Skip to comments.
Patrick Stewart defends ‘gay cake’ bakery (in Northern Ireland; refused gays)
News Corp Australia ^
| June 05, 2015 2:57PM
Posted on 06/05/2015 10:15:49 AM PDT by Olog-hai
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
1
posted on
06/05/2015 10:15:49 AM PDT
by
Olog-hai
To: Olog-hai
The baker probably should have refused on the grounds that he wouldn’t engage in copyright infringement.
To: Olog-hai
Respect to Patrick Stewart, at least he has common sense in this issue.
3
posted on
06/05/2015 10:19:47 AM PDT
by
Marko413
To: tanknetter; Olog-hai; GraceG; SevenofNine; Norm Lenhart; TADSLOS; GOPsterinMA
The Baker should have refused on the grounds that he didn't want to upset Muslim Sensibilities.
The Baker is for Freedom of Expression BUT he didn't want to inflame a situation. (al la Pam Geller)
4
posted on
06/05/2015 10:20:20 AM PDT
by
KC_Lion
(PLEASE SUPPORT FR. Donate Monthly or Join Club 300! G-d bless you all!)
To: Olog-hai
How’s he doing after Mel Gibson bit off his nose?
5
posted on
06/05/2015 10:20:25 AM PDT
by
dainbramaged
(Get out of my country now)
To: Olog-hai
6
posted on
06/05/2015 10:22:39 AM PDT
by
TBP
(Obama lies, Granny dies.)
To: Olog-hai
Ian McKellen will not be happy.
7
posted on
06/05/2015 10:23:07 AM PDT
by
miss marmelstein
(Richard the Third: "I should like to drive away not only the Turks (moslims) but all my foes.")
To: Olog-hai
Stewart demonstrates a basic wisdom in his statement that "It was not because this was a gay couple they objected, it was not because they were going to be celebrating some kind of marriage, it was the actual words on the cake they objected to, they found them offensive." He recognized that discrimination, as applied legally, is about persons, not ideas, which is how I have argued businesses should operate here in America. People cannot refuse to sell cakes to white supremacists just because of who they are, but they could refuse to write something bigoted on a cake, and I think any court would defend that principle. Focus on the words and not on the people and you may stand a chance. Sadly, though, that did not hold true in N. Ireland, but I would like to think we have still not managed to fall as far as they have over there, at least not yet.
8
posted on
06/05/2015 10:25:30 AM PDT
by
cothrige
("An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed" Felix III)
To: KC_Lion
Hitting back at a SJB, directly, allows them to pull the whole faux outrage victimization bit.
Hitting back at them using a legal technically, tho, really ticks them off. Especially if they know you’re just using it to mask your real reasoning.
To: Olog-hai
A decision so wrong that even a gay rights activist can’t agree with it. Thing is, this is a natural progression of the gay mafia’s cause. Denying anything to someone who is gay, for any reason, is by result, a crime.
10
posted on
06/05/2015 10:26:08 AM PDT
by
kingu
(Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
To: KC_Lion
There would have been rioting on Sesame Street
11
posted on
06/05/2015 10:32:31 AM PDT
by
GeronL
("NEW ARRIVALS" sci-fi ebook is free this weekend at Amazon!!!)
To: cothrige
Yes, exactly. If a baker can be forced to write something offensive on a cake, then an actor can be forced to say something offensive.
However, that’s a challenging analogy to apply to a wedding cake. At least a plain one, without any sort of writing or topper, or other explicit message.
To: kingu
See my post above. Stewart is an actor before he’s a gay rights activist. So he gets the implications of forcing someone to convey a message (whether in writing or speaking) they disagree with.
To: Olog-hai
Whether or not you agree with Patrick Stewart on gay rights, I’ll give him credit for a certain consistency. He may be all for the gays, but he’s also for the right to say no to them and against their efforts to force their agenda on those who cannot in good conscience support it.
I can accept that, whether or not I completely agree.
14
posted on
06/05/2015 10:40:37 AM PDT
by
TBP
(Obama lies, Granny dies.)
To: Olog-hai
He doesn’t want to go where no man has gone before?......................
15
posted on
06/05/2015 10:44:42 AM PDT
by
Red Badger
(Man builds a ship in a bottle. God builds a universe in the palm of His hand.............)
To: Marko413
Yes, have to respect Stewart for being principled in this.
Though he is going to catch hell for it in the UK. They’ve pretty much destroyed Rupert Everett’s life for saying that gays should not be raising children.
To: Olog-hai
17
posted on
06/05/2015 10:46:58 AM PDT
by
Rodamala
To: Olog-hai
18
posted on
06/05/2015 10:49:48 AM PDT
by
Fido969
To: Olog-hai
Finally a gay activist with some brains. Although pointing out the writing on the wall just before the wall falls on you is a tad late. Nevertheless, better late than never. All Stewart is saying is, “hey wait a minute, I think we need to hold on to at least the last shred of personal freedom under the law, I don’t like the way the Muslims are smiling these days...”
19
posted on
06/05/2015 10:55:16 AM PDT
by
Talisker
(One who commands, must obey.)
To: Olog-hai
The little boy was sitting on a park bench munching on one chocolate bar after another. After the 6th one a man on the bench across from him said, 'Son, you know eating all those chocolates isn't good for you. It will give you acne, rot your teeth, make you fat.'
The boy replied, 'My grandfather lived to be 107 years old.'
The man asked, 'Did your grandfather eat 6 chocolate bars at a time?'
The little boy answered, 'No, he minded his own damn business!'
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson