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

Started by Munch, June 04, 2015, 06:02:03 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Munch

Bit of further update on this.

QuotePatrick Stewart dismisses claims he is anti-gay after backing ‘gay cake’ row bakery

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/07/patrick-stewart-dismisses-claims-he-is-anti-gay-after-backing-gay-cake-row-bakery/

X-Men actor Patrick Stewart has responded to a barrage of criticism, after he declared his support for a Christian bakery that refused to make a ‘support gay marriage’ cake.
Ashers Baking Company â€" based in Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland â€" last year refused to make a cake showing the message ‘Support Gay Marriage’ above an image of Sesame Street’s Bert and Ernie.
After the owners of Ashers Bakery in Belfast were last week found guilty of unlawful discrimination, Patrick Stewart spoke about the case on Newsnight, saying he was “on the side of the bakers” and  “supports their rights to say no”.
The actor â€" a close friend of Stonewall co-founder Sir Ian McKellen â€" has now addressed his comments in a Facebook post.
He wrote: “As part of my advocacy for Amnesty International, I gave an interview on a number of subjects related to human rights, civil rights and freedom of speech.
“During the interview, I was asked about the Irish bakers who refused to put a message on a cake which supported marriage equality, because of their beliefs.
“In my view, this particular matter was not about discrimination, but rather personal freedoms and what constitutes them, including the freedom to object. Both equality and freedom of speech are fundamental rightsâ€" and this case underscores how we need to ensure one isn’t compromised in the pursuit of the other.
“I know many disagree with my sentiments, including the courts. I respect and understand their position, especially in this important climate where the tides of prejudices and inequality are (thankfully) turning.
“What I cannot respect is that some have conflated my position on this single matter to assume I’m anti-equality or that I share the personal beliefs of the bakers. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth.
“I have long championed the rights of the LGBT community, because equality should not only be, as the people of Ireland powerfully showed the world, universally embraced, but treasured.”

He's pretty much held on his statement.

I'm still two ways about it, and probably will never agree it, but same time he's got every right to his opinion, even if nobody else agrees with it.
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Johan

Well again, it goes back to would the baker refuse to produce that particular cake for anyone regardless of their sexual orientation? If so, there is absolutely no way any sane person can say this is a case of discrimination IMO.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful

Munch

Quote from: Johan on June 07, 2015, 11:33:43 AM
Well again, it goes back to would the baker refuse to produce that particular cake for anyone regardless of their sexual orientation? If so, there is absolutely no way any sane person can say this is a case of discrimination IMO.

Except the courts, which it did.
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

doorknob

it shouldn't matter what patrick stewart says what that bakery did was discrimination and it was wrong. Just because an actor backs something means didly squat in my book. You know what they say. Opinions are like assholes every one has one! But just because some one has an opinion doesn't make them correct. This will only confirm what people who already think this way believe but those of us who don't shouldn't really give credence to it.

Munch

I'm still baffled by it. Stewart says he backs gay rights, which I believe to be true. He is also an advocate for free speech, which I am too, i believe in freedom of expression.
But I feel like Stewart is confusing freedom of speech with that of denial of service, going by the cake sellers own beliefs. If I worked in a bakery, and a religous nutcase came in and asked me to bake a cake with the letters saying "Burn all Fags" I would consider this an offense, because its pushing a bigoted view, the same as if someone asked me to bake a cake saying "Burn on Catholics or Burn of muslims", again, regardless my own atheism, I would say this is asking me to conform to hate speech.

However the cake itself in this story was for nothing like this, it was a cake supporting gay marriage, a positive message. Now if the roles were reversed, as me being a gay atheist working in a cake shop, was asked by a straight couple to bake a wedding cake, or asked to write on a cake "Pro Feminist or Pro mens rights" or something even like "Support Jesus, Praise God", I would write it out, regardless of my own distaste for what they've asked me to write.

Creating extreme situations in what the baker could do something offensive like 'burn on gays' is not the same as what actually has happened, he refused to write a non-offensive writing on a cake, for a group that only was their to support an act.

There is a line, invisible, but its there, of what is acceptable in these situations, and what pushes over the gate into offensive territory. The message in this case was no anything offensive, anymore then if I was asked to write on a cake 'Support Jesus', because the cake isn't for me, its for whoever is buying it.
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Johan

Quote from: Munch on June 07, 2015, 11:56:28 AM

However the cake itself in this story was for nothing like this, it was a cake supporting gay marriage, a positive message. Now if the roles were reversed, as me being a gay atheist working in a cake shop, was asked by a straight couple to bake a wedding cake, or asked to write on a cake "Pro Feminist or Pro mens rights" or something even like "Support Jesus, Praise God", I would write it out, regardless of my own distaste for what they've asked me to write.
Ok but that's not exactly having the roles reversed. You, as employee of a cake shop would be (presumably) bound by whatever policies the store management dictated. If you refused to produce a cake which was within the stores policy to make, you would be fired and it would end there. If you refused to produce a cake because it was the policy of the store not to produce such a cake, the store and its management would be liable, not you the employee.

