Indianapolis Bakery refuses service to gay student group

[cwalner]

Wouldn't an 8 (for the prop) do the trick?

Or a woman going to the bathroom.

Damn you AXQ, why did you have to bring up Tasty Cakes, now I can't concentrate.

 

[AvalonXQ]

A picture of two guys making out (lots of tongue) circled with a line through it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A family bakery with kids can't have homosexual symbols in it.. because homosexuals are an abomination. Does this bakery provide crumpets for Tea Parties?

 

[Piggy]

I'd not want to use the rainbow. Its a truly hateful symbol.

I slaughtered all of you but one family, but now I'm sorta sorry and I promise probably not to do it again. But you're still all going to be punished forever.

This little bit of lunacy hit me just at the right time.

Thanks, LS!

 

[Piggy]

I couldn't have said it better myself.
I don't see what's the fuss is about? It's not like they asked them to outlaw the darn thing, they just said they prefer not to accept good business for it.

Good for them and likely I would never shop there myself.

You just answered your own question.

The "fuss" is to get the word out so people can make the choice you just said you would make, had you known about the incident, which you now do, thanks to the "fuss".

If we're going to make informed choices, "outrage" stories like these actually help. Even though we look at half of them and think, "So what?" because we're not interested in that particular outrage.

So don't diss the fuss.

It's part of the whole democracy thing, even if it sometimes seems stupid.

 

[Piggy]

Again, we have no evidence that Just Cookies would have refused to sell one of these customer's cookies for his sister's birthday just because the customer is gay. There's a difference between those two things, just like there's a difference between refusing to sell a birthday cake to a black customer and refusing to sell a "Black Power" cake to the same customer.

I think that's the crux of the matter.

As far as he's concerned, he's been asked to make a product that's explicitly sexual, and he wouldn't do that no matter who was asking for it. Just like he wouldn't make cookies in the shape of penises or breasts.

Nevermind that this says something unflattering about him (and his region) -- that's just the way it is.

Of course, this isn't necessarily a defense. If it were, then restaurants could refuse blacks on the grounds that they don't allow integrated dining because it's a sin, and they don't allow sin in their place of business.

So perhaps the folks who wanted the cookies could sue, and they'd get, I dunno, a batch of cookies minus legal fees?

Which brings us back to here, chatting about an "odd news" story.

Seems to me, it says something about our times that this qualifies as odd news.

And I have to say, I like the quality of watercooler chat around here much more than I like it most places.

 

[Ladewig]

As far as he's concerned, he's been asked to make a product that's explicitly sexual,

Are you sure it is rational to describe it that way? I am having a hard time seeing a rainbow as "explicitly sexual." What do you think his definition of "explicitly sexual" is?

 

[Piggy]

Are you sure it is rational to describe it that way? I am having a hard time seeing a rainbow as "explicitly sexual." What do you think his definition of "explicitly sexual" is?

For a guy like this, a rainbow cookie (in this context) would be like a cookie frosted to look like a breast.

Sure, babies can look at a breast and it's just lunch, and it's all in a day's work for a doctor, but for the rest of us, breasts in public are sexy.

And sure, if there's a rainbow in the sky, well, it's just a rainbow. But rainbow cookies for a gay group, well, that makes him think about homosexuality -- because that's what the rainbow means, right? -- so it's a sexual thing.

Is that "rational"?

Maybe not.

But it's certainly understandable.

For this guy, a man and woman -- or boy and girl, for that matter -- walking into his bakery holding hands are just a couple. There's no reason to think about them involved in anything lewd with each other (even if they are involved in such things). In fact, it would be a trespass on his part if he were to imagine that aspect of their lives.

But a gay couple coming in holding hands? Well, that's something different, and it does indeed make him think explicitly about sexuality. (Although I wouldn't exactly call it a "gay porn film" in his head.)

So from his point of view, well, yeah, these rainbow cupcakes for a gay group are "sexually explicit" and he doesn't make that kind of product.

Doesn't mean it's right, but I can grok where he's coming from.

 

[Ladewig]

For a guy like this, a rainbow cookie (in this context) would be like a cookie frosted to look like a breast.

Sure, babies can look at a breast and it's just lunch, and it's all in a day's work for a doctor, but for the rest of us, breasts in public are sexy.

And sure, if there's a rainbow in the sky, well, it's just a rainbow. But rainbow cookies for a gay group, well, that makes him think about homosexuality -- because that's what the rainbow means, right? -- so it's a sexual thing.

Is that "rational"?

Maybe not.

But it's certainly understandable.

I'm still missing the understandable part. I can understand if he wanted to call it symbolically sexual and thus too offensive to produce, but "explicitly sexual"? That is the case only if one is using a definition of explicit that is neither found in a dictionary nor used by the general population.

 

[Pardalis]

"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."

What kind of crummy bakery is that? They don't make cupcakes and they don't have multi-colored sprinkles?

What do they do at Christmas?

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

What about a birthday cake for little Adolf Hittler?

