Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 46257 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.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3163 Aug 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“And when we point out that these people had no problem taking gay dollars for any other service, despite their religious views on homosexuality, you have no response that doesn't come off sounding like Ralph Camden getting caught in another scheme:
"Humina. Humina. Humina."” Because of the NATURE of the INSTITUTION of MARRIAGE! Therefore the argument that he discriminated against the gay couple because they are gay is void. It’s about supporting and participating in a institution that he does not believe in.
“BTW how come this is such an issue for religious freedom yet you remain silent about the law in Indiana that would jail members of clergy.” BTW I have ask you many times to post the specific law of which you speak of so that I may have to opportunity to read said law before I state an opinion… Why haven’t you done so?
“Seems religious freedom means something different with you on a case by case basis. Why aren't you defending the guy who attacked Chik Fil-A because of his religious beliefs?” Which guy is that? Are you speaking of gays hating and protesting Cathy? I support their right to do so, but Cathy does nothing to discriminate gays from eating in their Chick-Fil-As.
Your response was to post #3150 despite the fact you attached it to my post (#3151).

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3164 Aug 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
We will see…
Don't hold your breath.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3165 Aug 25, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you won't.
<quoted text>
It is a necessity that certain minimum rights be established by individuals, like being alive, unharmed, and free, or everything else falls apart.
<quoted text>
Peace is not nonsense.
I do understand what peace is.
The world now is relatively peaceful compared to the past.
Things make plenty of sense to me - my values are more grounded than yours.
<quoted text>
Again, your question is nonsense. Freedom simply IS.
Where do you think freedom comes from?
“No, you won't.”…
“It is a necessity that certain minimum rights be established by individuals, like being alive, unharmed, and free, or everything else falls apart.” Why? Based on what? Where do rights come from?

“Peace is not nonsense.
I do understand what peace is.
The world now is relatively peaceful compared to the past.
Things make plenty of sense to me - my values are more grounded than yours.” Really? Why? What is peace? Is it in Israel, Iraq, North Korea, or is it in the Ukraine? You said knowledge was a value, yet you fall very short.

“Again, your question is nonsense. Freedom simply IS.” Based on what? If freedom is, why don’t all the people in the world experience freedom?

“Where do you think freedom comes from?” Freedom comes from God, or our creator… Without that then what reason is there for humans to have any rights at all?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3166 Aug 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, DisRespect, I advocate him not being able to project his religious moral views onto his customers in violation of their rights.
Preventing him from discriminating on the basis of his religious moral views in no way infringes upon any of his rights. He is being asked to provide a service to make a baked good. He isn't being asked to sanctify the ceremony where the baked good will be consumed, he isn't being asked to preside over the ceremony, he isn't being asked to provide a written endorsement of the union, he isn't being asked to marry someone of the same sex, he isn't being prevented from going to a religious service, he's being asked to bake a cake.
Get a grip kiddo.
<quoted text>
The reality is that providing a cake to a same sex couples does not impact his views on marriage. He may still believe that marriage is between a husband and wife.
<quoted text>
The reality remains that there is a difference between religious and civil marriage, and you are advocating for the infringement of the free exercise of religion by allowing vendors to place religious tests in order to avail one's self of their services. If you don't see why such a state is dangerous, and could quite frankly backfire on you in the most hysterical of ways, then you are a dim bulb indeed.
<quoted text>
It is just a cake. That you are trying to grant a ministerial status to it is absolutely hysterical. The baker isn't a cleric, he's a baker.
“No, DisRespect, I advocate him not being able to project his religious moral views onto his customers in violation of their rights.” How does the non-sale of a wedding cake “project his religious moral views onto his customers in violation of their rights.”?

“The reality is that providing a cake to a same sex couples does not impact his views on marriage. He may still believe that marriage is between a husband and wife.” It does but you deny him that by supporting government punishment or forcing him out of his wedding cake business.

“The reality remains that there is a difference between religious and civil marriage, and you are advocating for the infringement of the free exercise of religion by allowing vendors to place religious tests in order to avail one's self of their services. If you don't see why such a state is dangerous, and could quite frankly backfire on you in the most hysterical of ways, then you are a dim bulb indeed.” You mean a state that forces a person to support and participate in something that he doesn’t believe in is NOT dangerous? You insults don’t change facts.

“It is just a cake. That you are trying to grant a ministerial status to it is absolutely hysterical. The baker isn't a cleric, he's a baker.” And he has beliefs and shouldn’t be forced to support and participate in a institution that he doesn’t believe in.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3167 Aug 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Constitution. And so long as they are persons, and I assure you homosexuals are, they are constitutionally entitled to equality under the law.
The reality remains, DisRespect, that you are utterly incapable of presenting a well reasoned and detailed explanation of how providing the service in any way infringes upon the baker's rights. Your difficulty in doing so merely underscores that the courts were correct in their rulings, and providing the service in no way infringes upon the rights of the baker.
How many times have I insulted you and made fun of your stance on this issue? Now truly who is the one that is disrespectful?

