Refuse to make rainbow cookies; get evicted.

[Seenterman]

If this isn't similar to the NYC Mosque issue how about the Colorado Art Museum exhibit?

the Colorado art museum is taxpayer-funded, and that's where I take issue with this exhibition of "art". If this **expletive deleted** "artist" wants to have his "art" in private galleries, let him do so.

http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=26357.0

I actually agree with that. Its a taxpayer funded museum that is displaying art that offensive to some of its constituents, who shouldn't be forced to fund art of that nature.  But this is why I hate gov meddling in private enterprise, it complicates everything ten fold. Why is it any different that a business in the Indianapolis City Market which I assume was built with tax payer dollars is coming under fire for refusing to make a set of cookies based on his "morals".

Just Cookies engaged in discrimination last week when he cited moral objections to homosexuality as his reason for declining a customer's request to provide rainbow-iced cookies for a "National Coming Out Day"

The owner specifically cites homosexuality as the reason he won't take the order, he only says they don't take special orders after the fact, when his judgment is coming under fire. If the owner had said in the first place, "I'm sorry but we don't take special orders" none of this would be an issue. This isn't about not supporting coming out day, its about refusing a customer based on their sexuality while leasing a space from the city gov.

 I suspect in the lease the owner of the company signed with the City Market there's a clause about discrimination; saying your not going to take a customers order based on his sexuality is blatant discrimination. Just because some of you believe that homosexuals are an "abomination" based on your religious beliefs doesn't make it less discriminatory than thinking blacks are a "abomination" just because.

[Perd Hapley]

This isn't about not supporting coming out day, its about refusing a customer based on their sexuality while leasing a space from the city gov.

That is the opposite of the truth, at least according to the information I've seen. I don't see anything in the article about Heather Browning being a homosexual. She ordered the cupcakes because she is a professional leftist, as far as I can tell, not because she is a homosexual. Her order was declined because the Stocktons disagreed with her views. If you have information to the contrary, could you please share it with the rest of us?

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

Lily Stockton said Wednesday that anyone may buy cookies from the trays on the bakery's shelves.

"I don't ask people about their sexual orientation," she said. "Everyone is welcome to come buy our cookies."

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

never mind...

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I came across this quote that sums up the situation better than I could:

As business owners, it's completely within the Stocktons' right not to be forced by a customer to make a product that violates their moral and/or religious convictions. If the customers don't like it, they can take their dollars elsewhere. Just because David and Lily own a store doesn't mean they're slaves to the agenda of anyone who visits.

[Perd Hapley]

And the fact that they rent public property means that the property owner is not free to discriminate against them. As owners of a private sector business, they should be allowed to discriminate.

Generally speaking, in a free country the people have more freedom to act than the government.

[De Selby]

Okay, headless, it looks to me like your position is this:

It's okay for the Government to conclude that a mosque is inappropriate near ground zero, based on the beliefs of the landowners.  That should support a zoning restriction, which is in other words a law that tells people what to do with their own property.

At the same time, the Government has no right to conclude that a business which discriminates against gays is inappropriate for a government-owned property, because of the first amendment.

Why are you okay with the Government deciding on the basis of people's beliefs when it comes to mosques on private property, but opposed to the Government making any judgment at all when it comes to doing business on public property?

I cannot see any way to reconcile these positions without reference to the content of the beliefs. 

[De Selby]

And the fact that they rent public property means that the property owner is not free to discriminate against them. As owners of a private sector business, they should be allowed to discriminate.

Generally speaking, in a free country the people have more freedom to act than the government.

Okay, so because the Government cannot discriminate, it must do business with and support people who discriminate using that very support?  That makes no sense.  Why should public resources support private discrimination against that very same public?

[Perd Hapley]

Okay, so because the Government cannot discriminate, it must do business with and support people who discriminate using that very support? everyone equally, leasing to every business, regardless of their social, religious or political views. That makes no sense.

Now it makes sense.

Why should public resources support private discrimination against that very same public?

Because private enterprises have a right to discriminate. (But again, the bakers didn't discriminate against homosexuals, only against a certain viewpoint.) If the city wishes to lease retail space to businesses, it ought to be willing to accept the legitimate choices that business owners make. Since the city is in the business of leasing, not of making cookies, the city can only discriminate in leasing, not in the production of baked goods. And discrimination in leasing is what the city has chosen to do, by declaring a certain opinion unacceptable, then threatening to evict the citizens who held that view.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Okay, so because the Government cannot discriminate, it must do business with and support people who discriminate using that very support?  That makes no sense.  Why should public resources support private discrimination against that very same public?

does the irony of you attempting to gig him for doing , in essence , the same thing you do only from the opposite side?

[De Selby]

Government is dealing with everyone equally if it, for example, contracts for services only with people who will behave as the Government does - this is a fairly important rule, as otherwise the Government could farm out discrimination against any group it wants, even where voters have supported laws to restrain the Government from that behaviour.  

So no, it does not make sense for the Government to do business with people whose discrimination would be illegal if the Government were to do it.  The Government has no right to give public resources to endeavours that, if Government undertook them, would result in discrimination against its own citizens that would be illegal if the Government were to do it.