And would dare say that in most cases, store employees are not able to decide what cakes the store will produce and what cakes it won't.

QuoteCreating extreme situations in what the baker could do something offensive like 'burn on gays' is not the same as what actually has happened, he refused to write a non-offensive writing on a cake, for a group that only was their to support an act.
Offensive is subjective.

QuoteThere is a line, invisible, but its there, of what is acceptable in these situations, and what pushes over the gate into offensive territory.
Offensive is subjective.
QuoteThe message in this case was no anything offensive, anymore then if I was asked to write on a cake 'Support Jesus', because the cake isn't for me, its for whoever is buying it.
And once again, offensive is subjective. But more importantly, offensive does not matter one bit in this case. A business owner or its management has the right to decide what they will or will not offer for sale regardless of who does or does not find it offensive.

Lets frame it another way. I personally don't like sports. I don't watch sports, I don't follow sports and I don't participate in any sports. Now lets say I own a bakery and a customer comes in and orders a birthday cake for their young son. This particular tyke happens to love football so the parents would like to buy a birthday cake with the top decorated like a football field with the words happy birthday champ on it. I don't like sports and I own the business and I decide that I really don't care to create a cake with that particular decoration on it. Its not that I find it offensive, I just would rather not do it. I will happily make the customer a non-sports themed cake if they like or they're free to find another bakery who will make them the football cake they want.

Now I ask you, is that discrimination? If so why? And if not, why is the support gay marriage situation any different?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful

GSOgymrat

Quote from: Munch on June 07, 2015, 11:56:28 AM
I'm still baffled by it. Stewart says he backs gay rights, which I believe to be true. He is also an advocate for free speech, which I am too, i believe in freedom of expression.
But I feel like Stewart is confusing freedom of speech with that of denial of service, going by the cake sellers own beliefs. If I worked in a bakery, and a religous nutcase came in and asked me to bake a cake with the letters saying "Burn all Fags" I would consider this an offense, because its pushing a bigoted view, the same as if someone asked me to bake a cake saying "Burn on Catholics or Burn of muslims", again, regardless my own atheism, I would say this is asking me to conform to hate speech.

However the cake itself in this story was for nothing like this, it was a cake supporting gay marriage, a positive message. Now if the roles were reversed, as me being a gay atheist working in a cake shop, was asked by a straight couple to bake a wedding cake, or asked to write on a cake "Pro Feminist or Pro mens rights" or something even like "Support Jesus, Praise God", I would write it out, regardless of my own distaste for what they've asked me to write.

Creating extreme situations in what the baker could do something offensive like 'burn on gays' is not the same as what actually has happened, he refused to write a non-offensive writing on a cake, for a group that only was their to support an act.

There is a line, invisible, but its there, of what is acceptable in these situations, and what pushes over the gate into offensive territory. The message in this case was no anything offensive, anymore then if I was asked to write on a cake 'Support Jesus', because the cake isn't for me, its for whoever is buying it.

Let's pretend I'm a gay man and I own a bakery. I've got my little support gay marriage rainbow flag in the window and I have a lot of LGBT friendly customers. A political group comes in and orders a cake that says "Support Amendment One" which will make gay marriage illegal in NC (and it did). They tell me they are going to use this cake in their fundraising and prominently display "Cake by GSOgymrat Bakery" so that everyone will know I support Amendment One. They also remind me that by law I must make this cake to their specifications and if I don't they will take me to court. Clearly they are using this law to damage my business but as a small business owner I can't afford litigation. Do you believe I should be forced by law to make this cake?

Sal1981

I'm all for business being able to deny a customer service/product, within reason of course. I also think it's not OK to discriminate based on sexual orientation.

I'm ambivalent. No one bats an eye when a too drunk patron is denied any more alcoholic beverages, and I think that is within reason, unless someone thinks they should be allowed to drink themselves further into a stupor. But that isn't exactly based on personal beliefs, but the state in which the customer is in. I don't know, should we allow people be assholes in their customer service, based on their personal preference?

SGOS

Quote from: Munch on June 07, 2015, 11:56:28 AM
But I feel like Stewart is confusing freedom of speech with that of denial of service, going by the cake sellers own beliefs.

That's what makes this thing so interesting.  Is the bakery exercising free speech or not?  It's the thing that perplexes me.  The courts seem to agree with you.  I don't know if the decision would be the same in the US. 

trdsf

I really don't know where I am on this issue, so I'm just going to sort of casually stroll through my thinking and probably ultimately come to the conclusion that I still don't know where I am on the issue.

1) I'm not a First Amendment absolutist, but I'm pretty close to one.  I'm of the opinion that very little speech can or should be banned, and that which can be needs to present a realistic danger (the classic shouting of fire in a crowded theater).  Hate speech comes close, but as distasteful as it is, if it's not inciteful, it's permissible.  "No Fag Marriage" on a cake is hateful, but not inciteful.  "Kill All Fags" is inciteful.

