Indianapolis Bakery Refuses To Bake Gay Cupcakes

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by sweetliberty

 

My thread takes away the owners rights?

I'm not taking away owners rights either. Does not change the fact they are Bigots.

Nor the realization - - - those that were discriminated against - - - have the Right to React.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
It is not bigoted to expect a bakery owner to not discriminate based upon the terms of his lease and the ordinances of the city in which one does business.

Er, yes it is.

It is clearly bigoted against their religious beliefs.


The funny thing is, that by quoting the terms of the lease, then you are justifying the ''no blacks'' policy of so many businesses in the South of the US pre-1960s.

People justified their racist stance in this era by hiding behind the legality of their actions at the time.

reply to post by hotbakedtater

My thread takes away the owners rights?

Your thread is another player in the big picture. Your thread labels and calls for people to boycott the business.... the RIGHTS of American's including these business owners are being violated on this very thread and by others on the internet on other sites.

We American Citizens have the right to a fair trial. We should not be dammed and our means of survival should not be taken away by idiots who call for boycotting a business who is still being questioned. This issue is PENDING. This thread is a small but significant part of dismantling our rights to innocent until proven guilty.

What if the customer was requesting a decoration that the owner feels is obscene? What if that is why he has issues with catering to the customer?
What I'm saying is ....We don't know the whole story.

Or is it all my fault and the fault of my thread these particular Christians expected special treatment and rights over and above the lease they willingly signed?

You call them Christians when you talk about special treatment huh?
Where are they asking for "special treatment"?
This family owned business is being questioned. We will know more facts soon.

Which came first, the bakery owners bigoted actions or my thread?

I truly feel sorry for you!
Does it cause you physical pain to report the facts, then to speak of this issue without manipulating the contempt of others?
Can you report without suspicion, gossip, a spin just as the MSM?

I'm NOT saying these business owners AREN'T bigots, I CAN'T. I don't have the whole story.
You are the one speaking of "special treatment" NOT me or the business owners!
Hotbakedtater, you are totally innocent and a good girl! Keep up the great work!
This thread does not care about the long term repercussions of how the internet/MSM injure American Citizens Rights. You and the rest are unknowingly assisting in the excuses the government WILL use to censor the internet.
This isn't just a cute short story, this is the lives of small business owners and how they are being destroyed by people finding them guilty before they are found guilty!
Go ahead and feed the contempt, I can't say anymore, if you can't see what is happening (the level of abuse on the internet), the real lives this affects, you are a lost cause. Either that or you choose to give the government yet another reason to censor the internet.

Go play.
sl

Why would a place that makes just cookies even be asked for cupcakes?

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
The father proclaimed his beliefs, it is quoted upthread.

The father didn't divulge his religious or non-religious beliefs; he only said that he wasn't comfortable with the order, because he was concerned about how it may affect his daughters.

What's wrong with that ?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
The father proclaimed his beliefs, it is quoted upthread.

The father didn't divulge his religious or non-religious beliefs; he only said that he wasn't comfortable with the order, because he was concerned about how it may affect his daughters.

What's wrong with that ?

He is devout Catholic. Someone revealed it for him - after the fact. Very helpful person joining the fray - wouldn't you say.

Sometimes the Obvious is really the Obvious and does not need to be spelled out letter for letter.

Here's an article that gives a bit more detail.

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

A local ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation has prompted the city of Indianapolis to launch an investigation . . . . . .

Heather Browning, a coordinator for social justice education in the Office of Student Involvement at IUPUI, said when she called to place the order, and explained the nature of the celebration, “the gentleman told me that it was against their morals and values to do so, and then hung up on me.”

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, and that he wanted to set what he believes is the right example for his two “impressionable young daughters.”

But Lily Stockton, in an interview on HLN, back peddled, saying the bakery didn’t have “enough colors” as the reason for refusing the order.

www.lgbtqnation.com...

reply to post by sweetliberty


The debate is not about Hotbaked tater's innocence or goodness, is it?

I disagree with the one who is failing to debate with facts in this case. That is not me.

I am debating an obviously interesting (14 pages of interest) topic.

Which you called foolish how many pages ago?

Is assuming he is christian a long leap here? By his own words the owner said he did not want to fill it due to his contempt for gays, and the fact that providing a service to a paying customer would harm or influence his young children poorly.

The only people I know of who discriminate against gays, and get frothing upset at defending their right to refuse to do business with them, are overwhemingly Christian.

In this case that is exactly the issue, so what else should we be discussing on this topic?

The points for me are more why is a couple who feel gays are a bad influence on their daughters, be signing legal contracts with City Market to begin with, then expect empathy or sympathy for expecting special rights from City Market AFTER accepting those rights as the privilege of doing business.

The right to refuse the gays was waived upon signature of lease.

