WOAH. I have said multiple times I DO NOT agree with my mother’s opinions. So back the F up. And I can see from your other comments you are just insulting and harassing the OP so unless you have something constructive to say, please go away.

That article spoke for a LOT of women. Including me.

I don’t think that piece is anywhere near that simple. When I read that piece I do see a number of flaws with the presentation and occasional content of the opinions being shared, but for the most part I do see some serious issues worthy of being raised. When a cisgender woman listens to a transgender woman discuss…

It seems like a very characteristically second-wave response to transgender women. There seems to be a kind of aversion to the notion that gender is in, any way, inborn, that there is any validity to the notion of “female” and “male” brains. This seemed very characteristic:

Sorry for derailing, but this article on the NYTimes is super thought provoking and also talks about expectations for women.

You want to be compelled by law to to decorate a cake with a message you find abhorrent?

No, it’s not conservatism, it’s actually a strain of true progressive values. You either believe in the freedom of individuals to not be punished for their speech or you don’t. If it’s the former, then fine, put forward a defense of government censorship if that’s what you believe. But if you believe the government…

The nuance in Patrick Stewart’s statement is the very definition of liberalism.

If you honestly can’t see the difference that you just can’t trade away values - or that this trade-off even exists - there’s no point in you even participating in the discussion. There is nothing bigoted in what Stewart said, or what…

I can see that there is a difference between refusing to serve people and refusing to put a particular phrase on a cake. One is discrimination. The other is refusing to put an anti-discrimination slogan on a cake which is abominable (but I can see a case could be made for it being legal.)

I actually agree with Stewart on this one. It isn’t just a cake for a gay marriage, it’s a cake that says “support gay marriage.” It’s more about freedom of speech (or at least, freedom not to say something you don’t believe in?) in my mind than anything else.

By his own words, he would support your third example but not the first two. The customers weren’t refused service because they are gay, they were refused because they requested a specifically pro-gay political message. Like “Support Gay Marriage”, “Support Women’s Rights” is fundamentally a political message, and the…

I unequivocally support gay marriage but I am also with Stewart on this one. The bakery did not deny service because of the customer’s sexual orientation, they did not agree with both the political message and support of the social/civil right’s movement this message documented.

I’m sure the replies I receive will make me regret saying this, but I agree with Stewart here. This isn’t nearly the same thing as them refusing to serve the customers outright, the kind of thing that is being justified by so called “religious freedom acts” in the US. I believe that the right to not say things is…

We’ll see how he feels about this when he’s refused tea service because his replicator decided that it opposes hereditary titles.

I am surprisingly super cool with people not wanting to put certain messages on cakes (political, racial, etc) but as long as they are willing to serve these people.

It’s a tricky subject. If I were baker would there be things I would object to? Probably. I would never have an issue with gay marriage, but if some dude-bro came in and wanted a cake was insulting to women I’d probably tell him to go elsewhere. Then again, if a dude-bro came in and ordered a cake I’d probably think…

I agree with him, people should be allowed to not write something on a cake or anything else that is offensive to them.

I kind of agree. You can’t refuse to serve someone but you should be able to refuse to say something you just don’t agree with. Here is an interesting article on this case http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

I understand his point generally. In my opinion if you refuse to serve someone based on their sexual orientation, that’s discrimination. But decorating a cake a certain way, then it seems a little bit like you’re compelling speech. I’m okay with drawing the line there.

They lost the case because Northern Ireland has specific discrimination laws which were designed to stop sectarian discrimination which this case happened to fall under, it wouldn’t have been ruled that way in any other jurisdiction.