2) Unless you're in business as a church, or make it explicitly clear that you're running a religious business, one's religious opinions need to be put aside.  Freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion, and customers are coming in for a service being offered to the public, not to one particular sect.  So it's no more proper for a public business to arbitrarily withhold their services from a couple who are gay because their church teaches homosexuality is wrong than it would be to withhold their services from a couple who are Jewish because their church teaches that "Jews are Christ-killers".  In a civil society -- which, despite the efforts of the Talebangelical wingnuts in this country, we still are -- your dogma stops at your church door.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Johan

Quote from: trdsf on June 07, 2015, 07:16:05 PM

1) I'm not a First Amendment absolutist, but I'm pretty close to one.  I'm of the opinion that very little speech can or should be banned, and that which can be needs to present a realistic danger (the classic shouting of fire in a crowded theater).  Hate speech comes close, but as distasteful as it is, if it's not inciteful, it's permissible.  "No Fag Marriage" on a cake is hateful, but not inciteful.  "Kill All Fags" is inciteful.
I agree. But the first five words of the first amendment are Congress shall pass no law. A bakery is not congress. And while your right to free speech allows you to wear a t-shirt which calls out my wife by name and says that she is in fact a whore, I can assure you that if you were to try to enter my home wearing such a t-shirt, you would quickly find that the first amendment does not protect you from jack shit in my house when it comes to speech. And that is exactly as it should be. Businesses are no different.

Quote2) Unless you're in business as a church, or make it explicitly clear that you're running a religious business, one's religious opinions need to be put aside.  Freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom from religion, and customers are coming in for a service being offered to the public, not to one particular sect.  So it's no more proper for a public business to arbitrarily withhold their services from a couple who are gay because their church teaches homosexuality is wrong than it would be to withhold their services from a couple who are Jewish because their church teaches that "Jews are Christ-killers".  In a civil society -- which, despite the efforts of the Talebangelical wingnuts in this country, we still are -- your dogma stops at your church door.
Ok fair enough. But should a business be forced to do work if they feel performing said work could have a negative impact on future sales?

Let me give an example. This is not a hypothetical, this actually happened. During my stint as a commercial pilot, I flew advertising banners up and down the beaches of NJ. While flying a banner on the beach one day, I saw a plane from another company pulling a very large fabric billboard panel (looked to be about 45ftx120ft IIRC) which had a very large black and white photograph of an aborted fetus along with some anti-abortion copy. I mentioned seeing the panel to my boss and he told me the group who was paying for that panel had called our company first but he refused to take the work. Not because of his own views on abortion. He was a business man, he could give a fuck. But because he was concerned that some of our other accounts would drop us if they found out we were also flying the abortion picture banner.

So was it wrong of my boss to turn down that work? Should that anti-abortion group have been able to sue us legally over it? I would argue that they should not. And I would further argue that no business should ever be forced to provide services to anyone if they simply don't want to. I'm not saying you can refuse to serve someone because they're black or because they're white or because they're a woman or a jew or gay. But if a customer wants you to sell something which you do not want to sell for any other reason, you should legally be able to say no.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful

trdsf

"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Johan

Fair enough. Its a tricky one for sure. For me, as someone who grew up with parents owning and running a small business, I think I tend to see the issue through the eyes of the business owner. And I think one of the reasons people struggle to figure out where they stand on this topic is because this particular event involves a gay customer wanting to buy a cake with a gay hot topic message on it.

For me it comes down to asking some very basic questions. Would the shop have made a cake with a different message for the customer? Would the shop have made the cake with the requested message for a heterosexual customer? If its yes to the first and no to the second I have a hard time understanding how anyone could see that as discrimination.

Now obviously I wasn't at the store and I wasn't at the trial so I don't know how they would answer to either question. They were found guilty of discrimination which suggests how they might have answered. But Patrick Stewart said what he said on the topic which suggests (assuming he knows more about it than we do) they might have given different answers.  The store is going to appeal. Perhaps the appeal will reveal more info on the subject.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful

trdsf

I think in the main in this specific case, I come down against the bakery, because the message is not what we would commonly or reasonably refer to as incitement.  The bakery is in business as a business, it is not in business as a church; it's not their job to pass editorial--and even less so to pass moral--judgment on the customer's needs.  I would feel obliged to prepare a cake that said "Welcome Westboro Baptist Church" -- it's distasteful to me personally, but it's not incitement.  I would even prepare one that read "God Hates Fags" since in my mind, that's the equivalent of saying "Leprechauns Hate Fags" or "The Easter Bunny Hates Fags".  I would tell them exactly what I thought of them after they paid for it, though.

I would feel perfectly justified in turning down a request for a cake that said "Kill All Fags" as that clearly is incitement.  They would have been justified in turning down a cake that said "Kill All Breeders" for the same reason.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Johan

So for you, incitement is the benchmark one must hit before declining an order can be justified. So am I correct in assuming that fear of loss of current/future regular sales should not be allowed to enter into it for you then?
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful