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

[musterion]

“I would support their rights to say, ‘No, this is personally offensive to my beliefs, I will not do it.'”

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.

 

[GFR7]

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.

He'll be reviled by gays and feminists alike, but his is the reasonable and fair view, and protects both sides. Just as when Chris Matthews of MSNBC accused gays of "wanting to silence people": He was battered, but actually was defending the true liberal ideology..... :think:

 

[musterion]

He'll be reviled by gays and feminists alike, but his is the reasonable and fair view, and protects both sides. Just as when Chris Matthews of MSNBC accused gays of "wanting to silence people": He was battered, but actually was defending the true liberal ideology..... :think:

Yep. They are not allowed to say out loud what everyone knows is the Left's supreme driving motive: absolute control of all thought, speech and behavior.

 

[Rusha]

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.

Captain Jean-Luc Picard ... sweet! Actually, my position is the same as his because I normally tend to side with business owners.

 

[musterion]

I expect George "Lookit me, I'm gay" Takei to tweet something antagonistic toward Stewart.

 

[republicanchick]

He'll be reviled by gays and feminists alike, but his is the reasonable and fair view, and protects both sides. Just as when Chris Matthews of MSNBC accused gays of "wanting to silence people": He was battered, but actually was defending the true liberal ideology..... :think:

wow.. didn't know Matthews said that. He has gained at least some credibility in my eyes



+++

 

[GFR7]

wow.. didn't know Matthews said that. He has gained at least some credibility in my eyes



+++

Yes, he has his strong moments.......

 

[shagster01]

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.

It's a very fair (and libertarian) view. It's mine as well

 

[StanJ]

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.

I agree with Capt. Picard, and I think the activist targeted this establishment to further his ideological agenda, NOTHING more.
Good for the owner to know when to say no.

 

[Ktoyou]

He's still fully in favor of homo...r you the right to be equals amongst slaves!.

 

[musterion]

Notice how whenever they get absolute power, leftists eradicate all concept of the same human rights that they preached in order to gain power. The reason: they never really view the mass of others as human beings...they're either resources to be exploited or obstacles to be eliminated on the road to Utopia.

 

[shagster01]

Notice how whenever they get absolute power, leftists eradicate all concept of the same human rights that they preached in order to gain power.

I have noticed that about both sides of the isle actually.

Can you give me an example of a Libertarian that does that?

 

[musterion]

I have noticed no conservative who has done that, or who advocates it. Only leftists...Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot...

Speaking of which, I hadn't seen this until just now but it makes the same point of how ascendent socialism always seems to want to engineer genocides:

Just Who Are the Useless Eaters?

 

[shagster01]

I have noticed no conservative who has done that, or who advocates it. Only leftists...Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot...

You haven't noticed it because you don't consider marriage and autonomy over your own body to be a basic human right.

 

[rexlunae]

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.

So do I. The bakery can't be forced to put a message on a cake that they disagree with. I think their refusal is silly, but if there is to be free speech and free expression, they have a right to refuse and to maintain creative control.

 

[musterion]

So do I. The bakery can't be forced to put a message on a cake that they disagree with. I think their refusal is silly, but if there is to be free speech and free expression, they have a right to refuse and to maintain creative control.

"Creative control"?

This wasn't a disagreement over lettering font or color of icing. It was a moral, conscience-based stance that, by historic standards of western civilization, is inviolate. If you really agree, can we agree to be clear on that point, even if you disagree with their motives?

 

[rexlunae]

"Creative control"?

This wasn't a disagreement over lettering font or color of icing. It was a moral, conscience-based stance that, by historic standards of western civilization, is inviolate. If you really agree, can we agree to be clear on that point, even if you disagree with their motives?

You should really watch the video. My position is the same as Captain Picard's. Here's what he said:

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."

I certainly also support the rights of the couple to their own conscience. However, that right is not an unlimited excuse to violate the rights of others. A business cannot be made to say something that it objects to, to express something that it disagrees with, etc. But any service that is offered to the public in general must be offered to all equally. The reason that some bakers and other service professionals have gotten into trouble is not an unwillingness to write something that they object to, but an unwillingness to serve people who they have some objection to.

So no, I do not side with them out of a generalized concern for their conscience, but because I support their creative control over their works.

 

[musterion]

You should really watch the video. My position is the same as Captain Picard's. Here's what he said:

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."

You're making my point. Stewart did not cite "creative control." He correctly cited the message they wanted on the cake as offensive to the bakers and as violating their personal beliefs.

I certainly also support the rights of the couple to their own conscience. . .
So no, I do not side with them out of a generalized concern for their conscience, but because I support their creative control over their works.

Wow, how self-contradictory.

So when it comes down to it, you believe in freedom of thought and conscience only if someone happens to agree with yours. Which means you don't really believe in freedom of thought and conscience at all.

 

[kmoney]

A business cannot be made to say something that it objects to, to express something that it disagrees with, etc.

Who gets to decide what forms that expression can take? 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.

 

[rexlunae]

You're making my point. Stewart did not cite "creative control."

Yes, he did. He didn't use that phrase, but that is what he was talking about.

He correctly cited the message they wanted on the cake as offensive to the bakers and as violating their personal beliefs.

Yes. Because of the content, not because of the identities of the customers.

Wow, how self-contradictory.

Only in your twisted understanding of it. It's pretty clear. The bakers can control the content of their work product, but not who they sell it to. Simple, clear, easy to understand.

So when it comes down to it, you believe in freedom of thought and conscience only if someone happens to agree with yours.

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

Which means you don't really believe in freedom of thought and conscience at all.

If someone else believes that you are an infidel, and that it is their religious duty to kill you, should their freedom of conscious permit them to do so? Why or why not.