Hey, Dan,
I can't view this link from my office: the software police deem "Gay and Lesbian Interest" NSFW!?

Boy am I glad to se that my company's software blocks me from evil porn sites like Pam's House Blend

what's the use of a link when our Corporate Overlords have already blocked it?

ALL cupcakes are obscene.

Dan, I'm surprised you didn't suggest that the owners of the shop should have declined to produce rainbow-frosted cookies on the grounds that they're just too tacky.

"The students have placed their order with another bakery."

The free market strikes again!

I don't read anything in either of these incidents that suggests anger, hatred, or anything other than a refusal to conduct business or offer services.

So, the question we have to ask ourselves is should a private business be able to deny service to a same-sex couple. That depends...

Should the bakery be allowed to refuse an order for swastika-shaped cookies for a neo-nazi organization? How about cross cookies for an anti-gay Christian group?

I can actually sympathize with the bakery owner, especially if they were willing to sell regular items to the customer.

The granite shop guy should have happily taken money from the gay couple and donated it to his church for all I care.

The better option for the 21st Century is for that gay couple to publicize the hell out of their story and drive business away from that shop. That should change their minds in the future, or cause them to suffer for their choices.

@4 no, Husky cupcakes are just goodness.

Especially the extra yummy gold ones.

Dan,

As someone who is your ally (check out my picture -- it's map of the Referendum 71 vote),

even though I think it's silly and prudish, I don't see a refusal to create rainbow flag cookies as a refusal to serve gay customers. It sounds like the owner of that store would have sold them other cookies, just not cookies with rainbow flags.

With just over a month before an election that will determine if MD and NY will extend marriage rights to gays and lesbians, I think there are bigger fish to fry.

@8 - Uh, I think there's a difference between cupcakes with rainbows on them and swastika cupcakes. Way to bring up the Nazi straw-man, though.

The baker said he was worried about his young daughters. Do you really think a young kid is going to make the rainbow = gay association? It's not like they were making cupcakes depicting two dudes fucking.

#8: did you just compare being gay to being a Nazi? Asking for cookies with rainbow frosting and asking for cookies baked into the shape of a symbol of hatred and genocide?

They're not refusing to serve gay people; they're refusing to make gay cookies. They're still bigots, just a different type: they THINK they're all tolerant (happy to serve gay people), but deep down they still do the "gay=wrong" thing ("We can't expose our daughters to non-explicit non-offensive symbols of homosexuality! Homosexuality is wrong!").

I think it's the worse kind of bigotry, because they're trying to hide it and pretend to be tolerant, and this type is harder to challenge without seeming unreasonable.

#13: WTF is a gay cookie? They didn't ask them to make cookies in the shape of 2 guys having anal sex for crying out loud. They asked for cookies with rainbow frosting, and somehow the bakery people saw that as potentially corrupting for their children.

Great website:
http://www.justcookiesindy.com

@14: I said "gay cookies" to refer to what was described in the article, because I didn't care enough to describe it over again.

I also pointed out how absurd they were acting, so I guess we agree?

It makes me wonder if they would have refused to make rainbow cookies for a six year old girl's birthday party...

@20, that was my first thought too. Or, alternatively, what if some internet nerds wanted "double rainbow" cupcakes/cookies because of the internet meme? I've met plenty of such unshowered three-wolf-moon shirt wearing dorks who were definitely heterosexual. Just a thought..

My less than bold prediction: He'll be crying all the way to NOM and Focus on the Family when the city decides not to renew his lease in their publicly owned building because it wants its tenants serving all of the public.

Rainbow frosting will corrupt the baker's children? "It Gets Better," brought to you by the kids of assholes like this.

I may disagree with your cookie but I will defend to the death your right to eat it. Hey, baker, obscenity is in community standards, not your narrow mind. And I wouldn't drag your daughter into it if I were you.(Look at Lon Cheney (I mean Dick Army, I mean Dick Cheney) This baker needs to have his lease reviewed.

Hmmm…

"They're not refusing to serve gay people; they're refusing to make gay cookies."

Do we really think that if the local megachurch showed up and asked for exactly the same product for a "God's Promise" event they would have blinked twice?

Don't kid yourself.

@8 -- Regardless of the propriety of your comparison, you have failed by the protocol of Godwin's Law. Just for the record.

I'm still trying to figure out how it's possible to make a gay cookie. I didn't even know cookies HAD sexual orientations.

Or does the cookie make some sort of "lifestyle choice" between the oven and your mouth?

I wonder if the bakery would have refused to make a "Rainbow Brite" cake for a young girl's birthday party. Has the rainbow become so associated with gay rights that it no longer has any other connotation? Goodbye symbol of god's covenant, that's gotta hurt those fundies!
That said, having your business turned down by a bigot seems better to me than paying a bigot, who may or may not do a substandard job to punish you for being anathema, or use the money to promote more hatred against you via political contributions. Minorities have used word-of-mouth boycotts since reconstruction. You decide where you want to spend your money, do it with pride.

Rainbow has always been a evil symbol throughout history. This is a fact.

(sarcasm)

I don't buy the swastika analogy. What if instead it was a nice, white Christian lady and I refused to bake cupcakes with crosses on them for Easter. Do you think the conservative Religious community would say "oh well, he has the right to refuse service..."

not buying the swastika analogy, if it was a nice, white Christian lady and the man wouldn't make her cupcakes with a cross on them (for Easter say), do you really think the religious right wouldn't be up in arms and claiming it violated their first amendment rights?

Please stop reading the "They're not refusing to serve gay people; they're refusing to make gay cookies" part of my comment and not continuing to the "They're still bigots, just a different type... I think it's the worse kind" part.

Also, stop being intentionally obtuse when reading it. It's clear what 'gay cookies' means, in this context.