Un-Just Cookies; or, "It's only a f---ing" cookie

Dateline: Thu 30 Sep 2010

So David and Lily Stockton, owners of Just Cookies in City Market, are going to the mat for their principles. They refused to bake an order of cookies in rainbow-icing hues for the National Coming Out Day celebration. Their reason? They don't want to do business with a group promoting "homosexual activity."

Mr. Stockton said, according to today's Indianapolis Star (Page 1, by Bill McCleery), "...he wanted to set what he believes is the right example for his two daughters.

Whatever happened to earning a living for your two daughters? As a friend noted, "It's only a f---ing cookie!" So take the order, already, and bake the cookies.

But no.

The order for the cookies was attempted by Heather Browning, coordinator for social justice at Indiana Unversity-Purdue University Indianapolis.

Now the City Market -- owned by the city -- is making grumbling noises, and the mayor is "dismayed and wants to make it clear that a person's values, morality and personal beliefs are absolutely not relevant to making a purchase at City Market," said Robert Vane, deputy chief of staff for Mayor Greg Ballard.

On the other side of the kitchen, Micah Clark of the American Family Assocation is defending the business owners; they have a right to make such a refusal on "moral grounds," he believes.

I've been reading a wonderful book, "The Jew Store," by Stella Suberman. It's an account of her immigrant Jewish parents and their family-owned "Bronson's Low-Cost Store" that they opened and ran in the 1920s in Concordia, Tenn., a good old boy enclave if ever there was one.

Yes, Jews -- at least this one family -- lived and prospered in Concordia. Other Jewish merchants had fanned out from New York City as well during this era, opening dry-goods stores throughout the Deep South -- hence the name "Jew strore," which sold "low cost" (never cheap) to folks in small towns and rural farms.

Guess what? The "Jew Store" sold to its Christian neighbors, black customers and, not always so obviously, members of the Ku Klux Klan and other bigots. Mr. Bronson had a living to earn; the principle was -- support your family.

What a luxury, to live in times when we can decide to whom we'll sell and for what reasons. And what an utter affront.

Another friend told a story recently of an expensive lamp that was broken by his adolescent son and the boy's friend. My friend had a fit and a half. Finally, as he was ranting, a fellow (who happened to be a child shrink) laid it on the line: "It's a f---ing lamp!"

Righto. My friend said that one sentence cut to the chase and cooled his temper. He quit going on about the lamp and hegot a grip.

In fact, the effect was so profound he had a plaque made for his doctor friend, which today sits is on the shrink's office desk. "He says it's a great ice breaker," my friend explained. The plaque says, "It's a f---ing lamp."

 

 

 

Comments

Matt Stone [unverified] said:

Exactly, Ruth. I've worked in a bakery as well. I can assure you we served anybody with money. We saved complaining about customers for after hours chit chat.

2010-09-30 12:03:54

Jeff [unverified] said:

For what it's worth, I understand that the order was for cupcakes, not cookies.

2010-09-30 12:14:38

Purdue Pete [unverified] said:

Why on earth would you attempt to order cupcakes at a business called "Just Cookies"? Reminds me of the old bit David Letterman did when he attempted to buy lamp shades at a store named "Just Lamps" and lamps at a store called "Just Lamp Shades." Silly college kids.

2010-09-30 13:03:30

Ms. Cynical [unverified] said:

Ummmm, an IUPUI staffer asked Just Cookies for rainbow-iced cookies and went the cupcake route after being slapped by Stockton.

2010-09-30 13:11:49

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Pete, if only you knew whereof you typed. I've been a customer of this downtown eatery, and they serve delicious brownies and on occasion, they serve cupcakes. Once last year, they had bachlava. I think they called it something else, but I can't remember...

I will give the bakers a second chance, but their excuse is laughable. Their City Market lease inclues specific provisions regarding discriminatory behavior--toward employees or customers. Few private-sector leases havhe such provisions.

