Stewart Enters Gay Cake Debate
2 min read
Sir Patrick Stewart was recently asked where he stands regarding the debate over whether bakeries should be compelled to make cakes for gay couples.
His answer comes as a surprise to those who are aware of his position on gay marriage, which he supports.
The Ashers Baking Company, located in Northern Ireland, recently lost a judgment and owners of the company, the McArthur family, was required to pay £500 to Gay Rights Activist Gareth Lee after refusing to make a cake for Lee with the slogan “Support Gay Marriage.”
Stewart was asked for his opinion on the matter during an interview for BBC‘s Newsnight show. “Who has the right there,” asked Evan Davis, presenter on the show. “The couple who say we want you to put ‘Yes to Gay Marriage’ on the cake, or the people who have to make the cake, who say we don’t want to put that on the cake?”
It’s a “deliciously difficult subject,” said Stewart. “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, because they found them offensive.
“And I would support their right to say ‘no this is personally offensive to my beliefs; I will not do it’. But I feel bad for them, that it cost them £600 or whatever.”
The McArthur family has appealed the ruling.
About The Author
And if one refused to pay a penalty for not writing a message they disagreed with, what then?
At that stage it would just be basic court proceedings, I assume there are further fines to pay for not paying etc.
Again, this bakery is in Northern Ireland, Catholics and protestants divided against each other, but then United when it comes to putting women, foreigners and gays in their place.
The McArthurs sadly represent a great many people in N Ireland.
But by setting up a bakery and offering to sell decorated cakes amongst other baked items, they pretty much do want to sell this product.
And as others in Belfast pointed out, they apparently had no issue printing pagan Halloween cakes…
And if they refuse, in principle, to pay any fines for not writing a certain message?
I’m glad to discover that I’m no longer forced to avoid running over pedestrians on the sidewalk on my way to work. I’ll simply pay a penalty for not doing so.
Not sure about that in Belfast, but the English used to be allowed to refuse rooms to let to Irish and blacks. They did away with this and don’t seem to be too upset about it curtailing the right of racists to express themselves so.
Of course they want to make cakes, I was saying that they shouldn’t be forced to print a message on a cake if they do not want to. That is what’s absurd.
Why offer it for sale when they won’t provide it to a particular sort of person.
And as an aside, where have Ashers confined that a message printed on a cake is a legally or religiously binding message. If they printed it and then said to the gay guy “We don’t approve” or “That’s immoral”, would that not have been enough?
So, in other words, your free speech be damned if you do not agree to “celebrate” something that you are uncomfortable to do? Or are only what is socially acceptable have governmental protection? I hope I live long to see the day when free speech has become so eroded that people like you will cry “foul”, and try to get support against governmental over-reach. When that day happens, I will laugh and reply, “Told ya”. And then, I will quote a German pastor who tried to warn people of the dangers of governmental authoritarianism, to paraphrase, “…Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Tread lightly, my friend.
That’s because the UK is a small country compared to the US (both in size and population). Plus, the US has a history of decentralized authority and regionalism. That’s why the coasts tend to be dominated by “the Left” and the middle dominated by “the Right”.
The people who run the bakery have had ample opportunity to express their opinions, on the news, at private events and I’m sure when they go to pray at church too.
Their supporters have shown their true colours by asking politicians to enact laws in response to the car that would allow them to freely discriminate and bar gays outright from certain services, such as adoption. If there’s a slippery slope, it’s pointing towards the bigots’ destination sadly.
Whoever that German pastor was , he’s sadly not representative of the awful lot we have in N Ireland. Here who we get http://m.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/trimble-without-paisley-there-d-probably-have-been-no-troubles-1-6784836
Interestingly, I only see these articles on this site, out of several Trek news sites that I visit. So I do think you’re kinda asking for it with your choice of focus. 😉
But, that also doesn’t absolve commenters of being courteous or kind. Using intellectual honesty and logic would be nice, too- but hey, it’s the internet. Can’t set our expectations TOO high. 😉
Sadly true. Never before have two such diametrically-opposed, culturally and legally supported, and to some degree mutually-exclusive forces intersected in the public square- at least that I can think of… in which the uncompromisable and deeply-held beliefs of each are essentially irreconcilable with the other, at least in the way that they desire (and claim legal right) to practice and live them. It is a source of much anxiety on both sides, I think, as to how the balance of liberties (especially because absolute liberty for either side is seen as depriving the other side of their own liberty) will pan out… and that, I think, is why it becomes so easily inflamed; a lot of fear for the future and the feeling of helpless spectation in something that could majorly affect how people can live their lives for the rest of their lifetime, boiling over into frustration and conflict.
