Refuse to make rainbow cookies; get evicted.

[Perd Hapley]

The owners of an Indianapolis bakery are being threatened with eviction, because they chose not to make cookies for "National Coming Out Day."

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100930/BUSINESS04/309300001/City-Market-vendor-could-lose-lease-for-turning-away-gays

When Lawrence v Texas was decided, I scoffed at the predictions from conservatives, that it would lead to the legal sanction of homosexual "marriage."  I was wrong. And even as homosexual "marriage" has won legal recognition in certain parts of the nation, I have still scoffed at the notion that churches will be required to perform or allow homosexual "weddings" in our sanctuaries. I can see now I was wrong about that, too.

Of course, churches have been able to escape such anti-discrimination tyranny in the past, but there are distressing signals that even that tradition is giving way. Besides, if homosexuality can go from an abomination to protected class in just a few short decades, then we can't expect anything else to last.

[White Horseradish]

Is someone forcing this guy to do business on city property? Is someone preventing him from renting space from a private entity which doesn't care about or supports his views? I fail to see the cause for outrage. You dance with the government, they get to order the tune.

[Perd Hapley]

Is someone forcing the university to do business with someone who disagrees with their point of view? Is someone preventing them from getting their cookies from a private entity not renting space from the city, which doesn't care about or supports their views? I fail to see the cause for outrage.

You dance with the government, they get to order the tune.

  So you're OK with the government enforcing a moral outlook that approves of homosexuality?


Also, you can let us know how you'd feel about the bakery declining an order for 6 dozen White Pride cookies, God Hates Fags cookies, etc. Keep in mind that this isn't about the Stocktons refusing to serve certain customers. They were asked to make cookies that promoted a certain viewpoint, and their local government is telling them they'd darn well better. That's disturbing, no matter how one gets down in the bedroom.

Not to mention that, as I read it, the customer in question was a public university. That's a public university expressing support for homosexuality. When a small business decided not to get involved in the situation, they were back-handed by local government. Nice.

[Gowen]

Fistful, .gov is the worlds biggest camel.  If you let .gov's nose in the tent, soon you have two humps and a tail inside with you.  Private schools have been fighting the government camel for years.  If you accept .gov money for anything, they will soon dictate the color of your underwear.  That being said....

So you're OK with the government enforcing a moral outlook that approves of homosexuality?

No, but due to the liberal cancer that has been eating Fed/State/local governments and by judicial fiat, .gov is bound and determined force diversity on the rest of us.  I don't know how to fight it, other than separating yourself from .gov as much as possible and voting out everyone other than those who's goal is to reduce government.

[Perd Hapley]

If you accept .gov money for anything, they will soon dictate the color of your underwear. 

I thought they were paying rent to the government.

Yes, I see the point about the bakery having a .gov entanglement. And if they had hung up a "No Homos" sign in the window, that would almost explain why they're being tossed out. But they did nothing like that at all.  It's one thing to refuse service to Democrats. It's another thing to decline an order for "Obama 2012" cookies.

[Gowen]

Same concept, they may be paying rent, but you have to play by their rules.  If you were a slum lord, you cannot discriminate against anyone, unless you are renting a room in your house.  Only then you can pick and choose whom or what you want in your house.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm entirely okay withe the government enforcing a view supportive of homosexuality on state property - for example, painting a massive GAYS ARE AWESOME sign on every government facility. As long as people are free to be retrogrades on the issue on their private property, I fail to see the problem.

[Perd Hapley]

Same concept, they may be paying rent, but you have to play by their rules.  If you were a slum lord, you cannot discriminate against anyone, unless you are renting a room in your house.  Only then you can pick and choose whom or what you want in your house.

If they agreed to "play by the rules," fine. But do you really think the "rules" they agreed to included a pledge to support National Coming Out Day?

[Perd Hapley]

I'm entirely okay withe the government enforcing a view supportive of homosexuality on state property - for example, painting a massive GAYS ARE AWESOME sign on every government facility. As long as people are free to be retrogrades on the issue on their private property, I fail to see the problem.

This is not a surprise. Some of us understand the problem; some of us need further enlightenment.

[MicroBalrog]

This is not a surprise. Some of us understand the problem; some of us need further enlightenment.

Do you genuinely think I will accept your world-view if you just pretend everybody should be taking it for granted?

[Perd Hapley]

Do you genuinely think I will accept your world-view if you just pretend everybody should be taking it for granted?

No. Do you genuinely believe that every statement of opinion is argument by assertion? I accept that you are wrong on certain issues, and probably won't change your mind. I simply wish to state the truth for the record.

You have gone on record as supporting an authoritarian and intrusive policy. That is your right.

[Vodka7]

I'm entirely okay withe the government enforcing a view supportive of homosexuality on state property - for example, painting a massive GAYS ARE AWESOME sign on every government facility. As long as people are free to be retrogrades on the issue on their private property, I fail to see the problem.

