Liberal actor: I support bakery's denial of homo-cakes.

[rexlunae]

Who gets to decide what forms that expression can take?

The bakers, generally.

Because part of the disagreement on the wedding cake question is if simply making a cake for a gay marriage is an expression of support or approval.

How does being for a gay wedding inherently change the content of the cake?

 

[musterion]

I never said anything like that. I said that freedom of conscience is not an unlimited excuse to violate the rights of others.

There is no right to have a pro-homosexuality cake made by someone who disagrees with it, by force of law, under penalty of heavy fines and against his conscience. Not in a sane society, anyway. You really don't see how frightening that is?

Originally Posted by kmoney
Who gets to decide what forms that expression can take?

The bakers, generally.

Not anymore.

 

[rexlunae]

There is no right to have a pro-homosexuality cake made by someone who disagrees with it, by force of law, under penalty of heavy fines and against his conscience.

I agree there. But there is nothing automatically "pro-homosexuality" about a cake that is simply sold to a gay couple.

 

[musterion]

I agree there. But there is nothing automatically "pro-homosexuality" about a cake that is simply sold to a gay couple.

Now you are being dishonest. Like Stewart said, the baker wasn't opposed to homosexuality itself. He wasn't even opposed to their getting "married." It was something in the wording itself that he found offensive -- not stylistically or creatively, but morally.

It was not because this was a gay couple that they objected. It was not because they were going to be celebrating some kind of marriage or agreement between them. It was the actual words on the cake that they objected to, and because they found them offensive, and I would support their right to say "No, this is personally offensive to my beliefs, and I will not do it."

 

[rexlunae]

Now you are being dishonest.

No.

Like Stewart said, the baker wasn't opposed to homosexuality itself. He wasn't even opposed to their getting "married." It was something in the wording itself that he found offensive -- not stylistically or creatively, but morally.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. I don't care what the motivation of a person is for exercising their right to creative control. It could be as simple as not liking the content that's requested, or as serious as a fundamental moral objection. That they have a right to free expression is enough without examining their motives. And I believe that that is fundamentally what Stewart was saying.

 

[musterion]

That they have a right to free expression is enough without examining their motives. And I believe that that is fundamentally what Stewart was saying.

Yes it was what he said, and it's what I and others here have been saying since this whole cake crisis began.

So you agree with him and with me that the baker was justified in refusing the job?

 

[rexlunae]

Yes it was what he said, and it's what I and others here have been saying since this whole cake crisis began.

So you agree with him and with me that the baker was justified in refusing the job?

There have been several cake crises, and this is the first one that I know of where I would side with the baker.

Justified may be too strong a word, depending on the context. Within his legal rights, at least. But perhaps I am quibbling here.

 

[kmoney]

The bakers, generally.

When it comes to what is put on the cake, perhaps.

How does being for a gay wedding inherently change the content of the cake?

It wouldn't necessarily. Perhaps figurines. But does the content need to change? Wedding cakes are personalized orders. Some believe that the act of baking one for a gay couple's wedding is an expression of approval. You seem to be saying that a business can't be made to express something that goes against their beliefs but then define for them what defines 'expression'.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/patrick-stewart-defends-bakery-that-refused-to-make-pro-gay-cake/

He's still fully in favor of homosexuality but you can nevertheless expect him to be savaged by hypocritical leftists, if he hasn't been already, in the name of freedom of thought and expression.

When the old flamer starts backing legislation that protects religious freedom, I'll be somewhat impressed.

 

[rexlunae]

It wouldn't necessarily. Perhaps figurines. But does the content need to change? Wedding cakes are personalized orders.

The bottom line is, if the refusal hinges on the identity of the couple seeking services rather than some tangible distinction in the work product, the bakers would potentially run afoul of civil rights legislation where sexual orientation is protected.

Some believe that the act of baking one for a gay couple's wedding is an expression of approval.

...while others believe that allowing that couple to walk down the street unharassed might also be a sign of approval.

I guess I just don't know where this would stop. It is generally established that civil rights legislation can mandate equal access to public accommodations, thus if you deny access to a gay couple on the basis of who they are, you are denying them a recognized right. If civil rights had yielded to any purported religious freedom no matter how vacuous in the 1960s, the civil rights legislation would have failed at its primary aim.

You seem to be saying that a business can't be made to express something that goes against their beliefs but then define for them what defines 'expression'.

Well, I'm willing to say that it can't be nothing. They have a burden to prove before they even have a case to be allowed to truncate the rights of other people.

 

[Granite]

So far this hasn't hurt his reputation at all and the expected howls of outrage haven't materialized.:yawn:

Picard rules.

 

[kmoney]

The bottom line is, if the refusal hinges on the identity of the couple seeking services rather than some tangible distinction in the work product, the bakers would potentially run afoul of civil rights legislation where sexual orientation is protected.

Right. I understand that in most cases that is what would happen.

...while others believe that allowing that couple to walk down the street unharassed might also be a sign of approval.

I guess I just don't know where this would stop.

I think you'd agree that there is a large gap between walking on a street and getting a wedding cake. Not even mentioning that a street is public property and a bakery would be a privately owned building. Even if we take the classic diner with a sign scenario there is a large difference. I think we could try to separate necessities like food and shelter and health care (probably others) from luxuries like a wedding cake or wedding photography. However, I do agree with you that there can be gray areas even within the 'necessities'. And I'm even open to your argument about the cakes, both from a legal and a religious standpoint. It's something I've never fully decided on. But I'm not going to pretend that someone being denied a cake from a particular bakery is the victim of some terrible civil rights violation.

It is generally established that civil rights legislation can mandate equal access to public accommodations, thus if you deny access to a gay couple on the basis of who they are, you are denying them a recognized right. If civil rights had yielded to any purported religious freedom no matter how vacuous in the 1960s, the civil rights legislation would have failed at its primary aim.

The denial isn't based on who they are; it's based on what the cake is being used for.

Well, I'm willing to say that it can't be nothing. They have a burden to prove before they even have a case to be allowed to truncate the rights of other people.

What would that proof look like?

 

[kmoney]

When the old flamer starts backing legislation that protects religious freedom, I'll be somewhat impressed.

Magneto and Professor X would never hold hands!