don't give a shit if people use Bert and Ernie as gay icons

Because they're appropiating two characters and using them in ways not intended by the author to further a political message. It's kinda like fanart, which is why 90% of the people in earth wouldn't give a fuck, but the remaining 10% would.

Imagine if they took a gay character, say, Kurt from Glee, and put his face in a cake that said "ban gay marriage" wouldn't you agree that is misusing the character for twisted purposes?

The word "twisted" just to me sounds extremely harsh.

Also Kurt is a gay character from Glee. Using him in a "ban gay marriage" cake would be a bit weird. Bert and Ernie are not gay marriage protestors in the show. There is no twisting of them by putting them on a gay marriage cake. I'm trying not to be preumptuous, but I think the poster called it "twisted" because they were characters from a children's show, and perhaps he thinks the possibility of exposing children to the fact that homosexuality exists is sick and wrong.

 

[acrid]

Good on Picard.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

How bout this scenario:

Non-white customer walks in asks for a cake with the message "equality for all races." White cake maker refuses to make cake, invokes right to refuse service due to religious/political/moral beliefs.

Is the cake maker refusing based on the message or is it just discrimination?

It depends on what we know or can prove about the cake maker's intent. If a white person goes in a week later and asks for the same cake, and they make it, then you can call discrimination.

 

[CornBurrito]

Also I find it interesting how many people in support of Stewart are interpreting what he said incorrectly. Like some people think he believes that a bakery should be able to outright refuse service to gay patrons. When in fact Stewart is not ok with that.

 

[Scrooged]

How bout this scenario:

Non-white customer walks in asks for a cake with the message "equality for all races." White cake maker refuses to make cake, invokes right to refuse service due to religious/political/moral beliefs.

Is the cake maker refusing based on the message or is it just discrimination?

You're smuggling in an assumption that they would refuse the customer because of their race instead of the message itself. If they refused based on the message then the race has nothing to do with it.

 

[PSqueak]

The word "twisted" just to me sounds extremely harsh.

Also Kurt is a gay character from Glee. Using him in a "ban gay marriage" cake would be a bit weird. Bert and Ernie are not gay marriage protestors in the show. There is no twisting of them by putting them on a gay marriage cake. I'm trying not to be preumptuous, but I think the poster called it "twisted" because they were characters from a children's show, and perhaps he thinks the possibility of exposing children to the fact that homosexuality exists is sick and wrong.

I think it's not "homosexuality" what is twisted to expose children to, in fact i think gay couples should be more prominient in children's shows, Clarence features a kid with two moms for example.

But the issue with the cake would be more about exposing kids to political propaganda, that might be too complex for them when they see characters they're familiar with.

It's like that fad in tumblr using cartoon characters to post political stands, if you see a picture of Pinkie Pie saying "Rape is not funny", the message is a good one worth spreading, but now you have a bunch of kids under 10 who will be asking "What is rape and why is pinkie pie mentioning it?"

 

[DoktorEvil]

Man, people who don't understand Stewart's point of view must not be artists, nor have artists friends, nor be familiar with the concept of commissioned work.

Or know how to read.

No bakery in the world is going to ask first if you're gay or straight before you ask for commissioned cake work, but if the person or group ordering ask for additional lettering adhering to an agenda or political stance or religious ideology, the bakery and artisan is well within their rights as an enterprise to turn that person or group away.

Private Businesses ideally are meant to be ideologically neutral places of employment.

 

[Captain Europe]

Religion doesn't give you the excuse/right to discriminate, so this isn't ok no no matter how you bring it.

Having said that, I'd rather have homophobes refuse to bake me a cake than make one and spit on it or whatever, they're already insane as it is.

 

[Tregard]

Fair. They have the right to decline a customer's request at their discretion, the couple has the right to never go back there and tell people about it. Doesn't matter if I find their reasoning for declining the request ludicrous, it's their business and unless money has changed hands, they aren't obligated to do anything for anyone.

