Patrick Stewart comes out in favour of bakery in ‘gay cake’ row

[Munch]

Well until he clarified it the great liberal vacuum of non-thinkers are probably going to label him and try to crucify him as a biggot..

And that's just it, I don't want to do that, especially when he's said he's backed gay rights. But he's not covered enough to explain his reasoning, which I hope he does.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I really hope Saud is a typo.. I'd hate to think of him as Saudi royalty. .

[Munch]

Bloody kindle, misspelling my diction

[Johan]

I find the baker's actions troubling.  If any business can say that they can refuse to provide a service they advertise for simply because it would go against their beliefs, is wrong--and troubling.  All businesses that cater to the public, are in a sense, owned by that public.  The public should expect any legal service that that business offers or provides.  This is different than 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' signs.  And I also see it different than 'we reserve the right to not serve anybody.', as well.  Unruly or disruptive or unclean customs should not have to be tolerated.  The bakery was given an order that was not illegal.  They should have to fulfill it.  Should a pharmacy be allowed to not fill a legal prescription because they   find the drug or item morally offensive?  I don't think so--and I see it being the same thing. 

I could not disagree more. Retailers and service providers cannot and should not be allowed to refuse to provide goods or services to individuals. However retailers and service provides can and absolutely should be allowed to decide exactly which services they want to offer.

The argument is this particular baker refused to write 'support gay marriage' on a cake because the customer was gay. So here's the test. I'm completely straight. Suppose I go to that baker and try to order the same cake. If they say sure no problem the yes, they should be charged. However if they also refuse to fill that order when it comes from me, then that is completely within their rights.

Lets suppose I want to get a birthday cake for my lovely wife. Suppose I want the baker to write on said cake 'Happy Birthday to my lovely wife. Now suck my cock you dirty whore'. It should absolutely be that bakers right to say no I won't write that on a cake for you. And if the baker can say no I won't write suck my cock you dirty whore on a cake then that baker should also be able to say I won't write support gay marriage.

[Mike Cl]

Okay, Johan, you are making my head hurt. :)  Thinking does that.  Okay, I think I'm sort of leaning toward your take on the bakery thing.

What do you think of the pharmacy being able to refuse to fill a prescription for birth control meds for moral reasons?

[Johan]

What do you think of the pharmacy being able to refuse to fill a prescription for birth control meds for moral reasons?

So long as they refuse to sell birth control to 100% of their customers, its absolutely within their right. They don't have to sell it and if you disagree, you don't have to shop there. Now if a pharmacy decided to fill birth control scripts for married customers but not unmarried ones, that's an entirely different story. But someone doesn't want to sell birth control, they don't have to and there is nothing wrong with that. Free enterprise is called free enterprise for a reason.

Getting back to the baker example. Suppose the baker is named Chaim Witz (bonus points if you can say who that is without googling) and you walk in his bakery and order a cake that says Chaim Witz's mother will suck your cock behind a gas station for a cigarette. Do you really want to live in a world where Chaim is bound by law to fill that order? I don't.

[trdsf]

Getting back to the baker example. Suppose the baker is named Chaim Witz (bonus points if you can say who that is without googling) and you walk in his bakery and order a cake that says Chaim Witz's mother will suck your cock behind a gas station for a cigarette. Do you really want to live in a world where Chaim is bound by law to fill that order? I don't.

I'm thinking glam rock, makeup, and a prehensile tongue...

[SGOS]

I could not disagree more. Retailers and service providers cannot and should not be allowed to refuse to provide goods or services to individuals. However retailers and service provides can and absolutely should be allowed to decide exactly which services they want to offer.

This is a good point, even though it negates my comparison.  The birth control issue would have to be selective to be similar to the gay cake examples.  However, I think where Patrick Stewart would disagree is with this part of your comment:  "Retailers and service providers cannot and should not be allowed to refuse to provide goods or services to individuals."

I think such actions would be dickish and arbitrary, but a quick search of my mind, I can't think of a legal precedent that would agree with you.  Congress would have to enact a constitutional law that forbids this type of discrimination.  Maybe they have.  I'm not sure what it is.

