A local ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation may give the city the right to take action against
a cookie shop operating within Indianapolis City Market that declined to fill an order from a gay-rights group.
According to a series of reports from Fox59, the city is investigating whether Just Cookies last week discriminated against
a customer when owners declined his request for a special order of rainbow-iced cupcakes for a “National Coming Out
Day” event set for Oct. 7 at IUPUI.
Because sexual orientation is one of the categories in which discrimination is forbidden by city ordinance, the city may
have the right to penalize the business, which could include a fine, said Michael Blickman, a partner in Indianapolis-based
Ice Miller LLP’s employment practice.
However, it's unclear whether the ordinance extends those protections beyond an individual and to a group of people,
he said.
“If a person walked up to Just Cookies, say a Latino, and [the business] said, ‘we’re not going to serve
you,’ that would clearly violate the ordinance,” Blickman said. “What I don’t know is whether the
ordinance extends to a group.”
John Haskin, a local employment discrimination lawyer with Haskin & Larue LLP, said the city ordinance protecting sexual
orientation probably doesn't apply at all in this case because it deals only when discrimination is alleged in employment
matters, such as the termination of an employee.
“So whether or not the cookie stand violated that ordinance is really questionable,” he said.
The city’s Office of Equal Opportunity is investigating the matter because Just Cookies is a tenant of a city-owned
property, and is even considering revoking its lease.
City spokesman Robert Vane said the city was investigating the complaint but had made no decison.
“Our point is that Mayor Ballard wants to make clear that everyone is welcome in the Market,” Vane said. “The
city owns the Market and we don’t want there to be a feeling that, because you have a certain belief, you’re not
welcome.”
Absent a city ordinance, there would be no basis to argue discrimination, even against a business operating within city-owned
property. That’s because neither state nor federal law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, according
to attorneys.
“And that is why the spotlight is on the Indianapolis ordinance,” Blickman said. “You might say it is on
the cutting edge of anti-discrimination in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity.”
Other categories protected by the ordinance are race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability and sex.
Still, most businesses have the right to refuse a customer, said Ken Yerkes, who leads Indianapolis-based Barnes & Thornburg
LLP’s employment practice.
“Generally speaking, a private company can decide to whom it will or will not provide services,” he said.
The owners of Just Cookies, David and Lily Stockton, could not be reached for comment Thursday morning.
The Flying Cupcake on Massachusetts Avenue ultimately accommodated the cupcake request of the organizers of the IUPUI gay
and lesbian event.
on Facebook & Twitter
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
79 Comments
Add Comment
First, Iâ??m disappointed in how the owner handled this situation. We do not know the attitudes and words he used with the client, but nonetheless, an obvious mistake was made if he was, indeed, a Jesus follower.
Look at the example of Jesus and the woman at the well who over time had multiple husbands and was living outside the commitment of marriage with her current lover (John 4). Observe Jesus with the woman who was directly caught in the act of adultery (John 8). Observe Jesus and his interaction with Zacchaeus, an obvious tax-collecting thief and a traitor in the eyes of his countrymen (Luke 19).
With each of these individuals, Jesus demonstrated love and extended a hand of friendship and fellowship, even though their lifestyle and actions were outside the will of His Father. In other words, their lifestyles did not preclude Jesus from loving and thus serving them. He didnâ??t simply turn his nose up at them and turn his back on them.
Rather, with all three individuals, it was either implied or explicitly stated that Jesus called each of them to the higher standard of His Father and the Kingdom in the midst of loving and serving them. His act of love and service, at times, was perceived by the populous and even his own disciples, as acceptance of their lifestyles, but in each instance, Jesus ignored and thus dispelled that notion.
I see this as having direct implications for this man and his cookie company ~ love and serve others and freely call them to the higher standard God has for all humanity.
By the way, it is important to remember that if the owner of the cookie company chose not to serve those who did not adhere to Godâ??s standards for humanity, then he could not even serve himself. According to our biblical beliefs, we too fall short in differing areas of Godâ??s standard for humanity (Romans 3.23). While it might not be homosexuality, it could be greed, jealousy, bigotry, lust, or any number of areas deemed outside of Godâ??s will. True, the distinction between a Jesus follower and those who have chosen not to follow Him, is that we (hopefully) humbly admit and profess that we donâ??t meet Godâ??s perfect standard for humanity and thus lean on Godâ??s acceptance of Jesusâ?? life in place of our own as the perfect standard; however, even that fact does not change how we love and serve those who have chosen a different faith and life. Rather, it sets the example for us to love and serve others even if they do not return or accept that extended hand of love.
In this particular case, the order should have simply been filled, and that should have been that. There is nothing in any religion or moral system that I have ever heard of that condemns rainbow-colored cookies, nor does selling such cookies reflect any endorsement of homosexuality. Selling cookies is a neutral activity. Finally, whatever a so-called "admitted homosexual" has to say about it is irrelevant. There is a law on the books, and it is set up with a complaint procedure and an enforcement mechanism. Laws exist for a reason, not just to be feel-good measures that sit on the books for no reason. If there is a public policy dispute to engage in concerning the law, then make it by lobbying the City-County Council to repeal the law--and in its entirety, I might add, not just the part concerning sexual orientation, since the claim has been that no group should have "special protections." Or, if the claim is that homosexuality is some reprehensible dangerous trait that society should condemn, then fine, go one step further and take action to make homosexual behavior illegal again. But, don't tell others they cannot request for the law to be enforced when they have experienced the very harm the law seeks to protect them from.
To me, this story feels like an overreaction to a simple issue of a company making a contentious decision not to align itself with another organization that represents tenants with which the cookie company doesn�t want to be associated.
Just like an earlier post from an admitting homosexual ~ just go find another company who will fulfill the order. Trust me, there are many companies who would want the business. Feel free to tell your friends not to patronize the business, but donââ?¬â?¢t take this to the public like it is some kind of huge injustice. When you do, it just smacks of intolerance and gives the impression that this man and his business has been targeted by a over-reactive group of ââ?¬Å?militantââ?¬Â? homosexuals. That last comment is an obvious stereotype, but it is an honest assessment that only reaffirms the stereotype in the minds of a large portion of the populous whether anyone likes it or not. Perception is reality.
If you had, reality would compel you to the incredible gains that homosexuals have experienced over recent years. Every day I see examples of the improvements in the life and life style of gays.
Is the acceptance of gays as good as it could be, as good as we would like it to be? Of course not.
But the pretense that THIS kind of controversy will destroy our gains, will REALLY only serve to exacerbate the true "haters" in our world.
We will win far more acceptance when we use our strength to demonstrate on issues of importance.
As another has posted, "as long as there are other places I can get the cookies or cupcakes I want, I'll boycott Just Cookies.
"When Just Cookies has a monopoly, THEN I'll raise holy hell."
We're talking about what kind of icing is going on a cookie here. If I wanted green frosted cookies and the baker told me, "no I only make pink and white", the I hava choice. Get some pink and white frosted cookies or go elsewhere.
To make this discrimination it seems you would first have to tie the color of icing directly to a class of people. While the gay community has adopted the rainbow symbolically there is nothing that legally ties those colors to their identity as a class of people. They have no more right to this claim than a black customer insisting that the baker make chocolate chunk or a white person wanting snickerdoodles.
How refreshing. I'm with him.
And I want to compliment IBJ for its excellent coverage of this incident.
Yes, it is silly season indeed, when people just don't get that the law restricts the ability of businesses engaged in general commerce to turn people away based on certain characteristics.
It's incredible to me that in 2010, we have people who are so blase about (1) breaking the law and (2) a business openly discriminating.
Thankfully, what some people think is irrelevant with respect to the enforcement of the law. It's just not that hard for a business to abide by the law, and avoid all this nonesense. But, those that don't can face the consequences.
I agree with everything in this posting you wrote.
Also, if you act insane, I will call you insane. Your comments relect either a delusional mind, or a purposeful atttempt on your part to distract from the issue.
Again, I stand by every single word I have written.
"I am not sure whether you will choke on your own bile or on the cookies first. But, in either case, you are well on your way"
This sounds like a veiled threat of a hope for a violent end.
Don't bother replying unless you can have a discussion without personal attacks or un-researched arguments.
Just because you heard it somewhere or you put on line neither makes it accurate or verifiable
Show me the law? The quoted city ordinance simply states access to public areas is guaranteed. A business in not public but private. It sells to the public based on the business model.
And as mentioned Federal law preempts local law.
Your comments smack of a physical threat to John. Why is it that people in this day and age can not disagree without resorting to violence? Perhaps it is a lack of education or dearth of language skills?
For one I do not condone this lifestyle but if it is your choice then you are free to do so. Lashing out at those that stand opposed simply because you fail to have the oratory ability to argue a persuasive case simply shows you speak before you consider the veracity of your words.
Learn the constitution and the bill of rights. Consider that all groups are capable of being infringed upon including the "Straight Coalition".
Many classes of people are treated far worse everyday and instead of inciting this style of quasi reverse political correctness wrapped up in a paper thin charge of discrimination. The gall of any group to attempt to punish someone because they differ in opinion is guilty of heresy and should be prosecuted for slander and harassment.
When is this madness going to stop? Your sexual orientation is a personal lifestyle choice not a right guaranteed. Forcing the population at large to accommodate your choices even though the majority feels different is a populist way to be trendy and edgy
Live your life; don't force others to live it as well.
I'm certain Dave believed he was rightfully practicing his beliefs. If it turns out that this is a violation of the ordinance, I think they would act differently next time. If not, then the City Market may not be the right place for their business. But let the facts air out, and give all the affected parties the chance to understand what should have happened and prevent it from happening again.
CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS! Don't you have better things to do...like fix potholes and keep the streets clean? Those worthless scumbags at city hall should all by fired.
What year is it? 1963?
Goodness.......
I don't know whether or not you violated the law by denying service to the group of gay teens who wanted to purchase cookies decorated with rainbow colors.
I do belive, however, that you were within your rights to do so.
Don't forget, many businesses have made the choice to refuse service based on their personal beliefs throughout the years.
Remember when particular groups of people weren't even allowed to enter the door? They also couldn't drink from the water fountain or use the restroom either.
Stand by your convictions....it's a great lesson for your daughter.
Unless your belief is you dont want to support the Gay community, then I guess you are not welcome.
My text letters to post my comment should be: WTFIUWT?
There was a story last year about a grocery store bakery refusing to write " Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" for a 3 year old whose parents named him for namesake. The parents are now in jail and this child and the siblings are in state custody. A bar can refuse to serve someone that's drunk, they should not have to cite a reason...it's there own business and personal morals that they choose to live up to.
I am confident that when Dave spoke with this organization, he did not realize that he may be violating the city's ordinance. The Stocktons are not discrimination attorneys, they bake cookies. Cut them some slack.
Just Cookies has been with the City Market through thin and thin. If it leaves, I will leave with them. Not as a political statement, but because they are the only reason I frequent the Market in the first place.
Let's give the City and Just Cookies some space to resolve this issue in a way that can accommodate everyone satisfactorily. Nobody is perfect.
And can the owners of businesses who discriminate against people for their perceived sinfulness PLEASE warn the public by posting one of those Jesus fishes prominently in the shop window? That way we know which businesses to avoid.
Angi, yes there is a difference. Sexual orientation is not a protected class under the Constitution or the Civil Rights Act. Plus, the owner has constitutional protections to express ideas and religous viewpoints. In this country we don't discriminate against people because they have unpopular ideas.
Good one....lets just hope nobody ever finds out who you are so you can be covertly discriminated against.
Sec. 581-101. - Findings and purposes.
(a)The council finds that the practice of denying equal opportunities in employment, education, access to and use of public accommodations, and acquisition of real estate based on race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service veteran status is contrary to the principles of freedom and equality of opportunity and is a burden to the objectives of the policies contained herein and shall be considered discriminatory practices.
(b)It is the purpose of this chapter to carry out the following policies of the city and county:
(1) To provide equal employment opportunity in all city and county jobs without regard to race, color, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or United States military service veteran status;
(2) To encourage the hiring of the persons with disabilities in both the public and the private sectors and to provide persons with disabilities with equal access to public accommodations;
(3) To utilize businesses owned by persons with disabilities;
(4) To protect employers, labor organizations, employment agencies, property owners, real estate brokers, builders, lending institutions, governmental and educational agencies and other persons from unfounded charges of discrimination;
(5) To provide all citizens of the city and county equal opportunity for education, employment, and access to public accommodations without regard to race, religion, color, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, age, or United States military service veteran status; and
(6) To provide all citizens of the city and county equal opportunity for acquisition through purchase or rental of real property including, but not limited to, housing without regard to race, religion, color, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, familial status, national origin, ancestry, age or United States military service veteran status.