Indianapolis Bakery Refuses To Bake Gay Cupcakes

Originally posted by DrChuck

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.

OK - apologize then. Just not how I read it.

But I don't see the difference.

Originally posted by Annee
1. Refusal to sell product directly to customer because he is gay is illegal discrimination.

Once again, I have seen or heard absolutely nothing regarding this story that suggests that the business owner refused to take this cupcake order because the customer was gay,

As far as I can see, he refused to make the cupcakes that were requested, because he was uncomfortable with the basis of the order ( ie. ''National coming out day'' ).

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

Absolutely !

And quite correct too.

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

That is understood.

However, laws and regulations change with the prevalent social attitudes of the time.

With the above being said, would you take the side of the city, pre-1960s, if they took action against a business that served black people ?

Originally posted by Annee
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.

My personal opinion is that the owner has a choice to serve, or not serve, anyone he wishes.

I agree that those that have been discriminated against by the owner of the said business have every right to protest and kick up a fuss about his decision !

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Annee
1. Refusal to sell product directly to customer because he is gay is illegal discrimination.

Once again, I have seen or heard absolutely nothing regarding this story that suggests that the business owner refused to take this cupcake order because the customer was gay,

As far as I can see, he refused to make the cupcakes that were requested, because he was uncomfortable with the basis of the order ( ie. ''National coming out day'' ).

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

Absolutely !

And quite correct too.

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

That is understood.

However, laws and regulations change with the prevalent social attitudes of the time.

With the above being said, would you take the side of the city, pre-1960s, if they took action against a business that served black people ?

Originally posted by Annee
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.

My personal opinion is that the owner has a choice to serve, or not serve, anyone he wishes.

I agree that those that have been discriminated against by the owner of the said business have every right to protest and kick up a fuss about his decision !

edit on 7-10-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)

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

Once again, I have seen or heard absolutely nothing regarding this story that suggests that the business owner refused to take this cupcake order because the customer was gay,

As far as I can see, he refused to make the cupcakes that were requested, because he was uncomfortable with the basis of the order ( ie. ''National coming out day'' ).

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

Absolutely !

And quite correct too.

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

That is understood.

However, laws and regulations change with the prevalent social attitudes of the time.

With the above being said, would you take the side of the city, pre-1960s, if they took action against a business that served black people ?

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.

My personal opinion is that the owner has a choice to serve, or not serve, anyone he wishes.

I agree that those that have been discriminated against by the owner of the said business have every right to protest and kick up a fuss about his decision !

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

Originally posted by Annee
As far as 1960 and me having prejudice against race - - my mom was raised with race prejudice - - and raised us not to have race prejudice - - - because she said I needed to live in my generation - not hers. She believed my generation would be free of race prejudice. I wish she had been right.

I did not say the owner refused to sell to a gay customer. I was stating the distinction between the law of discrimination - - - and the right of an owner to refuse an order supporting something against his belief.

I've been following this on OutQ news XM - - since day one. And Yes they are trying to be factual and explain all points of view - - including the legal aspects.

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by hotbakedtater

 

One last thing, your post to oldnslo, awesome, why not debate like that? Wow.

Do you use the word "awesome" much?????

Sorry, but if her post was a debate, I'll take 2 dozen of her best rainbow frosted cupcakes, freight collect. It was a statement to me, and in no way a debate. Geez..... where do you get this stuff.


My apologies Hotbakedtater & Annee. 20 pages on any subject is a good thread in anyones book even though size and content ARE relevent.

reply to post by Oldnslo


Get over yourself, please. Some people are here actually contributing to the argument while you troll around trying to kill threads. Show some respect or check out; nobody is grabbing your hand and forcing you to click links. Last time I checked, you're the one that just necro'd this thread, anyways. Guess you do care about "gays and cupcakes" (I say in quotations because I will not embarrass myself by pretending that 'gays' is a noun and not an adjective, I am not the American government or a right-winged lunatic)

I was just curious - - and looking to see if any legal action is being taken. I found this article to be very informative (even though it doesn't state if legal action is being taken).


"So the law is very clear, notwithstanding the confusion of several prominent Indianapolis lawyers on what it means. The question is whether the Ballard administration intends to enforce it against Just Cookies. After all, the owner is recorded on camera stating his discriminatory motive for turning down the order for rainbow-colored cupcakes."

advanceindiana.blogspot.com...

reply to post by Annee


Good link

In 2005, the City-County Council adopted a Human Rights Ordinance that added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of prohibited characteristics upon which discriminatory practices could be based.

Lily was smart enough to tell Fox59 News' Ray Cortopasi that the business refused the order because we sell "Just Cookies" as the name suggests. "Look around, we don't have cupcakes," said owner Lilly Stockton. David, however, couldn't keep his mouth shut and told the reporter he didn't approve of gays and had two young impressionable daughters; therefore, he refused to take an order to prepare cupcakes for a gay-related event. "I explained we're a family-run business, we have two young, impressionable daughters and we thought maybe it was best not to do that," said co-owner David Stockton.

This is why I'm confused about how this ever became a topic of debate. You can all stop pretending that this is some sort of witch hunt now; the man is being tried because he blatantly disobeyed the law and there is strong evidence to support that. It is not the gay community's responsibility to make sure everywhere they place orders is not ignorant to the law, it is the business owners' responsibility. If you don't know how to run a business that doesn't impeach on other peoples' freedoms, you shouldn't pretend you are capable of running a business.