Gay cupcakes mandatory!

[Nucklesack]

How can a city government dictate (ha a pun) you MUST manufacture and sell something you don't want to?

FOXNews.com - Indianapolis Bakery Declines Order for Rainbow Cupcakes, Sparking City Inquiry

Now before the anti-gay crowd flocks in and says "Good for them, no cupcake for the Homo's because gays are icky and don't deserve cupcakes!" Let me say STHU, heard it all before so save it. Gays and lesbians have a right to enjoy a cupcake. Suppose some Muslim bakery wouldn't sell Baja a poppy seed muffin because of his avitar?

and before the pro-gay people come in and say "What an outrage, gays like cupcakes too, maybe even more than straights! You cannot discriminate!" What if you owned a printing business and the local neo-nazi group wanted to you to print posters of their manifesto and swastika's to put up for a march in town they are planning. Are you allowed to say "Pack sand Hanz, I wont be printing your hate on my press!"

and to those who are going to say "I can't believe you are comparing rainbow gay cupcakes to a neo-nazi poster.......STHU, it is not the point. the point is as a business owner, do the old signs we used to see next to the "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sings that said "We reserve the right to serve anyone!" still apply?

I decided to search for this story from other sources, not entirely sure if Fox goes over this or not:

Link

"That could be grounds for taking away their stand in the market," said Wayne Schmidt, president of the City Market Board, who said Just Cookies is on a month-to-month lease. "I'd hate to lose them, but we can't tolerate any kind of discrimination like that."

So a Private Business, Just Cookies, rightfully excerised their rights to refuse service. No problem all kosher

Another Private Business, City Market, has also rightfully excerised their rights, in booting City Market.

Either the Private Entity has the right to refusal or it doesnt, the right works for both of the Private Entities, not just the ones you (proverbial) agree with.

A spokesman for Mayor Greg Ballard said the city's Office of Equal Opportunity is looking into the matter because it involves a tenant of a city-owned property.

The Mayors Office maybe looking into it, but its not the Government that is enforcing the Gay Cupcakes, its the other Private Entity.

 

[hvp05]

Like not allowing fat people to buy bacon.

Hey... why'd you call me fat?

What gave it away? The rainbow flag on the bike or the phone numbers scrawled in the Olive Garden bathroom walls?

So you're saying the "G" doesn't really stand for "Gold"?

 

[Nucklesack]

I decided to search for this story from other sources, not entirely sure if Fox goes over this or not:

Link


So a Private Business, Just Cookies, rightfully excerised their rights to refuse service. No problem all kosher

Another Private Business, City Market, has also rightfully excerised their rights, in booting City Market.

Either the Private Entity has the right to refusal or it doesnt, the right works for both of the Private Entities, not just the ones you (proverbial) agree with.

The Mayors Office maybe looking into it, but its not the Government that is enforcing the Gay Cupcakes, its the other Private Entity.

More from the same link (second page)

Vane, however, said sexual orientation is one of the categories in which discrimination is specifically forbidden by city ordinance. Further, he said, the publicly owned City Market is not a place where officials would allow discriminatory practices.

It doesnt matter if your obsession with Gays is as deep as BCP's, in the city of Indianapolis discrimination against Gays is on par to Discrimination to Blacks.

Do Private Business have the right to Refuse service to someone just because they are Black? (not a rhetorical question)

 

[Bean Machine]

I knew it.

AAARRGHHH...now I have to come out of my closet....Dang it!

 

[Tilted]

Well given that the name is JUST Cookies, I wouldn't assume they do cupcakes, therefore I'd check with the kitchen folks first.

As I indicated, their information indicates they do more than cookies and, at any rate, the IUPUI people seem to have wanted either cookies or cupcakes. Different articles say different things - they may have requested cupcakes first, and then were willing to settle for cookies, or they may have asked for cookies initially. It may also be the case that the locals know (better than us) that they do more than just cookies - that the name is just a name. As it turned out, they ended up getting cupcakes from a place called The Flying Cupcake.

The point being, the fact that they went to (or called, reports differ on that as well) a bakery (or cookie shop) looking for baked goods, even though there was a restaurant/catering shop nearby, doesn't further the argument that they had ulterior motives. Perhaps they did, but their not going to Dottie's Kitchen first isn't indicative of that. For that matter, for all we know, they could have gone there first and been told that Dottie's didn't do cookie or cupcake orders. They may have tried other bakeries as well, or it may just happen that this is the first one they tried. I've seen nothing thus far that indicates they did have ulterior motives - not every gay person or organization supporting the gayness is always and everywhere trying to catch people mistreating them. Some of them might actually try to place a bakery order because they happen to want baked goods for something.

