Indianapolis Bakery Refuses To Bake Gay Cupcakes

reply to post by Annee


No discrimination should not be swept under the rug.

However, you CAN NOT fight discrimination with discrimination.

And that is exactly what happens in most "tolerance" issues.

When one side tries to force the other side to change, both sides have already lost.

Edit to add:

Stop trying to put words in my mouth, it makes your arguement lose presence. No where did I say it should be swept under the rug. I have said that you can not fight bigotry with bigotry.

reply to post by peck420


So forcing the owners to abide by the rules of the lease means everyone loses?

reply to post by hotbakedtater


Pretty much.

Show me a winner any time somebody is forced to do something.

The whole problem is that you will never get positive, lasting change from forced actions.

The term "change comes from within" has been around for a long time for a good reason.

Originally posted by Aeons
Okay - I want lamb. But I don't want you to say prayers over it, nor do I want you to slit its throat to bleed it dry while its conscious or even stunned.

I'm a meat practices activist. I eat meat and eggs, but I expect better facilities and humane handling. Partial stunning of live animals and then slitting their throat to bleed them dry with a pumping heart is nasty.

So, I want you to sell me lamb. And I don't met your religious requirement.

If you don't sell me the lamb, you are a bigot.

You sell lamb one way.
You tell me you can't fill my order because you only make lamb one way.
Your husband then tells me that I can't buy the lamb, prepared to the specifications of your religion, because he disagrees ideologically with the people who will consume it.
Is every customer required to use his purchase in a manner consistent with the religious beliefs of the seller?
If the butcher refuses to sell the exact same lamb to me because I'll serve it for Christmas dinner, then, yes, he is a bigot.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Annee

 

No discrimination should not be swept under the rug.

However, you CAN NOT fight discrimination with discrimination.

Please explain how discrimination is being fought with discrimination.

1. AWARENESS: Awareness means what happened should be Publicly out in the open. In the news - on boards - being openly discussed. Which it is.

2. NO DISCRIMINATION CONTRACT: if the city has a no discrimination contract signed by the owner - - then they must pursue it.

3. AS YOU SOW SO SHALL YOU REAP: are you telling me this business owner should be protected from those he discriminated against?

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

Pretty much.

Show me a winner any time somebody is forced to do something.

The whole problem is that you will never get positive, lasting change from forced actions.

The term "change comes from within" has been around for a long time for a good reason.

I find that to be incredibly naive.

Desegregation was Forced. It had to be.

Only after it was forced - - did people who did not want it - - have to accept it.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by Aeons

 

No, they just dont have non halal(or haram) lamb, that is all.

By not selling me lamb butchers in a non-halal way is bigotry, in exactly the same way as not icing a muffin to my specifications is. Both are refusing my order based on religious beliefs.

Either both are bigotry, or neither.

reply to post by Annee


I don't think you fully understand the point I'm trying to make.

The law the city is enforcing (or planning on enforcing) is discriminatory in its self.

The US has been trying "forced acceptance" for years....how's that working out?

Racism....still alive and well.
Sexism....still alive and well.
Intolerence...sitll alive and well.

Yup, the "tried" methods are working great.

What we have now is everyone of these problems being "swept under the rug" by law. There is no personal change being implemented. If we want change, we have to change ourselves, and "hope" others do the same. We can't "force" them.

Do you think this business owner will change his views by being evicted? I'm willing to put money down on him becoming MORE homophobic and just changing locations.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Annee

 

I don't think you fully understand the point I'm trying to make.

Oh I do - trust me. I had similar thinking as you when I was younger.

Forced Legal acceptance of gays is required. Just as Forced Legal acceptance of race was (and still is) required.

I remember listening to an interview with a man who had been in a Concentration Camp. He stated: they controlled everything - - except thought. They could not control thought.

That is true. Thought can not be controlled.

But actions and behavior can by legal means. And as most people are law abiding - - they will accept it.

Its sad that equality has to be Forced - - - but that's the reality of it.

The dream is that people will change in their heart.

Originally posted by peck420

Do you think this business owner will change his views by being evicted? I'm willing to put money down on him becoming MORE homophobic and just changing locations.

I really don't care. He can do what ever he wants.

He inadvertently brought awareness of discrimination by his own bigotry - - - to an area that prides itself as being open and accepting of all.

My focus is on the positive changes I hope will occur in this one particular market place - - - and the public warning through media to other shop owners through out the country.

He caused a major public awareness campaign - - - that has more power and will do more good - - - and is far above his little life.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Annee

 

I don't think you fully understand the point I'm trying to make.

Oh I do - trust me. I had similar thinking as you when I was younger.

Forced Legal acceptance of gays is required. Just as Forced Legal acceptance of race was (and still is) required.

That is true. Thought can not be controlled.

But actions and behavior can by legal means. And as most people are law abiding - - they will accept it.

Its sad that equality has to be Forced - - - but that's the reality of it.

"Forced Legal acceptance of gays is required. Just as Forced Legal acceptance of race was (and still is) required ".

That has to be the most repulsive statement I've read. Forced to accept and think a certain way? You might as well put a bullet in my head, since I would no longer think for myself. I have every right not to accept certain ideas and morals if I choose so.

You are condoning the violation and relinquishment of the most fundamental and distinctive, if not the most significant and only dominion of ourselves that we as subjective individuals hold control over.

Forced to accept what you think is the right decision? People are not computers to be programmed at ones whim.

Originally posted by DrChuck

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by Annee

 

I don't think you fully understand the point I'm trying to make.

Oh I do - trust me. I had similar thinking as you when I was younger.

Forced Legal acceptance of gays is required. Just as Forced Legal acceptance of race was (and still is) required.

