CupcakeGate Continues!

As the story has further developed since the initial story hit, there have been several points made by those who believed business owners have a supposed right to discriminate against the LGBT community. I'd thought I'd address a few counter-points. I suspect many of these same points, or similar ones, will be made if the General Assembly tries to push through a Marriage Protection Amendment in the 2011 session.

First, if the owner didn't say, on camera, that he declined a special order due to his own moral values, this would be a non-story and we wouldn't be talking about it.

One of the talking points of the past couple weeks is "it's Just Cookies, not Just Cookies and whatever!". Apparently, those espousing this talking point was made by those who have never visited Just Cookies. They had several non-cookie baked goods when I walked by on Monday, and their page on the City Market's website says they make cookies and "sweets" and take "special orders." So at the very least, asking for a rainbow decorated cookie or cupcake is not beyond reason. Several comments left on blogs have described getting special orders, including cupcakes. While one of the owners in the initial story says that they flat out don't (usually) take special orders, I'm betting they can make just about any baked good if they really wanted to.

Another group of apologists emerged in the form of the religious right. The Indianapolis Star's practice, when covering a story on LGBT issues, is to have the "other" side of the story be told by the religious right, which is done in the Star's story by Micah Clark. Clark is the head of the American Family Association of Indiana and was a speaker at this summer's National Organization for Marriage rally in downtown Indianapolis. Clark, completely ignoring the Human Rights Ordinance that he opposed several years back, offers legal assistance to Just Cookies. Clark believes that this type of legislation makes "special rights" rather than enforce equality. As someone who is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, I find this believe absolutely disgusting.

Not to be outdone by Clark, this video-blog from a local minister mentions that several people were out in support of Just Cookies' discriminatory action, and he even thanked them. According to the minister, one of the owners gladly accepted the thanks. Another blog account, which seems to have several posts that heavily focus negatively on race, religion, and sexual orientation, can be found here. I guess a sure-fire way to drum up business is to come out against the gays.

Finally, a few of the authors of the Human Rights Ordinance wrote a Letter to the Editor in The Star today explaining why Just Cookies didn't violate the ordinance. Gary Welsh explains precisely why they're wrong. I'd like to add that the HRO uses similar language in describing a "public accommodation" as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. A Democrat, like City-County Council representative Jackie Nytes, might want to be careful in what she says. This puts her in the same company as candidate for the U.S. Senate Rand Paul, who got into some hot water when he said that he doesn't fully support the Civil Rights Act and the ADA due to the regulations they put on privately owned businesses.

I also think it's quite ridiculous that the Council keeps passing laws that they have no intention of enforcing, but that's for another topic.

A couple of people from Indiana Equality also signed the letter. Indiana Equality has come under criticism from both Welsh and Bilerico Project founder Bil Browning on their respective blogs. It seems to me that Indiana Equality still might not have the best interests of the LGBT community at heart.

A big deal over a small incident? Maybe. Some, shielded by Internet anonymity, have suggested that the LGBT community should "get over it" and it's no big deal. I say otherwise. I bet the owners of Just Cookies could've made this all go away with a phone call apologizing, and a nice gift basket of baked goods and some coupons. While Just Cookies might experience some new business from the "family values" crowd for a few weeks, the people who see this incident in a negative light will tell their families and friends for months, even years.

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.