Comments on Advance Indiana™: HRO Authors Don't Understand Their Own Law

Advance Indiana said, "If a group or individu...

2010-10-11T20:42:36.148-05:00

Advance Indiana said,
"If a group or individual asked for a rainbow-colored cupcake just because that's what they wanted without regards to any specific event, I doubt Just Cookies would have objected; it was the fact the specific request was for a gay-oriented group that served as the basis for denying the order. I don't know how anyone could conclude that is allowed."

Actually, the bakers objected to the message they were being asked to convey. They have made clear that they will serve any customer, regardless of sexual orientation. As the HRO authors clearly explained, there is a difference between a customer's personal characteristics and the work they ask a business to perform for them. Sadly, those who fail to grasp this distinction will persist in their persecution of a couple of harmless bakers that were literally minding their own business.

Unigov said,
"From the news coverage, Just Cookies didn't refuse to sell cookies to the woman from IUPUI because of *her* sexual orientation, they refused to make a product in support of something that violates their religious views. In this they are absolutely protected by the Constitution."

Actually, the woman who placed the order was apparently heterosexual. The news story linked below includes a quotation from her "boyfriend." While that's not conclusive proof of anything, it's curious that so many articles refer to her as a "gay customer." Where's the evidence that she is? It would appear that Browning's order was refused simply because the bakers disagreed with it. There is no law against that.

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

Unigov, I could understand Just Cookies' refus...

2010-10-11T16:35:44.279-05:00

Unigov, I could understand Just Cookies' refusal if they had been asked to design a cupcake that was obscene, but on its face, a rainbow-colored cupcake is just that. If a group or individual asked for a rainbow-colored cupcake just because that's what they wanted without regards to any specific event, I doubt Just Cookies would have objected; it was the fact the specific request was for a gay-oriented group that served as the basis for denying the order. I don't know how anyone could conclude that is allowed. Scott Keller is a complete buffoon on this one. He needs to just shut up and go away. His political career is over. I hope he enjoyed that $29,000 he pocketed from his campaign account.

I've got a more nuanced interpretation, try th...

2010-10-11T11:49:31.730-05:00

I've got a more nuanced interpretation, try this on for size:

The HRO bars discrimination, but it does not require a vendor like Just Cookies to create cookies with a specific religious or political message. An atheist cannot demand that a Christian baker make a cake with a picture of Calvin urinating on the Bible. From the news coverage, Just Cookies didn't refuse to sell cookies to the woman from IUPUI because of *her* sexual orientation, they refused to make a product in support of something that violates their religious views. In this they are absolutely protected by the Constitution.

However, if as Indy Student mentions, that Just Cookies refused to sell in-stock cookies to a gay group, than Just Cookies can go to h*ll.

By the way, HRO applies to every public accommodation in Indianapolis, not just those in a contract with the city.

The question of what the HRO says isn't necess...

2010-10-11T06:57:28.822-05:00

The question of what the HRO says isn't necessarily the same as what a sponsor says was intended.

Once the interpretational question is decided, there remains another issue: as interpreted, either across the board ("on its face") or "as applied", is it constitutional?

It would seem that perhaps the latter question, balancing First Amendment interests against those concerning prohibiting discrimination, is really the one at issue here.

I would vote against this so called “Human Rights ...

2010-10-09T23:13:03.852-05:00

I would vote against this so called “Human Rights Ordinance” if I had the chance. Since it has been enacted into law, however, I agree with your well written analysis.

Nytes is merely a puppet of Mayor Ballard. She i...

2010-10-09T21:55:28.008-05:00

Nytes is merely a puppet of Mayor
Ballard. She is a menace to the LGBT community who has sold out her principles for who knows what. Nytes needs to be replaced.

I'm surprised of some people who take the stan...

2010-10-09T19:39:03.580-05:00

I'm surprised of some people who take the stand that anti-discrimination laws infringe on rights. Maybe I haven't looked in the right place, but the Wiki articles for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADA don't note any significant legal challenges to the laws themselves, only to the enforcement (or more precisely, violations of) of the law. And while the Moral Majority type crowd fought every step of the way for the HRO that are now on the books in several Indiana cities and cities across the nation, I haven't heard of any legal challenges to them.

And to those that remain convinced that Just Cookies refused to make a special order, their website specifically states they do "special orders". And another LGBT group, Get Equal, tried purchasing regular chocolate chip cookies (presumably with some sort of business card) and their purchase wasn't accepted.

I also agree that Just Cookies shouldn't be evicted if a reasonable solution can be worked out, but I've seen some evidence floating around that they are standing by their anti-gay position 100%. And if they're going to do that, I suspect it'll be much harder to bring them to the table with the LGBT community.

Gary, re the application of the HRO to Just Cookie...

2010-10-09T19:32:39.387-05:00

Gary, re the application of the HRO to Just Cookies, you make a lot more sense than does either Jackie or Scott, so far. Thanks for your analysis.