Indianapolis Bakery refuses service to gay student group

[Langis]

Oh no! The impressionable little girls might learn there's nothing wrong with being gay! The horror!

 

[Alan]

Not to speak for the bakery owner, but baking special cookies to celebrate a sexual perversion would not be setting the example that I would want to set for any children I might have.

I wouldn't want anything to do with that any more than I would want to participate in a celebration of pedophilia, or adultery, or bestiality, or rape, or any other form of sexual immorality.

Acting on homophobia, such as discriminating against homosexuals, is what is immoral.

 

[gnome]

Not to speak for the bakery owner, but baking special cookies to celebrate a sexual perversion would not be setting the example that I would want to set for any children I might have.

I wouldn't want anything to do with that any more than I would want to participate in a celebration of pedophilia, or adultery, or bestiality, or rape, or any other form of sexual immorality.

Interesting that everything else on your list creates a victim. Is that so insignificant to you that your personal aversion to homosexuality is on an equal level?

I don't like celebrating deviants either, like people who prefer ketchup on hot dogs, and murderers.

 

[kedo1981]

I'm almost certain that someone GAY invented cupcakes

 

[cwalner]

I found the Equal Opportunity ordinance here

(1) The council finds that the practice of denying equal opportunities in employment, education, access to and use of public accommodations, and acquisition of real estate based on race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, handicap, or sex is contrary to the principles of freedom and equality of opportunity and is a burden to the objectives of the policies contained herein and shall be considered discriminatory practices.

The Good:
since the City Market is run by a city corporation, it is a public accomodation so this ordinance fully applies to all tenants.

The Bad:
Sexual Orientation is not included as a protected class in the ordinance.

The Weird: (completely off topic, but WTF!!)

(2) Pornography is a discriminatory practice based on sex which denies women equal opportunities in society. Pornography is central in creating and maintaining sex as a basis for discrimination. Pornography is a systematic practice of exploitation and subordination based on sex which differentially harms women. The bigotry and contempt it promotes, with the acts of aggression it fosters, harm women's opportunities for equality of rights in employment, education, access to and use of public accommodations, and acquisition of real property; promote rape, battery, child abuse, kidnapping and prostitution and inhibit just enforcement of laws against such acts; and contribute significantly to restricting women in particular from full exercise of citizenship and participation in public life, including in neighborhoods.

 

[Alan]

Interesting that everything else on your list creates a victim. Is that so insignificant to you that your personal aversion to homosexuality is on an equal level?

I don't like celebrating deviants either, like people who prefer ketchup on hot dogs, and murderers.

I'll add that homophobic discrimination creates victims.

 

[Emet]

I don't like celebrating deviants either, like people who prefer ketchup on hot dogs, and murderers.

When I was a kid, I ate my hot dogs with ketchup. But deviancy can be overcome--I now prefer mustard.

 

[Lucian]

Oh no! The impressionable little girls might learn there's nothing wrong with being gay! The horror!

You know, I don't quite understand why the delicate flowers need to know anything beyond the fact that some customers wanted cookies with pretty rainbows on them. For that matter, do the little girls participate in the cookie production? I wouldn't want to eat anything prepared by small children--they're basically little germ bombs, aren't they?

 

[ZirconBlue]

It does. Things like that always do. As I said, I'm inclined to agree.

It's probably just my contrarian nature, but I tend to keep pithy sayings about freedom and vigilance in mind, too.

I feel fortunate that I grew up in a society and at a time when the cultural progress we have made was so evident. What worries me (just a tiny bit, and only on occasion) is how much that progress is taken for granted by people who aren't old enough to remember those times well.

"It can't happen here." and its cousin, "That won't happen again." are still popping up in conversations like this one. I think it's a good idea to be vigilant against them as well.

Oh, I agree. The fight isnt won, yet. And we must remain ever vigilant.

But, we can celebrate our small victories. Eventually, we will prevail.

 

[Emet]

Oh, I agree. The fight isnt won, yet. And we must remain ever vigilant.

But, we can celebrate our small victories. Eventually, we will prevail.

We do. And yes, we will.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Oh, I agree. The fight isnt won, yet. And we must remain ever vigilant.

But, we can celebrate our small victories. Eventually, we will prevail.

Yay! It is good to celebrate!

 

[cwalner]

Yay! It is good to celebrate!

Especially when there is so much to celebrate:

 

[ZirconBlue]

Especially when there is so much to celebrate:

 

[Piggy]

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.

General population of where?

I'm not saying it will necessarily make sense from everyone's point of view, but I know a lot of people like this guy, and in their heads it all adds up.

And I understand why it does.

I disagree that it actually does add up, but... well, it's like saying "I understand why she didn't hear the train coming".

I understand why this guy is surprised that anyone would find anything at all odd about a bakery refusing to produce sexually explicit products, or that anyone would disagree that anything explicitly gay is overtly sexual by definition.

In places where homosexuality is entirely repressed, it is not encountered publicly, and for many straight people it is very rarely encountered at all. So when a lot of straight folks in those environments are reminded of homosexuality or of gay people, they think, "Oh, they're gay, which means...."

So for them, rainbow cookies for a gay client are sexually explicit.

And who are these liberals saying I have to make sexually explicit products?!

And so it goes.

Then again, there's a good chance that this fellow has also been given reasons to be afraid of "the gay agenda".

That's a fiction, of course, but if he believes it, well, he believes it.

So it's understandable. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Piggy]

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.

I wouldn't ask you to accept that they actually were obscene or sexually explicit.

I don't think they are either.

All I'm saying is that I understand why this guy firmly believes they are and can't believe that anyone would think they weren't.

Now, there are some cases I don't understand at all.

For instance, a woman who filed a formal complaint with the USPS about an envelope with the image of a chocolate-covered strawberry on it, claiming it was sexually explicit and obscene. (It wasn't. It was my envelope, for a health book marketed to seniors, and the image could have come off a cereal box.)

But this fellow I do understand. I know lots of fellows like this.

He doesn't need to see a shrink. He needs to have grown up somewhere else around some different people. But that's not ever going to have happened.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

But I would expect the meaning of the word "explicit" to be used right, and not like an excuse. As the quote goes, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

explicit
ex·plic·it
–adjective
1.
fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2.
clearly developed or formulated: explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3.
definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken: He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.
4.
described or shown in realistic detail: explicit sexual scenes.
5.
having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted: explicit movies; explicit books.
6.
Mathematics. (of a function) having the dependent variable expressed directly in terms of the independent variables, as y = 3x + 4.Compare implicit (def. 4).
​

It requires clear depiction, not just that it might be implied. In fact, explicit is pretty much an antonym of implied.

So, basically, what you _are_ asking me to accept is a fully bogus word redefinition. And of all the excuses for why bigotry should be understood, one that needs to redefine words to mean their opposite is one that is just flat out bogus.

ETA: just to make it clear, the only circumstance where that guy could _possibly_ think that they're sexually explicit is if he's too stupid to understand elementary English. Starting with what common words like "explicit" mean.

 

[quadraginta]

But I would expect the meaning of the word "explicit" to be used right, ...

<snip>

I think I may know where you started going off track here.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You know, I don't quite understand why the delicate flowers need to know anything beyond the fact that some customers wanted cookies with pretty rainbows on them. For that matter, do the little girls participate in the cookie production? I wouldn't want to eat anything prepared by small children--they're basically little germ bombs, aren't they?

Well, exactly. That's what I don't get about such exercises in justifying bigotry.

"Mommy, why are the cookies so weird coloured?"
"No idea, honey. Someone wanted them that way."

Heck, even in cases like that woman who was upset that some Flash game allowed her daughter to play a character married to another woman and the girl _asked_ about it... Dunno, whatever happened to just saying "it's a bug, honey. Programs on the computer often do weird stuff."

There seems to be some assumption that there's no way to avoid going into the sordid details, when really not only they're trivial to avoid, but everyone already does when it comes to heterosexual stuff.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I think I may know where you started going off track here.

Dunno, doesn't seem to me like going off track. If I'm asked to excuse bigotry because some stuff was "explicitly sexual", then I'm expecting it to actually fit the definition of "explicitly sexual." And not just some random words that make it sound like something else, and more excusable or damnable.

 

[quadraginta]

Dunno, doesn't seem to me like going off track. If I'm asked to excuse bigotry because some stuff was "explicitly sexual", then I'm expecting it to actually fit the definition of "explicitly sexual." And not just some random words that make it sound like something else, and more excusable or damnable.

No, no, no. I agree with all that. The thing is, it doesn't matter what you expect, or me either for that matter.

You're expecting the ignorant bigots to be able to encompass the proper meaning of the concept. Piggy's right about their perspective being different. I don't think he's trying to defend it, but it's silly to pretend that it isn't true.

That is really what's at the root of the problem. People like that don't have the intellectual tools to even grasp why they are so reprehensible.

All we can do is try to muster the cultural momentum to keep slapping them down, until they wither away and die off.

Who knows, maybe someday even an atheist could be elected president.