Because the owner has a personal objection to what they’re being asked to create; to endorse something they find morally wrong or objectionable. Something that contradicts their own morality or beliefs with its message.
No one is refusing to provide ‘to a particular sort of person.’ That would indeed be illegal. Rather, they do not want to print a certain message that they have an objection to. Just because it is not ‘binding’ to them doesn’t mean that they want to endorse something that they believe is wrong with one of their products.
It is true. That’s what makes this such a sticky issue.
Well said, sir.
Sorry, but that doesn’t wash. You don’t use government coercion and continue to state that you live in a free society. What sensible people do is not patronize their business in the private market. That’s what you do. The moment you begin using the government to push for an agenda, you run the risk of having that bite you on the back. After all, you may agree with this, but what about the next time, when you have unelected bureaucrats decide that what is in the best interest of society that you might not like? As I stated before, be careful what you wish for. It’s easy to pick on a minority group (and I use the term in the general sense), but these things tend to bite back…on YOU.
At what stage are people and the product or service they’re buying not linked? Christians have made it clear they would like to apply this to other more important circumstances such as adoption for example, what then?
It’s an iced cake, just to put that into context.
If they were asked to provide something without a message to gay people (like a loaf of bread) to help with an event “promoting” gay marriage, would they be allowed to turn the customer away again in those circumstances?
So you’re saying that I should censor anything that might be provocative. That very much sounds like today’s attitude – anything that is deemed offensive must go, which means that very little can be safely posted. Then I would get complaints about boring news or not having enough news or not covering news.
I do avoid some news – I’ve not reported on Robert Picardo’s ugly divorce proceedings. To me, while writing an article on a divorce of a Trek actor is legit, it’s best to avoid ones where the couple is fighting. There’s a line between news and tabloid news and I try to stay on the right side of that line.
In today’s world, gay marriage/gay rights are valid issues on which to report, and even within the Star Trek actor world, there are gay men. Should I avoid such articles because no matter what I write, one side or the other will be offended? No, I think not. I try to present the news in a neutral manner, and let YOU, the readers, decide what you think about whatever actions have been taken. I do ask people only to be civil and I’d say I was pleasantly surprised that 98% of the comments stayed that way (although I had to ask for it) because often, online is a vast toxic playground where trolls about, and even good people get seduced by their virtual anonymity (some don’t care and even post under real names) to let ugliness out.
Short version – I’m not censoring news lest I offend someone. If I did that, all I would have would be based on press releases praising how “wonderful” a various project is going to be (even if it’s a steaming pile of poo) and merchandise. It’s just not enough.
Besides, the more we give in to people demanding that we not do, say, print, or THINK this or that, the more the noose of non-freedom tightens around our necks. My job is to report the Trek news, and so I do. Even if it offends some. If it does – well, that’s their problem.
Kang agrees to disagree.
Must be the meds.
{;-&
If they were specifically be commissioned for that event? Yes, I’d think having the freedom to refuse that commission is reasonable.
At the stage that… they’re two different things? Ummm, they’re not linked, beyond the fact that one is presenting the other.
As to adoption, you got me; that’s beyond my pay grade.
…Wow. No, I’m saying nothing of the sort. Just that you choose to front-page tangentially-related stories about the personal views of people that happened to be in Star Trek that other people don’t consider news- which is a perfectly valid choice, but also should be expected to come with some controversy. That’s literally ALL I was saying.
Also, hadn’t heard that about Robert Picardo; that is very sad. 🙁
Still don’t see how that’s not discrimination against the customer.
I’m in the same boat (in reverse); I can’t see any way in which that IS discrimination against the customer. The desire not to be involved in a cause or event is not any form of censure or slight against the individual, nor is it by nature tied to the individual in way. This would be eminently clear in any other case; however, the conjunction in this situation (people looking for gay wedding cakes tend to be homosexual individuals, after all) creates the false appearance of a correlation. The event and the individual become indistinguishable to the undiscerning viewer because they are both are involved in the same political controversy. But refusing to have a part of one is very different from refusing to have a part of the other.
If it ends up that you have to be an equally devout Christian to buy a cake there, they could make it clear that they discriminate and make it a private club, I’d be ok with that.
Er… he does seem to be saying that some people are pushing for laws allowing them to discriminate by refusing service. Unless “asking politicians to enact laws in response to the car that would allow
them to freely discriminate and bar gays outright from certain services” means something completely different from what Kang thinks it means.
I have to find news 5x a week, preferable 2-3 items a day. Let’s be honest, there *isn’t* a lot of direct Trek-related news anymore, with no shows in production. Things will ramp up a bit once the movie begins shooting, of course, although at best, we get “controlled” news – positive “it’s gonna be WONDERFUL!” PR pieces and of course, pictures of the set which are always very welcome.
