Just Cookies and Discrimination: Another View

The business Just Cookies has reached an agreement with the city's Equal Opportunity board to continue operations within the publicly owned Indianapolis City Market. The owners of the business refused an order for an LGBT group based out of the IUPUI campus. When questioned by media why the order was refused, owner David Stockton cited his two young daughters and the family values they strive to teach them. This set off controversy that alleged that Just Cookies discriminated against the LGBT group on the basis of sexual orientation, which would violate the municipal Human Rights Ordinance passed in late 2005.

The LGBT community was "helped" when several members of Indiana Equality published an editorial in The Indianapolis Star saying that the HRO was never meant to prevent private establishments from discriminating. Two of the authors of the article, Jackie Nytes and Scott Keller, are current and former City-County Council representatives, respectively, and were sponsors of the HRO.

As part of the agreement, Just Cookies has to post signs indicating they won't discriminate. Stockton, when questioned by the media, refused to comment and referred the reporter to his lawyer.

If I was Stockton or a higher up at the struggling City Market, I couldn't have asked for a better day filled with big news items to make sure the local story gets buried on news web sites and in the morning's newspaper. The piece of garbage that held Elizabeth Smart hostage for nine months was convicted despite an attempt at an insanity plea. Several stories have been extensively covered that are coming from the so-called "lame duck" session of the United States Congress with pieces of legislation the Democrats wanted to pass before the new Congress takes over in January. Fox 59's home page has the story listed last on their front page area of latest news stories, and it doesn't seem like any of the other news media web sites have a story up*

From what I've learned of the Stocktons since this story broke, I doubt that they've learned anything. It's really sad, because I think many in the LGBT community would've wanted this to be a learning experience and to advance LGBT equality rather than to hang Just Cookies and the City Market out to dry. Instead, the Stockton's lawyered up and are doing the bare minimum to cover their ass. I doubt anyone from the IUPUI group that was originally discriminated against or anyone from the LGBT community was involved or even talked to throughout this process.

Another wasted opportunity to advance Indianapolis' corner of the world, and another example of how many laws in this town aren't worth the paper they're printed on.

*Update: When I originally published this story, Fox59's web page had their story on Just Cookies on their front page. I can no longer find it there only a few hours later.

Will Just Cookies and Would Be Customers Work To a Positive Resolution?

For those not in the know, there are links at the end of this post to other blog posts on this subject. They can direct you to the relevant news reports.

The summary is a representative of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis wanted to purchase cupcakes from Just Cookies, a business located in the publicly owned Indianapolis City-Market. The would-be customer must have mentioned it was for an organization on campus honoring National Coming Out Day. "Coming out" or the more full term "coming out of the closet" is when those who identify as part of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered community reveal it to others, such as family and friends. Maybe the business owner noticed payment with an IUPUI credit card, or maybe it was bought up in casual conversation. The news reports don't really say how the subject was breached, but it was.

The business owner then said that he objects to the cause on a moral basis, citing his family and two daughters.

Later news reports describe Get Equal, an organization advocating for LGBT equality, attempting to buy chocolate chip cookies, and also had their business declined.

News reports and comments on blogs have also mixed reports of if the initial IUPUI student asked for cupcakes, cookies, or something else after one was rejected.

The initial news story is here.

So, what are my thoughts?

As a political observer, I find it interesting that the city is looking into terminating the lease for Just Cookies. While Indianapolis does have a city ordinance banning the discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, I haven't read it myself and am unsure of how it would apply. Based on my limited knowledge, I don't know if a lease could be terminated unless discrimination based on sexual orientation was explicitly banned in the lease. Apparently, JC is on a monthly lease, so they can be evicted any time for any reason at the end of the month anyway.

As someone who has worked in customer service for several years at various levels, I think the employees of Just Cookies need to watch a video called Just Give Em The Pickle. The Pickle Principal states:

When something happens with a customer and you’re not sure what to do? “Give ’em the Pickle!” Do what it takes to make things right!

The pickle philosophy has evolved from there as it’s been put into practice at various businesses. It may be about going the extra mile to make customers happy or putting your own personal stamp on customer service that sets you apart from your competition. At my favorite tire store they literally run to greet me when I step out of my car in the parking lot. I’ve met garbage collectors who stop to start lawn mowers and coffee baristas who add a heart or other designs in the latte foam. Those are all pickles. What are yours?

I served on all kinds of people while at Panera Bread, and never once did I see my co-workers refuse to help a customer because of some ideology an individual employee didn't agree with. And I can't imagine why anyone would do that. And 99% of the time, these things don't come up anyway.

