Patrick Stewart comes out in favour of bakery in ‘gay cake’ row

[Munch]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/04/patrick-stewart-comes-out-in-favour-of-bakery-in-gay-cake-row/

Veteran actor Patrick Stewart has come out in favour of Ashers Bakery which was last month found guilty of discrimination for refusing to write “support gay marriage” on a cake.
The owners of Ashers Bakery in Belfast were last week found guilty of unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation and political or religious grounds.

Last July, Ashers Baking Company â€" based in Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland â€" refused the request of gay rights activist Gareth Lee for a cake showing the message ‘Support Gay Marriage’ above an image of Sesame Street’s Bert and Ernie.
Speaking to Evan Davis on BBC’s Newsnight last night, the famed actor discussed his campaign work for human rights.
When asked by Davis about the Ashers Bakery cake, Stewart said it was a “deliciously difficult subject”, going on to say: “Finally I found myself on the side of the bakers.”

Continuing, he said: “It was not because it was a gay couple that they objected, it was not because they were celebrating some sort of marriage or an agreement between them. It was the actual words on the cake they objected to. Because they found the words offensive.
“And I would support their rights to say no, this is personally offensive to my beliefs, I will not do it. But I feel bad that it cost them £600 or whatever…”

The McArthur family, who own the bakery, have since the ruling said they will appeal against it after having sought legal advice.
Benjamin Cohen, the Chief Executive of PinkNews, spoke on BBC Ulster this morning on the Nolan Show, to say: “This is actually a very difficult case. It is difficult with Patrick because he is a big supporter of LGBT rights.

“This was an odd case because it was very unlike others around the world. In this particular incident the judge actually said the refusal also stemmed from the person’s sexuality, and it was that action that broke the law.

“The judge ruled that the refusal most likely wouldn’t have happened, if the people int he shop hadn’t realised the customer was gay.
“The view actually is, particularly given the marriage vote in the Republic of Ireland, is that Northern Ireland is standing out, standing alone, on this issue. The perception of Northern Ireland is that it is against the tide of equality and human rights. I think it’s a shame.”
Simon Calvert of the Christian institute argued: “Of course he’s interesting because he’s like a lot of people who support same-sex marriage”, saying he thinks “what has been done to the McArthur family has gone too far. They should not be legally obliged to help promote [same-sex marriage]. That distinction is what people see.”

Supermarket giant Tesco last week said it was ‘reviewing’ its relationship with Ashers, after the company was found guilty.
Speaking to the media after the ruling, Mr McArthur said the bakery would not close, and that despite the ruling, they did not consider that they had done anything wrong.

“We will not be closing down. We have not done anything wrong”, Mr McArthur said.
Earlier this week, the bakery announced it would begin only making baby and birthday cakes, following the ruling.

So, whats people opinion of this?

I'm really torn about it. Stewart has been in favor of gay rights like any decent thinking guy for years, and I've loved him as an actor in all his roles.

But for this, if he's speaking up for peoples freedoms to do what they want against the law, its kind of hard for me to get behind him on this, given the circumstances of the case.

When you have the cake shop saying "they did nothing wrong", thats obvious bullshit as they outright choose to refuse to bake a cake in support of gay rights, which falls on discrimination laws, and while anyone could argue across its against their right not being allowed to discriminate, since its their business, where I come from, standards and practices apply to all, under law.

A person can be against gay rights, but last time I checked, refusing to serve someone based on personal beliefs is grounds to get you fired or disciplinary action in most jobs.

I'm not sure even what Stewart is trying to appeal to here, he surely knows it wasn't right to deny a gay couple when the shop would never deny a straight couple.

[SGOS]

Take Patrick Stewart out of the equation.  What the bakery did was either right or wrong, and this will be decided by the legal system, with pressure from public opinion to some extent.  Gay marriage seems like a civil right, speaking out against it is free speech and also a civil right.  I'd probably be content calling the owner of the bakery a dickhead and finding another bakery.  Until the higher courts find him guilty of refusal of service or something, he's probably within his rights.  But the laws need to be clarified so that bakers can then decide whether their silly bigotry is worth going to jail over, or others can start looking around for bigotry free bakers.

As a side issue, why is this always about bakers?  There are book sellers, film makers, and sanitary engineers who probably have differing opinions, but it seems like this always centers around bakers and their cakes.  Next time, I have a debate with someone about gay rights, I can say, "Oh stop acting like a baker, and quit being an ass."

[Munch]

Well to be honest I wouldn't be going to a bakers to have such a cake baked anyway, my mum taught me well enough to bake my own and it would also feel personal

Though, as someone said in the comment section of the article.

