Indianapolis Bakery Refuses To Bake Gay Cupcakes

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
The Owners have their right to serve who they wish. Not everyone supports the gay issue. Simply go to another bakery and order the cup caked instead of making a fuss about it. I meen theres no hetero sexual colors or parades. Such a big fuss that a baker did not want to use some rainbow colours. lol. I think SOME gays should grow up. Ive been refused in places for no reason im not gay. Go some place else.

Do you also not support the ethnic issue? I think some people with a slanted belief about what homosexuality actually is need to mature a bit before giving advice to other people about growing up.

No i also dont support the issue. Why should i support the issue? Does that meen that im hateful towards gays?....no!
At the end of the day the shop owner has his RIGHT to deny anyone he wishes. So why is this a bad thing?
Is this a conspiracy?
?¿?¿?¿¿¿¿¿¿

'A game of Chess is like a sword fight, you must think first before you move'

I think in the end, the homosexual crowd must realize you can't legislate acceptance.

You can legislate marriage and equal rights (jobs, housing and all that), but in the end, you can't legislate to make people approve of your life style.

Better to accept it now, rather than being shocked every time someone gives you the stink eye for walking hand in hand with your boyfriend down the street.

Originally posted by Dr Cosma
No i also dont support the issue. Why should i support the issue? Does that meen that im hateful towards gays?....no!
At the end of the day the shop owner has his RIGHT to deny anyone he wishes. So why is this a bad thing?
Is this a conspiracy?
?¿?¿?¿¿¿¿¿¿

'A game of Chess is like a sword fight, you must think first before you move'

I do agree to a business being allowed to do business with whomever they please, but when that's extended to the point of discriminating against somebody based upon a biological or psychological factor, that is when I think it has gone too far. And that's what this issue with the Indianapolis bakery seems to be, no matter how subtle or comical the discrimination is with these homosexual cupcakes.

I seriously doubt this bakery would extend the same declination to a group of minorities like Asians if the local Chinese district wanted to hold a festival, because they wouldn't want their children tainted by... whatever it is Asians do to taint people.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

I do agree to a business being allowed to do business with whomever they please, but when that's extended to the point of discriminating against somebody based upon a biological or psychological factor, that is when I think it has gone too far.

So are you saying that the Bakery owner's should not have the right to refuse to serve gay cupcakes? (They would not have refused to serve gays, they merely refused to produce and sell gay cupcakes)

At which point should the owners be thrown in gulag? After they refuse to obey court order telling them to serve homosexual cupcakes?

What about the second offense? Time for exile to the north and children to the re-education camps?

Originally posted by Darkrunner
I think in the end, the homosexual crowd must realize you can't legislate acceptance.

You can legislate marriage and equal rights (jobs, housing and all that), but in the end, you can't legislate to make people approve of your life style.

Better to accept it now, rather than being shocked every time someone gives you the stink eye for walking hand in hand with your boyfriend down the street.

Sexual attraction and desire is not a lifestyle. A couple who is married, runs a bakery, and has daughters, daughters that the parents do not want to be tainted by homosexuals due to their beliefs... that is a lifestyle.

So it's better for the people who are against... the gay issue (for lack of a better way to describe it) to accept it now, rather than being shocked every time a lesbian couple walks down the street giving you a condescending little smile in response to the stink eye.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

I do agree to a business being allowed to do business with whomever they please, but when that's extended to the point of discriminating against somebody based upon a biological or psychological factor, that is when I think it has gone too far.

So are you saying that the Bakery owner's should not have the right to refuse to serve gay cupcakes? (They would not have refused to serve gays, they merely refused to produce and sell gay cupcakes)

At which point should the owners be thrown in gulag? After they refuse to obey court order telling them to serve homosexual cupcakes?

What about the second offense? Time for exile to the north and children to the re-education camps?

You can take this way out of proportion however many times you want, but that doesn't change the fact that discrimination is still discrimination. What's the difference between a homosexual cupcake and a cupcake with a rainbow design frosted on the top? Answer: telling the employee of the bakery what the cupcakes are being used for, which allows the employee to then say "oh sorry, we don't serve your kind here."

reply to post by hotbakedtater


I agree with the owners...

You must never let children see Gays eating cupcakes, sprinkles and frosting everywhere!

On the one hand I think the owner has the right to refuse any business they choose but on the other hand, boy are they being narrow.

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

You can take this way out of proportion however many times you want, but that doesn't change the fact that discrimination is still discrimination.

Haha. Does that make you mad? You mad?

Welcome to America, people have a right to discriminate against gay cupcakes. The owners didn't refuse to serve the gays, they merely refused to produce and sell gay cupcakes to anyone.