I helped pass the HRO in this community a few years ago. I detest Greg Ballard, but his statements on this issue have been spot-on. Greg Ballard is wrong on so many issues, and he's a world-class bad mayor. He's gone in 15 months, thank God. I guess even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in awhile?

We have a lot more to learn about this case. I have zero sympathy for the bakers. They flat-out should've known better. They're conducting business in an open place, without a membership fee to enter...they have no right to discriminate unless the purchaser is heaving infected snot on their counters. And then, only for health concerns...not their sexual orientation or gender or anything else.

2010-09-30 14:07:00

ruthholl [Member] said:

I'm all mixed up. Cookies/cupcakes? I mean, that's not really the issue -- right? Maybe the IUPUI request was for cupcakes. If Just Cookie's justification for refusing the order was "we don't do cupcakes," then nobody would care. The real issue is the husband's refusal on moral grounds, with the wife now back-pedaling, or so it seems.
Besides, as TTT points out, they apparently have dabbled in other baked goods.
But not the homo kind.
Glad the Flying Cupcake scored some business out of this debacle.
Again: this is America. Somebody is always willing to make a buck.
And for those among you who want a good read, with a fascinating sociological take on our history and our economic drive -- do read The Jew Store. It was published in 1998, but it's still out there. GREAT insights...

2010-09-30 17:21:29

John Howard [unverified] said:

Don't the shop owners also have the right to not feel insulted or offended?

Why are the feelings of one side or this more important than the others?

2010-09-30 17:38:36

Matt Stone [unverified] said:

John, I can field that.

If what one of the above posters says is true, that the lease has specific non-discrimination language, then the shop owners can feel free to move their business elsewhere and negotiate a lease agreement to their liking.

But last I checked, bakeries are for buying food for consumption. I don't like people who get DUIs, but I didn't ask for a background check for every customer that came to be when I worked at Panera. I just gave them their food.

2010-09-30 17:59:34

VladTheImpaler [unverified] said:

Damn straight, John Howard, pardon the pun.

If the shop owners don't want to sell to a homosexual group then they have every right not to. Withholding cookies/cupcakes is not like withholding live-saving medical or police or fire services.

This is not a civil rights issue, as much as sanctimonious bedwetters would like to make it out to be. Where one would prefer to put one's fleshly or plastic po-po is not a damned civil right.

The owner deciding to decline to make the sale, to teach his daughter about taking a moral stand, is much more important in the end than a little money or to not offend the church of political correctness.

2010-09-30 18:08:14

hendy [Member] said:

I have to disagree with Mr Howard and Mr Impaler in their reasoning, but offer that the lesson taught was prejudice and exclusion.

In terms of civil rights, the constitution protects everyone. Yet as a business owner, there is no compelling right to have to serve up goods customized to the speech desires of someone else, good, bad, or otherwise.

People don't have to buy there, or maybe they will, depending on their sentiments. It's a mountain from a molehill that used the words GAY and RAINBOW to make the bulls see red. The lesson taught? It wasn't live and let live. It was don't give in to the queers. I'm guessing they've already learned how to spy prejudice; most kids do.

2010-09-30 19:22:00

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Interesting posts. It may seem like a minor point, but let's get this, uh, straight: the shopowners did NOT have the right to discriminate in this manner. Period. Mountain out of a molehill? Well, nobody got hurt,. so it isn't a federal case.

Nice thought, Hendy, but I walk in that world, every day, and gay folks DON'T have equal rights. Ever. Anywhere.

It's better than it used to be. But equal? Not even in the same area code.

The owners sought out this problem. Their choice should've been instinctively improper for them. The cupcake-ordering IUPUI person, decided to make it public. I'm not sure I would've. Can't really say. But it's out there, and now we all debate it. I wish the discussion weren't so shrill, because that kind of volume inevitably leads to the passionate defense of the shopowners, like Vlad's, which, unfortunately, swerves into unreasonable.

But equal? Don't make me laugh. Would that it were true.

Vlad: latch onto some decaf and try considering the position of we sanctimonious bedwetters. What a condescending and mean statement.