Honestly from a legal perspective for me it's as simple as this:

You are a business that serves the public

Therefore you must follow public discrimination laws

And thankfully here the law states that you may not discriminate toward someone based on their sexuality/race/gender

Therefore the bakery must oblige

It's not a question of personal desires/beliefs it's a question of legality and business - if a bakery refused to write on a cake "support racial equality" there would be an absolute uproar I really don't understand why it's any different in this case

When I worked as a front of house and customer service assistant years ago, I had to serve and help customers of every detail and enquiry. I would never have refused anyone in that role to serve them, both because I'm not racist, sexist, or discriminatory to anyones creed (save religious zealots). If I did what this cake company did, it be the same as be refusing to serve a priest if one walked in with his priestly collar on. And I would have been fired for not helping him, and rightly so.

[SGOS]

There are a lot of people fumbling with this "baker" issue right now, including the courts and political institutions.  Like you, I'm torn about it too.  Legal clarity would help a great deal. 

Another thing I thought about is that we are talking about two entirely separate issues that appear to be in conflict, but it's kind of an unrelated conflict.  Equality and free speech are two entirely different things, and one doesn't really affect the other.  No matter what it turns out that bakers can do, it's not going to have any effect on equality issues.  That's a separate issue that is well on it's way to public acceptance.  People can stand on the tracks and yell at the train to stop, but good sense eventually will dictate that it's a better idea to just get out of the way.

[GSOgymrat]

I agree with Patrick Stewart. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake with a penis, crucifix, Smurf or whatever she shouldn't be forced by law. It is one thing to refuse service to someone because of race, sex or sexual orientation and another to create something you find, for whatever reason, offensive. If the baker says she will bake a wedding cake for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals, or black people, or the elderly, that is different then saying I don't make penis cakes for anyone. Period.

I'm sleep deprived but that is my initial impression.

[Munch]

Lets raise another for instance here. If a gay couple, who had been travelling cross country all day, came to a B&B to hire a room for the night, or a motel, and asked for a double bed, it being all they can afford, and the owner refuses to give them the room because he doesn't like the idea of two men sleeping together, and because they can't afford to pay for two rooms, they are forced to leave and try and find another B&B.

I remember a case like that some years ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19991266

A gay couple who were turned away from a bed and breakfast were discriminated against, it has been ruled.
Michael Black and John Morgan were refused a double room at Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Berkshire by its owner.
The pair from Brampton, Cambridgeshire, were awarded £1,800 each at Reading County Court for "injury to feelings".
Cambridgeshire Police said it was looking into complaints following comments made on Twitter by BNP leader Nick Griffin about the couple.
'Rights of all'
The MEP is alleged to have asked for the couple's address and called for a demonstration to be held outside their home.
One of the complained about tweets read: "We'll hold demo for rights of all home owners, gays included, to rent or not rent rooms to whomsoever they wish."
Mr Griffin's Twitter account was subsequently suspended.
A police spokesman said: "We have received a number of calls in relations to the tweets and are looking into the complaints we have received.
"Officers will also visit the men mentioned in the tweets as part of our inquiries."
Mr Black, 64, and Mr Morgan, 59, booked a double room at the Swiss Bed and Breakfast in Berkshire via email.
When they arrived in March 2010, owner Susanne Wilkinson would not let them stay in a room with a double bed.
Recorder Claire Moulder said that by refusing the couple access to a double room, Mrs Wilkinson had "treated them less favourably than she would treat unmarried heterosexual couples in the same circumstances".
It comes as a similar case in Cornwall awaits a Supreme Court hearing.
'Like a triumph'
Peter and Hazelmary Bull, the Christian owners of a guesthouse in Marazion who also turned away a gay couple have won permission to appeal against their ruling.
In the latest case, the judge accepted Mrs Wilkinson was genuine about her Christian beliefs and had also stopped unmarried heterosexual couples from sharing a double bed.
Reacting to the ruling, Mrs Wilkinson said: "Naturally, my husband and I are disappointed to have lost the case and to have been ordered to pay £3,600 in damages for injury to feelings.
"We believe a person should be free to act upon their sincere beliefs about marriage under their own roof without living in fear of the law. Equality laws have gone too far when they start to intrude into a family home."
The Christian Institute had backed Mrs Wilkinson's case.
Mrs Wilkinson was granted permission to appeal against the ruling and said she would give it "serious consideration".
Mr Black said the ruling felt "like a triumph".
He said: "It's taken two and a half years to get this far so to get the judgement and be vindicated in it is a great feeling."
'Simply unacceptable'
He said the only drawback was that Mrs Wilkinson had leave to appeal and, because the case involving the Cornwall guesthouse was due to go to the Supreme Court in late 2013 or early 2014, their own case was unlikely to be heard until after that.
When asked about Mrs Wilkinson's religious beliefs, Mr Black said he was not trying to fight anyone's beliefs. He said: "Running a B&B is not a religion.
"If you are running a B&B you have to abide by the law so either change your job or carry on running a B&B and let gay couples stay."
When asked if the couple were willing to take the case as far as the European Court of Human Rights, Mr Morgan said: "If it is still quite common for this sort of discrimination to take place then I think it needs to be taken all the way to be stopped."
James Welch, from civil rights group Liberty which took up the men's case, said: "It is simply unacceptable for people running a business to refuse to provide a service because of someone's sexual orientation."

