Patrick Stewart believes in freedom, especially expressive freedom. In defending a baker’s right not to bake a cake with a pro-gay-marriage message, he explained:
In my view, this particular matter was not about discrimination, but rather personal freedoms and what constitutes them, including the freedom to object. Both equality and freedom of speech are fundamental rights—and this case underscores how we need to ensure one isn’t compromised in the pursuit of the other.
The arguments of progressive LGBT activists that it’s not ok for a religiously conservative baker to refuse to make a cake with a pro-gay-marriage message, but it is ok for a gay baker to refuse to bake a cake with an anti-gay-marriage message, is all too typical of the strained logic that amounts to whatever progressives want, the state should make sure they receive. And if this limits the expressive rights of their opponents, it’s a bonus!
18 Comments for “Make It So”
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m in favor of small businesspeople being able to refuse to serve customers on freedom-of-conscience grounds. I’ve said that here about a bazillion times.
However, something else is going on here, and as usual Stephen misses it. Having been active, for well over a decade, in the struggle for LGBT acceptance in the churches, as well as in the larger society, I have some insight into what is happening. A lot of secular media people fail to understand.
Anti-gay Christians are losing the battle not only in society, but even in the churches themselves. It has been decades since they could comfortably portray the struggle as one in which ALL Christians were in one corner and ALL LGBT’s in the other. They continue trying to frame the issue that way, but with an increasing amount of desperation.
They are now attempting to codify into civil law THEIR interpretation of Scripture with regard to “homosexuality.” I didn’t recognize, for a while, how central this was to their efforts. They can’t get God to go along with them, so they want the State to do what God evidently won’t.
Those in the media who continue to miss this are bumbling. They are not getting, or presenting, the whole picture. People of faith in a variety of religious traditions (not just Christians) are evolving in their understanding of same-sex love. And the anti-gay religious people are frightened. That is what is going on here. Simply parroting the same argument over and over again, as Stephen does, looks increasingly lame.
posted by Houndentenor on
I agree that the media bungles this. There are two reasons. 1) Controversy is better for ratings so it’s better to have on the anti-gay extremist religious person (the more extremist the better) and the most loud-mouthed gay person you can find (even if their views are not in the mainstream of the gay community, let them yell at each other for a few minutes and then go to commercial and act as if you’ve done some sort of public service by presenting a debate. 2) Liberal and moderate Christians avoid talking about these controversial issues, especially in any way that’s controversial or where they will be asked follow-up questions because in reality almost all of them have vague and intentionally muddled positions on issues like sexuality. They don’t want to offend the conservatives still among them (because some of them are older and wealthy and they can’t afford to lose their donations) or the more liberal ones (because they are younger and these denominations are hemorrhaging members especially younger ones. So they remain silent and instead of taking on the religious right (who talk as if they represent all Christians) they focus their attention on shouting at anyone who criticizes them for not taking a stronger stand or who lumps them in with the fundamentalists. (We’re not all like that, or NALTs for short.)
If you want people to know what your church’s view on theses issues is then pressure your denomination to push for time on these news shows when these issues are discussed. There are hardly ever any mainline protestants in spite of their large numbers. I can’t help but think we don’t see them because they’d rather sit this out until the culture war is over. I think that’s a huge mistake because their lack of a presence means the public views their position as the same as the loony fringe, but who’s fault is that really?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I would quietly point out, as Patrick Stewart did (as did the article Stephen cited) that there is a difference between requiring a bakery to create a custom-order cake that contains a message (in the Irish case, “Support Gay Marriage” and in the Colorado case, an unspecified anti-gay message) and providing a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, however “expressive” (“artistic” even) the particular design of the cake might be.
Stephen flips back and forth between “religious freedom” and “expressive freedom” and a number of other justifications for exempting conservative Christian business owners from having to provide standard goods and services to gay/lesbian weddings, and the fact that he flips and flops around reveals more about the sand on which he is building than about his understanding of the issues.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’ve been saying this all along. A custom designed cake is going to be incredibly expensive. One from a menu of a few kins they make is another thing entirely. I don’t know why this isn’t discussed in these terms except that it’s not controversial enough for the people who just want to scream past each other. But more than anything else is that I would not want to offend the bigots by forcing them to take my filthy faggot money. I’d hate to persecute them by offering them business and profits.
posted by Rick Sincere on
Whatever happened to “live and let live”?
posted by Lori Heine on
The religious freedom (freedom of conscience) discussion should be expanded, not contracted. As a libertarian Christian, I want to know why municipal governments are persecuting those who would feed the poor and shelter the homeless.
We say we want private charity to do those things. That’s true–we do. But government is now doing something far more extreme than merely taking those functions away from the churches. It is actually prohibiting the churches from performing them.
I don’t believe that “live and let live” means letting people freeze to the sidewalk in wintertime. I believe that the discussion about religious liberty must consider the religious freedom of people of faith who do NOT think their highest calling is to shame and denigrate same-sex couples.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t know where you live but here we have a great deal of cooperation between state and local services and the private charities. Everyone is aware that it’s not enough anyone and happy to refer people to get the help they need. I realize there are a few well-publicized stories where there was a problem (usually with people not following some rule or other) but those things can be worked out if people are willing to cooperate and not throw a fit the first time someone points out that they aren’t doing things like they are required to do them. Also, laws can be changed with some public attention and lobbying if they need to be.