It's a cupcake, Vlad. And a principle.

2010-10-01 05:20:44

VladTheImpaler [unverified] said:

I see, TTT. Then the cookie/cupcake shop had dare not refuse an order for the Alabama Wife Beaters Convention when it meets at the convention center.

Or from the Man-Boy Love Association Midwest Annual Convention. Or from the American Socialist White Peoples Party.

That would be discrimination! But I doubt you'd be wringing your hands as vigorously if those orders were refused.

2010-10-01 07:05:33

Matt Stone [unverified] said:

Yes, because being gay is EXACTLY the same as NAMLBA, or being a wife beater! Good point, Vlad!

None of those actually have a history of discrimination against them and thus aren't protected classes.

I think some of the people commenting on this article would learn a lot if they or someone they knew faced discrimination. If you lived in a fantasyland, maybe you could see laws such as the HRO, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Civil Rights Act aren't necessary. But this is the real world, and these laws and protections ARE necessary. And if they're broken, as it was in this case, it should be dealt with appropriately.

2010-10-01 07:12:30

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Look Vlad, you're scting like you're thicker than a stump, which I don't believe, but here's the focal point:

Mrs. Stockton was explaining things perfectly well, then her loud-mouthed husband butted in with his "we have to teach our kids values" crap. As if gay parents don't try to teach their children values, as well.

The Moral Majority, which is neither, has made a 30-year career out of claiming the high-and-mighty mantle as their exclusive domain. Hint: it ain't. The religious icing on the (cup)cake is offensive, to say the least, because it's based in nonsense.

God loves everyone--no exceptions. None. Not one.

The bakers dug their own graves on this one. He went beyond the boundary.

Your comparison, Vlad, is, just, well...idiotic.

Matt, you're absolutely right. Discrimination comes in all forms, and with too many folks in VladLand, it's becoming more prevalent.

I don't favor a stern penalty here. An apology would suffice if I were the deciding authority.

Vlad, I have no idea what potential discrimination you might face someday. But if you walk through life with the attitude displayed in this post, you're living proof of one age-old maxim:

God takes care of children and fools.

And let us know the enxt time you face overt discrimination in housing, employment, public accomodations (THAT'S the pertinent obstacle in the Cupcake Caper) or anything else.

Lord have mercy.

2010-10-01 08:14:51

hendy [Member] said:

Matt seems to have nailed the prejudicial class disambiguation of Mr Impaler's argument. Nonetheless, I have to side with free speech working both ways. A commercial vendor doesn't have to abide by a customer's wishes. And a customer doesn't have to shop there.

Exposing the vendor's inability to fulfill, for whatever reason, is the customer's choice, as has been done here. But the vendor can be as stupid and narrow minded as he or she desires. Or not.

As Matt cites, gay people are who they are by birth genetics propensity or choice. The NAMBLA argument is a modern rubric argument used to damn homosexuality. We don't have laws in Indiana State government to protect gay people as a class. While that's another argument (class identification by sexual orientation), refusing service based on reviling one's sexual orientation seems a pretty silly stance.

2010-10-01 09:30:35

Ms. Cynical [unverified] said:

"Gay people" (however offensive they might be to Stockton) weren't attempting to order the cookies: an IUPUI staffer was.

Get a grip, folks. Businesses don't have the "right" to investigate the sexual orientation of the eventual consumers of their products.

IUPUI was the would be purchaser. It's a state-supported university, not a "gay" organization.

Sheesh!


2010-10-01 13:36:05

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Thanks, Ruth, for this really helpful post.

It has taught me a lot.

Such as: folks who might otherwise be supportive, by their general tone and comments, know almost nothing of this kind of discrimination. And even less about the existing HRO. And about a private business owner's right to sell/not sell based on varying identifying characteristics.

We have some work to do.