Now, as someone who has been discriminated against, I sympathize with these would-be customers. It's not an experience that I'd wish on anyone. Though in the times it has happened to me, it's usually some clueless low-level employee or a security guard. The absolute worst time was when it actually was the owner of the store. To this day, I don't patronize that business anymore.

Finally, I think eviction is a bit harsh. I think if the city could make something positive out of this horrid situation, it'd be much better for all.

Other views:

Bil Browning of The Bilerico Project has his latest post on the subject here. Click on the appropriate tags to see prior posts.

In a dissenting view, lawyer and blogger Paul Ogden weighs in here.

Jon Easter of Indy Democrat posts his thoughts here and here.

Ruth Holladay reflects on how well Just Cookies must be doing financially, since they're able to reject customers at-will here.

UPDATE: Gary Welsh was blogging back in the day when the Human Rights Ordinance was originally passed. He weighs in and includes the text of the HRO, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in this post.

The portions of the ordinance that Welsh cites are as follows (emphasis is his):

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 . . .

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

The exclusion from or failure or refusal to extend to any person equal opportunities or any difference in the treatment of any person by reason of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, color, national origin or ancestry, disability, age, or United States military service veteran status . . . Every contract to which one (1) of the parties is the city or the county, or any board, department or office of either the city or county, including franchises granted to public utilities, shall contain a provision requiring the governmental contractor and subcontractors not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment in the performance of the contract, with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment, because of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, disability, and United States military service veteran status. Breach of this provision may be regarded as a material breach of the contract.

It seems to be clear that Just Cookies violated this ordinance. I still am hoping for a positive outcome to all this. Nothing good can come from shutting down a business in City Market, which is struggling for customers and is often almost abandoned after the 11am-1pm lunch "hour" is over.

Indianapolis City-County Council Meeting Tonight

A full view of what's on the agenda is here. The following are some items of interest that I found:

To be voted on:

• Prop 12 of 2010 appoints Stuary Lowry as the Director of Parks and Recreations. I was half an hour off in getting to the committee meeting on time, but I was told by someone exiting the meeting that there was no call for public comment. I have e-mailed my district council representative,Maggie Lewis (D-District 7), as well as the At-Large representatives, and hope a public comment can be added to the City-Council meeting before the council takes it's vote. I can live with my own fault if I missed my opportunity to have my voice heard, but it was never given a chance. The council should rectify that tonight.
• Prop 22 of 2010 amends a few parts of council ethic requirements and how to file complaints and handle them.

The following proposals are only being introduced to the council:

• Prop 30 approves Dennis G. Papenmeier as hearing office to preside over "administrative adjudication" of parking citations. If my definition of "adjudication" is accurate, this probably means Mr. Papenmeier will be presiding over the Parking "Court" that I've blogged extensively on. This will be referred to the Administration and Finance Committee.
• Prop 33 reappoints Michael Halstead else to the huge City Market Corporate Board of Directors. The City-Market's board is bloated and needs focused leadership, not more bureaucrats. Mr. Halstead is probably not the person to provide that, since he's been on the board since 2006. His background (surprise) is architecture. Here is his resume and here is his Linkedin profile.
• Prop 32 is funding various activities within the Mayor's Office of Education Innovation.
• Prop 35 is to fund two city-supported not-for-profit corporates, Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association and Indianapolis Economic Development Inc., as well as the Mayor's Office of Education Innovation. This is a common legislature tactic to put funding for various groups in one proposal even though the groups don't necessarily have the same goal, or anything in common. This forces representatives to vote for or against the whole package, even though they may support part of it. What should be done is this proposal should be broken into three, with ICVA, IEDI, and the Mayor's Office of Education Innovation in each. Each should lay out a specific budget on what exactly they intend to do with the money. It is disturbing that all of the additional funding being proposed in all of the additional funding proposals is being tossed into Section 3(a)3's "Other Services and Charges" category, meaning little accountability can be expected or enforced.
• Prop 36 will use a federal grant to fund EnderDel, a manufacturer of automotive lithium-ion batteries. I have previously expressed my concern at how much federal funding is propping up the budget of the City of Indianapolis, and am very concerned where all this money will come from once it dries up.
• Prop 37 uses $400,000 in a state grant to fund fiber-optic cables and related equipment installed by Lockheed Martin Aspen Systems Corporation.
• Edward Coleman (L-At Large) introduced another piece of legislation as well, Prop 39, to amend the ordinance banning firearms in city parks. This changes it so that law enforcement can carry their firearms into city parks, and that licensed firearm owners who can carry can also. It is still illegal to discharge any firearm unless it is in defense of self or others. This is sure to cause some controversy. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

The full council meeting will start at 7:00PM. Attend if you can.