Patrick Stewart speaks out: Defends Christian bakers

[JustOneWay]

of course.

The only thing that matters is I never said I agreed or disagree with him, and you made another incorrect assumption.[/QUOTE]

 

[cow451]

There are freedom of speech issues when you start getting into specific messages.

The use of copyrighted images (Bert and Ernie) could be a problem, especially since they are being used for profit (unless the baker has permission from the copyright holder).

 

[Cute Tink]

The use of copyrighted images (Bert and Ernie) could be a problem, especially since they are being used for profit (unless the baker has permission from the copyright holder).

Absolutely it can be.

 

[Simonline]

Make it so ... Actor Defends Christian Bakers Who Were Fined for Refusing to Ice a Gay 'Bert and Ernie' Cake | TownHall

"It was not because it was a gay couple that they objected, it was not because they were celebrating some sort of marriage or an agreement between them," said Stewart. "It was the actual words on the cake they objected to. Because they found the words offensive."

He continued: "I would support their rights to say no, this is personally offensive to my beliefs, I will not do it."​

Good for Patrick Stewart! Personally, I would like to see someone enlist the support of the NI Equality Commission in defending their right to challenge the imperialist colonialism of authentic Islam (and Islam's policy of dhimmitude toward non-muslims who refuse to convert to Islam but who are permitted to live as 'subjugated persons' by their Islamic overlords) and thereby expose the NI Equality Commission for the moral cowards that they are?!

Simonline.

 

[mindlight]

I would agree on that. But that was NOT what the baker did. They accepted the contract, including payment in full in advance and then backed out 2 days later.

They got off light in my opinion.

They took the order originally to avoid embarrassment or confrontation but they could not fulfill this order because it contradicts their Christian faith.

most people in the Uk let alone Northern Ireland where faith is stronger are opposed to this decision which clearly violates freedom of conscience.

That said the judge may have correctly interpreted the 2006 guidelines which clearly need to be changed to allow for freedom of conscience.

 

[mindlight]

http://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/new...t-done-anything-wrong-says-boss-31233797.html

 

[keith99]

They took the order originally to avoid embarrassment or confrontation but they could not fulfill this order because it contradicts their Christian faith.

most people in the Uk let alone Northern Ireland where faith is stronger are opposed to this decision which clearly violates freedom of conscience.

That said the judge may have correctly interpreted the 2006 guidelines which clearly need to be changed to allow for freedom of conscience.

So their faith is not strong enough to endure embarrassment or confrontation but is so strong that they can't fill the order!

Christian doublethink at its best!

Or more likely there were other customers there and they feared losing those orders if their attitudes became known.

 

[mindlight]

So their faith is not strong enough to endure embarrassment or confrontation but is so strong that they can't fill the order!

Christian doublethink at its best!

Or more likely there were other customers there and they feared losing those orders if their attitudes became known.

I think a persons more settled decision is more indicative of their real convictions. I should imagine there was a conflict in the ladies mind between the business persons instinct to please and serve the customer and the deeper desire to please God. In the end she did the right thing and that is what counts.

These sorts of decisions should not be penalised.

If I went to a gay bakery and asked for a cake that said "oppose gay marriage" on it do you think they should fulfill? Or if I directly quoted passages from Corithians or Romans or Genesis or Leviticus that they might not like.

 

[asherahSamaria]

I actually agree with Mr Steward on this issue. The gay couple in question are locally known are being "difficult" so I've no doubt it was done with malice of intent and therefore the shame is on them.

 

[DaisyDay]

I actually agree with Mr Steward on this issue. The gay couple in question are locally known are being "difficult" so I've no doubt it was done with malice of intent and therefore the shame is on them.

Gareth Lee isn't a "couple". It wasn't a wedding cake, it was a cake for a party in support of International Day Against Homophobia.

 

[Aldebaran]

Gareth Lee isn't a "couple". It wasn't a wedding cake, it was a cake for a party in support of International Day Against Homophobia.

So it was to support homosexuality then. Why should a baker have to support something like that if he has religious or consciencious objections to it?

 

[Cute Tink]

So it was to support homosexuality then. Why should a baker have to support something like that if he has religious or consciencious objections to it?

How is providing a service for which he charges money "supporting" anything other than his own business?

 

[DaisyDay]

So it was to support homosexuality then. Why should a baker have to support something like that if he has religious or consciencious objections to it?

The court - this is in Northern Ireland, btw - ruled that producing the cake for money is not supporting the cause. Had this case happened in the US, the plaintiff would have lost because of the "compelled speech" issue. Different laws in different lands.

 

[Aldebaran]

The court - this is in Northern Ireland, btw - ruled that producing the cake for money is not supporting the cause. Had this case happened in the US, the plaintiff would have lost because of the "compelled speech" issue. Different laws in different lands.

Some Christians place God's word over what a human court says.

 

[Aldebaran]

How is providing a service for which he charges money "supporting" anything other than his own business?

We've been over this before. No need to repeat it all again.

 

[Cute Tink]

We've been over this before. No need to repeat it all again.

I'm aware, but you did bring it up again.

 

[Aldebaran]

How is providing a service for which he charges money "supporting" anything other than his own business?

If it's his own business he's supporting, as you say, then how is it anyone's concern other than his whether he accepts money and does a certain thing for it?

 

[Cute Tink]

If it's his own business he's supporting, as you say, then how is it anyone's concern other than his whether he accepts money and does a certain thing for it?

There is a customer involved. You left that part out. The customer has concerns as well.

 

[Aldebaran]

There is a customer involved. You left that part out. The customer has concerns as well.

So the baker can then refer them to another baker, or offer them a different product. Or the baker can tell the customer about his faith if the customer asks about it. Don't you think the customer can handle these things? If not, you don't think much of this customer.

 

[Cute Tink]

So the baker can then refer them to another baker, or offer them a different product. Or the baker can tell the customer about his faith if the customer asks about it. Don't you think the customer can handle these things? If not, you don't think much of this customer.

The baker could also contract out the cake, or just make the product requested. Some of what you are suggesting may be a violation of the law in some areas. Can the baker not handle the law? If not, then you don't think much of this baker.