2010-10-01 13:45:42

Ms. Cynical [unverified] said:

National Coming Out Day is Thursday, October 7th, 2010 from 11:30 am - 1:30 pm in the Campus Center Atrium. Join the IUPUI community in empowering our GLBT community to live openly, honestly, and without fear. Between 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm, listen to proclamations and statements of support by Chancellor Charles R. Bantz, Interim Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, Dr. Norleen Pomerantz, and many more. Celebration activities will include a resource fair and cupcakes provided by The Flying Cupcake. See you there.

2010-10-01 18:47:36

EscapedBeforeBeingGannettized [unverified] said:

I'm as liberal as they come. But...the owner of Just Cookies has the right not to support the gay cause just as anyone else has the right to support the gay cause. This over-reaction is another simplistic example of our dumbed down society
beating the drum for the "it's all about me & my cause" and if you disagree, then here comes the stink!
Why can't folks be civil and agree to disagree. No one got shot or lost a limb here. A mix of civility and humility is a great recipe.

2010-10-01 21:29:45

Kendra [Member] said:

It is a simple legal question. The owner of the business is allowed to sell to whom he/she wishes. However his contract for his shop prohibts discrimination. The shop owner broke the contract. We are all responsible for the contracts we sign and the consequences. It's no different here. Simple and easy breach of contract.

2010-10-01 23:20:38

Jason [unverified] said:

I've got one: they're both wrong. This is a simple question of diversity versus tolerance. Diversity means taking the knuckleheads along with the people you agree with, tolerance is trying to limit the scope of diversity to a narrow skillset so as not to offend anybody.

Unfortunately, it seems people use the two terms synonymously when they couldn't be more apart. Does a gay cupcake maker have the right to refuse an order of cupcakes that have 'traditional family values' written all over them? Everybody deserves to have some pie, er, cupcake on the face over this one.

2010-10-02 04:01:37

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Oh, people, think before you type, please? Two things are at play: the Human Rights Ordinance, and the concept of operating a business in today's world.

The key phrase here is "public accommodation." The shop operated in a space that demands public accommodation.

Mrs. Stockton started down the right path. If the "no thanks" explanation had stopped with her, things would likely be OK. But then Mr. S pipes up... her husband needs some sensitivity training and some common-sense slaps Upside (the head). When he began talking about his values, and how that was the reason the order was refused, the Ordinance was violated. Nobody was asking him to show his daughters male-male sex manuals, for crying out loud. He needs to get a grip.

His lease was broken, too, although he's only month-to-month. The Use Clause of any retail use always mentions "lawful operation" and similar phrases.

So, to recap:

NO, Mr. Stockton did NOT have the right to refuse service because of HIS personal beliefs. Ever. If he depends on public accommodation.

YES, the HRO was likely violated, as was the lease.

Again, I favor a Teachable Moment here instead of a pound of flesh. I'm stunned at the lack of knowledge about basic lease/property rights.

I plan to buy cookies there the next time I'm downtown. I've patronized them before. And when I do, I plan to politely tell them I'm disappointed in their actions.

The city should investigate this thoroughly, and issue findings, but as for punishment: we have more important issues to debate. Learn. Move on.



2010-10-02 07:48:23

hendy [Member] said:

TTT- you needn't be stunned. We allow idiots. Idiots have protection under the first amendment, and all the rest of them. The HRO doesn't trump idiocy, or the first amendment. There wasn't hate speech. I personally feel the vendor was an idiot and a twit.

As a part of the greater LGBT community, I find his actions abhorent. But it's his choice. And it's our choice to walk past their stand and not buy anything, perhaps ever. We can also offer gestures of our lack of affection for him, but I don't suggest this. Unpleasantness offered to unpleasantness is just doubling the problem.

He doesn't have to put other symbols he doesn't like on cookies or cupcakes either, no matter whether they're a crucifix, a swaztika, or a happy-face. No violations of the HRO were made. Indeed, he was just an idiot. There are lots of prejudicial idiots out there. They're protected. You and I, too.

2010-10-02 08:59:54

nicmart [Member] said:

Granted they are small-minded, and not my sort of folks, but this is not a great inustice. There are many other bakeries who will not abjure gays. Nothing is lost.