We all see the difference between you and me.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3168 Aug 25, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Your response was to post #3150 despite the fact you attached it to my post (#3151).
“Fundamentally, there's no difference between refusing to provide goods/services to someone because of their race and refusing to provide goods/services to someone because of their sexual orientation. And lest you be tempted to assert your lie again about discriminating against the "event" of a wedding,” The truth is that the baker served gays and ONLY denied the wedding bake on the basis of the institution. Calling it a lie is demonizing and marginalizing the person of faith.

“Several. Not everyone has a wedding cake the size of an aircraft carrier that requires special set up. Regardless, the wedding cake is part of the reception, not the wedding ceremony. So are you going to claim the baker has a religious belief against parties as well?” The party celebrates the institution.

“There's nothing special about the wedding industry that deserves exemption from anti-discrmination laws.” The belief o f the institution of marriage and what is it… It’s very special indeed.

“Churches are exempt because they are generally organized as non-profits and apply for and receive tax exempt status. They are considered private organizations that can set their own membership standards and receive exemption from some laws because their "business" is religion, not selling goods and services for profit. That's not the case with the baker of businesses in the wedding industry in general.” They are exept because of the First Amendment of our Constitution as the wedding industry should be as well… Protecting right for ALL… Not punish those you feel disagree with “gay marriage”.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3170 Aug 25, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“No, you won't.”…
“It is a necessity that certain minimum rights be established by individuals, like being alive, unharmed, and free, or everything else falls apart.” Why? Based on what? Where do rights come from?
Rights are concepts. Societies run better when certain rights are respected, like those listed above.
Respect71 wrote:
Things make plenty of sense to me - my values are more grounded than yours.” Really? Why? What is peace? Is it in Israel, Iraq, North Korea, or is it in the Ukraine? You said knowledge was a value, yet you fall very short.
Peace need not be universal to exist. Of the past 10 decades, which would you consider more peaceful than the current one?
Respect71 wrote:
“Where do you think freedom comes from?” Freedom comes from God, or our creator
How so? By what mechanism is freedom created? Would not the same freedom exist without any god?
Respect71 wrote:
… Without that then what reason is there for humans to have any rights at all?
There is no more reason for human rights with a god than without. And, if we are talking about the god of Abraham, less. The god of Abraham is a totalitarian dictator.

“From a distance...”

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#3171 Aug 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The truth is that the baker served gays and ONLY denied the wedding bake on the basis of the institution.
Once again, the "institution didn't seek to purchase a wedding cake; two gay men did. Since the baker refused to provide the requested service, he did in fact discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Respect71 wrote:
Calling it a lie is demonizing and marginalizing the person of faith.
Calling it a lie is what it is. That supposed people of faith lie to themselves as well as others doesn't make it any less a lie.
Respect71 wrote:
“Several. Not everyone has a wedding cake the size of an aircraft carrier that requires special set up. Regardless, the wedding cake is part of the reception, not the wedding ceremony. So are you going to claim the baker has a religious belief against parties as well?” The party celebrates the institution.
So your answer is "yes", the baker is claiming a religious belief against parties, institutions and apparently any other activity that offends his religious beliefs. Why are you too spineless to just say that?
Respect71 wrote:
The belief o f the institution of marriage and what is it… It’s very special indeed.
Not special enough to justify exemption from anti-discrimination laws.
Respect71 wrote:
They are exept because of the First Amendment of our Constitution as the wedding industry should be as well… Protecting right for ALL… Not punish those you feel disagree with “gay marriage”.
Once again, you demonstrate a profound ignorance of what the first amendment does and does not do and how constitutional law works and is applied. You're simply unqualified to discuss the topic.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3172 Aug 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Rights are concepts. Societies run better when certain rights are respected, like those listed above.
<quoted text>
Peace need not be universal to exist. Of the past 10 decades, which would you consider more peaceful than the current one?
<quoted text>
How so? By what mechanism is freedom created? Would not the same freedom exist without any god?
<quoted text>
There is no more reason for human rights with a god than without. And, if we are talking about the god of Abraham, less. The god of Abraham is a totalitarian dictator.
“Rights are concepts. Societies run better when certain rights are respected, like those listed above.” Who decides if those rights listed above are the correct ones? Stalin? Mao? What about Obama picking and choosing which rights Americans have or don’t have?

“Peace need not be universal to exist.” So there is peace in the middle east and no peace in the US?
“Of the past 10 decades, which would you consider more peaceful than the current one?” None.

“How so? By what mechanism is freedom created? Would not the same freedom exist without any god?” When freedom comes from a creator (whether you believe in God or not) it comes from a natural source that is not human, and therefore with that understood, cannot be removed by anyone.