A bakery and a b&b are a public service. If the person who owns either wants to discriminate based on their personal opinion and belief, they have every right to, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws in place to come down on them for refusal without proper reason.

[TomFoolery]

I think whenever the law looks deeper into an event and sits around trying to determine the intentions behind actions, there are an infinite number of ways to interpret it.

If you also take the words "support gay marriage" out of the equation and put in something truly awful that almost everyone would object to, would we feel the same way? Would we support a bakery that refused to do emblazon "I hate black people (perhaps insert even worse pejorative that starts with the letter n)"? Generally not.

I think it comes down to personal lines of decency, and in the wise words of Daniel Tosh, we shouldn't have to pretend to know what everyone's are. We should even cross our own from time to time to know that we have them.

[Mike Cl]

I find the baker's actions troubling.  If any business can say that they can refuse to provide a service they advertise for simply because it would go against their beliefs, is wrong--and troubling.  All businesses that cater to the public, are in a sense, owned by that public.  The public should expect any legal service that that business offers or provides.  This is different than 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' signs.  And I also see it different than 'we reserve the right to not serve anybody.', as well.  Unruly or disruptive or unclean customs should not have to be tolerated.  The bakery was given an order that was not illegal.  They should have to fulfill it.  Should a pharmacy be allowed to not fill a legal prescription because they   find the drug or item morally offensive?  I don't think so--and I see it being the same thing. 

[SGOS]

Should a pharmacy be allowed to not fill a legal prescription because they   find the drug or item morally offensive?  I don't think so--and I see it being the same thing. 

If pharmacies can refuse to sell birth control, it's going to be an uphill battle forcing bakers to sell wedding cakes to gays, I think.  The Federal Government has no say in the matter.  State laws seem to be "iffy" at best:

https://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file119_29548.pdf

Does a pharmacy or pharmacist violate a woman’s
federal constitutional rights by refusing to satisfy
her request to purchase birth control?

No. A pharmacy’s or pharmacist’s refusal to sell birth
control does not violate a woman’s federal constitutional
rights. The U.S. Constitution imposes no limitations
on nongovernmental institutions like privately
owned pharmacies. Even if the refusal takes place in
a state-owned pharmacy, a woman has no federal
constitutional right to receive contraception. Although
the Constitution protects a woman’s right to contraception,
it does not ensure that women can access
reproductive health services.

Is it sex discrimination when a pharmacy refuses to
sell medications that onlywomen need?

Some states have laws that prevent businesses from
discriminating against customers based on their sex.
Under these “public accommodation laws,” a pharmacy
that refuses to satisfy a woman’s request for a medication
that only women use â€" such as birth control pills
â€" may be discriminating on the basis of her sex.

Do women have any recourse if a pharmacy refuses
to satisfy her request for birth control?

If a woman is treated unfairly by her pharmacist or her
pharmacy, she can file a complaint with the state
board of pharmacy. The board of pharmacy will investigate
her complaint, evaluating whether the individual
pharmacist or pharmacy acted unprofessionally or
otherwise violated the state pharmacy code. All 50
states and the District of Columbia have complaint
procedures for consumers. For assistance filing a
complaint in any state or exploring other legal options,
please contact rfp@aclu.org or (212) 549-2633.

[Solitary]

Why would the bakery refuse to put that on a cake unless they were bigots against gays? They didn't ask to have a penis on the cake as far as I know---did they?

[Mike Cl]

If pharmacies can refuse to sell birth control, it's going to be an uphill battle forcing bakers to sell wedding cakes to gays, I think.  The Federal Government has no say in the matter.  State laws seem to be "iffy" at best:

https://www.aclu.org/files/images/asset_upload_file119_29548.pdf

It is becoming more and more obvious that corporations have more human rights than people do.

[SGOS]

It is becoming more and more obvious that corporations have more human rights than people do.

That's where the campaign money comes from.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

The cakery thing is a side issue of lesser importance distracting from much larger issues. The main reason people wanted equal protection wasn't to be able to sue bakeries, but to marry, be happy and to be able to have a say so in health care, survivors benefits and so on. Anyone who can write can hold a cake decorating bag to write whatever they want. To me these suits remind me of the way police pursue drug users by almost always going after the low hanging fruit and tossing low level users in jail instead of going after the dealers and the distribution networks.
In this case it's bakeries because someone gets butthurt over a cake. Why not go after bigger fish like the insurance industry and lawmakers who seem to content to pander to homophobic fears?

[Solitary]

I think that may be the point Patrick Stewart was making.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Well until he clarified it the great liberal vacuum of non-thinkers are probably going to label him and try to crucify him as a biggot..