I don't think he's been having a lot of birthdays lately. It's the whole being dead thing. On the other hand, when he was alive, I doubt if any business in germany would have refused him a cake.

 

[Madalch]

I don't think he's been having a lot of birthdays lately. It's the whole being dead thing. On the other hand, when he was alive, I doubt if any business in germany would have refused him a cake.

You missed the thread about the rednecks who named their son "Adolph Hitler [Lastname]" and sued a bakery that refused to make a cake for them that read "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler".

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

For a guy like this, a rainbow cookie (in this context) would be like a cookie frosted to look like a breast.

Sure, babies can look at a breast and it's just lunch, and it's all in a day's work for a doctor, but for the rest of us, breasts in public are sexy.

And sure, if there's a rainbow in the sky, well, it's just a rainbow. But rainbow cookies for a gay group, well, that makes him think about homosexuality -- because that's what the rainbow means, right? -- so it's a sexual thing.

Is that "rational"?

Maybe not.

But it's certainly understandable.

Actually that's the part I definitely don't understand. In fact that's just the part I challenged earlier.

In being asked to accept that they're "obscene" or "explicitly sexual", I'm essentially asked to believe that someone would look at some cookies or a rainbow and somehow see explicit sex. Not just a symbol for a certain sexual preference, but actual sex.

In your examples with penis shaped cookies or breast shaped cookies, there is no connection to make. You just need to recognize the shape. That's what makes them explicit. The very point and meaning of "explicit" is that it's not just implied, nor leave much or anything just implied.

I.e., in calling it "explicitly sexual" you're telling me that he'd look at those cookies and not just see something implied, but actual gay sex.

I'm sorry but anyone who can look at some cookies and see explicit sex or sexuality or anything of the kind, has serious problems. Not only they're probably making the case for that "homophobes are secretly gay" quip, but he needs to see a shrink ASAP.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

I really don't believe it's the same as what Cosmic Roy mentions above. Refusing someone a place to stay is not the same as refusing to supply themed decorations / refreshments for an event you oppose.
Again, we have no evidence that Just Cookies would have refused to sell one of these customer's cookies for his sister's birthday just because the customer is gay. There's a difference between those two things, just like there's a difference between refusing to sell a birthday cake to a black customer and refusing to sell a "Black Power" cake to the same customer.

I see what you mean, and you're right, the situations are not quite equivalent. I don't know what the law says about such cases. I don't even know what I think the law should say about such cases. It's simple enough to require that all customers are treated equally. But I don't see how a blanket law can be applied to cases in which service is personalised and differs necessarily from customer to customer. It seems wrong to demand by law that the bakery must comply with every request made of them. But anything less than that seems to imply that discrimination is acceptable.

As for the question regarding why there's a discrimination case in housing regarding race, but not sexual orientation... are you asking why one is enforced and the other is not (generally because that's how the laws happen to be written) or why the laws are written that way?

Perhaps this wasn't directed at me, but I'll respond. I would like to know why, in UK society (this being the only society I have much experience of), discrimination along lines of sexuality is regarded by some as being more acceptable than discrimination along lines of ethnicity. Take Jan Moir's odious article from last year, for example. She judged that a story about Stephen Gately's untimely death was an appropriate venue in which to attempt to besmirch civil partnerships. Although the article generated significant backlash, some agreed with the implicit message that the sleaziness inherent to homosexuality means it's only to be expected that gays will die young in sordid circumstances.

Is it just because the Bible says it's a sin?

 

[Soapy Sam]

I'm sorry but anyone who can look at some cookies and see explicit sex or sexuality or anything of the kind, has serious problems. Not only they're probably making the case for that "homophobes are secretly gay" quip, but he needs to see a shrink ASAP.

Back in the day, I could look at a lump of basalt and see sex. I don't think I needed to see a shrink. I may have needed a bigger hammer.

Seems to me this story illustrates the complexity of human attitudes and the sort of clash of values that is now very frequent in an oft-changing society.

A businessman should have the right (in my opinion, if not in law) to sell to whom he pleases. If he decides he dislikes me , he should not be required by anyone to deal with me. If he decides he doesn't want to deal with Scotsmen as a group, it seems to me it's his call. He can admit he is racist on this issue, or he can lie about it and hope nobody notices. Of course, if he does this in Glasgow, he goes broke. His decision.

In this case it seems he could have simply said "No, I'm too busy to meet your request, sorry." and left it at that. He didn't. He chose to be honest about his reservations- if not at first, then later. We may disagree with the reasons for his decision, but I think we ought to respect his honesty.
He was faced with a clash between his right to run his business as he saw fit and the rights of a group not to be discriminated against and he went with his personal conviction.

Some here will find that conviction abhorrent, some will find it a bit daft.It certainly seems silly to me, but I think he's allowed to be silly. Let's pick another group of people, less in favour and see if we still think him a bigot.