Just as I have the right to disassociate from bigots, the bigots have the right to not associate with gays or provide goods to them. Despite the pious indignation, the exercise of this right is as important to gays as it is to religious bigots.

Boycott Just Cookies if you want, but allow them to exercise their right to small-mindedness. They might rather lose money than lose their right to conscience.

It wasn’t long ago that cities and states were violating the property and association rights of gays; imprisoning them for their sexual activities and invading and closing their clubs. An openly gay business would have been denied a place in City Market. It may seem a gratifying retribution to attack anti-gays, but it is neither just nor sensible. Some day the tables may again turn, and gays will take refuge in the same property rights that many would deny to the owner of Just Cookies.

Property rights are confusing to many people. They extend not only to physical property, but also to one’s own body, labors, and conscience. They are the basis for all rights, as James Madison famously explained.

http://tiny.cc/enqh0

2010-10-02 11:02:46

Jason [unverified] said:

TTT, not sure if that was directed at me or not, but I'm not trying to argue city ordinance, it's cut and dry and Straight Cookies Only should have their lease yanked.

What's confusing me is that the ordinance is contradictory. What do we do when multiculturalism attacks itself? What nicmart said.

2010-10-02 12:24:33

Jason [unverified] said:

Then again, if the city pulls their lease, how would that NOT be discriminating against them on the foundation of their religious beliefs?

2010-10-02 12:57:01

nicmart [Member] said:

Who will argue that it works both ways: that gay shopper should not be allowed to refuse to give money to religious bigots? Don't people on both sides of the counter have the same rights?

2010-10-02 13:16:06

hendy [Member] said:

We already do give money to religious bigots. And kiss-my-butt liberals, and everyone in between. There are better forums to deal with stereotypes, prejudice, and dogma hounds.

My argument is just as nicmart says: people on both sides of the counter have 'rights'. Free speech and free association are two of them.

Now, someone pipe up and talk about the second amendment, too. Gosh darn, we need a gun nut (oops, I mean advocate) in here, too. Isn't life amusing?

2010-10-02 16:34:34

Dick Hertz [unverified] said:

I can't believe this is even an argument. Businesses must serve the public. Period. Doesn't matter who the customers are -- what color they are, what religion they practice, who they have sex with, what country they come from. Doesn't matter whether the business is located in a public building. That's the law.

2010-10-02 16:49:28

Rita Rose [unverified] said:

The only example Stockton set for his daughters was that of bigotry. One more business I won't patronize .....

2010-10-02 17:15:50

nicmart [Member] said:

@ Dick
And if Jim Crow were still the law, or sodomy prohibition, or slavery? We would be obliged to comply, or could we think of liberty as our higher law?

Can you believe that Rosa Parks resisted an order to proceed to the back of the bus? That segregation was The Law should have ended the discussion, should it not?

2010-10-02 18:00:46

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Hendy: thanks, friend, I love ya more than my luggage, but you're wrong. The HRO is in play here, and was likely violated. But more importantly, where do you get the idea that business owners can refuse service for this reason There are reasons, of course; if the customer is filthy, or shouting rabid things, or wrote them a bad check...but the stated reason is illegal.

The govt. exists for many reasons, but in this case, the business operates with the full benefit of public accommodation. Which means the business owner has agreed to allow certain things to occur, in exchange for zoning permits, a Certificate of Occupancy, adherence to health codes, access by handicapped folks, etc. The trade-offeis oft misunderstood--the same argument came up in the Smoking Ordinance debate.

Jason: I don't favor yanking their lease. However, if they wanted to, as Landlords, the City could simply wait for a few days. Month-to-month means just that.

Monday, I'm going to get a copy of their lease, even if it takes a FOIA request. It's public record. I've been told what it says, but I want to read it.



2010-10-03 04:50:58

Wilson E Allen [unverified] said:

The delicate little sheltered daughters that Daddy Stockton was trying to protect from the icky queers are 17 & 20 years old. If he hasn't passed on his backwards 'values' to his offspring by their late teenage years, he's lost them already.

