Actor Patrick Stewart Sides With Christian Bakers Who Refused to Make Gay Marriage Cake

Actor Patrick Stewart Sides With Christian Bakers Who Refused to Make Gay Marriage Cake

The opinion of the non-insane doesn't matter with the liberals however, and the punishment and persecution of Christians who oppose same-sex marriage will continue.

A nice test case would be Fred Phelps group to ask a gay baker to bake him a cake that says "God hates fags."
In the U.S. it is perfectly legal to refuse to write something on a cake. It is covered by the 1st amendment. Stewart's opinion does not apply to the U.S. cases.
 
I'm bisexual, and I agree with Patrick Stewart. Quit being a whiny bitch, and go to one of the hundreds of other bakers in your area who will bake you a cake. I'm tired of assholes complaining for the sake of complaining.
I'm trysexual and stay away from cake, I prefer pie...
 
It doesn't have to be a statement of words. Forcing a baker to put two men on a wedding cake is forcing that baker to make a statement he does not endorse.
 
"Actor Patrick Stewart Sides With Christian Bakers Who Refused to Make Gay Marriage Cake"

And?

He's one person entitled to his opinion, an opinion no more or less important than any other opinion, an opinion devoid of authority, and an opinion that is as a fact of Constitutional law, wrong.
 
"Actor Patrick Stewart Sides With Christian Bakers Who Refused to Make Gay Marriage Cake"

And?

He's one person entitled to his opinion, an opinion no more or less important than any other opinion, an opinion devoid of authority, and an opinion that is as a fact of Constitutional law, wrong.
Really? Why would the U.S. Constitution apply in this case, since the baker was located in Northern Ireland?
 
It doesn't have to be a statement of words. Forcing a baker to put two men on a wedding cake is forcing that baker to make a statement he does not endorse.
It doesn't have to be a statement of words. Forcing a baker to put two men on a wedding cake is forcing that baker to make a statement he does not endorse.
He was not asked to do that. Next.
 
It doesn't have to be a statement of words. Forcing a baker to put two men on a wedding cake is forcing that baker to make a statement he does not endorse.
It doesn't have to be a statement of words. Forcing a baker to put two men on a wedding cake is forcing that baker to make a statement he does not endorse.
He was not asked to do that. Next.
Are you paying attention to this conversation? Your response indicates that you aren't.
 
It doesn't have to be a statement of words. Forcing a baker to put two men on a wedding cake is forcing that baker to make a statement he does not endorse.
It doesn't have to be a statement of words. Forcing a baker to put two men on a wedding cake is forcing that baker to make a statement he does not endorse.
He was not asked to do that. Next.
Are you paying attention to this conversation? Your response indicates that you aren't.
If you want to talk about the Irish case, you may be better off finding an Irish forum.
 
It doesn't have to be a statement of words. Forcing a baker to put two men on a wedding cake is forcing that baker to make a statement he does not endorse.
It doesn't have to be a statement of words. Forcing a baker to put two men on a wedding cake is forcing that baker to make a statement he does not endorse.
He was not asked to do that. Next.
Are you paying attention to this conversation? Your response indicates that you aren't.
If you want to talk about the Irish case, you may be better off finding an Irish forum.
You go to the Irish forum and start your own thread. I will not be joining you.
 
It doesn't have to be a statement of words. Forcing a baker to put two men on a wedding cake is forcing that baker to make a statement he does not endorse.
It doesn't have to be a statement of words. Forcing a baker to put two men on a wedding cake is forcing that baker to make a statement he does not endorse.
He was not asked to do that. Next.
Are you paying attention to this conversation? Your response indicates that you aren't.
If you want to talk about the Irish case, you may be better off finding an Irish forum.
That's what the OP was about, Perfesser.
 
It doesn't have to be a statement of words. Forcing a baker to put two men on a wedding cake is forcing that baker to make a statement he does not endorse.
It doesn't have to be a statement of words. Forcing a baker to put two men on a wedding cake is forcing that baker to make a statement he does not endorse.
He was not asked to do that. Next.
Are you paying attention to this conversation? Your response indicates that you aren't.
If you want to talk about the Irish case, you may be better off finding an Irish forum.
That's what the OP was about, Perfesser.
I gave him some advice. He likely won't find many that oppose Stewart in this forum because what happened in Ireland is perfectly legal here. And that, of course, is what he's looking for.
 
Patrick Stewart is an internationally known TV star, so his defense of the baker is international news, and belongs here.
 
Good for Stewart.............and its the way a huge majority of America feels anyway.

Only people protesting this shit are limpwristed progressives or agnostic hate-America assholes!!:fu:
 
I talked to my son's friends and they don't care much about same-sex marriage, but they do think they're going too far in persecuting Christian bakers.
 

Forum List

Back
Top