If it were the case that Just Cookies only did cookies and they wanted cupcakes, and thus it didn't make sense for them to go there - meaning, their doing so evinces ulterior motives and an attempt to create a 'gotcha' situation - then wouldn't it have made more sense for them to just ask for cookies to begin with? No matter how you look at it, they're going to Just Cookies instead of Dottie's isn't probative on the question.

 

[GWguy]

could be the foot pegs on the front wheel and the glory hole in the windshield.

omg......

 

[JoeRider]

It may also be the case that the locals know (better than us) that they do more than just cookies - that the name is just a name. As it turned out, they ended up getting cupcakes from a place called The Flying Cupcake.

If it were the case that Just Cookies only did cookies and they wanted cupcakes, and thus it didn't make sense for them to go there - meaning, their doing so evinces ulterior motives and an attempt to create a 'gotcha' situation - then wouldn't it have made more sense for them to just ask for cookies to begin with? No matter how you look at it, they're going to Just Cookies instead of Dottie's isn't probative on the question.

The Flying Cupcake, owned by Billy and Gene has been in business for 6 years. Their adoptive son Ralph says "I love working with my daddies" The Flying Cupcake in known for their cream filled cupcakes (look it up, it is true).

Gene said "They are blowing this thing way out of proportion, everyone knows that Just Cookies can only make Chocolate Chip cookies, period" As for Jim at Dottie's, "He is just a little snob"

 

[Tilted]

The Flying Cupcake, owned by Billy and Gene has been in business for 6 years. Their adoptive son Ralph says "I love working with my daddies" The Flying Cupcake in known for their cream filled cupcakes (look it up, it is true).

Gene said "They are blowing this thing way out of proportion, everyone knows that Just Cookies can only make Chocolate Chip cookies, period" As for Jim at Dottie's, "He is just a little snob"

Well, I agree with Gene, they're (or we're) blowing this thing way out of proportion. It used to be stuff like this was local news, if news at all. But, we live in the age of the perpetual news cycle where news isn't just something you report when it happens, it's something for which a certain amount of demand exists, and thus a certain amount of supply must be provided.

To the bigger picture - this is just another example of why governments shouldn't be in any business except the government business (and that to the minimum extent reasonably plausible). Historical considerations notwithstanding, it shouldn't own marketplaces and be in positions to have to decide such policies (i.e. whether to allow its tenants to not serve cupcakes and hurt someone's feelings).

 

[JoeRider]

More from the same link (second page)


It doesnt matter if your obsession with Gays is as deep as BCP's, in the city of Indianapolis discrimination against Gays is on par to Discrimination to Blacks.

No it is not. They refused to do a special order. get over it.

Again, the stupidity of pushing the gay agenda.



Indy bakery could lose lease for turning away gays | courier-journal.com | The Courier-Journal

David Stockton, who owns Just Cookies with his wife Lily, said Wednesday that he told a caller to the bakery that he did not feel comfortable preparing a special order for a group that endorsed homosexual activity. He told the caller he wanted to set what he believes is the right example for his two daughters.

The caller was Heather Browning, IUPUI's coordinator of social justice education in the Office of Student Involvement.

"A gentleman explained to me that they would not be able to support it due to their moral values," Browning said.

Lily Stockton said Wednesday that any moral issues aside, "we no longer do special orders like that. We are too busy."

 

[Nucklesack]

No it is not. They refused to do a special order. get over it.

and your ignorance is astounding. In the City of Indianapolis (according to the article i cited) Just Cookies broke the law.

Doesnt matter if you think its on justified or not, its the law in Indianapolis.

That is unless your now against the will of the People having merit.

Again, the stupidity of pushing the gay agenda.



Indy bakery could lose lease for turning away gays | courier-journal.com | The Courier-Journal

David Stockton, who owns Just Cookies with his wife Lily, said Wednesday that he told a caller to the bakery that he did not feel comfortable preparing a special order for a group that endorsed homosexual activity. He told the caller he wanted to set what he believes is the right example for his two daughters.

The caller was Heather Browning, IUPUI's coordinator of social justice education in the Office of Student Involvement.

"A gentleman explained to me that they would not be able to support it due to their moral values," Browning said.

Lily Stockton said Wednesday that any moral issues aside, "we no longer do special orders like that. We are too busy."

Thanks for posting the section that shows Just Cookies willfully broke the law of the City of Indianapolis.