The two daughters are probably so embarrassed by their daddy making a bigoted fool of himself on TV...

2010-10-03 09:38:37

Dick Hertz [unverified] said:

@nicmart

You ask: And if Jim Crow were still the law, or sodomy prohibition, or slavery? We would be obliged to comply, or could we think of liberty as our higher law?

How can you make this comparison? Those laws were discriminatory. The law that businesses must serve the public eliminates discrimination. Just Cookies has no right to decide which customers it likes and will sell to.

If the people at Just Cookies think they should have the right to decide which customers they can sell to, let them fight it in court. I look forward to that argument.

2010-10-03 12:04:27

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Wilson, is that true?

I had no idea. It does make a difference.

2010-10-03 19:51:01

nicmart [Member] said:

@ Dick
You missed my point and its connection to your own. You said that there should be no debate because "That's the law." I pointed out that there are times when conscience trumps law. And it isn't primarily about sexual or racial prejudice, it is about the right to freedom of belief and action.

It is not a legitimate power of government to dictate matters of conscience. If I own a cookie business I have the moral right to refuse to make cookies celebrating the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nation, or Right to Life. I wouldn't provide them with the fruits of my labor no matter what government dictated. Gays offend some Christians as much as the KKK offends me. They have the same inalienable right to not sell cookies to gay consumers as consumers have to avoid buying their cookies. Freedom is a two-way street.

Now, is it possible for you to post without using such a puerile pseudonym?

2010-10-03 21:29:44

Pete [unverified] said:

To all the Just Cookie defenders I have this question. Does the shop owner make sure that he grills each and every customer to make sure their private lives meet his high moral standards? If there is a female customer, does he make sure that they aren't having premarital sex before selling them a cookie? What kind of system does he have in place to make sure he isn't selling to anyone who is pro-choice? Or pro-death penalty (virtually every major Christian denomination in the US is officially against the death penalty). The answer is that he probably doesn't do any of those things because he would come off as a loon if he did. He mouthed off to the Fox reporter because he, sadly, realized that the knuckledraggers in Indianapolis would be cheering him on with his gay-bashing.

It's funny to hear some of the "businesses have the right discrimminate" arguments from so-called Christians. One one hand, they think that Just Cookies were within their rights. On the other, the same people siding with Just Cookies will be flooding the Indianapolis Star with outraged letters the first time a store clerk says "Happy Holidays" this December.

2010-10-04 08:45:29

nicmart [Member] said:

@ Pete

I don’t know to whom you have addressed your comment, but I’ll reply.

1. I’m an atheist. I started the first public gay rights organization in Kentucky, in 1978.

2. If they want to ask such questions you use as examples, they have a natural and constitutional right to do so. The First Amendment makes no exception for foolish questions. I doubt it would be good business.

3. Just Cookies didn’t say the won’t serve gay customers, or ask who is gay. They refused to provide cookies that were for an expressly gay event.

4. You have’t responded to any of my points. Would a Black-owned bakery be justified, in your view, to refuse to make cookies for a KKK group?

5. Liberals often accuse businesspeople of being “greedy,” and putting profits before values. Here is a business owner who puts his values before profits, and Ruth slams him for not putting the money first!

2010-10-05 13:19:19

Pete [unverified] said:

1. Good on you. My point was that supposedly Christian people are remarkably silent about the other "sins" that the Bible spells out like stealing, lying, and the like. The fundies are obsessed with sexuality seemingly above all other things.

2. The point about asking questions of all customers is that you can't claim that your discrimmination against a customer is based on not wanting to violate your religious beliefs if you can't demonstrate that you hold ALL customers accountable to the same standard, not just the gay ones. Either way, the City Market lease clearly didn't give the man leeway to do what he did.

3. Did Just Cookies ever post any signs or have any disclaimer in their menu about this? Also, did Just Cookies endeavor to determine each and every possible use for the cookies sold before the transaction with each customer?

