Indianapolis Bakery Refuses To Bake Gay Cupcakes

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by Annee

 

They are parents first

A parent still has the right to parent.

And I'm a grandmother currently helping raise a 2 1/2 year old grandson (because his dad died of Leukemia) - - his 10 year old sister - - - raised 2 of my own - - helped raise another grandson who is now 16 - - and had a foster child.

So Please - - - don't give me the Parent's Rights sermon.

I never said anything against the parents and how they choose to raise their kids.

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

BUT - - you tell me - - if they had sold Rainbow Cookies - - - how would their two daughters known they were anything but Rainbow Cookies? They wouldn't have. So Rainbow colors are an abomination now?

reply to post by Annee

So Please - - - don't give me the Parent's Rights sermon.

I never said anything against the parents and how they choose to raise their kids.

As for the parent thing, I didn't mean it in a negative way to you, excuse me.

BUT - - you tell me - - if they had sold Rainbow Cookies - - - how would their two daughters known they were anything but Rainbow Cookies? They wouldn't have. So Rainbow colors are an abomination now?

Oh, so you're saying the parents should live by the "don't do as I do, do as I say"?
sl

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by Annee

BUT - - you tell me - - if they had sold Rainbow Cookies - - - how would their two daughters known they were anything but Rainbow Cookies? They wouldn't have. So Rainbow colors are an abomination now?

Oh, so you're saying the parents should live by the "don't do as I do, do as I say"?
sl

OK - - and I guess I bit back at you because someone always throws in the Parent sermon. Sorry.

Where did I say parents should do anything?

What is wrong with rainbow colors? You tell me any child is going to associate rainbow colors - - with being gay? Of course they're not.

How sad that anyone would teach their children that rainbow colors are bad. Are we revisiting the purple Teletubbies?

But - - they're sure learning something now - - aren't they. I wonder just exactly what these two young impressionable girls are going to learn from this. And I think there is much more to come.

. . . and to think - - - they could have had innocent fun helping put rainbow sprinkles on cookies.

reply to post by Annee


I don't think it was about "rainbow colors" for the parents, although rainbow colors are used to signify gay pride, imo. Maybe the parents will be on the Today Show soon,
Hopefully they teach their girls to accept all people just as they are. I can only speculate, lol.
My concern is the media and how they manipulate the public without telling the whole story.
sl

Here's something that no one has mentioned yet. I have worked at a grocery chain, and went through 4 different owner/management changes. Not one of them would allow the bakery to make anything of a sexual nature on a cake. For anyone at anytime. Not a boobie cake, not even a cake with bobbies. Not any genitalia, not any lewd comments, not anything even suggesting that. Most markets have that same policy, making the production of naughty cakes a novelty.
When you own a business, you control what and how you do things. If you don't like the product, leave. Find someone who will. Don't hassle society with the spectrum of discrimination because you didn't get your way. Lots of businesses would have refused something called a "gay" cupcake. Had they ordered cupcakes with rainbow icing, they probably would have gotten them. The only thing that made the cupcakes gay is that is obviously how they were ordered. In a store that sells cookies.
Someone was out to pick a fight, and it wasn't the bakery.

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by Annee

 

I don't think it was about "rainbow colors" for the parents, although rainbow colors are used to signify gay pride, imo. Maybe the parents will be on the Today Show soon,

Hopefully they teach their girls to accept all people just as they are. I can only speculate, lol.
My concern is the media and how they manipulate the public without telling the whole story.
sl

edit on 30-9-2010 by sweetliberty because: to clarify

To clarify the "Hopefully they teach their girls to accept all people just as they are"....
(Speculating again)
I can only assume the girls are at the business with them. The parents might be worried about the sissified gay men who wear gaudy clothes and makeup, lol, or the girls might see two women kissing.
I guess the parents didn't want the girls to see any inappropriate behavior between the same sexes and probably opposite sexes too.
sl

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by Annee

 

I don't think it was about "rainbow colors" for the parents, although rainbow colors are used to signify gay pride, imo. Maybe the parents will be on the Today Show soon,

Hopefully they teach their girls to accept all people just as they are. I can only speculate, lol.

My concern is the media and how they manipulate the public without telling the whole story.

Well - I certainly don't want the children to be hurt. But parents with "good" intentions often create a catalyst that backfires.

I did try to find and post the most fair article I could find. But yes - unfortunately "if it bleeds it reads" - - the media will go for what ever they can sensationalize.

Originally posted by Annee
Discrimination laws are kind of tricky. If a gay person orders a cookie and you refuse to sell them a cookie simply because they are gay - - that is clear discrimination. If you refuse an order that you know is to promote something against your own personal belief - - that is not discrimination. And everything else falls somewhere in-between.

Yeah, that's just about spot on.

Refusing to serve an individual person based on their race, gender, sexuality etc. is wrong; but a private business refusing to serve people because of the organisation, cause or campaign they are representing is clearly perfectly legitimate.

In this case, the students are supporting ''national coming out day'', so to refuse them service for this, is fine.

Being gay is not synonymous with supporting this campaign, so the decision not to do business with people representing this campaign can not be construed as homophobic.

Originally posted by stars15k
Here's something that no one has mentioned yet. I have worked at a grocery chain, and went through 4 different owner/management changes. Not one of them would allow the bakery to make anything of a sexual nature on a cake. For anyone at anytime. Not a boobie cake, not even a cake with bobbies. Not any genitalia, not any lewd comments, not anything even suggesting that. Most markets have that same policy, making the production of naughty cakes a novelty.