[Mike Cl]

So long as they refuse to sell birth control to 100% of their customers, its absolutely within their right. They don't have to sell it and if you disagree, you don't have to shop there. Now if a pharmacy decided to fill birth control scripts for married customers but not unmarried ones, that's an entirely different story. But someone doesn't want to sell birth control, they don't have to and there is nothing wrong with that. Free enterprise is called free enterprise for a reason.

Getting back to the baker example. Suppose the baker is named Chaim Witz (bonus points if you can say who that is without googling) and you walk in his bakery and order a cake that says Chaim Witz's mother will suck your cock behind a gas station for a cigarette. Do you really want to live in a world where Chaim is bound by law to fill that order? I don't.

You know, the more I think about this the more I dislike your take on this and my take on this.  Damn!  I need to take more time and look at it from the 'shoes' of everybody involved.  Damn--more thinking.

[Johan]

I'm thinking glam rock, makeup, and a prehensile tongue...

Correct. ...and its sort of related because he will happily sell anything to anyone if it puts a buck in his pocket.

[Johan]

This is a good point, even though it negates my comparison.  The birth control issue would have to be selective to be similar to the gay cake examples.  However, I think where Patrick Stewart would disagree is with this part of your comment:  "Retailers and service providers cannot and should not be allowed to refuse to provide goods or services to individuals."

I think such actions would be dickish and arbitrary, but a quick search of my mind, I can't think of a legal precedent that would agree with you.  Congress would have to enact a constitutional law that forbids this type of discrimination.  Maybe they have.  I'm not sure what it is.

You're right, but I worded that poorly. What I meant was retailers should not be allowed to refuse to provide goods or services to someone based on things like race, creed, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

[Johan]

You know, the more I think about this the more I dislike your take on this and my take on this.  Damn!  I need to take more time and look at it from the 'shoes' of everybody involved.  Damn--more thinking.

Sorry about that. FWIW my opinion on the subject is based at least in part on the whole slippery slope theory. Once we start writing legislation which says if you're going to call yourself X or if you're going to be business that sells Y then you MUST also sell Z. Once we start down that path, where does it end?

If a pharmacist can be sued or otherwise suffer legal consequences for choosing not to sell birth control, then what's to stop us from suing a restaurant that doesn't have a tune melt on the menu? Or bringing fines against a hardware store that doesn't sell drill bits? And at that point, who in their right mind would want to be a business owner?

The free market does an excellent job of dictating what goods and services business owners should offer.

My parents owned a mom & pop hardware store until I was in my 30's. They made an ok living with it until home depot and lowes changed the paradigm and they didn't change with it. All through my childhood my parents worked seven days a week because the store was open on Sunday. The store was open on Sunday because Sunday was when the store did 15%-30% of its weekly revenue. This was because every other hardware store owner in town was owned  theists and thus closed on Sundays. Those other hardware store owners decided to allow their beliefs to limit their profit and my parents recognized that situation and took advantage of it. And I'm confident that if my folks hadn't been the ones to do it, someone else would have.

Ocean City NJ is a dry town. You can't buy a drop of alcohol anywhere in city limits. Because Ocean city is barrier island, you can only get there via one of three different roads. Every one of those three roads has a mega warehouse size liquor store within a mile of the town line. The free market regulates this kind of thing just fine.

If a pharmacy doesn't want to sell birth control, some other pharmacy is going to step up and take advantage of the profit being left on the table as a result.

[Mike Cl]

Sorry about that. FWIW my opinion on the subject is based at least in part on the whole slippery slope theory. Once we start writing legislation which says if you're going to call yourself X or if you're going to be business that sells Y then you MUST also sell Z. Once we start down that path, where does it end?

If a pharmacist can be sued or otherwise suffer legal consequences for choosing not to sell birth control, then what's to stop us from suing a restaurant that doesn't have a tune melt on the menu? Or bringing fines against a hardware store that doesn't sell drill bits? And at that point, who in their right mind would want to be a business owner?

The free market does an excellent job of dictating what goods and services business owners should offer.

My parents owned a mom & pop hardware store until I was in my 30's. They made an ok living with it until home depot and lowes changed the paradigm and they didn't change with it. All through my childhood my parents worked seven days a week because the store was open on Sunday. The store was open on Sunday because Sunday was when the store did 15%-30% of its weekly revenue. This was because every other hardware store owner in town was owned  theists and thus closed on Sundays. Those other hardware store owners decided to allow their beliefs to limit their profit and my parents recognized that situation and took advantage of it. And I'm confident that if my folks hadn't been the ones to do it, someone else would have.