That is true. Thought can not be controlled.

But actions and behavior can by legal means. And as most people are law abiding - - they will accept it.

Its sad that equality has to be Forced - - - but that's the reality of it.

"Forced Legal acceptance of gays is required. Just as Forced Legal acceptance of race was (and still is) required ".

That has to be the most repulsive statement I've read. Forced to accept and think a certain way? You might as well put a bullet in my head, since I would no longer think for myself. I have every right not to accept certain ideas and morals if I choose so.

You are condoning the violation and relinquishment of the most fundamental and distinctive, if not the most significant and only dominion of ourselves that we as subjective individuals hold control over.

Forced to accept what you think is the right decision? People are not computers to be programmed at ones whim.

Equality is Equality is Equality is Equality is Equality - - - and needs to apply to ALL in our society.

ALL and I mean ALL humans - have the right to be treated equally in society.

Because of people who think like you - - - Equality has to be Forced. It shouldn't have to be - - but it does.

Your issues are your own. What YOU do in your own home I have no interest in. No one is asking anyone to accept another's - belief - life style - or whatever.

Originally posted by Annee
I am just going to refer you to 27id's post - - that nicely condenses all my points as well - - in one paragraph. I see no point in posting again - as this paragraph says it all and states it perfectly.

I agree with most of the post that you quoted.

If people want to refuse service to any group of people, then - purely from a business perspective - that is ridiculous.

This firm is probably shooting itself in the foot by refusing this order, as they are bound to be hit by a boycott amongst gay people and those that believe that judging people by their sexuality is wrong.


However, that doesn't alter my point that the refusal of this order appears to be based on the owner's religious beliefs. If someone disagrees with the right of the owner to refuse service to whoever he likes, then they are bigoted against his religious beliefs.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Is it wrong of the lease holder in this case to demand the terms of the lease be adhered to?

If the terms of the lease, pre-1960s, had stipulated that this company could not serve black customers - but they did serve them anyway - would you still be castigating them in the same way for breaching their lease ?

The essential part to remember about this story is that the firm refused the order from a group that were commissioning these cupcakes for ''National coming out day''.

As far as we know, they did not refuse the order because the customer ordering them was gay.


If someone gets stopped in the street by a charity worker trying to get them to sponsor a child in Africa, and they refuse, then that doesn't make them racist against Africans. It only means that they are unwilling ( for whatever reason ) to support the charity.

Originally posted by Annee

Equality is Equality is Equality is Equality is Equality - - - and needs to apply to ALL in our society.

ALL and I mean ALL humans - have the right to be treated equally in society.

Because of people who think like you - - - Equality has to be Forced. It shouldn't have to be - - but it does.

Your issues are your own. What YOU do in your own home I have no interest in. No one is asking anyone to accept another's - belief - life style - or whatever.

Something is only forced when there is opposition to comply. Isn't that inequality in itself when the opposition is forced into submission? You cannot force equality, it contradicts itself.

What about the views and beliefs of the opposition? Are they not as equally valuable to someone as is the views and beliefs of the counterpart?

I don't have a "right" to be treated equally by you or anyone, it impinges on your right to refrain. If I have the "right" to be treated equally by everyone, it violates the rights of those who do not want to deal with me.
Rights of an individual is limited to themselves it does not extend to the person they interact with.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Is it wrong of the lease holder in this case to demand the terms of the lease be adhered to?

If the terms of the lease, pre-1960s, had stipulated that this company could not serve black customers - but they did serve them anyway - would you still be castigating them in the same way for breaching their lease ?

Well said Holmes.
2nd line.
Heres a third just in case.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Annee
I am just going to refer you to 27id's post - - that nicely condenses all my points as well - - in one paragraph. I see no point in posting again - as this paragraph says it all and states it perfectly.

I agree with most of the post that you quoted.

If people want to refuse service to any group of people, then - purely from a business perspective - that is ridiculous.

This firm is probably shooting itself in the foot by refusing this order, as they are bound to be hit by a boycott amongst gay people and those that believe that judging people by their sexuality is wrong.


However, that doesn't alter my point that the refusal of this order appears to be based on the owner's religious beliefs. If someone disagrees with the right of the owner to refuse service to whoever he likes, then they are bigoted against his religious beliefs.

Yes - - the owner probably did "shoot himself in the foot". As I said in a previous post - - - the owner and what/why he did what he did - - is insignificant in the whole Scope of the Awareness it has created.

There are 3 points that need to be understood - - and I do understand them.

1. Refusal to sell product directly to customer because he is gay is illegal discrimination.

2. Refusal to fill an order that promotes something against your belief is not illegal.

3. It is the city who is investigating if any law or discrimination contract has been violated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The other issue is some here want to support the owner in his choice/decision - - - but object to those discriminated against making a fuss about it.

Originally posted by DrChuck

Something is only forced when there is opposition to comply. Isn't that inequality in itself when the opposition is forced into submission? You cannot force equality, it contradicts itself.

What about the views and beliefs of the opposition? Are they not as equally valuable to someone as is the views and beliefs of the counterpart?

I don't have a "right" to be treated equally by you or anyone, it impinges on your right to refrain. If I have the "right" to be treated equally by everyone, it violates the rights of those who do not want to deal with me.
Rights of an individual is limited to themselves it does not extend to the person they interact with.

I have no use for useless discussion.

You are trying to personalize - Equal Rights.

Originally posted by Annee

I have no use for useless discussion.

You are trying to personalize - Equal Rights.

Such a beautiful rebuttal.

I don't understand how I was trying to personalize, I was giving an example.

Having everyone treated equally is a different idea from Equal Rights. Equal Rights acknowledges the fact that no mans rights are weighed heavier than another.