City Market investigating tenant for refusing order

[SemperFiUSMC]

As an IU alum, I would like to have the ability and access to the same emails addresses that the Student Council President to tell the youngsters that they need to get back to their studies instead of worry about PC crap like this. That they are graduating from college well below the level of most kids around the world and it is probably partially due to being overly concerned with matters like this. So unless they are majoring in gay studies and have no desire to ever be gainfully employed, get to class and let the pointy headed idiots that make a living at extorting law abiding people they disagree with handle this.

By the way did the rainbow cupcake eating fellas have milk mustaches when they came into the store?

Don't think it was milk.

 

[Expat]

Don't think it was milk.

Huh... I always have milk with cookies or cupcakes... strange.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I have really mixed feelings on this one.

I think that a business owner, operating on his own dime on his own property, should be able to conduct his business as he chooses, including refusing service to anyone they choose based on race, sex, hair color, whether they have a rag on their head, whether their mother dresses them funny, whatever.

I don't support such bigotry and would not patronize such a business but I DON'T support using government force to make them serve people that they don't want to.

However, this business is operating on property owned by the city. That puts a whole different face on this thing.

If the owner of XYZ corporation hates women and doesn't want to hire them then no one should be able to force him to do so. Not so for the police or fire departments. They are publicly owned and funded, and I think they should be required to give everyone a fair shot at employment.

If you're operating your own business, but it's on someone else's property, you are not autonomous. If it's publicly owned property, discrimination is definitely out.

The cookie guy is wrong. If all he'd said is "hey, we don't do that" there would be no problem. He shot himself in the foot when he said he was doing it because he didn't want to show support for gays.

Is he wrong for feeling that way? Nope. Is he wrong for refusing to do business with gays, because they ARE gay, while operating a business on property owned by ALL Indianapolis taxpayers? Yes.

 

[dross]

Unfortunately, the property is not "private". It is owned and rented out by the local government and they've set certain rental terms in place. It looks like the one owner may have violated those terms and the city is going to do what government often does. React. Their property, their rules...that's just the way it shakes out when you play in the governments sand box.

I have really mixed feelings on this one.

I think that a business owner, operating on his own dime on his own property, should be able to conduct his business as he chooses, including refusing service to anyone they choose based on race, sex, hair color, whether they have a rag on their head, whether their mother dresses them funny, whatever.

I don't support such bigotry and would not patronize such a business but I DON'T support using government force to make them serve people that they don't want to.

However, this business is operating on property owned by the city. That puts a whole different face on this thing.

If the owner of XYZ corporation hates women and doesn't want to hire them then no one should be able to force him to do so. Not so for the police or fire departments. They are publicly owned and funded, and I think they should be required to give everyone a fair shot at employment.

If you're operating your own business, but it's on someone else's property, you are not autonomous. If it's publicly owned property, discrimination is definitely out.

The cookie guy is wrong. If all he'd said is "hey, we don't do that" there would be no problem. He shot himself in the foot when he said he was doing it because he didn't want to show support for gays.

Is he wrong for feeling that way? Nope. Is he wrong for refusing to do business with gays, because they ARE gay, while operating a business on property owned by ALL Indianapolis taxpayers? Yes.

It's government owned property? Nevermind. They don't get to discriminate for that kind of reason. In that case, I don't mind the investigation, though the facts themselves seem shaky to me.

 

[mrjarrell]

It's government owned property? Nevermind. They don't get to discriminate for that kind of reason. In that case, I don't mind the investigation, though the facts themselves seem shaky to me.

A lot of folks are relying on the local Fox news story for their take on this one. It was rife with errors and other sources had better versions of what happened. Even the Indy Star did a better job than Fox.

 

[Expat]

I don't think it being on City property should enter into it, if they are paying rent at a going rate.

 

[CarmelHP]

It's government owned property? Nevermind. They don't get to discriminate for that kind of reason. In that case, I don't mind the investigation, though the facts themselves seem shaky to me.

Whoa, just because the city is operating as landlord doesn't mean they own or control the businesses. Did the lease say, "You have to do what we tell you...or else." If not, renting from the city is no different than renting from anyone else.

 

[Protest]

That was quite a protest on Monday. That's me on the right.

 

[IndyMonkey]

That article is so full of fail. Mainly the part where they person wanted cupcakes from a cookie place.

 

[IndyMonkey]

sodomy is not a family value...that is a badass sign.

 

[Expat]

Protest, I think someone was trying to swap spit with you

 

[Protest]

sodomy is not a family value...that is a badass sign.

Thanks, I wrote it. My friend Rich there was holding it.

Protest, I think someone was trying to swap spit with you

Yeah, fortunately, to calm him down, one of the lesbians brought an umbrella over and put it in front of his face.

 

[IndyMonkey]

Thanks, I wrote it. My friend Rich there was holding it.Yeah, fortunately, to calm him down, one of the lesbians brought an umbrella over and put it in front of his face.

You have to pm me when you guys do things like that. I can hold a sign with the best of them.

 

[Protest]

You have to pm me when you guys do things like that. I can hold a sign with the best of them.

Will do! There were only 3 vocal heterosexuals there. We were outnumbered.

 

[Protest]

Here's some pics from when we bought cookies 2 weeks ago. The Stocktons are great people!

 

[sj kahr k40]

Great pics Protest, glad to see you around

 

[IndyMonkey]

Im due to go pick up another batch of cookies.

 

[rooster007]

Unfortunately, the property is not "private". It is owned and rented out by the local government and they've set certain rental terms in place. It looks like the one owner may have violated those terms and the city is going to do what government often does. React. Their property, their rules...that's just the way it shakes out when you play in the governments sand box.

Rental terms for tenants of said property / properties who wish to lease space at CITY MARKET , wholly owned by the State of Indiana




1. Said tenants must sell penis cookies .
2. Said tenants must sell penis cookies year round.
3. Said tenants must sell special rainbow penis cookies during the second week of October .

 

[Protest]

Here's what really stunk about the protest. When I first got there around 10:30, I went right up onto the plaza (2 steps above the public sidewalk) and started speaking. I was told by event organizer and City Market security to leave because it was a private event. I said that it's an event open to the public and on public property so I'm not going anywhere. Eventually they sent the thugs (IMPD) to remove us anyway. So, I'm a citizen of this once great state and I can't go onto outdoor city property and speak my mind?

 

[Expat]

Here's what really stunk about the protest. When I first got there around 10:30, I went right up onto the plaza (2 steps above the public sidewalk) and started speaking. I was told by event organizer and City Market security to leave because it was a private event. I said that it's an event open to the public and on public property so I'm not going anywhere. Eventually they sent the thugs (IMPD) to remove us anyway. So, I'm a citizen of this once great state and I can't go onto outdoor city property and speak my mind?

The cops up there in Dearborn were happy to rough up the US citizens of a fairly common group (that sometimes wear funny looking fish) at the behest of another less common group in this country for hanging around on public property that was even off the area that the latter group was using. So at least you didn't get roughed up then detained until the event was over.