4. Ah, the test case argument. Well, a smart business would have stated that not all special orders can be filled and left it at that. For your KKK hypothetical, the smart reaction of the store would have been to say that the schedule didn't allow the special order to be filled and left it at that.

The owner Just Cookies just couldn't resist patting himself on the back for his homophobia on camera. If he had shut his mouth, this wouldn't have blown up.

5. Putting hatred before common decency is not something to be commended.

BTW, if you actually founded a gay rights group, why on earth would you be applauding the store owner's homophobia?

2010-10-05 16:05:35

nicmart [Member] said:

@ Pete
You confuse a defense of free choice with support for belief. I don’t support Nazis, communists, or cannibals, but I support their right to conscience, association, speech, and choice of service.

The word “homophobia” is used promiscuously and often inaccurately. Christians who don’t approve of homosexuality are usually not afraid (phobia), they are disapproving. They don’t necessarily hate homosexuals, either. In my experience the most common reaction of anti-homosexual Christians is disgust; less often hate; and rarely fear.

That said, I don’t agree with their attitudes, but I believe they have the absolute right to follow their consciences, just as you and I do.

2010-10-05 21:13:15

nicmart [Member] said:

I guess I had better clarify that my support for the freedoms of Nazis, communists, and cannibals does not extend to their engaging in acts of violence. That won’t be obvious to some people.

2010-10-05 21:16:09

Pete [unverified] said:

Um, no. Homosexuality is NOT illegal. Gay people are entitled to each and every legal right that straight people are. Gay people are entitled to the same respect that any other customer in a cookie store is entitled to. Period. Full Stop.

Some people truly feel that their morality compels them to view black people with disgust, should they also be given a "conscience" exception to discrimminate against black people? If you think that anti-gay discrimmination is aok, then you'd have to agree with racial discrimmination as well.

2010-10-06 08:50:29

Pete [unverified] said:

Upon further reflection, let's try a different hypothetical (because let's face it, people who are in favor of anti-gay discrimmination really blanche at being reminded that their arguments exactly mirror segregationists from the 60's)

Ok, the fundies claim not to "hate" homosexuality, they instead prattle about "lifestyle". Ok, let's apply that threshhold to obesity. Being overweight is directly a product of lifestyle choices where a person massively overeats and refuses to exercise. To be blunt, morbidly obese people aren't pleasant to look at in some cases. So, if I as a thin shopkeeper decide that the "fat lifestyle" is disgusting, that would give me the right to refuse service to an overweight person for that reason alone? Do you think entire organizations would be devoted to argue that fat people's lifestyle choices should make them ineligible for marriage, teaching in schools, belonging to the Boy Scouts, getting medical power of attorney, etc? No, of course not. That would be silly.

Of course, years from now, when full gay rights are a reality, conservatives will be loudly insisting that *they* were at the vanguard of it, just like Civil Rights.

2010-10-06 09:01:55

Tom Greenacres [unverified] said:

"Gosh darn, we need a gun nut (oops, I mean advocate) in here, too."

Ewww, me, call on me.

BTW, I think the cookiemaker's insistence that he is making a moral point to his daughters loses rather a lot of its energy because as pointed out above (a) they are not malleable minor children, (b)he could have refused to fill the order for all sorts of other reasons and kept his bigotry to himself, and (c)it is ultimately the provider's prerogative to decline to make a product if he doesn't want to.

I think both sides have used this minor confabulation as a hammer to drive home their respective points...and of course it is just such events that ultimately lead to Big Changes.

2010-10-06 18:12:36

VladTheImpaler [unverified] said:

TTT,

Vlad been off-planet fer a while. He jist saw your kind words bout him. Thanks for all yew do to fight dem bigoats and homaphobes. Vlad are so impressed he sendin Lisa Coffey up yer way to tuck you in to bed and to tell ya bedtime story. Well, maybe not -- she waz gonna git a ride up there from BMV commishner Andy Miller, but acordin to The Star looks like Miller jist got arrested. Maybee later.

2010-10-06 20:49:11

Comments are closed.

Login

or Register

Search

Syndicate Blog