They even reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Complete and total non-story. People who are getting upset over some cupcakes really REALLY need to wake up and look around at the 100 million more serious issues directly affecting their life.

reply to post by jtma508


I think a few of you guys are missing the point...

It's not that the cupcake would be gay (as you have correctly pointed out, cannot happen) but that the cupcakes would be served at an event promoting a behavior that they believe is wrong. I guess we cant have opinions nowadays. I can be mad that some of you would call these people, and likely myself, a bigot but you have the right to and I'm not going to go cry to the state about it because my feelings were hurt (which in fact they wouldnt be, as it just shows me how prejudiced your own thinking is as well if that's how you really feel).

I'm a bit confused with who has actual ownership of the shop though. It seems like because it is in the city market that the city actually owns it and determines what it can and cannot do, but then it clearly says that those who refused to make the cupcakes were the shops owners.

If it does in fact belong to these people, the government has no right to cause any issue at all for this family. People who disagree can boycott. Start your own bakery and refuse to make wedding cakes for hetero couples or something...

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist


Except it usually wouldnt be a "oh, we dont serve your kind here" but rather a "Oh, we cant do something to promote your lifestyle because we disagree with it." BIG difference. Maybe not to you, as you would lump both into discrimination, but there is a major difference in those two approaches.

If they even made cupcakes, which the article says they don't, they probably wouldnt have made any kind of cupcake or desert for that event as it promotes something they disagree with. I would be terribly surprised if they wouldnt serve them food for any other purpose though.

If somebody is strongly against animal cruelty, would it be right if somebody came into their shop and asked them to make them cakes with a picture of a hunter standing over the lion, tiger or bear he just shot for an event promoting the hunting of wild game for sport? I wouldnt expect that person to make the cake. If they did I would say they had no backbone and that the business/money was more important to them than standing up for their beliefs.

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist


Or maybe it's better for us to acknowledge that it (the gay issue as you put it) exists and continue preaching against something we believe to be wrong.

Then again, maybe it would just be best to sit back and accept everything and never stand up against anything we believed to be wrong just because it would be easier that way. Forget fighting against any moral issues at all since we would have to encounter them sometime and feel awkward addressing it. Then again, some of us have no problem saying what we believe is wrong or right.

Oh great more pro gay rights propaganda. If you speak out against gay lifestyle then you're a homophone. Sorry to be so upset. But I can't stand how these people work.

reply to post by hotbakedtater


I am social liberal who support equal rights for everyone, including gay marriage, but give this business a break. It is a private entity that simply refused a bakery order. It did not prevent anyone from buying or eating in their establishment, they are not proposing legislation to prevent anyone's rights -- it simply refused to make something.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist

You can take this way out of proportion however many times you want, but that doesn't change the fact that discrimination is still discrimination.

Haha. Does that make you mad? You mad?

Welcome to America, people have a right to discriminate against gay cupcakes. The owners didn't refuse to serve the gays, they merely refused to produce and sell gay cupcakes to anyone.

They even reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

"Reap What You Sow"?

The owners did their thing. Now those who think they were wrong and discriminating - - - are doing their thing.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
Complete and total non-story. People who are getting upset over some cupcakes really REALLY need to wake up and look around at the 100 million more serious issues directly affecting their life.

Discrimination is a serious issue.

And it is a world wide serious issue. Probably one of the biggest issues in history.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
It is not a public-owned bakery.

That is why the owner's have the right to serve whomever they wish and to refuse to make gay cupcakes or cupcakes promoting any form of immorality.

(Of course, that is not to say that they cannot be forced by statists to bend to the will of the homosexuals and the state. It simply means that their rights have been violated using unconstitutional legislation. Government does not grant rights; you have those because you are human.)

Exactly. It is their RIGHT to refuse to serve whomever they wish. Something as small like this may get some people all riled up - Oh, we should put a law in place to stop things like this! - and before you know it, you just lost another right and you're forced to serve the three nudists that walked into your store in front of your eight year old daughters. You can't refuse them service!

Slippery slope, people. If you don't want to support this bakery, let them hear you with your wallet, NOT with regulations. This is their right, and I support it regardless of their decision.

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
A gay cupcake?

How can a cupcake be gay? A cupcake is a cupcake.

Everybody eats them, gays and hetros alike. Really strange.

vvv

You'd be surprised. Straight cupcakes tend to go right to my stomach. Gay cupcakes tend to go right to my rear.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369

Slippery slope, people. If you don't want to support this bakery, let them hear you with your wallet, NOT with regulations. This is their right, and I support it regardless of their decision.

Is there anyone in this thread not supporting their legal right to refuse an order based on their belief?

They're still gonna have to live with the consequences of their discriminatory actions.

No one forced them to fulfill an order against their belief. AND - no one forced them to be discriminatory against a minority group - - - resulting in a backlash.