Probably already said, but the cake had already been paid for.

 

[BlitzerRadic]

It depends on what we know or can prove about the cake maker's intent. If a white person goes in a week later and asks for the same cake, and they make it, then you can call discrimination.

I agree and that's why I don't think this issue is black and white like many posters try to make it out to be.

IMO, its probable that the cake maker refused to bake the cake invoking the right to refuse service as a loophole to get around the fact that they really didnt want to serve the customer because he is gay.

 

[CornBurrito]

I think it's not "homosexuality" what is twisted to expose children to, in fact i think gay couples should be more prominient in children's shows, Clarence features a kid with two moms for example.

But the issue with the cake would be more about exposing kids to political propaganda, that might be too complex for them when they see characters they're familiar with.

It's like that fad in tumblr using cartoon characters to post political stands, if you see a picture of Pinkie Pie saying "Rape is not funny", the message is a good one worth spreading, but now you have a bunch of kids under 10 who will be asking "What is rape and why is pinkie pie mentioning it?"

Cool. You aren't that poster, so while you may think he meant that by "twisted" I'd really like to hear the poster in question state why he used that word and what he meant by it.

In no case you mentioned would I personally think to use the word "twisted" to describe what happened.

 

[PSqueak]

Cool. You aren't that poster, so while you may think he meant that by "twisted" I'd really like to here the poster in question state why he used that word and what he meant by it.

In no case you mentioned would I personally think to use the word "twisted" to describe what happened.

Fair enough.

 

[Scrooged]

I agree and that's why I don't think this issue is black and white like many posters try to make it out to be.

IMO, its probable that the cake maker refused to bake the cake invoking the right to refuse service as a loophole to get around the fact that they really didnt want to serve the customer because he is gay.

Do you think they would have made the cake if the person ordering it was straight?

 

[Goodstyle]

They aren't being discriminatory as long as they don't bake that cake for anyone, gay or straight.

"I won't bake a cake for you because we don't make cakes with that message on them"=not discrimination.

"I won't bake a cake for you because you are gay and will use it for a gay wedding"=discrimination

Didn't say they are being discriminatory, I said that their reasoning for not baking the cake is disgusting and is deeply entrenched in an archaic system of belief that is deeply discriminatory. Even if it was a straight couple requesting the cake, I'd feel the same way.

I want a system that does whatever it can to discourage that kind of thinking. We really don't need beloved celebraties coming out with the old "freedom of speech" defense. I don't care if Patrick Stewart doesn't personally agree with them, I don't think he should be approving of their actions. It doesn't send the right message at all.

 

[And_Gignac]

Yes. Imagine a place where no bakeries in the area will serve a gay couple because of their "personal beliefs". If everyone can just refuse service to anyone for any reason, that doesn't solve anything. All forms of discrimination should be outlawed, and if you or your business don't comply then goodbye.

They didn't refuse a gay couple, they refused a message on the cake that was against their beliefs. As ignorant, stupid, reactionary those beliefs are, there is a not a real case here for discrimination.

Religion doesn't give you the excuse/right to discriminate, so this isn't ok no no matter how you bring it.

Having said that, I'd rather have homophobes refuse to bake me a cake than make one and spit on it or whatever, they're already insane as it is.

Don't you see the irony in your post? Why demonize, stigmatize people who hold homophobic views? It's like falling into their same mistake of antagonization based on a sole character flaw (not like homosexuality is one, but for the culture they were raised in is telling them it is)

 

[Sequence Six]

Why is it "twisted"?

I wouldn't say twisted but Bert and Ernie were originally a sort of projection of Jim Henson and Frank Oz's friendship. It's a bromance if anything and some people who grew up with the show don't want the perception of that to change.

Religion doesn't give you the excuse/right to discriminate, so this isn't ok no no matter how you bring it.

Having said that, I'd rather have homophobes refuse to bake me a cake than make one and spit on it or whatever, they're already insane as it is.

Those homophobes, always spittin' in cakes

 

[BlitzerRadic]

Do you think they would have made the cake if the person ordering it was straight?

Probably not. But I also think if they legally could refuse service to gay people, they would.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Probably not. But I also think if they legally could refuse service to gay people, they would.

This is nonsense, there's no way you can know that. I've got a lot of conservative family members who don't support gay marriage but have no problem working with gay people or, for one example, providing them dental work.

You can't conflate issues or paint everyone with the same broad strokes.

 

[PSqueak]

Probably not. But I also think if they legally could refuse service to gay people, they would.

But until that's the case, this doesn't matter. The fact that they're shitty people doesn't strip their right to refuse commissioned custom work they don't agree to.

 

[Metaphoreus]

No. God almighty, no. I do not abide by this. All these people agreeing with Stewart have to be kidding here.

That isn't even close to being the same. This is like if a black civil rights lawyer went to a deeply religious Mormon bakery and asked for a cake with a message supporting equal rights for minorities, but he's refused because of the baker's adherence to archaic and screwball beliefs.

A cake celebrating marriage equality is a good thing that our society could use more of, your lame example is something that perpetuates a disgusting notion. By supporting the bakers who refuses to do their damn job for despicable reasons, you are just tacitly approving of their warped mindset.

I want to live in a world where it is not OK to feel that homosexuals should have less rights than straight people, and calling the baker's out on their garbage seems like a great way to do just that.

Shorter Goodstyle: "I want to live in a world where everyone believes what I believe. Since this world isn't like that, I want to live in a world where people must affirm what I believe and cannot say things I disagree with."

Unfortunately for your druthers, this is a world in which people have different beliefs on a wide variety of subjects, and one in which we've decided that people more or less can say what they want, not what someone else wants them to say. (I know this story is from Ireland, which lacks a robust commitment to free speech, but about that backward belief I'll simply say this: I want to live in a world where anyone who defends the English conception of free speech is endlessly berated on the Internet.)

 

[Fury451]

Didn't say they are being discriminatory, I said that their reasoning for not baking the cake is disgusting and is deeply entrenched in an archaic system of belief that is deeply discriminatory. Even if it was a straight couple requesting the cake, I'd feel the same way.

I want a system that does whatever it can to discourage that kind of thinking. We really don't need beloved celebraties coming out with the old "freedom of speech" defense. I don't care if Patrick Stewart doesn't personally agree with them, I don't think he should be approving of their actions. It doesn't send the right message at all.

So you want to mind control people basically? You can't. That's the opposite of liberty. That's not freedom. I hate to boil it down to "you take the good with the bad" but, you do.

What the bakery did is within their capacity; you can't force a creator to make a statement or message they may not adhere to or agree with. As long as they're not openly discriminating against clients (i.e refusing to bake a wedding cake because clients are gay), they shouldn't be forced to agree with everything you want regardless of how backwards their beliefs may be to you personally.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Didn't say they are being discriminatory, I said that their reasoning for not baking the cake is disgusting and is deeply entrenched in an archaic system of belief that is deeply discriminatory. Even if it was a straight couple requesting the cake, I'd feel the same way.

I want a system that does whatever it can to discourage that kind of thinking. We really don't need beloved celebraties coming out with the old "freedom of speech" defense. I don't care if Patrick Stewart doesn't personally agree with them, I don't think he should be approving of their actions. It doesn't send the right message at all.

There's a difference between approving of someone's actions and supporting their right to said actions. Stewart isn't approving of anything, he's just supporting someone's freedom. I wouldn't want to be forced to put a swastika on a cake because that's abhorrent to me. Someone else shouldn't be forced to do something they find abhorrent as well. We don't get to pick and choose these things.

I don't approve of hate speech, but I respect a person's right to voice their opinion.


It seems like you're advocating for some kind of totalitarian thought police which punishes people for having views which you think are wrong. I'm sorry, but that's not the basis for a free society, which society is eroding the archaic nonsense of prejudice against people for sexual orientation.

 

[Captain Europe]

They didn't refuse a gay couple, they refused a message on the cake that was against their beliefs. As ignorant, stupid, reactionary those beliefs are, there is a not a real case here for discrimination.



Don't you see the irony in your post? Why demonize, stigmatize people who hold homophobic views? It's like falling into their same mistake of antagonization based on a sole character flaw (not like homosexuality is one, but for the culture they were raised in is telling them it is)

I don't see the irony, they're doing a pretty good job of demonising themselves. The whole ''don't stoop to their level'' argument doesn't do anything for me.

 

[Goodstyle]

Shorter Goodstyle: "I want to live in a world where everyone believes what I believe. Since this world isn't like that, I want to live in a world where people must affirm what I believe and cannot say things I disagree with."

Unfortunately for your druthers, this is a world in which people have different beliefs on a wide variety of subjects, and one in which we've decided that people more or less can say what they want, not what someone else wants them to say. (I know this story is from Ireland, which lacks a robust commitment to free speech, but about that backward belief I'll simply say this: I want to live in a world where anyone who defends the English conception of free speech is endlessly berated on the Internet.)

Not going to pretend that this argument isn't based on my conception of morals, because it is. I don't support approval for backwards thinking that makes other human beings feel less like people. I don't have the legal expertise to argue the letter of the law, this is just my personal belief on the matter (not that I needed to clarify that). I seriously disagree with Stewart, but that may be influenced by how Canada is run in terms of "Free Speech".

So you want to mind control people basically? You can't. That's the opposite of liberty. That's not freedom. I hate to boil it down to "you take the good with the bad" but, you do.

What the bakery did is within their capacity; you can't force a creator to make a statement or message they may not adhere to or agree with. As long as they're not openly discriminating against clients (i.e refusing to bake a wedding cake because clients are gay), they shouldn't be forced to agree with everything you want regardless of how backwards their beliefs may be to you personally.

Don't we already do this to an extent though? We legally force people to accept serving gay or black people service, but I've seen arguments saying that conflates with their definition of free expression.

Here in Canada hate speech is restricted to a considerable degree. We're not legally allowed to say a lot of things Americans would find legal, and I honestly believe we're better off for it. I know you guys are always worried about the government infringing on your freedoms, but that's a good thing in my eyes if it prevents stupid things like this from happening. I mean, would society as whole really be worse off if we stood against this stuff? As a Canadian, I know I'm happy with the system we have.

Here's a question for GAF though, and I touched on it before. If this were the exact same situation, except that was a cake promoting equality between black and white people, and the bakery refused to do it based on religion (say they were strict Mormons), would all of you be so eager to jump to their defense? I think that things would be very different at least here in Canada.

 

[happypup]

So he supports the right of businesses to refuse service to people.

I blame the internet.

nothing is news if everything is.

 

[Goodstyle]

There's a difference between approving of someone's actions and supporting their right to said actions. Stewart isn't approving of anything, he's just supporting someone's freedom. I wouldn't want to be forced to put a swastika on a cake because that's abhorrent to me. Someone else shouldn't be forced to do something they find abhorrent as well. We don't get to pick and choose theIse things.

I don't approve of hate speech, but I respect a person's right to voice their opinion.

I don't understand why people keep using this awful false equivalence argument. Refusing to make a cake that supports a hateful position isn't the same as making a cake that supports equal rights for a group that has been historically oppressed. It's not just a "matter of opinion", it's also a matter of human decency.

It seems like you're advocating for some kind of totalitarian thought police which punishes people for having views which you think are wrong. I'm sorry, but that's not the basis for a free society, which society is eroding the archaic nonsense of prejudice against people for sexual orientation.

Quite the hyperbole there buddy. Here in Canada, we have laws that specifically prohibit hate speech for groups on various grounds, I wonder if you'd call that a "police state" too.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

So he supports the right of businesses to refuse service to people.

Except he doesn't.

