Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 58465 comments on the Denver Post story from Jun 6, 2013, titled Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake. In it, Denver Post reports that:

Engaged gay couple Dave Mullins, second from left, and Charlie Craig, left, were joined by a small group of supporters in Lakewood on Aug. 4, 2012 to protest and boycott the Masterpiece Cakeshop at 3355 S. Wadsworth Blvd. The couple went to the cake shop, and the owner turned the couple away saying he would not make them a rainbow-themed wedding ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Denver Post.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2739 Jul 22, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you aren’t willing to discuss with proper definitions then how do you know what you’re talking about? Or is it a “secular value” to skew definitions to make you feel better about the result?
I am using proper definitions and have not skewed any definition. I challenge you to find one instance of me skewing a definition.

My complaint was that you're bringing in unrelated areas of definition. It's like if we were discussing whether or not Chipotle counts as authentic Mexican food and then you interject "Chipotle is a fast food restaurant." Yeah, that's nice, but we're talking about the ethnic definition of the food in the restaurant, not whether it's a fast-food restaurant or not.

Likewise, we're talking about whether certain drugs, like Plan B, are abortifacients, not whether abortion is legal or not.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2740 Jul 22, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The legal motions to dismiss the case
Do you have links to actual documents or news summaries stating this? Because I've not been able to find any in Google searches.
Respect71 wrote:
“They failed to sew Phillips individually before the statute of limitations expired” and “The division of civil rights never notified Phillips or the cake shop of the statute that he allegedly violated, never providing factual and legal basis, and was charged under the incorrect statute.”
It's odd then that the lawyers for the bakery owner raised none of these objections in either their brief for summary judgment in the original administrative proceeding or the appeal of the Civil Rights Commission's confirmation of the the Administrative Law Judge's ruling. Failure to raise these issues initially or on appeal precludes having them addressed in subsequent litigation or appeals.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceSJbr...

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceAppe...
Respect71 wrote:
And the commission were very quick to write off the law as “These are mere technicalities” and “this case is too important to not proceed with said technicalities”.
Citations please.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2741 Jul 22, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The issue is the wedding cake and the symbolism and meaning of the cake towards an institution. NOT sexual orientation. The facts in the case are he serves gays baked goods, yet the judge, with a liberal opinion. set that aside as meaningless, as did the Colorado Civil Liberties Commission.
Neither the administrative judge nor the Commission gave weight to the fact the baker would or has sold non-wedding cake baked goods to other gays at other times because it has no relevance. The anti-discrmiantion law applies to ALL goods sold by a public accommodation to the general public and covers EVERY instance of members of the general public attempting to buy such goods. That fact the baker sometimes or even most of the time complies with the law doesn't excuse the instances when he doesn't.
Respect71 wrote:
I will concede to that fact, based on the video interviews seems to have been clean wiped off the internet. However it doesn’t change the air or hatred toward the baker from the gay couple and others like them.
Neither does it change the insult, humiliation or injury given that gay couple and others like them when they are publicly refused service by a public accommodation in violation of the law.
Respect71 wrote:
No they are not!
Got you! It was a typo above…
I didn't see one. Regardless, you now seem to understand the point.
Respect71 wrote:
In this case the government is forcing the baker to participate and support an institution with his very own talents that he doesn’t believe in.
Claiming that baking a wedding cake is the same thing as participating in the wedding or wedding ceremony doesn't make it true. Many people have deeply held religious beliefs against war and violence and don't want to pay taxes to support our armed forces or military engagements. However, that doesn't exempt from paying taxes nonetheless.

Further, whether you acknowledge it or not, people used sincerely held religious beliefs to justify slavery, racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws prohibiting interracial marriages as well back in the day. Subsequently, however, slavery has been abolished, anti-discrmiantion laws now prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional.

Religious beliefs, no matter how sincere, does not exempt one from complying with constitutional laws.
Respect71 wrote:
To be honest if ALL bakers held to this policy across America I would be compelled to agree with you, however because there is an ABUNDANCE of ACCOMIDATION for gays to acquire wedding cakes
Anti-discrmination law applies to ALL public accommodations, not just those that wish to participate in them. There were obviously businesses that would sell food and other goods and rent rooms to blacks as well in the era of Jim Crow segregation. But why should they or any other minority have to spend additional time, energy and or money trying to locate and travel to them?
Respect71 wrote:
it is clear the government, the left and yourself feel it is appropriate to punish a man because he doesn’t believe the same as you.
On the contrary, if I owned a bakery, lived in a state whose anti-discmriantion laws included sexual orientation as a protected class and refused to sell a wedding cake to an opposite sex couple when I readily sold wedding cakes to same sex couples, I would fully expect to be held accountable to the anti-discmriantion law for discriminating on the basis of the couple's heterosexual sexual orientation.

Simple reality is owning and running a business is subject to government regulation. If one is unwilling or unable to comply with such regulation (and can't prove it's unconstitutional), then one should seek another means of earning money rather than claiming they're above the law.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2742 Jul 22, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“The gay couple simply asked the baker to bake a cake.” You are incorrect. They asked him to bake a WEDDING CAKE. Definitions are important in this discussion.
Actually, it's not. As a public accommodation, one is required to sell any offered good or service equally to ALL members of the general public.
Respect71 wrote:
Except when it violates the First Amendment of our Constitution.
Again, none of our right are absolute. SCOTUS has distinguished between religious belief and actions motivated by religious belief. General laws targeting the former will almost invariably be deemed unconstitutional. General laws that impact the latter can in fact be deemed constitutional when the infringement is incidental and not targeted specifically at religion. Further, this is also a compelling government interest at stake to protect individuals from being singled out because of an innate characteristic and discriminated against. Such a compelling interest can survive the strict scrutiny normally required when evaluating when a law infringes upon a fundamental right like freedom of religion.
Respect71 wrote:
The First Amendment of the US Constitution allows for a person to participate and support the institution of their choosing.
No, it prohibits the government from dictating what religious beliefs citizens as individuals must hold or with whom they can or can't associate. It doesn't preclude government from regulating conduct of individuals engaged in business, whether the business is organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership or corporations.
Respect71 wrote:
Farcing a baker to use his talent to support and participate in a institution that he dose not believe in is un-Constitutional.
No, it's not. Even conscientious objectors to military service are required to serve in an alternate non-military capacity; they aren't exempted from draft laws altogether as you assert the baker is exempt from this anti-discrimination law.
Respect71 wrote:
It wasn’t the baker’s choice… It was the government forcing him to support and participate in a “gay wedding” or face fines and jail time.
Of cours it was the baker's choice. The government didn't order him to stop baking wedding cakes.
Respect71 wrote:
No matter how you try to justify your position the simple fact is you support the government stripping a man of a high paying part of his livelihood to force him to support and participate in what you believe.
Why do you persist in lying? The government didn't strip the baker or anyone else in a similar situation of part of his livelihood. The baker made that decision himself first when he refused to sell his goods to ALL members of the general public and then again when he chose to stop selling a profitable good in order to eliminate the need to comply with the legal order to stop discriminating against certain members of the general public.
Respect71 wrote:
That’s not an American value.
Neither is lying and asserting one is above the law.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2743 Jul 22, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Were you there? They ABSOLUTLY did.
The legal motions to dismiss the case:“They failed to sew Phillips individually before the statute of limitations expired” and “The division of civil rights never notified Phillips or the cake shop of the statute that he allegedly violated, never providing factual and legal basis, and was charged under the incorrect statute.” And the commission were very quick to write off the law as “These are mere technicalities” and “this case is too important to not proceed with said technicalities”.
And yet, they lost before the ALJ, and that decision was upheld by the Civil Rights Commission.

Sounds like you have a lot of whine, but no valid argument. Then again, what else is new. He broke the law, Disrespectful71. Plain and simple.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2744 Jul 23, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Your rebuttal "it's out of context" implies that the statement would have different meaning if taken in full context. It doesn't. In ANY context, Leviticus 25:44 says the Hebrews can buy and own slaves.
<quoted text>
Because God expected the Hebrews to avoid sinful actions. The key here is that *owning slaves was not sinful*.
<quoted text>
I've already shown that modern Jews and Christians hold beliefs that are a mix of secular values and their religions. There are Jews and Christians who have zero problem with homosexuality and support gay marriage. Does that mean that Judaism and Christianity support those things? Nope.
<quoted text>
You still refuse to debate the actual passage which is clear in its support of slavery. Why?
<quoted text>
Secular values are far superior to religious ones, which are wholly arbitrary.
“Your rebuttal "it's out of context" implies that the statement would have different meaning if taken in full context. It doesn't. In ANY context, Leviticus 25:44 says the Hebrews can buy and own slaves.” Then you choose ignorance.

“Because God expected the Hebrews to avoid sinful actions. The key here is that *owning slaves was not sinful*.” AND back to square one. The purpose of Leviticus is a guild for holy living and worship, and relationship. If it wasn’t a sin God wouldn’t have mentioned anything about it… Why do you avoid the simple question: What is the Purpose of the Bible?

“I've already shown that modern Jews and Christians hold beliefs that are a mix of secular values and their religions” You haven’t. What document on earth SHOWS that Jews and Christians mix with “secular values” and where do these “secular values” come from?

“There are Jews and Christians who have zero problem with homosexuality and support gay marriage. Does that mean that Judaism and Christianity support those things? Nope.” Correct. It shows God loves His creation

“You still refuse to debate the actual passage which is clear in its support of slavery. Why?” What have I been doing thus far? You are being like that confederate who justified his owning another person despite all the remaining verses in the Bible.

“Secular values are far superior to religious ones, which are wholly arbitrary.”
Please list the top 7 ““Secular values [that] are far superior”, and cite where they come from?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2745 Jul 23, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I am using proper definitions and have not skewed any definition. I challenge you to find one instance of me skewing a definition.
My complaint was that you're bringing in unrelated areas of definition. It's like if we were discussing whether or not Chipotle counts as authentic Mexican food and then you interject "Chipotle is a fast food restaurant." Yeah, that's nice, but we're talking about the ethnic definition of the food in the restaurant, not whether it's a fast-food restaurant or not.
Likewise, we're talking about whether certain drugs, like Plan B, are abortifacients, not whether abortion is legal or not.
Is Abortion murder? Let’s go from there.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2746 Jul 23, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have links to actual documents or news summaries stating this? Because I've not been able to find any in Google searches.
<quoted text>
It's odd then that the lawyers for the bakery owner raised none of these objections in either their brief for summary judgment in the original administrative proceeding or the appeal of the Civil Rights Commission's confirmation of the the Administrative Law Judge's ruling. Failure to raise these issues initially or on appeal precludes having them addressed in subsequent litigation or appeals.
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceSJbr...
http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceAppe...
<quoted text>
Citations please.
I know, right?! It’s so frustrating that the media chooses to omit information in favor of a personal agenda. It’s a disservice to all Americans.

I can’t find anywhere that the Colorado Civil Liberties Commission has released a written order either… Which is concerning.

The only thing I can find is a radio interview with Phillip’s Lawyer.
http://dancaplis.podbean.com/e/the-dan-caplis...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2747 Jul 23, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither the administrative judge nor the Commission gave weight to the fact the baker would or has sold non-wedding cake baked goods to other gays at other times because it has no relevance. The anti-discrmiantion law applies to ALL goods sold by a public accommodation to the general public and covers EVERY instance of members of the general public attempting to buy such goods. That fact the baker sometimes or even most of the time complies with the law doesn't excuse the instances when he doesn't.
<quoted text>
Neither does it change the insult, humiliation or injury given that gay couple and others like them when they are publicly refused service by a public accommodation in violation of the law.
<quoted text>
I didn't see one. Regardless, you now seem to understand the point.
<quoted text>
Claiming that baking a wedding cake is the same thing as participating in the wedding or wedding ceremony doesn't make it true. Many people have deeply held religious beliefs against war and violence and don't want to pay taxes to support our armed forces or military engagements. However, that doesn't exempt from paying taxes nonetheless.
Further, whether you acknowledge it or not, people used sincerely held religious beliefs to justify slavery, racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws prohibiting interracial marriages as well back in the day. Subsequently, however, slavery has been abolished, anti-discrmiantion laws now prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional.
Religious beliefs, no matter how sincere, does not exempt one from complying with constitutional laws.
<quoted text>
Anti-discrmination law applies to ALL public accommodations, not just those that wish to participate in them. There were obviously businesses that would sell food and other goods and rent rooms to blacks as well in the era of Jim Crow segregation. But why should they or any other minority have to spend additional time, energy and or money trying to locate and travel to them?
<quoted text>
On the contrary, if I owned a bakery, lived in a state whose anti-discmriantion laws included sexual orientation as a protected class and refused to sell a wedding cake to an opposite sex couple when I readily sold wedding cakes to same sex couples, I would fully expect to be held accountable to the anti-discmriantion law for discriminating on the basis of the couple's heterosexual sexual orientation.
Simple reality is owning and running a business is subject to government regulation. If one is unwilling or unable to comply with such regulation (and can't prove it's unconstitutional), then one should seek another means of earning money rather than claiming they're above the law.
The issue we are discussing is the INSTITUTION of marriage, and is it appropriate for government to force a WEDDING BUINESS to support and participate in an a ceremony of which they do not believe in.

I will ask you this: Will you support the government forcing and punishing a gay graphic designer to make anti gay signs for the Westboro Baptist Church event? That falls within the public accommodation law.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2748 Jul 23, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, they lost before the ALJ, and that decision was upheld by the Civil Rights Commission.
Sounds like you have a lot of whine, but no valid argument. Then again, what else is new. He broke the law, Disrespectful71. Plain and simple.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Just like you have the right to support and participate in “gay marriage” others have the right to not.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2749 Jul 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Your rebuttal "it's out of context" implies that the statement would have different meaning if taken in full context. It doesn't. In ANY context, Leviticus 25:44 says the Hebrews can buy and own slaves.” Then you choose ignorance.
Again, no rebuttal from you. Just another "you're wrong".
Respect71 wrote:
“Because God expected the Hebrews to avoid sinful actions. The key here is that *owning slaves was not sinful*.” AND back to square one. The purpose of Leviticus is a guild for holy living and worship, and relationship. If it wasn’t a sin God wouldn’t have mentioned anything about it
That doesn't make a lick of sense. Leviticus contains many rules that aren't related to sins. Just a few passages before the one about owning slaves, it says that someone who sells their house may buy it back within a year. Does that mean selling a house is a sin? "If it wasn’t a sin God wouldn’t have mentioned anything about it"

Let's try this: YOU tell ME why Leviticus 25:44 says that slavery is permitted.
Respect71 wrote:
Why do you avoid the simple question: What is the Purpose of the Bible?
The Bible has many purposes, but we're only discussing one verse at the moment. Stop trying to distract from the topic.
Respect71 wrote:
You haven’t. What document on earth SHOWS that Jews and Christians mix with “secular values” and where do these “secular values” come from?
lol, I haven't? So all Jews Christians have held the exact same positions for thousands of years? All the slave-owner Christians of the past didn't exist? All the anti-suffrage Christians of the past didn't exist?

Just look at RIGHT NOW: many Christians strongly support gay marriage while many others
strongly oppose it. It is undeniable that Christians hold views that are a mix of their religion and secular values.
Respect71 wrote:
“You still refuse to debate the actual passage which is clear in its support of slavery. Why?” What have I been doing thus far? You are being like that confederate who justified his owning another person despite all the remaining verses in the Bible.
You haven't refuted what the verse says even ONCE. And you've got it backwards: Confederates used the Bible to justify owning slaves because the Bible says it's okay.

The god of the OT explicitly says it's okay and even Jesus never says otherwise.
Respect71 wrote:
“Secular values are far superior to religious ones, which are wholly arbitrary.”
Please list the top 7 ““Secular values [that] are far superior”, and cite where they come from?
Here are some I think are quite valuable though: freedom, compassion, reason, understanding, knowledge, safety, peace. They don't "come" from anywhere; they're natural traits. We can use reason and evidence to find the actions that best promote them.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2750 Jul 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is Abortion murder? Let’s go from there.
Let's go from the distraction you're trying to make? I don't think so.

The topic was whether or not the drugs in the HL case caused abortions. They do not. Both you and HL were factually wrong.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2751 Jul 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Just like you have the right to support and participate in “gay marriage” others have the right to not.
Sorry, kiddo, the courts have consistently found that anti-discrimination laws do not hamper free exercise. What else have you got? Baking a cake for someone who holds different views doesn't infringe upon free exercise.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2752 Jul 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The legal motions to dismiss the case:“They failed to sew Phillips individually before the statute of limitations expired” and “The division of civil rights never notified Phillips or the cake shop of the statute that he allegedly violated, never providing factual and legal basis, and was charged under the incorrect statute.” And the commission were very quick to write off the law as “These are mere technicalities” and “this case is too important to not proceed with said technicalities”.
hahahahahah
ahahahahhaha

1. Never notified Phillips of statute violated
2. Never provided legal basis
3. Charged under the incorrect statute

Are you kidding me with this crap?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2753 Jul 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Just like you have the right to support and participate in “gay marriage” others have the right to not.
Cake baking is not, and never has been considered a religious practice.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2754 Jul 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there something about the institution of marriage that is escaping you?
This is about public accommodation law, not marriage.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2755 Jul 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Were you there? They ABSOLUTLY did.
The legal motions to dismiss the case:“They failed to sew Phillips individually before the statute of limitations expired” and “The division of civil rights never notified Phillips or the cake shop of the statute that he allegedly violated, never providing factual and legal basis, and was charged under the incorrect statute.” And the commission were very quick to write off the law as “These are mere technicalities” and “this case is too important to not proceed with said technicalities”.
Supply proof. I think you are lying.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2756 Jul 23, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, the courts have consistently found that anti-discrimination laws do not hamper free exercise. What else have you got? Baking a cake for someone who holds different views doesn't infringe upon free exercise.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Observers have consistently found that 'gay rights' seem to trump all other rights and the constitution.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2757 Jul 23, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Observers have consistently found that 'gay rights' seem to trump all other rights and the constitution.
No, but they do trump phony rights like "I get to ignore any laws I want to because my religion says so."

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2758 Jul 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I know, right?! It’s so frustrating that the media chooses to omit information in favor of a personal agenda. It’s a disservice to all Americans.
There is nothing stopping the baker's lawyers from posting the information on their website. In fact, the links I provided came from there. And yet there is nothing available in written form regarding the allegations you've quoted. And these allegations aren't mentioned in the appeal of the Commission's confirmation of the judge's ruling. All of those things are wholly within the control of the baker's lawyers. If they fail to raise these as issues or errors in the proceedings, then one must conclude either the allegations did not actually occur or the lawyers are incompetent.
Respect71 wrote:
I can’t find anywhere that the Colorado Civil Liberties Commission has released a written order either… Which is concerning.
Nor did I but I don't know what the documentation requirements are in Colorado for a public hearing of that sort. Presumably one could request it under a Freedom of Information request. Regardless, the decision was communicated and the absence of a publicly available written order of the Commission's decision wasn't raised as an issue on appeal by the baker's lawyers.
Respect71 wrote:
The only thing I can find is a radio interview with Phillip’s Lawyer.
http://dancaplis.podbean.com/e/the-dan-caplis...
Personal opinions expressed in a radio interview do not prove or corroborate allegations. The fact these allegations were not raised in the appeal is rather impugning of their validity.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Elizabeth Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 11 hr Nemo 30,208
Is Tom Martino Practicing Law? (Aug '14) 12 hr Curly Howard 4
Islamic Cake Bakery Call Thu Larry the Cable Guy 2
Local Denver Street Gang Gets Exposure! (Mar '10) Thu Chi 325
News Denver's Brik on York and DJ's Cafe have closed Dec 14 factcheck 1
News Rep. Buck Wants To STOP Settlement Of Sexual Mi... Dec 13 surfeagle 1
News Betsy Long: Alleged wrong-way drunk driver is... (Jul '10) Dec '16 Professional Drun... 41

Elizabeth Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Elizabeth Mortgages