Indianapolis Bakery Refuses To Bake Gay Cupcakes

Originally posted by shamus78
Lol, this is a joke right?

I support gay rights, but come on, do we really want to make this world into a vanilla cupcake?
Owners of business have rights. Live with them

Cheers
Shane

Just as many rights as consumers. Live with them, don't segregate them because you feel like this would be a good time to regurgitate your "morals"; that's not how the professional world works, and it is certainly not within anyone's rights to do so.

reply to post by Brood


My concern is calling for a boycott on a small business when we haven't heard the whole story. What I was trying to say in an earlier post was that we should not try to interfere with the financial lives of families, nor should we damn their name all over the internet BEFORE we have the whole story.

Abusing our rights and the power of the internet is hurting individuals, families and now owners of small businesses. People are committing suicide and their families are having to bury their loved one's due to the power given to us over the internet.

I feel we should tow a line, not using the net for the hopes of destroying a small business or their rights to have a small business.
Calling for a boycott BEFORE the rest of this story is in, is just plain mean. I guess when it's not OUR wallet being emptied, it doesn't matter if we jump the gun, it doesn't matter if we rush to make people GUILTY before they are GUILTY????
I'm looking further ahead at this, I'm seeing Big Government using this online abuse to further control the internet.
I'm seeing the Big Govt. or the PTB using this abuse to break down small businesses too.
I'm also seeing the Constitutional Rights of American Citizens being tossed aside BY THE CITIZENS of The United States and not the PTB.
This can be a reality and real quick too.
Why attempt to destroy someone before you have all the facts? Thats all I'm trying to say

Thanks,
sl

reply to post by sweetliberty


The post you quote contains the answers to your questions here and I believe your subsequent posts as well.

The owner of the company should know that the rainbow has been taken back from the gays. We let them use it, but now it is ours again. Associate it with gays and you are way behind the times. Sorry gays, we need it back.

Originally posted by sweetliberty

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
I think boycotting is the best way to show your feelings towards social injustices.

In this case we have people who want to claim they have the right to discriminate against gays, even though the city has an ordinance banning that and their lease does too.

I think these American enterpenuers just learned a valuable lesson in business 101.

Are you thinking boycotting this business BEFORE you know the whole story is fair?

What do you mean when you say you support their right to be bigots? Is that because you are also a bigot? I ask because you call for boycotting a business who hasn't even been found guilty yet. You spin Christians hating gays twice now, maybe more I'm not going to search your posts to get an accurate count.Twice is enough for me.

I'm sorry I just don't understand where you are coming from and I hope you answer the questions.
sl

I have answered your posts, even when you you keep repeatedly asking the same thing. I wil answer, again, but will you promise to read my reply this time?

Are you sying your posts do not contain spin? Each word we post is our spin, it is called being human.

I support anyone's right to be a bigot. In this case the bigot was the person denying service on being gay. There is no way around it, that is a bigot.

I did not call for a boycott.

I heard all I needed to hear from the male owner's own mouth on this situation, and I have no need to "wait" for more informatiopn to come out.

He admits he denied service due to his bigotry against homosexuals, and the horrifying influence they have on his daughters.

Right there is more than enough for me to say I would never shop there again.

Christians are the only group I know of who try to hide behind their religion as an excuse to do such things.

He is christian.

I do not believe in any organized religion, I believe all organized religion are cults, wicked, and the cause of most of the suffering and wars and division on our planet. How I feel about that has no bearing on this case, does it?

I did not waive my rights as a private business owner, this man did, by signing the lease. Therefore his bigoted actions are wrong.

Had he not signed the lease, I would defend his right to refuse service.

But it disgusts me to see someone hide behind their religion to justify breaking the rules of a lease he entered into VOLUNTARILY.

Does this clear it up for you?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Thank you. I am glad to see someone gets the point I made.

reply to post by sweetliberty


I don't need to know anything else, the father's statement alone is enough.

Let me give an example.

Someone tells you to your face something nasty, do you keep hanging around to hear more, or is it unreasonable to make a decision based off of that statement as it stands? Like the decision to not be around that person anymore?

Why would I need to hear anymore?

He is entitled to his opinion, so why am I not entitled to mine?

He made a split decision to refuse service based off of ONE PHONE ENCOUNTER that I am sure lasted less time than this thread has. The father sure did not wait for more details or the rest of the story, why am I held to a higher degree? I am doing the exact same thing as the father in this situation, exercising my rights.

The bakery retains the right to refuse service by virtue they cannot be forced into an action against their will. So by doing so, they should be prepared to suffer the consequences, especially since they waived the right to discriminate in the lease.

reply to post by sweetliberty


Repeatedly asked and answered.

And again I have to ask what my personal views on Christians has to do with this case?

The owners do not know me from Adam, so how did I influence them with my personal opinions? The father did this all on his own.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


I won't debate my personal views on this because they are off topic to the debate.

That does not make me a troll. In fact repeatedly demanding I debate my personal views is the definition of troll, and it contributes nothing to the thread.

Instead of personally attacking me (of which I have done none) why not stick to debating the topic?

Originally posted by hotbakedtater

But it disgusts me to see someone hide behind their religion to justify breaking the rules of a lease he entered into VOLUNTARILY.

What about someone hiding behind a man-made contract to justify breaking the rules of ones God, a contract with ones soul? Does that disgust you that someone would break the rules of a religion they practice VOLUNTARILY?