I'm actually really surprised to see you say that. As one libertarian to another, do you really think it's appropriate for a government to enforce a view supportive of anything outside of its limited and enumerated powers? Personally, I think the government should do a whole lot less supporting, and we can start by getting rid of every federal holiday that isn't Veteran's Day or Independence Day.

Christian, Jewish, gay, whatever--endorse and celebrate your own views. The government can step the hell out of it.

[vaskidmark]

I may be missing a few of the dfiner points here, but it seems that there is a misconception that the bakery is refusing to serve gays in the absolute sense of the word "refusing".  That seems to be not factually correct.

The bakery says we will not take that commercial order for goods and services because we feel it would indicate in some way that we suppport the activity.  The bakery did not say gays will not be served should they attempt to purchase displayed products.

Gays are not yet a legally protected class in regards to discrimination issues, as are the classess of race, gender (but not gender identification), national origin, handicapping condition, etc.  That being the case, the City Fathers and their administrative minions can have their thongs all wadded up as much as they care to but I fail to see how, legally, they can use this as an excuse to terminate the month-to-month lease status.  (Which, BTW, is not eviction and claiming it as such is just sensationalism.)

Could we discuss things from this point of view, as opposed to the "moral" position I see being bandied back and forth above?

stay safe.

[MicroBalrog]

I'm actually really surprised to see you say that. As one libertarian to another, do you really think it's appropriate for a government to enforce a view supportive of anything outside of its limited and enumerated powers?

No, but I believe it's appropriate for a government to enforce a view support of anything within its limited and enumerated powers.

[vaskidmark]

No, but I believe it's appropriate for a government to enforce a view support of anything within its limited and enumerated powers.

Which in this situation are what, perzakly?

stay safe.

[MicroBalrog]

Which in this situation are what, perzakly?

stay safe.

Well.

In my libertarian universe, the governemnt shouldn't maintain shopping centers and fairs. But clearly the local citizens feel otherwise.

Assuming we have agreed that this is okay for them to do so, it's also okay for them to evict retrograde shop owners.

[if fistful can use scare-marks to talk about gay marriage, I can call anti-gay people retrograde]

[MechAg94]

Fistful, .gov is the worlds biggest camel.  If you let .gov's nose in the tent, soon you have two humps and a tail inside with you.  Private schools have been fighting the government camel for years.  If you accept .gov money for anything, they will soon dictate the color of your underwear.  That being said....

My problem with this is that the Feds and local/state govts seem to be inventing new excuses to dictate things every year.  Govts have wormed their way into just about anything and everything we do.  The areas where govt does NOT have a mandate or excuse to stick their noses in are getting fewer and smaller. 

[Doggy Daddy]

On a related tangent...

Does anyone else see a certain lack of foresight in forcing a business to make the cookies against their will?  Will they tell the people eating the cookies the story behind them?

Maybe it's just me.  I'm already a bit cautious about food prepared for me by strangers.  Even more so if the stranger is pissed off about it.

DD

[Ron]

Make the cookies without sugar.

Idiot bureaucrats.

[Perd Hapley]

[if fistful can use scare-marks to talk about gay marriage, I can call anti-gay people retrograde]

You can call me retrograde if you like, but there is no reason to call people "anti-gay," just because they have a different point of view. If the Stocktons were doing something to hurt homosexual people, that might apply. As it happens, we only know that they don't join them in celebrating their particular vice.

[MicroBalrog]

If you believe homosexuality is a vice, isn't that the whole point of being anti-homosexual?

[Perd Hapley]

Er, no. Anti-homosexuality =/= anti-homosexual. I'm anti-Islam, but not anti-Muslim. Same thing.

[Gowen]

Make the cookies without sugar.

Idiot bureaucrats.

We had a dimwit baker at a store I worked at.  She mistook the salt bin for the sugar.  Let's just say the sugar donuts could melt the snow off the sidewalk.  She did this twice.  This wasn't on purpose, she really was that much of a ditz.
 
There was a funny story how this lady comes in with her son and buys him a sugar donut.  The boy takes a bite and won't eat the rest.  The mom gets mad at the boy and says "you wanted it, now eat it."  To which it boy replies that it tastes funny....

[White Horseradish]

You can call me retrograde if you like, but there is no reason to call people "anti-gay," just because they have a different point of view. If the Stocktons were doing something to hurt homosexual people, that might apply. As it happens, we only know that they don't join them in celebrating their particular vice.

Unless homosexuals are somehow exempt from paying taxes in that town they are hurting them. They are located on property that is city owned, meaning tax dollars are involved, and some of those dollars come from those unwholesome homosexuals. This is really no different than a religious display - do what you want, but do it on your own property.

[Ron]

The intolerance of the "tolerant" on full display.