Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  discrimination nation

Because Just Cookies Is A ‘Good Business,’ It Should Be Able To Discriminate Against Gay Customers

Will Just Cookies, the Indianapolis bakery, lose its lease in a city-owned market for refusing to bake rainbow cupcakes for local college gays? They shouldn’t, say the authors of the city’s human rights ordinance. Jesus.

“We never intended for good businesses to be kicked out,” says Jackie Nytes, a Democratic council member and ordinance sponsor. “We sure never meant for the ordinance to be interpreted that aggressively.”

What, exactly, was the 2005 City Council-passed ordinance for then? To protect LGBTs (and other minority classes) from discrimination in housing, employment, and yes, public accommodations. Which should mean Just Cookies — whose owners David (pictured) and Lil Stockton and refused to fill an order from Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis students — is included in the list of entities that cannot use any of those classes to discriminate. Which is, uh, exactly what they did.

But because they are a “good business,” let’s let them continue discriminating. Hope nobody wants any Black History Month cupcakes.

“We just wanted gay people to be able to walk up there and buy cookies, the same cookies as you or I,” adds Nytes. “We didn’t want to have to dictate what people’s politics should be.” Which means business owners can’t discriminate against customers, just their customers’ desire to celebrate their culture. And given Nytes’ misguided rationale, an apartment complex could not refuse to rent a condo to a gay person simply for being gay, but if that resident was going to practice homosexuality in the apartment, then it’s perfectly okay to refuse housing.

For what it’s worth, Mayor Greg Ballard’s office is still investigating the incident.

By:           Ryan Tedder
On:           Oct 11, 2010
Tagged: , , , , , , ,

  • 16 Comments
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      The ordinance clearly states discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited. Stockton signed the agreement and recieved tax breaks to be included in the business improvement zone. He very clearly stated the reason he denied the sale was because the customers were Gay……..If he denied a sale to the Black student group or any other minority he would be evicted. The bullshit that we are treated as and accept being second class citizens is over………

      Sorry Stockton thats the way the cookie crumbles………

      Oct 11, 2010 at 1:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Um…idiot, the gay folks WEREN’T able to go buy cookies like everybody else you dim cow.

      Oct 11, 2010 at 1:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Hilarious
      Hilarious

      Slow news day?

      You’ve done this story three times and nothing really has changed in the article.

      Oct 11, 2010 at 2:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Andy
      Andy

      @PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS: The only group that can be discriminate in America is gays. You do this to Jews, black, etc then the shit hits the fan. With gays, there’s always this vacillation. “Eh, well, maybe.”

      Oct 11, 2010 at 3:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • soul_erosion
      soul_erosion

      oh no, please don’t tell me you brought this up again in hopes of another B. Hill versus Cassandra Bible study. I’d rather read another Dept of Justice DOMA appeals brief than to go through that again, though I must say Cassandra has lifted a great deal of hate from my heart with her rebuttal.

      Oct 11, 2010 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Yet Another
      Yet Another

      Because I’ve skipped over the previous times this was covered, I’ll just ask once. Was the objection to selling cookies or to making a special order of rainbow cookies? Were gays denied the general service available to all, or a special discretionary service. That will make the difference in the legal argument. I dont know the answer. I’m just asking.

      Based off of only this “article”, the comparison of rainbow cookies to the celebration of culture or the practice of homosexuality in an apartment is a gross mischaracterization.

      I’m opposed to any public funding of discriminatory practices but I’m also staunchly against hypocritical hyperbole and gay-baiting.

      Oct 11, 2010 at 5:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dick
      Dick

      @Cam: Does this business accept special orders? Are they being asked to create “erotic” cupcakes? If they first answer is yes and the second answer is no, then they are breaking the rules and should pay. They could accept the order and ask that their name not be mentioned, but it’s too late for that now.

      Oct 11, 2010 at 6:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alex
      alex

      Wouldn’t it be nice if Queerty authors provided contact information for elected officials like Jackie Nytes? Granted, emails and calls from people outside Nytes’ district won’t be deemed as important. Still, I believe Queerty could be empowering us instead of simply providing their opinion and collecting ad revenue.

      Oct 11, 2010 at 6:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TommyOC
      TommyOC

      This will earn me some ire, I’m sure, but the guy in the article makes a point.

      The Just Cookies guys could’ve avoided all this trouble if they just limited how ‘customized” a “customized order” can be. All they have to do is include in their list of services that they won’t make cookies with rainbows, crescents (for the Muslims), swastikas, or and they’d be covered. Like or not, it’s the truth.

      On another note: let this issue die already! Move on and use another cookie shop for crying out loud!

      Oct 11, 2010 at 7:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
      PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS

      @TommyOC: That is the whole point, the owner clearly stated the only reason he refused the order was because it was for a Gay group. He simply did not want to sell his products to Gay customers………..And an apropro tag is that he can’t sign the agreement stating he will not discriminate against any of the included classes of people. Suprise the shit outta me which includes the Gays. He got reduced rents and incentives for being in a business improvment district. And then after reaping the benefits he decides there is a group of people he chooses not to sell his products to…..

      Oct 11, 2010 at 7:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Yellow Bone
      Yellow Bone

      @Andy: Gays and Muslims.

      Oct 11, 2010 at 10:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • declanto
      declanto

      This DOES become tiresome, the issue now is eviction for non-compliance to an anti-discrimination clause in his lease. He’s an obvious bigot, has stated clearly that his refusal was based on a discriminatory judgement. The weaseling around the facts include the name of the store, “JUST COOKIES”. Not “JUST COOKIES AND MAYBE SOMETIMES CUPCAKES”. This family is losing their life-investment for a bigoted act by the daddy.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 3:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • matt
      matt

      How ironic, more Democratic lip service but no backing when it comes to actualy supporting the LGBT commnity… empty promisses flow from the Obama Democrats “changing face”.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 7:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • declanto
      declanto

      These are Repugnicans, deary.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 5:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fizzydrink
      fizzydrink

      There is no story here. Look, I like cock like th rest of you, but that doesn’t mean I think a bakery should be legally compelled to assist with the creation of someone else’s political message. Use another bakery.

      Oct 12, 2010 at 5:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • samthor
      samthor

      how can i be a “good business” when it discriminates out of ignorance and fear?
      the owner made it clear that he did not want to sell to “the gays”.
      if our money is not good enough then you’re not “good” enough.

      Oct 13, 2010 at 12:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.