You must understand that people who practice a religion consider it the highest set of rules above and beyond the rules of men. I am a Christian and I also consider the laws of man secondary to laws of God. If I make a promise I'm keeping it, hence the minimal of promises and contracts in my life. But if I'm pushed into a corner and had to choose between the two, I would choose to follow my religion.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Annee
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.

So he's a father who was concerned about how the order may affect his daughters, and he happens to be a Catholic.

Again, what's wrong with that ?

It appears a lot of people on this thread are just bigoted against other people's religious beliefs.

I am just going to refer you to 27id's post - - that nicely condenses all my points as well - - in one paragraph. I see no point in posting again - as this paragraph says it all and states it perfectly.

"That's the thing. We have freedoms here (or at least that's our motto). We can choose to open a business, and we can choose to refuse service based on factors that really have little to do with what we're selling, like race, religion, sexual preference, etc., but that we have a personal problem with. The people we refuse have the right to make it known that they were refused, and people who disagree with that refusal have the right to not buy anything from that business. People who agree with it, also have the right to buy more stuff from that business. It really comes down to the reason you open your business to begin with, I guess. Do they need the money? Was it a wise move to gamble their business taking moral stands against the personal lives of consenting adult strangers? Time will tell how this works out for them I guess. Hope all the bigots here like cupcakes, one of your own needs you."

reply to post by Annee


Equal rights? I treat everyone the same. I'm just the neighborhood scrooge that don't like anyone. America has become a nation that is quick to be offended.

Please, show me a law anywhere where it says I must like anyone that I don't like. Please don't say the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible instructs us to remove ourselves from the presence of evil and I consider homosexuals to be influened by evil forces.

One question though. Normal people don't want to have homosexuals hanging around so why would homosexuals want to hang around normal people? The argument has been that homosexuals don't think differently from normal people (besides liking their same sex). If this is true then homosexuals would hate to mingle with people that are opposite of their lifestyle.

Dont't tell me that they don't want to force their beliefs on the heterosexual population. If they didn't, they wouldn't be doing what they're doing.

Heterosexual = Don't like the company of homosexuals.
Homosexuals = Wants to make their presence forced among heterosexuals.

Don't exactly sound like the same thought process going on here.

This is from the local online newspaper Indystar.com on Sep 30, 2010.
A run down on "What's next".
Indysta r.com What's next

Here is how the Indianapolis Office of Equal Opportunity will proceed with its investigation into Just Cookies, a City Market bakery:
» Office of Equal Opportunity staff will contact affected IUPUI students and anyone else who complained of discrimination.
» Complaints received will be forwarded to Just Cookies' owners.
» Investigators will issue subpoenas, if needed, to witnesses.
» City officials, if they think discrimination has occurred, will give Just Cookies' owners an opportunity to argue in favor of keeping their lease

.HBT, I will be back to respond to you soon.

sl

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Annee
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.

So he's a father who was concerned about how the order may affect his daughters, and he happens to be a Catholic.

Again, what's wrong with that ?

It appears a lot of people on this thread are just bigoted against other people's religious beliefs.

I am just going to refer you to 27id's post - - that nicely condenses all my points as well - - in one paragraph. I see no point in posting again - as this paragraph says it all and states it perfectly.

"That's the thing. We have freedoms here (or at least that's our motto). We can choose to open a business, and we can choose to refuse service based on factors that really have little to do with what we're selling, like race, religion, sexual preference, etc., but that we have a personal problem with. The people we refuse have the right to make it known that they were refused, and people who disagree with that refusal have the right to not buy anything from that business. People who agree with it, also have the right to buy more stuff from that business. It really comes down to the reason you open your business to begin with, I guess. Do they need the money? Was it a wise move to gamble their business taking moral stands against the personal lives of consenting adult strangers? Time will tell how this works out for them I guess. Hope all the bigots here like cupcakes, one of your own needs you."

Funny,yet again you open your mouth (figuratively) and the word bigot falls out....................so I guess not likiing people different than you makes them a bigot.....kinda like not liking those who don't like homosexual ideals being placed upon others. Funny, seems the most bigoted people in this thread are the ones sticking up for the homosexuals.................who lost nothing and gained lots of free advertisiing for their event..............the only ones wronged were the business owners set up by this group. I guess being a bigot is o.k. if you're the percieved victim wanting special rights...............EPIC FAIL all the way around........if ignorance is bliss, some in this thread should be downright giddy.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


I do not lot a lot of people, and yes that makes me a bigot in the technical sense. I don't like liver, so I am bogoted agianst it too as I will not even try any at all.

Being a bigot is only a problem when my bigotry infringes or violates your rights.

The business owners have the right to refuse service for any reason they chose.

If they don't want the business, they don't have to take it.

Using violent aggression against business owners that have harmed no one is wrong.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The business owners have the right to refuse service for any reason they chose.

If they don't want the business, they don't have to take it.

Using violent aggression against business owners that have harmed no one is wrong.

When is violent aggression ever right? (war/violent crime apprehension excluded)

Has there been any violent aggression in this case? What about violent aggression against gays?

Or are you just reaching?

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Definition of BIGOT: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group or homosexuals) with hatred and intolerance.

Its not an opinion.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The business owners have the right to refuse service for any reason they chose.

If they don't want the business, they don't have to take it.

Using violent aggression against business owners that have harmed no one is wrong.

Who suggsted violence?

I agree wholeheartedly, however in this case the owners signed a lease in which rules gainst discrimination came into play. They signed it voluntarily, so in this case they waived that right.

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Just Cookies got a lot of free advertising too!

I am just taking the side of the ones in the clear right in this case.