 

[Kinyou]

So he supports the right of businesses to refuse service to people.

I blame the internet.

nothing is news if everything is.

He supports their right to refuse a specific custom order

 

[Deleted member 1159]

I don't understand why people keep using this awful false equivalence argument. Refusing to make a cake that supports a hateful position isn't the same as making a cake that supports equal rights for a group that has been historically oppressed. It's not just a "matter of opinion", it's also a matter of human decency.



Quite the hyperbole there buddy. Here in Canada, we have laws that specifically prohibit hate speech for groups on various grounds, I wonder if you'd call that a "police state" too.

What's the mechanism for enforcement? Who decides what's hate speech and what's not? You can't punish people for having different ideas and opinions and still have a free society. I think religion is stupid, and religious people are duped. Is that hate speech? I know some people who would be seriously offended by those statements, that doesn't mean they aren't true.

I don't think hate speech laws are the appropriate mechanism to change people's minds on these things. Lines between freedom of speech and hate speech get too muddled too quickly.

 

[TheCochese]

I don't understand why people keep using this awful false equivalence argument. Refusing to make a cake that supports a hateful position isn't the same as making a cake that supports equal rights for a group that has been historically oppressed. It's not just a "matter of opinion", it's also a matter of human decency.

Human decency does not equal law. And the argument you quoted there indeed is the meat of the conversation, and the midst of the fine line between baking a cake and decorating it. If one baker is forced to write something that the customer requests, and that request falls within the legal confines of accepted speech, then they all do. It doesn't matter what you or I think is the appropriate stance on the issue.

If the religious baker has to decorate an equality message, the gay baker has to decorate an anti-equality message. I would have to guess that's the entire crux of the argument Stewart is trying to make here.

I'm not sure exactly when it happened, but there came a point where people started deciding that if someone wasn't 100% on board with something, they became an enemy. Bigot. Racist. Insert your slur of choice here. It's important to remember there's a broad spectrum of beliefs, and to not agree on everything doesn't mean you agree on nothing.

I'm for marriage equality. I'm also for an artist having some measure of control over their work. I woodwork as a hobby. I wouldn't want to be forced into creating something I personally didn't believe in, even if it was my best friend in the whole world requesting it.

 

[esms]

Here in Canada hate speech is restricted to a considerable degree. We're not legally allowed to say a lot of things Americans would find legal, and I honestly believe we're better off for it. I know you guys are always worried about the government infringing on your freedoms, but that's a good thing in my eyes if it prevents stupid things like this from happening. I mean, would society as whole really be worse off if we stood against this stuff? As a Canadian, I know I'm happy with the system we have.

This is what I have a problem with.

The thing is, as a society, we do stand against abhorrent speech, but believe it should be allowed to be said as long as it doesn't incite violence. For example, take a recent occurrence in my city.

Ads ran on buses that decried all Muslims as anti-semites. The ad was massively flawed and was obviously full of half-truths, but it still ran on buses. The response was swift and unanimous. Nobody was swayed to that line of thinking because of these ads. City rabbis banded together to deface the ads. It was pretty beautiful. Even the Israel deputy counsel general was quoted as saying:

We shouldn’t support any hatred toward any religious group … and we should stand together as a community against that.

This is, of course, not perfectly analogous to a bakery refusing to put a certain message on a cake because they don't support it or believe in it, but I think it illustrates the point that, generally, people are smart enough to handle hate speech and denounce it accordingly.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, on the whole, we're better off not restricting speech to the degree that you have as Canadians. We're better off knowing who exactly is crazy or hateful and ostracizing them accordingly, even if the speech in question is the omission of speech supporting equality.

That and hate speech laws are rife for abuse.

So, when a bakery refuses to put a specific message on a cake ("[bakery] supports gay rights," even when they don't), it's fine legally, but they shouldn't be surprised when the people who do support gay rights stop being patrons of that particular bakery or their store location is protested by the community.

