Bakery: No Rainbow cupcakes, homo!

[Bateluer]

http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-bakery-wont-make-rainbow-cupcakes-092310,0,6300849.story

Local bakery refuses to make rainbow cupcakes for gay customer

Indianapolis —
An Indianapolis bakery is under fire from the gay and lesbian community over a choice not to serve a diversity group.

A campus organization said it was denied service in what's become a flashpoint in the fight for equal rights.

Friend us on Facebook and get the latest news, information and announcements.

This is what they were after: a mulitcolored cupcake to celebrate "National Coming Out Day" next month; a rainbow confection to honor the diversity on the campus of IUPUI. But the student who had the order placed at Just Cookies was told no.

"We're right on the cusp of being equal with anyone else, I don't know why they would do that," said student Shan Parker.

That student's partner and close friend are both troubled by the refusal. They believe it shows Indianapolis has a ways to go to embrace the gay and lesbian community.

"They weren't asking to petition for anything, they were just ordering cupcakes for an event," said Rebecca Scherpelz.

Fox59 went to City Market to get the business's side of the story, Just Cookies, but we didn't get just one version of what happened.

"Look around, we don't have cupcakes," said owner Lilly Stockton.

Stockton said she talked to someone who did ask for rainbow cookies but couldn't accommodate the order.

Stockton: "I don't have enough colors to do that."

Reporter: "Not enough colors, not because you didn't like what they stood for?"

Stockton: "She didn't tell me what it was for."

Then we talked to her husband David, who gradually made it clear that there was an earlier order... and yes, the customer was refused.

"I explained we're a family-run business, we have two young, impressionable daughters and we thought maybe it was best not to do that," said co-owner David Stockton.

"Values" is the same word used in the other argument.

"I just hope that what comes out of this is that there's some dialogue and discussion on what we value in our community, how we share those values and how we interact with our community members," said Scherpelz.

And the end of the day, the order was placed with another bakery on Massachussetts Avenue. "National Coming Out Day" is Oct 11th.

IUPUI's spokesperson said the school has no formal complaint against the bakery and added embracing diversity means allowing the business owners the right to their opinion and the right to choose how to serve its customers, as long as those customers are not discriminated against.

I don't particularly agree with the owner's decision not to fill the order, but its a privately owned establishment. They can refuse server to anyone for any reason. Had I been in the bakery's position, I'd probably want the business though.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Absolutely nothing wrong with them refusing. Absolutely nothing wrong with groups running negative publicity and boycotting them for doing so. If you want the right to refuse service you have to accept the consequences of refusing service.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Absolutely nothing wrong with them refusing. Absolutely nothing wrong with groups running negative publicity and boycotting them for doing so. If you want the right to refuse service you have to accept the consequences of refusing service.

Yep, the business is free to decline a special order, and as long as the groups don't engage in threats or violence they are free to boycott the business and try to get others to do so.

 

[Sinsear]

Nothing wrong with a private business making that decision.
I don't think i would turn away business if i was in that situation.
WTF is "national coming out day"?

 

[Craig234]

"Free to" is not the same as "Absolutely nothing wrong with". It's the usual disgusting perversion of the word 'values' to rationalize bigotry.

 

[ahenkel]

I hear eating rainbow cupcakes turns you gay :awe:

 

[PrinceofWands]

"Free to" is not the same as "Absolutely nothing wrong with". It's the usual disgusting perversion of the word 'values' to rationalize bigotry.

That's actually somewhat true, but you're confusing two separate issues. There's something wrong with being bigoted and perverting the word value, but there's nothing wrong with choosing who to do business with. If you combine them, then you make it wrong to choose not to do business with those who would pervert the word values and act in a bigotted manner.

 

[woolfe9999]

That's actually somewhat true, but you're confusing two separate issues. There's something wrong with being bigoted and perverting the word value, but there's nothing wrong with choosing who to do business with. If you combine them, then you make it wrong to choose not to do business with those who would pervert the word values and act in a bigotted manner.

Is it legal for businesses to refuse to serve black people?

- wolf

 

[soccerballtux]

Is it legal for businesses to refuse to serve black people?

- wolf

Being black is not a choice of illogical, non-procreation. It also does not involve sticking one's penis into the ass of another man.

For these reasons, the comparison is of a completely different subject and does not belong in the same thread.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

"Free to" is not the same as "Absolutely nothing wrong with". It's the usual disgusting perversion of the word 'values' to rationalize bigotry.

Why are homosexuals bigotted towards people that don't agree with their lifestyle choice?

You want to push poop in, others don't agree with it. Why is it ok for you to have your beliefs, but others can't have their own beliefs?
Understand that bigotry goes both ways.

 

[soccerballtux]

why are homosexuals bigotted towards people that don't agree with their lifestyle choice.

You want to push poop in, others don't agree with it. Why is it ok for you to have your beliefs, but others can't have their own beliefs?
Understand that bigotry goes both ways.

INTOLLERANT!!!!!! you're being INTOLLERANT!!!!

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I hear eating rainbow cupcakes turns you gay :awe:

Have you had your cupcake today? Cupcake!

 

[Red Dawn]

Nothing wrong with a private business making that decision.
I don't think i would turn away business if i was in that situation.
WTF is "national coming out day"?

It's for all the Jeff Gordon/Rainbow Warrior Fans

 

[nageov3t]

Why are homosexuals bigotted towards people that don't agree with their lifestyle choice?