So being gay - doesn't mean you work - could even be a professional - like a lawyer or doctor - - you have a family - - you vote - - you pay your taxes - - you walk your dog - - you buy food cuz you have to eat just like straights do - - etc etc etc.

Being gay is NOT a "sex act".

Originally posted by sweetliberty

I can only assume the girls are at the business with them. The parents might be worried about the sissified gay men who wear gaudy clothes and makeup, lol, or the girls might see two women kissing.

I guess the parents didn't want the girls to see any inappropriate behavior between the same sexes and probably opposite sexes too.
sl

I don't want to pick on you - - but you are kind of stereotyping gays just a bit.

Naïveté - - really is not a healthy mindset for anyone in this world today. In my opinion - - hiding something creates a "curious cat".

Gay cupcake?
Isn't that kinda redundant?

..but yes, they have every right to refuse service to anyone.
I'm sure we've all seen those signs
"No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service!"

same difference.

The gay group ordered cupcakes from another bakery - - who were happy to take their money.

The local radio show promoted a Gay Cupcake day.

The city (or Market Group) is investigating Just Cookies.

No Gay was harmed in the decision of the owners refusal.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by sweetliberty

I can only assume the girls are at the business with them. The parents might be worried about the sissified gay men who wear gaudy clothes and makeup, lol, or the girls might see two women kissing.

I guess the parents didn't want the girls to see any inappropriate behavior between the same sexes and probably opposite sexes too.
sl

I don't want to pick on you - - but you are kind of stereotyping gays just a bit.

Naïveté - - really is not a healthy mindset for anyone in this world today. In my opinion - - hiding something creates a "curious cat".

Your not picking on me sweetie. Oh if you could have seen what I've seen, lol. I'm not stereo typing. Imo, the gay people are more honest and forthright then many straight Christians.
Straight, gay, bi, ect. we all range from mild to wild. I've seen some "wild"
In broad daylight, in the public.
The girls are more worldly then the parents might realize, your right about the curious cat. Children know things before the parents are ready for them to know. These girls will be ok, esp. now that they are in the spotlight. They will have questions, the issues will have to be addressed.

Thanks
sl

Originally posted by sweetliberty

The girls are more worldly then the parents might realize, your right about the curious cat. Children know things before the parents are ready for them to know. These girls will be ok, esp. now that they are in the spotlight. They will have questions, the issues will have to be addressed.

Thanks
sl

20+ years ago I worked at a company where I was the minority being straight and being female. The employees at this company were predominately gay (& lesbian) - - including couples.

Talk around the break room table - - - was an education.

I hope they get their questions answered - - and are brave enough to ask them.

PEACE - LOVE - LIGHT - ENERGY - and anything else ya want to throw in.

Annee

Guess it's time to kill this thread with the truth.

These people did not refuse business based on legitimate grounds. Refusing business is not an uncrontrolled right, so anyone who says that is simply ignorant and really needs to stop spewing out non-truths as if it makes any sense. It is not legal to refuse business to anyone regardless of the reason, so everyone can stop saying that it is because you clearly don't know what you're talking about; you NEED A LEGITIMATE REASON TO REFUSE BUSINESS, BY LAW. Consumers have just as many rights as owners of enterprises, you know about as much about the law as Christians know about the Bible (which is next to NOTHING). If a business owner refused to bake black pride cookies for Martin Luther King because they have "two impressionable daughters", would you have the same reaction? Try looking beyond the surface of a story if you want to have a debate about it.

This should not have been treated as an opportunity to express the business owner's corrupted veiws on sexual preference. It is just another order at their shop. The shop is there to make customized baked goods. The people ordering didn't stir a ruckus, they did not create havoc, and they did not disrupt the flow of the business; they did not deserve to be denied service. The only reason for their refusal is that they have "two impressionable daughters". Newsflash, your veiws on shielding your children will never affect a human rights movement, your children are their own people, they have their own brains, stop pretending you have a right to preotect them from reality -- they LIVE IN REALITY. Also, this has nothing to do with their company at all, and also has nothing to do with homosexual awareness. Homosexual awareness does not impede on your children's sexual preference. It makes them aware of it, which is why -- when you die -- the world will eventually be a better place. Because people will actually know about the things that they argue about, much unlike 80% of the people posting on this thread. Deny ignorance? Hardly.

Originally posted by Brood
Guess it's time to kill this thread with the truth.

My question to you is:

Who's Truth and where did you get it?

reply to post by Brood


Sorry, we don't make cupcakes, just cookies.

They could use that excuse since their business is cookies and not cupcakes. The question is, are they going to be set up by someone in the future?
What if they get a call for gay cookies, (lmao about "gay cupcakes and gay cookies").
The business owners will refuse to cater to the gay again as I see it.
When I first read the article, the first thought came into my head they were set up for this. I was thinking maybe the business owners have been heard to say they prefer not to do business with gay people.
I don't think that's the case now but I do see trouble ahead for the business owners. Whatever their fears are for not serving gay's, they should address it. If it is a religious thing, they should already now we are to obey the law of the land. If they are not serving people bc they are gay, that is against the law, then the law will step in.
My personal opinion ... they should be left alone. If I knew a business refused to serve blonds, I would leave them alone.
People need to move on, if no one is being harmed physically, let the prejudice do their thing quietly.
Eventually the negative emotions will catch up with them. They should be wished the best by gays and everyone else. Live and let live if they aren't hurting anyone.
sl