Private enterprises do not have a right to operate; they only have a negative right not to be prohibited from operating.  You are implying an affirmative right to access public resources, which does not exist.  And they certainly have no right to compel the Government to support behaviour that the Government itself is prohibited from undertaking.

[De Selby]

does the irony of you attempting to gig him for doing , in essence , the same thing you do only from the opposite side?

It isn't the same thing.  The same thing, would be, for example, supporting a policy that the Government won't rent to Christians.  This is the Government not allowing people who use its resources to do something that the Government can't do, namely, discriminate.  You must discriminate on your own property with your own resources if you wish, and that's fine by me. 

[Perd Hapley]

Government is dealing with everyone equally if it, for example, contracts for services only with people who will behave as the Government does - this is a fairly important rule, as otherwise the Government could farm out discrimination against any group it wants, even where voters have supported laws to restrain the Government from that behaviour.  

That would be a good rebuttal, if we were talking about something like the U.S. Postal Service, which provides a service to the govt (running the mail system it used to run directly). Obviously, we would not wish for the postal service to refuse to carry invitations to National Coming Out Day.

But the bakery is not under contract to do anything for, or on behalf of, the govt. It doesn't represent the govt., or provide essential services that the govt. would otherwise perform. It leases space from the city. Again, if the city wants to lease space to businesses, it should respect ordinary business processes, like turning down work with which the management is uncomfortable, ethically.

Private enterprises do not have a right to operate; they only have a negative right not to be prohibited from operating.  You are implying an affirmative right to access public resources, which does not exist.

No, I'm not. They're on a month-to-month, so I presume (not being a real estate expert) that the city could quietly boot them on that basis. But that is apparently not what the city chose to do. They decided to openly harass a couple of harmless bakers for their failure to celebrate Gay Day, and make plain that their possible eviction will be on that basis.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Okay, headless, it looks to me like your position is this:

It's okay for the Government to conclude that a mosque is inappropriate near ground zero, based on the beliefs of the landowners.  That should support a zoning restriction, which is in other words a law that tells people what to do with their own property.

At the same time, the Government has no right to conclude that a business which discriminates against gays is inappropriate for a government-owned property, because of the first amendment.

Why are you okay with the Government deciding on the basis of people's beliefs when it comes to mosques on private property, but opposed to the Government making any judgment at all when it comes to doing business on public property?

I cannot see any way to reconcile these positions without reference to the content of the beliefs. 

sorry i clicked the wrong button  this is the post with the ironic hypocrisy

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Okay, headless, it looks to me like your position is this:

It's okay for the Government to conclude that a mosque is inappropriate near ground zero, based on the beliefs of the landowners.  

My objection to the GZM is not based on religion or on content of beliefs.

If a religous venue from any other faith, or any non-religious developemt, was just as wrong and innapropriate for its proposed location as the GZM, then I'd support the city using their existing zoning and city planning tools to block or correct it.  

I recollect being pretty clear about this in the GZM thread, that this sort of zoning and planning crap bites everyone regardless of their religious affiliation or non-affiliation.  I was also pretty clear that it should apply to everyone equally, and nobody should get special treatment on account of their chosen religion or non-religion.

...but opposed to the Government making any judgment at all when it comes to doing business on public property?

Once the city leases the space to the tenants, the space is no longer public.  It belongs to the tenants according to the lease.

[De Selby]

My objection to the GZM is not based on religion or on content of beliefs.

If a religous venue from any other faith, or any non-religious developemt, was just as wrong and innapropriate for its proposed location as the GZM, then I'd support the city using their existing zoning and city planning tools to block or correct it.  

Okay, how and on what basis other than the religion of the builders did we decide this was "wrong and inappropriate"?  Because here you are saying that the Government should not make decisions based on religious beliefs.  So what about the "GZM" makes it "wrong and inappropriate", if not the religion involved?

Once the city leases the space to the tenants, the space is no longer public.  It belongs to the tenants according to the lease.

Landlords do retain rights over property, but in any case, your argument can't possibly have to do with lease terms - if it did, the Government could simply lease on conditions that businesses follow anti-discrimination laws and not do anything Government is prohibited from doing.  But you specifically identified such demands as illegitimate when made by Government.

Do tenants not have to rent on the landlord's terms when the .gov is the landlord?  And if the Government can't behave as a landlord, then the sanctity of landlord-tenant relations can't be the reason behind your claim here.  

[De Selby]

TAgain, if the city wants to lease space to businesses, it should respect ordinary business processes, like turning down work with which the management is uncomfortable, ethically.

Why can't the city have its own ordinary business practice of refusing to lease property to businesses that discriminate against gays?  That would seem to be the most obvious way of getting the city to respect its own anti-discrimination laws, ie, by having an ordinary practice of only doing business with people who agree not to do things that would be illegal if done by government.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Okay, how and on what basis other than the religion of the builders did we decide this was "wrong and inappropriate"?  Because here you are saying that the Government should not make decisions based on religious beliefs.  So what about the "GZM" makes it "wrong and inappropriate", if not the religion involved?

It has nothing to do with the Islamic faith, and everything to do with the association with the tragedy that took place there.

