Saturday, September 25, 2010

Indianapolis Bakery Refused to Make Gay Rainbow Cupcakes

Question: can baking rainbow cupcakes, in the presence of children, turn them gay? Don’t laugh too hard, because that’s the excuse one man gave for refusing to bake cupcakes for a gay, college organization.

And because of that denial, Just Cookies, based in Indianapolis, Indiana, has been given a not-so-sweet nickname… the homophobic bakery.

When a group of gay students from Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis approached the owners of Just Cookies and requested rainbow cupcakes; they were politely turned away. The students wanted the gay pride themed treats as part of a celebration for National Coming Out Day, which is celebrated annually, on October 11th.

David Stockton, who co-owns Just Cookies with his wife, Lilly, said he refused to bake the gay goodies, because... well... they might turn his daughters gay... sort of.

"I explained we’re a family-run business, we have two young, impressionable daughters and we thought maybe it was best not to do that," said the concerned father.

Watch the news footage, below:


 

9 comments:

  1. it's their business. they have a right not to make cupcakes for causing they don't believe in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. GAY CUPCAKES?!!! I HAVE OFFICIALLY LIVED TO SEE IT ALL!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am sick of these people pushing their sinful agenda down my throat. If you want to live in sin fine! Just don't force your wicked lifestyle on other people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Not the kind on negative publicity a business wants to have. I can't see people banging down the door for custom cupcakes; foolish to turn away business in this economy. The best part is the gays and liberals in Indy will prob. boycott; let's just hope the right-wingers buy enough so he can pay his mortgage.

    ReplyDelete
  5. GayBusinessman, I agree. This was not a good business move. Gay people don't exist in a bubble. They have straight friends and family members who love them. And if you offend the LGBT community, you also offend the people who care about them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a whackjob. It's a rainbow, for God's sake. Pretty easy to explain that to a kid without going into the ins/outs (put intended) of gayness. Not like they asked for cupcakes with genitalia on it. No, those are reserved for the white trash bachelorette parties.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So a business decided to make a moral stand. If I lived nearby, I'd order a dozen.

    The owner didn't take the order because he was afraid of making his daughters gay. He made a principled stand - and good for him.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Re: God Fearing Man... you are so correct when you say "sinful agenda" and "wicked lifestyle". The close-minded so-called "religious" hypocrites need to abandon their "wicked lifestyle" of baseless discrimination and stop their "sinful agenda" of trying to label innocent people as evil... when the true evil lies within the close-minded religious. The irony is simply DELICIOUS.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I wonder if they would have made the cookies had they been for a child's birthday party? I would assume they wouldn't feel that a rainbow was obscene then.
    I never realized a cookie could "turn a person gay". Pretty sure you are born that way. And it's sad that he feels that way. He is pretty ignorant if he thinks that by looking at a rainbow it will "turn you". If I lived in that state, which I am glad I do not, I would boycott as would all of my friends, family members etc. Yes they have the right to refuse orders, but as someone said, it's a stupid move in this economy especially for a reason such as that. I wonder if they discriminate racial minorities too?

    ReplyDelete

NOTICE: Do not post SPAM, links to other websites, website addresses, phone numbers, or email addresses.

Unless a person is a direct or indirect subject of a news article, or a public figure, do not post other people's first and last names in the forum.

**** COMMENTS THAT CONTAIN RACIST, VULGAR, OR VIOLENT REMARKS, WILL BE DELETED! ****

Furthermore, with the exception of the comments left by the blog’s administrators or editor, the opinions expressed in the comments section are the sole responsibility of the author, and do not reflect the views and opinions of the editor or the administrators of Chicago News Report.

Under federal law, we are not responsible for third party comments.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.