Memories Pizza in Walkerton, In., has found itself the target of intense online criticism after an ABC News affiliate falsely accused the family-owned business of denying all service to gays and lesbians, a claim that was soon repeated widely by reporters at national outlets.
Mother Jones declared in a headline, “Indiana Pizzeria Says It Will Deny Service to LGBT People.”
“Backlash is swift and furious after Indiana pizza restaurant owner brags about ‘no gays’ policy,” said Raw Story.
BuzzFeed, too, accused the Indiana pizzeria of claiming publicly that it would “Deny LGBT People Service.”
These claims are all based on an ABC57 article, which was published late Tuesday night, that stated in its original headline, “RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service.”
However, the story’s own reporting, by ABC57’s Alyssa Marino, states, “the O’Connor family said that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service.”
The pizzeria owners said, “they just don’t agree with gay marriages and wouldn’t cater them if asked to,” Marino reported.
Pizza is rarely served at weddings.
Rather than denying all service to gays and lesbians, the O’Connors say they just don’t want to participate in a ceremony that violates their religious convictions.
ABC57 has since the article’s original publication amended the headline so that it reads more accurately, “RFRA: Michiana business wouldn’t cater a gay wedding.”
But the damage was already done.
The nine-year-old pizzeria’s Yelp page, which had just two reviews earlier this week, has been flooded with a deluge of insults directed at the O’Connor family as well as several pornographic images of men engaged in sex acts with other men.
The more than 300 negative Yelp posts that have been aimed at the O’Connor family since ABC57 published its original report are all one-star reviews, the lowest rating available on the popular consumer information website, many of them coming from users who live nowhere near Indiana.
Further, even after ABC57 had amended its headline, making it clearer that the O’Connors weren’t refusing all service to members of the LGBT community, not everyone in media was satisfied.
“To clarify, Memories Pizza says they wouldn’t serve a gay wedding; didn’t officially say they wouldn’t serve gays,” the Wall Street Journal’s Nate Becker said on Twitter. “And if you want to complain about the difference in those two statements, you’re missing the forest for some really stupid trees.”
The ABC57 report comes on the heels of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s signing of the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is modeled after the 1993 federal law of the same name.
The law, which claims to protect the religious liberties of those in the state from being substantially burdened by state and federal government, has been met with significant pushback from the press and pro-LGBT activist groups, who say that the measure provides a legal means for Hoosiers to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
In response to the backlash, ABC57 set out to find businesses that supposedly discriminate against same-sex persons.
“I just walked into their shop and asked how [the O’Connors] feel. They’ve never been asked to cater a same-sex wedding,” Marino said on twitter after her story caught traction with reporters from larger media outlets. “I don’t think anyone was really aware the attention this would get at the time of the interview. They just spoke their mind.”
Memories Pizza owner Kevin O’Connor later clarified his initial remarks after his business came under fire.
“I don’t have a problem with gay people, I do not condone gay marriage and that’s what I said,” he said in an interview with The Daily Beast. “I don’t turn anybody away from the store, I don’t have a problem with gay people. I just don’t condone the marriage.”
“It’s hard to speak when things get taken so out of context and this thing goes sky high and just blows everything up,” he said. “I’ve got a family to think about, too.”
Pence said Tuesday that the state’s legislative body would revisit the language of the law to clarify that it does not, in fact, allow for legal discrimination.