Let's say that instead of murdering 3,000 people in the name of Islam, fanatics had instead murdered 3,000 people in the name of Ronald McDonald.  It would be inappropriate to put up a ginormous McDonalds restaurant right there.  Again, it wouldn't be their religion (Ronald has no religion, afaik), it would be the association with the great tragedy.

Landlords do retain rights over property, but in any case, your argument can't possibly have to do with lease terms - if it did, the Government could simply lease on conditions that businesses follow anti-discrimination laws and not do anything Government is prohibited from doing.  But you specifically identified such demands as illegitimate when made by Government.  

First off, the question isn't whether landlords in general can put such a requirement in the lease, the question is whether the specific landlord in this case did put that requirement in.  If the Just Cookies lease specifically says Just Cookies must give up certain aspects of its day-to-day operations, such as their ability to choose what products to make, as a condition of leasing the space, then I'd be more ok with it.

Some folks in this thread have asserted that the city did put such a restriction in.  I don't believe it.  I worked in commercial real estate for about a decade, and I've seen plenty of leases.  I can't remember ever seeing anything like that.  If anyone thinks think that these terms are in their lease, and that the city/ICM is acting within its bounds of its contract in trying to control what kinds of cookies the Stocktons sell, then prove it and I'll drop the matter.

You're right, though.  If the government is the entity doing the leasing, then the entire community should have equal access to the project.  The gov should not specifically require that members of any faith act against their religious convictions as a condition of receiving the same city services, advantages, and access as everyone else.  

This whole mess is the result of government exceeding its authority by trying to legislate against religious convictions, and trying to legislate its own moral dictates in their place.  Any law of this sort is bound to cause problems.

[TommyGunn]

.....Private enterprises do not have a right to operate; they only have a negative right not to be prohibited from operating.  ......

   Please explain how a "negative right NOT to be prohibited from operating"  is any different from "a right to operate."

+1 = -(-1)      or, in otherwords "A"  equals "not(not A)."

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I found another quote that sums up my position better than I could.  From the Indiana State Constitution:

Section 3. No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

I trust the state chapter of the ACLU will be along shortly to defend the Stocktons against any potential abuses of their constitutional rights.

[roo_ster]

I found another quote that sums up my position better than I could.  From the Indiana State Constitution:

Section 3. No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.

I trust the state chapter of the ACLU will be along shortly to defend the Stocktons against any potential abuses of their constitutional rights.

Yep, right after they finish with the RKBA case.

[Perd Hapley]

Why can't the city have its own ordinary business practice of refusing to lease property to businesses that discriminate against gays? 

Why can't the city just refuse to discriminate against people who disagree with the professional left-wingers at the local U? And for the umpteenth time, the Stocktons did not discriminate against "gays." They did not refuse service to homosexuals. Please check your facts.

As long as the city is equally willing to lease space to Jim's Gay Bakery and Ray's Straight Bakery, the city is not discriminating. If someone wants a Rainbow Pride Gay Bakery on the city's retail property, I don't see what's stopping them. If my city leased space to Democratic campaign offices, I would have no right to complain, so long as it was equally ready to lease space to Republican campaign offices. You would not find me complaining to the city, that the Dem. campaign office won't print Republican flyers for me to hand out. This is what Ms. Browning's actions amount to.

That would seem to be the most obvious way of getting the city to respect its own anti-discrimination laws, ie, by having an ordinary practice of only doing business with people who agree not to do things that would be illegal if done by government.

Why should a private business be limited to things the govt. is allowed to do?

But back to affirmative/negative rights for a minute - where did we discover an affirmative right to gay cookies? 

[sanglant]

they pulled it out of con Frank's .........

[MicroBalrog]

After reviewing the facts of the case, I find myself in agreement with fistful. On a homosexuality-related incident no less.

[Perd Hapley]

woot

[Perd Hapley]

Some relevant portions of the law were posted by an apparently illiterate blogger. He seems to have missed the fact that the laws he's quoting say nothing about "discrimination" based on differing viewpoints. (Other than religion, which doesn't seem to apply here.)
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2010/09/just-cookies-cant-discriminate-against.html


I've noticed that none of the stories about this issue indicate whether the "gay customer" "turned away" by the bakery was actually a "gay customer," as so many news outlets seem to be reporting. According to the following article, oddly titled "City responds to complaints about bakery not serving gay customer," Heather Browning (presumably a female) has a boyfriend. Hmm. I guess she might swing both ways, but how interesting that the person supposedly turned away for her sexual orientation appears to be a heterosexual.

http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-bakery-wont-make-cupcakes-update-092310,0,2247943.story

City responds to complaints about bakery not serving gay customer

"It's blown up bigger than I thought, I didn't expect that many people to get involved," said Shan Parker, the customer's boyfriend.

Also, it may be that even the university staff understands that the bakery owners were well within their rights.
http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-bakery-wont-make-rainbow-cupcakes-092310,0,6300849.story

IUPUI's spokesperson said the school has no formal complaint against the bakery and added embracing diversity means allowing the business owners the right to their opinion and the right to choose how to serve its customers, as long as those customers are not discriminated against.