 

[Derekloffin]

What's the mechanism for enforcement? Who decides what's hate speech and what's not? You can't punish people for having different ideas and opinions and still have a free society. I think religion is stupid, and religious people are duped. Is that hate speech? I know some people who would be seriously offended by those statements, that doesn't mean they aren't true.

I don't think hate speech laws are the appropriate mechanism to change people's minds on these things. Lines between freedom of speech and hate speech get too muddled too quickly.

The hate speech laws in Canada are pretty limited actually. They are fairly similar to th US actually in that most stuff is allowed until you start advocating for genecide and the like.

 

[TatteredHat]

As long as the refusal isn't based on what kind of customer is placing the order, I don't see the problem.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I don't understand why people keep using this awful false equivalence argument. Refusing to make a cake that supports a hateful position isn't the same as making a cake that supports equal rights for a group that has been historically oppressed. It's not just a "matter of opinion", it's also a matter of human decency.



Quite the hyperbole there buddy. Here in Canada, we have laws that specifically prohibit hate speech for groups on various grounds, I wonder if you'd call that a "police state" too.

Not a police state, but an ethically inferior form of governance. Goodness is not good if it's compulsive, rather than voluntary.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Not going to pretend that this argument isn't based on my conception of morals, because it is. I don't support approval for backwards thinking that makes other human beings feel less like people. I don't have the legal expertise to argue the letter of the law, this is just my personal belief on the matter (not that I needed to clarify that). I seriously disagree with Stewart, but that may be influenced by how Canada is run in terms of "Free Speech".

I don't think anyone is talking about the letter of the law. This seems to be a discussion of broad legal principles. You want your morality imposed by law. Some who hold different moral beliefs want their morality imposed by law. One side says, "I want to deprive you of your right to say what you want," and the other, "I want to deprive you of the right to marry whom you want." You may try to distinguish those desires by saying that you're right, but then, so will the other side. Rather than depriving people of their rights to speak freely or marry whom they will, which engenders social conflict, the better approach is to decline imposing either side's moral beliefs on the other.

Here's a question for GAF though, and I touched on it before. If this were the exact same situation, except that was a cake promoting equality between black and white people, and the bakery refused to do it based on religion (say they were strict Mormons), would all of you be so eager to jump to their defense?

With respect to government forcing the affirmation of a particular belief, the two scenarios are identical. So, any defense based on the freedom of speech would apply in either case.

You keep talking about Canada, but the issue here is not so much what was said, but what was refused to be said. Is not saying something ever considered hate speech in Canada?

 

[Goodstyle]

Bringing up Canada has more to do with the broad principle of the matter. Many people act like having laws that tell people that they can't say certain things or express themselves in a way that diminishes specific groups is somehow the beginning of an Orwellian police state. But many of us here are comfortable with those sort of rules, and we're probably happier for it whether we know it or not (not that there isn't some serious criticism from certain groups).

 

[The Spoony Hou]

I don't know what's my stance in there. The bakery has a right to their opinion, yes, but any individuals that value their own opinions should also help others defend their views. If i'm a Christian, and this Muslim wants my help to defend his views, I will give him all the support I can. It's about defending everybody's freedom.

Now, of course you can't force someone support another person's views, so I guess the bakery does have that right, but it saddens me. If this was about race there wouldn't even be a discussion.

 

[Sequence Six]

Bringing up Canada has more to do with the broad principle of the matter. Many people act like having laws that tell people that they can't say certain things or express themselves in a way that diminishes specific groups is somehow the beginning of an Orwellian police state. But many of us here are comfortable with those sort of rules, and we're probably happier for it whether we know it or not (not that there isn't some serious criticism from certain groups).

Spoiler

Seriously though saying "We curbed personal liberty on the matter of moral opinion and we're all secretly happy about it" is creepy

 

[metalslimer]

That's really what makes me uncomfortable here. If an African American wanted a an equal rights cake and was denied I feel like many of the responses would change despite the fact that it's the exact same situation