Posted on 10/01/2010 5:47:38 AM PDT by IbJensen
An Indianapolis cookie shop could be evicted from its longtime location for refusing a special order from a college homosexual group.
The bakery "Just Cookies" has operated in a city-owned market for over 20 years. The president of the board that oversees the market told the Indianapolis Star that he would "hate to lose them" as a tenant -- but that could very well happen because owner David Stockton took a moral stand and did not want to endorse homosexual activity.
Controversy arose this week after the owners of the bakery cited moral objections to a special-order request for rainbow-decorated cookies for next week's "National Coming Out Day" observance at a nearby university campus. Stockton told the caller he did not feel comfortable in supporting homosexual values, especially because it would not set a good example for his two daughters.
Micah Clark of the American Family Association of Indiana says there are reports the city might evict Stockton, citing a local "anti-discrimination" statute.
-snip-
"If this were a Muslim-owned bakery, what would happen?" he wonders. "I don't think the city would pursue it the way they're pursuing it now. I think this is part of the liberal agenda where people must conform to the views that our culture wants in support of homosexuality."
-snip-
To make rainbow cookies for a special event with which the company has a disagreement -- I think that goes beyond the pale of what we should expect companies to do."
Meanwhile, homosexual groups are circulating memos encouraging people to stop purchasing at Just Cookies. Clark's response to that is to ask residents to do business there in support of the owners and their wholesome beliefs.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...
This isn't a matter of turning away customers at all, they will sell cookies to the proud-in-their-sodomy group. They just won't customize the order against their beliefs. The store owner said it well in the interview: he also wouldn't make an order of cookies displaying obscenity. This is an apt comparison.
What a fitting description of Hollywood and the Department of Education
See conservativegramma’s post 77.A lot more info. This was a special order. This business doesn’t do special orders. It’s apparent they are targets of homosexual radicals.
His bakery only makes cookies, which is why the name is JUST COOKIES. They don't make cupcakes at all.
Oh!
This is going to be a FUN one!!
Get the popcorn!!!
Oh, but THIS is NOT what this is about!
Them FAGS could buy anything their little hearts desired that were sitting in the display case.
What they WANT, is for the business to GO OUT OF IT'S WAY to bake aup some SPECIAL things; things not normally stocked.
LOr...
We now have Rainbow cakes @ $777 each.
How many do you want?
Hoosier daddy?
"Hey Rush!
Have you heard about THIS??"
I was really commenting on the psychology of these events. On the one hand, we've all heard "The customer is always right" and on the other hand, we have certain demographic groups who believe "If you don't do exactly as I tell you, then you are a Hater, I'm a victim, and I get to sue you."
Based on those two concepts, some folks probably COULD go to a Ford dealer and demand a car with a Chevy engine. The only reason the dealer wouldn't comply would be because he hates that particular demographic group, right?
My premise here is that the lunch counter sit-ins iniated a period in which businessmen must satisfy their customers and if they do not, then perhaps there is discrimination going on.
My belief is that if we respected property rights, a baker could say "I sell cookies. Not cupcakes. And I don't decorate them. Not for you. Not for anyone. Now, buy something or get out." And a car dealer could say "I sell Fords. They come with Ford engines. Now, buy something or get out."
But currently, the government wants to examine these cases and (possibly) tell the business owner that it's not his call. Maybe the customer's desires carry more weight than the businessman's desires.
Excellent idea.
>> They should have just put a sign up in the window saying “All proceeds from Rainbow cakes will be donated to Focus on the Family.” <<
I’ve been thinking about your post and come to the conclusion ... your solution is brilliant.
Here’s why: From what I understand, this tenant signed the lease, which required him to abide by the city’s non-discrimination rules, so he’s going to get his a** handed to him if he tries to sue. He had a choice to enter into that lease or not and now won’t abide by the terms. Legally, he’s completely in the wrong.
But your solution would effectively achieve the same thing because no self-respecting liberal would buy cupcakes from a business with a sign like that. He is honoring his contract, keeping his word, acting pleasantly and yet creating an environment where his customers will filter themselves based upon their response to that sign. If someone does buy from him, he donates the money and knows that the profits went to support a conservative religious group with a powerful political arm.
Your solution is so utterly simple and profound when everyone else is screaming “get the lawyers” or “discrimination”!
You win Strategy 101 for the day =) That was a moment of Solomon-like discernment.
No. He's not. See post 77 for more info. This store does not do special orders. Ever. You walk in and buy what they have. And they don't make cupcakes. Their name is "Just Cookies".
Would it be stupid if a black baker turned away a KKK member that wanted cupcakes with white hoods on them?
No business owner should have to endorse a message through a product he or she doesn't approve of.
They don't want tolerance. They want to bugger your 8 year old son. Most of them just aren't honest enough to say it.
So, lying is required to have basic freedoms in this country?
“I think it’s a stupid business practice to turn people away and say “We don’t serve your kind” — but still, it is a businessman’s right. You own the property, you should be able to serve (or not serve) whomever you please. But, America decided that the lunch counters in the south had to serve blacks, like it or not.”
The death of freedom of association. And nobody noticed it....
My guess is that this group intentionally targeted the store looking for this sort of conflict. Homosexuals won't rest until those that disagree with their behavior are forced to endorse it.
My guess is that this group intentionally targeted the store looking for this sort of conflict. Homosexual activists won't rest until those that disagree with their behavior are forced to endorse it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.