 

[Tilted]

and your ignorance is astounding. In the City of Indianapolis (according to the article i cited) Just Cookies broke the law.

Doesnt matter if you think its on justified or not, its the law in Indianapolis.

That is unless your now against the will of the People having merit.


Thanks for posting the section that shows Just Cookies willfully broke the law of the City of Indianapolis.

Does Indianapolis have an ordinance against discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation (or something of the sort that would be relevant here)? I don't know, that's why I'm asking, but such laws aren't all that common yet.

 

[Bean Machine]

As I indicated, their information indicates they do more than cookies and, at any rate, the IUPUI people seem to have wanted either cookies or cupcakes. Different articles say different things - they may have requested cupcakes first, and then were willing to settle for cookies, or they may have asked for cookies initially. It may also be the case that the locals know (better than us) that they do more than just cookies - that the name is just a name. As it turned out, they ended up getting cupcakes from a place called The Flying Cupcake.

The point being, the fact that they went to (or called, reports differ on that as well) a bakery (or cookie shop) looking for baked goods, even though there was a restaurant/catering shop nearby, doesn't further the argument that they had ulterior motives. Perhaps they did, but their not going to Dottie's Kitchen first isn't indicative of that. For that matter, for all we know, they could have gone there first and been told that Dottie's didn't do cookie or cupcake orders. They may have tried other bakeries as well, or it may just happen that this is the first one they tried. I've seen nothing thus far that indicates they did have ulterior motives - not every gay person or organization supporting the gayness is always and everywhere trying to catch people mistreating them. Some of them might actually try to place a bakery order because they happen to want baked goods for something.

If it were the case that Just Cookies only did cookies and they wanted cupcakes, and thus it didn't make sense for them to go there - meaning, their doing so evinces ulterior motives and an attempt to create a 'gotcha' situation - then wouldn't it have made more sense for them to just ask for cookies to begin with? No matter how you look at it, they're going to Just Cookies instead of Dottie's isn't probative on the question.

OK, I'll give you all the above. A search of Google maps shows approx 8 bakeries closer to the campus than Just Cookies. Why not go to a business that has "Bakery" in their name, rather than a cookie business? It is my OPINION that this group MAY have tried to set Just Cookies up. As you said, there is just not enough information reported by the media to make a definitive statement either way. All I'm saying is it appears to me, given the info I have found, that the IUPUI group may have gone out of their way to create free publicity of their event by generating this controversy.

By the way is there an truth to the rumor that the IUPUI group couldn't care less about the cupcakes, and is really only interested in getting it on with the little guys dressed in green that are usually associated with the rainbow?

 

[Tilted]

OK, I'll give you all the above. A search of Google maps shows approx 8 bakeries closer to the campus than Just Cookies. Why not go to a business that has "Bakery" in their name, rather than a cookie business? It is my OPINION that this group MAY have tried to set Just Cookies up. As you said, there is just not enough information reported by the media to make a definitive statement either way. All I'm saying is it appears to me, given the info I have found, that the IUPUI group may have gone out of their way to create free publicity of their event by generating this controversy.

I think that's absolutely possible.

By the way is there an truth to the rumor that the IUPUI group couldn't care less about the cupcakes, and is really only interested in getting it on with the little guys dressed in green that are usually associated with the rainbow?

As of press time, we've received no response from them to our inquiry about this rumor.

 

[Nucklesack]

Does Indianapolis have an ordinance against discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation (or something of the sort that would be relevant here)? I don't know, that's why I'm asking, but such laws aren't all that common yet.

According to the article i posted earlier, sexual orientation is one of the categories in which discrimination is specifically forbidden by city ordinance

 

[JoeRider]

and your ignorance is astounding. In the City of Indianapolis (according to the article i cited) Just Cookies broke the law.

Doesnt matter if you think its on justified or not, its the law in Indianapolis.

That is unless your now against the will of the People having merit.


Thanks for posting the section that shows Just Cookies willfully broke the law of the City of Indianapolis.

You are so off base here that it has reach a level of stupidity. Here it is:

he did not feel comfortable preparing a special order for a group that endorsed homosexual activity. He told the caller he wanted to set what he believes is the right example for his two daughters.

First:

He is protected by the Constitution in the area of "homosexual" or "any sexual" activity endorsement that might be exposed to his daughters. Also, there is a big difference between sexual orientation and sexual activity. Believe it or not, the Constitution has been known to protect minors from exposure to "sexual activity." These are key points under the first amendment:

1. Freedom of expression --owner said it could be perceived as an "endorsement"
2. "Sexual Activity" is consider offensive (hard to argue that) no matter if it is homosexual or not.
3. Minors are involved - is daughters above.