There is nothing to defend from their pov.

They need to quit backpedaling and make a stand for their strong convictions, use this pubilicity to bring a spotlight to the evil and bad influence GAYS have on young girls in our country. Make it positive, make it proactive, make it educational.

Situations like these fall two ways :
1. The right to deny service
2. The right to be served

But which takes precedence over the other? Nobody should be forced to sell service to anyone under any circumstances, but on the other hand its wrong to be denied service for being different. Who's rights are being violated here?

Should vendors be forced to sell service to everyone? I would have to say no. If someone didn't like my color or creed and refused service, I respect his right to do so, and will seek business elsewhere. Of course I wouldn't like the jackass, but I wouldn't deny his rights and force him to go against his own opinions and beliefs.

None of my personal rights would have been violated by his denial of service, other than my right to be served - which really isn't a right since it infringes on someone else's prerogative. But to force a vendor to sell service to me is ridiculous, unless its medical care. And even then, if someone refuse to give me medical care because of my race and creed, so be it, I won't force them to treat me. But, I on the other hand am willing to treat anyone at anytime, which is a practice of my own rights.

You can't force someone to do the morally right thing, just hope that they are human enough to get past the differences themselves.

reply to post by DrChuck


I completely agree. That is why it is baffling that people like the bakery owners, who DO have a problem selling their service to all persons, would sign a lease prohibiting that.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by DrChuck

 

I completely agree. That is why it is baffling that people like the bakery owners, who DO have a problem selling their service to all persons, would sign a lease prohibiting that.

Well sometimes one's beliefs are held at a higher value than a piece of paper written by a person. But to be fair, the bakers did sign an agreement and if they didn't read over it thoroughly...well thats their fault. An agreement is an agreement, end of story.

reply to post by DrChuck


Great. I am not saying the owners can't refuse an order.

But - I do say those they refused have the right to publicly express how they feel about it.

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by DrChuck

 

Great. I am not saying the owners can't refuse an order.

But - I do say those they refused have the right to publicly express how they feel about it.

Of course they have a right to publicly express how they feel about it. But to take legal action against the bakers and trying to get a disciplinary motion is wrong in my opinion.

It may be against the law to discriminate, but it is our most basic and fundamental right to hold any beliefs we want, and with that right, not to accommodate and cater to anyone as we wish.

Originally posted by DrChuck

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by DrChuck

 

Great. I am not saying the owners can't refuse an order.

But - I do say those they refused have the right to publicly express how they feel about it.

Of course they have a right to publicly express how they feel about it. But to take legal action against the bakers and trying to get a disciplinary motion is wrong in my opinion.

The legal action is from the city government. Just Cookies is located in some kind of established market place.

If you read up on the non-discrimination contracts all business in this area are expected to adhere to - - - then you'll see the problem.

Its actually quite complicated as the market had been sold and it is not clear exactly who has jurisdiction and exactly what legal discrimination policies might apply.

But - - this negative publicity is a definite embarrassment and puts a negative stain on this specific area - - - that is meant to be for everyone.

I agree Annee. The city the market and the businesses need to get their act together on this issue, it has cast them all in a bad light indeed.

Originally posted by DrChuck
It may be against the law to discriminate, but it is our most basic and fundamental right to hold any beliefs we want, and with that right to not to accommodate and cater to anyone as we wish.

Not if you sign a contract - - like a Homeowners Association. This is the same thing.

Because of location & non-discrimination clauses - - - the Right of Belief is invalid - maybe.

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I agree Annee. The city the market and the businesses need to get their act together on this issue, it has cast them all in a bad light indeed.

It definitely has. From all I've read and heard on OutQ radio - - - it is an area that is almost touted as being very open and acceptable for everyone. Something the city is very proud of. An area where a lot of gays hang out - shop - spend money. A truly modern openness in a kind of historic market place.

Whether there is any legal discriminatory action or not that can be taken - - - this incident which seems minor - - - is a HUGE BLOT.

i dont blame this bakery for denying these people. if i walked into a bakery and told them i wanted anti-obama cookies or anti-zionist cookies i wouldnt be suprised if they denied me.

not only that, they have the right to refuse service to anybody. homos can go home and bake their own godamn filthy cookies.

i mean get real, dont walk into a public place and ask them to further promote or endorse your agenda lmao. big WOW!

Originally posted by Cobra.EXE
i dont blame this bakery for denying these people. if i walked into a bakery and told them i wanted anti-obama cookies or anti-zionist cookies i wouldnt be suprised if they denied me.

not only that, they have the right to refuse service to anybody. homos can go home and bake their own godamn filthy cookies.

i mean get real, dont walk into a public place and ask them to further promote or endorse your agenda lmao. big WOW!

Go read the thread.

All has been covered - - even what you seem to think is your "new edition" rant.