You want to push poop in, others don't agree with it. Why is it ok for you to have your beliefs, but others can't have their own beliefs?
Understand that bigotry goes both ways.

so, should the store be asking gays whether or not they have anal sex? because many gays don't.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'd like an answer from a non-homophobe to my question.

The reason I ask is because the assertion was made by several posters that a private business has the legal right to do business with whomever they wish. Craig then jumped in, assuming the correctness of that premise, and made the usual "just because you have the right to do it doesn't make it the right thing to do" remark. But I'm still hung up on the question of legal rights here. Many states preclude businesses from excluding people based on race, some on sexual preference as well. Is it different here if they say they will serve homosexuals but they won't sell them cookies to use in a gay advocacy event? What if you say you''ll serve black people but not if they are buying baked goods for an NAACP event?

- wolf

 

[CrackRabbit]

Have you had your cupcake today? Cupcake!

I think Soccerballtux needs a cupcake.

 

[Steeplerot]

Why are homosexuals bigotted towards people that don't agree with their lifestyle choice.

You want to push poop in, others don't agree with it. Why is it ok for you to have your beliefs, but others can't have their own beliefs?
Understand that bigotry goes both ways.

So you are saying homosexuality is a choice? Now you guys can understand why conservatives are known as self-hating closet cases. You guys out yourselves more then then dudes on Castro st every day.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Is it legal for businesses to refuse to serve black people?

- wolf

As far as I know its legal to refuse service to anyone, as long as you can't show it was a discriminatory practice against a protected group. I, however, am against protected groups and such laws. While I believe all PUBLIC places should be required to operate openly, an entirely PRIVATE enterprise should be able to serve whomever they choose (as long as they accept the consequences, and never receive $.01 in public assistance/compensation/subsidy/etc).

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

INTOLLERANT!!!!!! you're being INTOLLERANT!!!!

It's OK I can be intollerant because my moral superiority says I'm rightous and justified in it. But you. You can't have your backwater beliefs because they don't mesh with mine you damn straighty.

 

[Red Dawn]

Have you had your cupcake today? Cupcake!

How about you Princess?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

So you are saying homosexuality is a choice? Now you guys can understand why conservatives are known as self-hating closet cases. You guys out yourselves more then then dudes on Castro st every day.

Are you saying it isn't a choice?
Biologically, homosexuallity is wrong as it doesn't serve to pass on genes, only deside if the jeans look good or not.

There's no self hate going on, I'm merely pointing out the fallacy in the logic of those that support one position and call they opposition bigots and intollerant because they won't change their ways.

How about gays stop being gay. Accept that straight people don't approve and shouldn't have to approve of thier homosexual lifestyle choices.

But they won't, they think that everyone should accept them, even though they won't accept that others don't approve of their lifestyle.

I have my beliefs, you have yours. Don't try and force me to believe in what you believe in.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

How about you Princess?

I couldn't taste the rainbow ones as they were trying to be taken rectally.
BTW thanks for offering to remove it.

 

[woolfe9999]

As far as I know its legal to refuse service to anyone, as long as you can't show it was a discriminatory practice against a protected group. I, however, am against protected groups and such laws. While I believe all PUBLIC places should be required to operate openly, an entirely PRIVATE enterprise should be able to serve whomever they choose (as long as they accept the consequences, and never receive $.01 in public assistance/compensation/subsidy/etc).

Right, so long as you can't "show it was a discriminatory practice against a protected group." That's what I'm saying this might well be. You're probably right that it is legal unless they can show it as a pattern of excluding gays from the establishment. I just don't think the line of separation between this and what is illegal is that clear cut. Might depend on state law.

As to you not agreeing with "protected groups" (meaning principally the equal protection clause), that is not relevant to my point. I wasn't trying to debate the issue, just wondering about the correctness of the original premise stated several times in the thread.

- wolf

 

[DaveSimmons]

But I'm still hung up on the question of legal rights here. Many states preclude businesses from excluding people based on race, some on sexual preference as well. Is it different here if they say they will serve homosexuals but they won't sell them cookies to use in a gay advocacy event? What if you say you''ll serve black people but not if they are buying baked goods for an NAACP event?

I'm no lawyer, but to me saying you won't serve a group (blacks) is different from saying you won't fill one specific order for a specific black person.

It's also different to say you'll make normal Happy Birthday cookies for any customer, but that you aren't comfortable making Ku Klux Kookies with little frosting pointy hats, or Black Panther chocolate clenched fist cookies, or Atheism Is The Truth cookies if you're a Christian.

Pharmacists being forced to dispense plan B pills is a different case to me, since "lack of cookies" is not a medical condition.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Right, so long as you can't "show it was a discriminatory practice against a protected group." That's what I'm saying this might well be. You're probably right that it is legal unless they can show it as a pattern of excluding gays from the establishment. I just don't think the line of separation between this and what is illegal is that clear cut. Might depend on state law.

As to you not agreeing with "protected groups" (meaning principally the equal protection clause), that is not relevant to my point. I wasn't trying to debate the issue, just wondering about the correctness of the original premise stated several times in the thread.

- wolf

I'm not even certain that there'd be a case if you COULD prove it was discriminatory. To force sale of items to celebration/awareness cause could be considered forcing a private entity to actively engage in promoting a behavior they were against. It's more than just a private sale in this case, it's effectively a pro-gay advertisement. I don't know that you could win along these lines, but it'd sure as hell be worth the fight...otherwise you could force any person to do anything, regardless of if they agreed with it or not. Force a christian printer to print copies of satanic verses, force the brady campaign to stock and distribute pamphlets about firearm lessons, etc. It'd be a slipperly slope straight to hell.