So I do news on Trek actor’s other projects, and their real life news when I feel its applicable. Gay rights is a hot topic now and it’s very newsworthy. Stewart’s view on this issue is also surprising given his pro-gay stance, so again – news.
You would have me avoid a genuine news item?
Plus – what might not feel like news to you might be news to someone else. It might surprise you to see that some of what I post wouldn’t be something in which I’m personally interested. That’s what happens. There’s a world of news and everyone has a different idea of what interests, or doesn’t interest, them.
Most Christians, short of the very conservative ones, don’t care about Halloween one way or the other. It’s just a kiddie holiday to us. Many churches even have “harvest festivals” to give the kiddies a safe place to dress up and get candy.
And as far as that goes, technically Christmas, and Easter, are based on pagan holidays.
Well, I’m writing this on my phone, so by car I meant case.
But yes, the idea was that a law (which was thankfully shot down) would have allowed say, a church to organise adoption proceedings that would specially excluded gay parents.
This is Northern Ireland, where we can’t put up a plaque to commemorate women tried for witch craft centuries ago, because a local councillor couldn’t be sure if they were innocent or not; http://m.larnetimes.co.uk/news/local-news/islandmagee-witches-plaque-plan-sparks-devil-worship-outburst-1-6560429
Indeed. This is hypocrisy on the part of the bakery, and also on the part of most bakeries that are like this. If the money’s good enough from the buyer of a Halloween cake, then it should be good enough from the buyer of a gay cake.
It’s still hypocrisy for them to do this, especially if the ‘church’ they belong to is your typical Christian fundie ‘church’ that considers things like Harry Potter to be supporting witchcraft.
Give me a break about that. When you’re suffering real persecution and death, then you can say that. GLBT people still are being treated badly for a lot more than just a cake, but this incident is a perfect example of the principle of something being important.
People have a right to their parings-if they offend you, don’t pay attention to them. Spirk has been around for a long tome, and most people don’t have a problem with it.
If people wan to make Bert & Ernie gay, why not? Who say that they have to be straight all of the time? And if they are straight, where are their girlfriends?
I’m aware I live in a more religiously observant part of Europe and things like businesses opening on a Sunday and bar’s opening hours in particular are going to be tighter, but if you’re going to be so strict about religious text, at least be consistent.
^Bullshit. Complete and utter strawman bullshit.
^ No, she was right-that bakery was being discriminatory against gays, and was being so deliberately. If they can’t conduct their business without bringing their religion into everything, then they shouldn’t be operating as a business.
I don’t see any of you objecting to Muslim cabdrivers refusing to pick up somebody because they have a dog (and you all would probably tell said Muslim cabdrivers to ‘man up and take it’) so I don’t see why you are against the GLBT community in this.
They don’t know about that-they just don’t like anybody agitating for GLBT rights, and have the mindset of ‘the call for gay rights is being extreme’. They also don’t like anybody being liberal, either, or being devoted to progressive causes, so they come up with nonsense about Mr. Stewart being a ‘champagne liberal’ as if that explains everything about him.
Bullshit. You need to come off of the Orwell kick and start seeing this as a struggle for basic human rights, which religion is in the way of.
The problem is, these Christian fundies can’t do that, so that have to come up with howlers like this in order to stay true to their concept of what the Christian Bible teaches (this includes howlers like approving Halloween cakes but not gay ones, or getting pissy over a TV show’s having its main characters announce that they’ve always been lovers.) Neither of them know how to deal with life as it is now, so they do foolishness like this.
As I said above, if a Muslim man can be criticized for not wanting to have a passenger with a dog in his cab (to the extent that people are supporting ride companies like Uber), then the Christian fundies can expect the same over this. And they can’t claim constitutional rights, either, especially if they’re the only bakers/service providers in a given area as mentioned above.
Well said, Dusty. You are wise indeed.
It never was, and with a man as liberal as Blish (supposedly) was it never will be.
Orwell is “bullshit”. Fascinating. 🙂 ever read it????
I have read Nineteen-Eighty-Four, but I believe this to be still a strawman in spite of what the emoprogressive perpetually poutraged set usually does. Nobody is persecuting Christians in the USA or anywhere, or making it harder to practice Christianity, they just can’t have the carte blanche to act as if this was still a Christian-only country.
Again, all Christians aren’t alike. They run the gamut from liberal (and supportive of gay marriage) to conservative (and against it) and everything in-between. We don’t fit a stereotype, although the media would like you to believe that we do.
The media, unfortunately, almost *always* presents the negative views, and the further right, the better, because they have nothing but disdain for people of faith. You never see the good side of Christians in the media, because, well, it doesn’t fit a preconceived narrative.