Indianapolis Bakery Refuses To Bake Gay Cupcakes, page 3


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times


reply posted on 30-9-2010 @ 03:49 PM by sweetliberty
reply to post by Annee


They are parents first A parent still has the right to parent.


www.examiner.com...
Seriously speaking, this author makes light of a incident which exists in the absurd. This is a tallied battle waged not for civil rights but for the sake of a war, and made by a group who never learned the lesson "Pick your Battles". Orders are refused all over the city every day. The individuals who are refused generally realize that the - somewhat - free economy provides them with other establishments which are hungry for their business. Just Cookies may have the capacity to make some cupcakes, but the difference between a specialty and add-on product exists in the inventory (Example: a pie company may make cakes, but only a few, not having the materials or the expertise needed to fill large cake orders, such as wedding cakes). In the end, it seems that the real problems in this case are the study habits of the "diversity group", and the possibility that they may need to take additional classes at IUPUI; namely a refresher course in Reading Comprehension, beginning with an exercise called, "Just Cookies", with the follow-up question, "What does that mean to you?"


________________________________________________________________________________________
The rest is not direct to Annee

I'm adding this because I agree with the blogger.
www.merchantcircle.com...
will tell other to visit

Never been to this store but will when passing through Indianapolis.....In the social climate we are now living in NO ONE should be bullied to make things that may compromise our values...Honor for both sides should be given. I am happy that this group was able to be accommodated....why could they not bless Just Cookies and go somewhere else rather than make a stink....I will tell all my friends to visit this proprietor!
September 30, 2010 by carol m in Naperville, IL


They should sue the media for persuading, distorting, causing such a firestorm with the trickery of their words.
People, you are not victims! Cookies aren't cupcakes, lmao.
This has gone too far (the war), now parents aren't allowed to parent with personal morals. Try infringing that nonsense on a devout Muslim.
Honor for both sides
quoting the blogger again.

sl

edit on 30-9-2010 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 30-9-2010 @ 04:10 PM by Annee
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 posted on 30-9-2010 @ 04:19 PM by sweetliberty
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


reply posted on 30-9-2010 @ 04:28 PM by Annee
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 posted on 30-9-2010 @ 04:36 PM 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



reply posted on 30-9-2010 @ 04:47 PM by sweetliberty
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


reply posted on 30-9-2010 @ 04:49 PM by Annee
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.


reply posted on 30-9-2010 @ 05:51 PM by Brood
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.

edit on 30-9-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)


reply posted on 30-9-2010 @ 06:12 PM by sweetliberty
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
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^