Second:

No law requires him to give gays special treatment for special orders. Many businesses do special orders for special customers and chose not to do special orders for others. Also, it was an organization that was requesting the cup cakes, not an individual.

Third,

The law has not been broken. A lease agreement may have been broken because of sexual orientation clause, but that is about it and still still has to be proven.


As for your comment:

and your ignorance is astounding

I think you are so mentally bent that something awful is happening here that you need a cup cake with an * on it. Get a life or go see a therapist to get over your guilt and shame.

 

[Tilted]

According to the article i posted earlier, sexual orientation is one of the categories in which discrimination is specifically forbidden by city ordinance

Ahh, I see that now. I'll have to try to find the city's ordinances to see whether or not that's true. None of the other articles I read made reference to a city ordinance of general applicability (i.e. a basis for sanction other than the specific or general policies of the City Market).

 

[thatguy]

You are so off base here that it has reach a level of stupidity. Here it is:

he did not feel comfortable preparing a special order for a group that endorsed homosexual activity. He told the caller he wanted to set what he believes is the right example for his two daughters.

First:

He is protected by the Constitution in the area of "homosexual" or "any sexual" activity endorsement that might be exposed to his daughters. Also, there is a big difference between sexual orientation and sexual activity. Believe it or not, the Constitution has been known to protect minors from exposure to "sexual activity." These are key points under the first amendment:

1. Freedom of expression --owner said it could be perceived as an "endorsement"
2. "Sexual Activity" is consider offensive (hard to argue that) no matter if it is homosexual or not.
3. Minors are involved - is daughters above.

Second:

No law requires him to give gays special treatment for special orders. Many businesses do special orders for special customers and chose not to do special orders for others. Also, it was an organization that was requesting the cup cakes, not an individual.

Third,

The law has not been broken. A lease agreement may have been broken because of sexual orientation clause, but that is about it and still still has to be proven.


As for your comment:

and your ignorance is astounding

I think you are so mentally bent that something awful is happening here that you need a cup cake with an * on it. Get a life or go see a therapist to get over your guilt and shame.

i dont really care about this issue one way or the other, but i cant for the life of me understadn how making cupcakes for a customer exposes his daughters to any type of sexual activity.


a rainbow is not inherently homosexual.

 

[Nucklesack]

Ahh, I see that now. I'll have to try to find the city's ordinances to see whether or not that's true. None of the other articles I read made reference to a city ordinance of general applicability (i.e. a basis for sanction other than the specific or general policies of the City Market).

Lets throw the ordinance out just for a second. Based on the artilcle i posted, the city is only looking into it as a cursory manner.

They support The Just Cookie store, for excercising its right (remember we are ignoring the city ordinance for now) to refuse service to the Homos. They are up in arms because the City Market, also a private entity, excerised its right to not allow discrimination.

Seems they only support the private entities rights, when its somethign they agree with. Thats nothing less than hypocrisy.

 

[Tilted]

Lets throw the ordinance out just for a second. Based on the artilcle i posted, the city is only looking into it as a cursory manner.

They support The Just Cookie store, for excercising its right (remember we are ignoring the city ordinance for now) to refuse service to the Homos. They are up in arms because the City Market, also a private entity, excerised its right to not allow discrimination.

Seems they only support the private entities rights, when its somethign they agree with. Thats nothing less than hypocrisy.

I don't know that I'd describe the City Market as a private entity. The building and property is owned by the city and the operation is managed by a board of directors appointed by the mayor and council.

I'm trying to sort through the Indianapolis ordinances right now. It looks like there's a general prohibition against discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation, but the way they worded the ordinance seems a bit strange to me. It's not clear to me that the relevant part is operative. I suppose it is though.

 

[Nucklesack]

I don't know that I'd describe the City Market as a private entity. The building and property is owned by the city and the operation is managed by a board of directors appointed by the mayor and council.

I'm trying to sort through the Indianapolis ordinances right now. It looks like there's a general prohibition against discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation, but the way they worded the ordinance seems a bit strange to me. It's not clear to me that the relevant part is operative. I suppose it is though.

Oh i know, but it was brought up (by BeanMachine) how private City Market has become, as an example that they (city market) is not a government entity.

Since it was City Market that through out the Cookie store, now City Market has turned back into a Government Institution.

Just another example of many on here (not pointing at you) talking out both sides their mouth.