Lets say the UK BNP wanted a cake for a rally , with the words "Keep Black out of British Icing" carefully iced in red, blue and white. "It's just a bit of fun", they tell him. The baker says he'd rather not, because if it's a joke it's a tasteless joke and he want's no association between his business and the BNP. Is he a bigot for refusing a legitimate political party what is, after all, a trivial matter? A cake? A few lines of coloured icing? Nobody's invading Poland here, right?

We may find the gay community in general a more sympathetic lot than the BNP- I'd be very surprised were they not- but in each case a man simply goes with his own inner conviction. Whether right or wrong, politically acceptable or not, is not the issue.
The issue is- must everyone bow to contemporary political correctness, even if internally, they disagree with it? Do people have a right to their own belief, or not? If they do have a right to an opinion, however out of fashion, where does their right to act on that opinion end?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

And I'm not saying it's not allowed or anything. I'm saying I'm also allowed to think he's freaking stupid.

 

[Yashichi]

I think the reference to explicit sex is merely an exaggeration used to justify the baker's position. He doesn't actually see explicit sex in the rainbow, he's just considerably denser than most and thinks that "explicit" is a superlative. We can thusly conclude that he is not only a bigot, but also a moron. See the blog "Obama is Literally Hitler" for an entertaining parody of this error.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

A businessman should have the right (in my opinion, if not in law) to sell to whom he pleases. If he decides he dislikes me , he should not be required by anyone to deal with me. If he decides he doesn't want to deal with Scotsmen as a group, it seems to me it's his call. He can admit he is racist on this issue, or he can lie about it and hope nobody notices. Of course, if he does this in Glasgow, he goes broke. His decision.

The issue is- must everyone bow to contemporary political correctness, even if internally, they disagree with it? Do people have a right to their own belief, or not? If they do have a right to an opinion, however out of fashion, where does their right to act on that opinion end?

Yes they must. At least, they must if we as a society wish to prevent minorities from being legally marginalised by the majority. Of course everyone should have the right to their beliefs. But if a single bigoted business owner can decide he doesn't want to serve blacks or gays or Christians or red-heads or left-handers, then every single business owner can do the same. Then blacks, gays, Christians, red-heads and left-handers can only obtain these services from vendors of their own 'kind', and segregation has been instituted legally. In the society I wish to live in, laws exist to protect minorities. Market forces are not reliable enough to enforce fairness.

Lets say the UK BNP wanted a cake for a rally , with the words "Keep Black out of British Icing" carefully iced in red, blue and white. "It's just a bit of fun", they tell him. The baker says he'd rather not, because if it's a joke it's a tasteless joke and he want's no association between his business and the BNP. Is he a bigot for refusing a legitimate political party what is, after all, a trivial matter? A cake? A few lines of coloured icing? Nobody's invading Poland here, right?

In the society I wish to live in, it's also recognised that not all the phrases which might grace the top of a cake are equal. The judicial system can deal with that.

 

[Ladewig]

I think the reference to explicit sex is merely an exaggeration used to justify the baker's position. He doesn't actually see explicit sex in the rainbow, he's just considerably denser than most and thinks that "explicit" is a superlative. We can thusly conclude that he is not only a bigot, but also a moron. See the blog "Obama is Literally Hitler" for an entertaining parody of this error.

Thank you.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Perhaps this wasn't directed at me, but I'll respond. I would like to know why, in UK society (this being the only society I have much experience of), discrimination along lines of sexuality is regarded by some as being more acceptable than discrimination along lines of ethnicity. Take Jan Moir's odious article from last year, for example. She judged that a story about Stephen Gately's untimely death was an appropriate venue in which to attempt to besmirch civil partnerships. Although the article generated significant backlash, some agreed with the implicit message that the sleaziness inherent to homosexuality means it's only to be expected that gays will die young in sordid circumstances.

Is it just because the Bible says it's a sin?

I doubt that very much. I think it's historical and complex. On average if you ask British men how they feel about homosexuality, the response varies fairly predictably with age. (I stress "on average". Individual people vary greatly- and this is simply my experience from conversations over many years. I'm not claiming to have done a detailed study). In general, older men find the whole idea rather disgusting. As you ask progressively younger people, the response grades from discomfort to tolerant acceptance, to unquestioning acceptance to a baffled failure to understand the point of the question.This reflects the change in attitude which has happened in the last forty years.
It reflects my own personal attitude change. As a young man I found the very idea rather disgusting. Forced to appraise my own views in the light of the whole gay revolution, I might have been driven into a harder line intolerance had I had some deep reason for my attitudes (such as religious belief). It so happens I went the other way, asking myself what my problem was with homosexuality and consistently coming up with absolutely nothing beyond a conditioned reflexive distaste. I realised I was wrong. But at some level, I'll never quite accept that, because I'm too damn old. I was conditioned by the society I grew up in, which was still sexist, racist and homophobic to a far greater degree than it is today. Youngsters of today start with a new baseline assumption set which will propagate as the dinosaurs die off and the new attitudes move up through the whole population.