Ocean City NJ is a dry town. You can't buy a drop of alcohol anywhere in city limits. Because Ocean city is barrier island, you can only get there via one of three different roads. Every one of those three roads has a mega warehouse size liquor store within a mile of the town line. The free market regulates this kind of thing just fine.

If a pharmacy doesn't want to sell birth control, some other pharmacy is going to step up and take advantage of the profit being left on the table as a result.

I see I did not make myself clear.  I was thinking of the instance of a pharmacy selling birth control to some and not others.  Or not to certain age groups.  I used birth control because it is used for not just birth control, but other conditions as well.  If that store does not want to carry or sell birth control at all, then there is nothing wrong with that.  If an 18 yr. old young woman had a prescription for birth control, took it to a pharmacy that sold birth control, and they refused to fill that one on moral grounds, that is wrong.   I think you would agree--I think we are on the same page here.

As for the baker, if it is store policy to not use certain words or phrases on any of it's products for anybody, the that is fine.  But if I could go into that bakery and buy the cake the gay couple wanted, then that would be wrong.  Once again, I think we are on the same page.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Johan]

We are absolutely on the same page on all counts.

But now that you've clarified the birth control scenario, I find myself, like you, wondering if I should rethink it a bit. Its touchy this one.

I mean on the one hand, the same way retailers should be able to choose what they do or don't want to sell, they should also have the right to refuse to sell anything to individuals for certain reasons at least. Say for instance you have a customer who is always belligerent or who has a habit of verbally abusing your other customers. A business owner should be able to say no soup for you in those cases. Race, creed, gender, religion etc should be protected obviously. But a customer who will only refer to you as cocksucker? You should be able to tell that customer to get the fuck out and don't come back.

But refusing to sell birth control only to certain individuals solely on moral grounds? Geez that's a tough one. I see not wanting to sell anything to an individual because you happen to feel that individual is an immoral person. I think retailers should have that right. Kinda falls under the 'I just don't like you and I don't want your money or your business' category for me.

But refusing to sell only certain items to certain individuals based on your moral beliefs? I certainly don't like the idea of it. But I think fall back on the free market regulates itself on this one. Store owners should be able to do this if they desire so long as those whom they do it to are also free to make the public aware of what the store owner did and therefore other members of the buying public are able to choose whether or not to give that business patronage.

Again, I don't like it. But let them do it. And then let the rest of the buying public decide where they want to spend their money.

[the_antithesis]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/04/patrick-stewart-comes-out-in-favour-of-bakery-in-gay-cake-row/
So, whats people opinion of this?

Well, when looking at a hot button issue like this, it is good to reverse it for some perspective.

What if a customer came into a cake shop and asked for a cake that said "Homosexuality is a sin." What would happen if the shop owner refused to put that message on a cake? What would happen if the shop owner fucking shrugged and made the cake with the message and people would would be offended by that message found out where the cake was made?

I'm of several minds on the subject since I have the luxury of not having a real stake in any direction. The image of the events that I'm getting from this story is not that the shop owner refused a gay man service. He just refused to make a cake with a particular message upon it. There is a difference between those two. It is possible to refuse to make a "support gay rights" cake one day but make another that says "happy birthday" for the same person.

Is that what happened? No fucking clue. I wasn't there. But that's the reading I get.

Personally, I could understand having a "no political message" policy in your cake shop because you don't want to piss anyone off because all you want to do is sell fucking cakes. Bigots buy cakes, too.

That said, I doubt that this was an attempt at remaining neutral and more an expression of the baker's own political view. But they could have offered to make the Bert and Ernie cake but they'd have to write their own message on it.

As i said, I have no dog in this, but there is a difference between "get yer faggie ass out of my store" and "I'm sorry, but I won't put a message like that on a cake." The first one is discrimination. The other is a business owner exercising his own judgement and beliefs, whether you agree with him or not. I don't know which of these actually happened since I wasn't there, but the reports seem to indicate the latter.