Sorry for being touchy about this but over the last year on a committee on which I serve I became aware that our local university has homeless students. Students with no home. They have managed to figure out where to shower (not just the gym but there are science buildings with showers, etc) without being detected very often, and often sleep in the library that is open all night (during the semester anyway). I’m horrified that we’ve come to this. We worked to help better coordinate with local food banks (not always helpful as some of the food they provide must be cooked but they do also have toiletries and other things) and with the local campus ministries that have free meals every week etc. Everyone, including city agencies, was happy to help coordinate. Someone just had to take the lead. (My colleagues did all of it. I only contributed a very few ideas. I don’t want any credit because I didn’t do much.) Anyway, things can happen but people have to care more about the people in need than their own egos and political agendas.
posted by Lori Heine on
I’m glad the situation is better where you live. That may be a “Texas” thing — in a rare, positive sense.
Usually, the violation of some rule or another involves transgression of “those people” (the poor) in areas reserved, by local law, for the golden few who have money. I support the overthrow of such rules. If we start restricting necessities like food, water (and who knows, eventually air) to people who have a lot of money to pay for them, then those of us who are libertarians will be guilty of the very crimes against humanity that some people accuse us of advocating.
I guess I am something of a Chomskyite when it comes to the basic necessities of life being available to all.
Many of the miseries of the underclass have been caused by the wealthy restricting for themselves — by the use of government — things that in any just world must be there for everybody.
posted by Houndentenor on
Maybe it’s that I live in a notoriously hippie-liberal college town. Or that the conservatives I do meet are the religious kind who do care about poor people and not the sociopaths who spent their teenage years wanking off to Atlas Shrugged and are emotionally stunted as a result. Your post reminds me why I identify as a liberal. No one should starve to death. I know not everyone can be rich but that we have people who work full time and still can’t get from one paycheck to the next is repugnant and that so-called Christians aren’t demanding change in that regard makes me sad for my country.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It went the way of Title VII.
posted by Houndentenor on
What was “live and let live” ever a thing. I’m gay. When were we ever allowed to go about our business and not be bothered? What a nonsensical comment, especially in this context.
posted by Jorge on
Mr. Stewart can take care of himself. Better than well in the continent where he’s actually a knight.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m with Stewart on this one. This isn’t about whether or not they would sell the gay couple a cake but about what they would write on it. This same principle applies to the situation where right-wingers tried to get gay business to write anti-gay slogans on cakes and they refused. If they refused to sell them any cake, I would find that a violation (although this didn’t happen in the US and I’m not even going to pretend to understand Irish law), but first amendment rights are separate from public accommodation law. You have to treat all customers the same, but you can refuse special requests as you wish.
This is not really that complicated but the idiots in our media and some of our activists keep blowing it. I think it shows that we need better news media and much better gay rights activists so that issues are clearly articulated and time isn’t wasted when right-wingers want to create smoke where there’s no fire.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I agree. I don’t think that the Irish bakery would be found in violation of public accommodations laws, so long as the Irish bakery would sell the cake and provide the means to decorate it, as the Colorado bakery did.
I would point out, though, that it is not just bumbling journalists and “some of our activists” who blow the obvious distinction between selling a standard product (e.g. a garden variety wedding cake) and selling a custom product with an offensive message (T-shirt, cake whatever). The conservative Christian anti-gay industry and their allies consistently, (either intentionally or just because they are too stupid to make the distinction) blur/ignore legal and common sense distinctions.
posted by Doug on
Who gives a flip what Patrick Stewart thinks. Just because he has an opinion does not make it so. I can quote people who believe the earth is flat but that does not make it so, either Stephen.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
I actually do not totally disagree with what the actor has said. He has done some work in the previous decades with Amnesty International and other such causes, so he does have some background to talk about human rights issues.
Context matters a bit here — Ireland probably has some sort of national non-discrimination policy for LGB and (possible T) people. Having a discussion about exemptions to civil right laws is a bit different from situations where no such laws exist and the right-wing is kicking and screaming everytime such laws get proposed. The United States does not include LGBT people in its civil rights act and its been decades since anyone in office suggested doing so.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Also — as an aside — It is always tough for me to say whether like Kirk or Picard more (in terms of the Star Trek franchise). Heck, the other captains (i.e. DS9 and Voyager and even Enterprise) have a lot going for them as well.
It might be worth noting that none of the Star Trek T.V. shows or films have had openly gay characters in them, despite numerous opportunities for the franchise to deal with the issue and despite support the creator (G.R.) and cast members — such as Stewart and Nimoy.
In fact it was rumored that the 4th season of Star Trek: The Next Generation (ST:TNG) would introduce a few minor characters as being LGBT, but what actually came out was one single and very odd episode titled, The Outcast.
Official comics books, novels and video games have had openly LGBT characters — since the late 1990s.
However, when it came to the Star Trek TV shows and films (the official ones anyways), the most that could be said was that some characters had a very ‘fluid’ gender identity.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
“The Outcast” depicted an alien race that viewed any sort of male or female gender expression as being “primitive” and in need of conversation therapy. One of the visiting aliens (secretly) identifies as female, and has an affair with Commander Riker.