“There is no more reason for human rights with a god than without.” There is, because there is no reason for someone to honor freedom that “just is” and comes from “nowhere”.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3173 Aug 27, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, the "institution didn't seek to purchase a wedding cake; two gay men did. Since the baker refused to provide the requested service, he did in fact discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation.
<quoted text>
Calling it a lie is what it is. That supposed people of faith lie to themselves as well as others doesn't make it any less a lie.
<quoted text>
So your answer is "yes", the baker is claiming a religious belief against parties, institutions and apparently any other activity that offends his religious beliefs. Why are you too spineless to just say that?
<quoted text>
Not special enough to justify exemption from anti-discrimination laws.
<quoted text>
Once again, you demonstrate a profound ignorance of what the first amendment does and does not do and how constitutional law works and is applied. You're simply unqualified to discuss the topic.
“Once again, the "institution didn't seek to purchase a wedding cake; two gay men did. Since the baker refused to provide the requested service, he did in fact discriminate against them on the basis of their sexual orientation.” The reality is he did not. The gay couple, by asking him to provide a wedding cake, asked him to provide support and participation for the celebration of their institution of which the baker doesn’t believe. The baker was willing to sell anything in his shop outside of the wedding cake, thus showing there was no discrimination BASED on sexual orientation.

“Calling it a lie is what it is. That supposed people of faith lie to themselves as well as others doesn't make it any less a lie.” Calling it a lie is a weak defense of you stance on punishing a person of faith for his convictions, when he literally did nothing to the gay couple.

“So your answer is "yes", the baker is claiming a religious belief against parties, institutions and apparently any other activity that offends his religious beliefs. Why are you too spineless to just say that?” I answered, honestly. How you process it is on your shoulders.

Will you support government prosecution of the gay caterer for refusing to cater a anti-gay event that a hateful church commissioned him to support and participate in? Will you call it religious discrimination?

“Not special enough to justify exemption from anti-discrimination laws.” Yes, it absolutely is, because of the very nature of what marriage means to individuals across the Country.

“Once again, you demonstrate a profound ignorance of what the first amendment does and does not do and how constitutional law works and is applied. You're simply unqualified to discuss the topic.” That’s all you can do, is attempt to marginalize me? You will not win people to your side ever, especially if you support government punishments for not believing that same as yourself.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3174 Aug 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Rights are concepts. Societies run better when certain rights are respected, like those listed above.” Who decides if those rights listed above are the correct ones? Stalin? Mao? What about Obama picking and choosing which rights Americans have or don’t have?
Typically, society chooses. As members of society, we should use our influence (for example, through voting or activism) to push for the best outcomes.

Having a single person dictate everything (Stalin, Mao, the Bible god) is usually bad.
Respect71 wrote:
“Peace need not be universal to exist.” So there is peace in the middle east and no peace in the US?
...no.
Respect71 wrote:
“Of the past 10 decades, which would you consider more peaceful than the current one?” None.
So why were you complaining so much when I said that modern day is relatively peaceful compared to past eras? Now you're agreeing.
Respect71 wrote:
“How so? By what mechanism is freedom created? Would not the same freedom exist without any god?” When freedom comes from a creator (whether you believe in God or not) it comes from a natural source that is not human, and therefore with that understood, cannot be removed by anyone.
You didn't answer the questions. How so? By what mechanism is freedom created?

Here's another one: before the point when God "created" freedom, did God himself not have freedom?
Respect71 wrote:
“There is no more reason for human rights with a god than without.” There is, because there is no reason for someone to honor freedom that “just is” and comes from “nowhere”.
Of course there is: people enjoy being free. Religion often imposes arbitrary limits on freedom.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3175 Aug 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Typically, society chooses. As members of society, we should use our influence (for example, through voting or activism) to push for the best outcomes.
Having a single person dictate everything (Stalin, Mao, the Bible god) is usually bad.
<quoted text>
...no.
<quoted text>
So why were you complaining so much when I said that modern day is relatively peaceful compared to past eras? Now you're agreeing.
<quoted text>
You didn't answer the questions. How so? By what mechanism is freedom created?
Here's another one: before the point when God "created" freedom, did God himself not have freedom?
<quoted text>
Of course there is: people enjoy being free. Religion often imposes arbitrary limits on freedom.
“Typically, society chooses. As members of society, we should use our influence (for example, through voting or activism) to push for the best outcomes.” Which members of society have or know the “best outcomes”? The ones who advocate “women’s right to choose”(killing unborn babies), the members who whole heartedly believe in “human caused climate change”, or what about members of society that believe Israel needs to be wiped off the planet?

“...no.” Then you point is what?

“So why were you complaining so much when I said that modern day is relatively peaceful compared to past eras? Now you're agreeing.” No. Do you understand that I am saying NONE of those decades had any more or less peace between them?

“You didn't answer the questions. How so? By what mechanism is freedom created?” I did.. Because your believe “freedom just is” keeps you from seeing American’s freedom comes from God, or by natural design if you prefer.

“Here's another one: before the point when God "created" freedom, did God himself not have freedom?” yes.

“Of course there is: people enjoy being free.” Based on what?

“Religion often imposes arbitrary limits on freedom.” Interesting.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3176 Aug 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Which members of society have or know the “best outcomes”?
People typically have a lot of the same basic desires: health, happiness, safety, freedom, etc.
Respect71 wrote:
The ones who advocate “women’s right to choose”(killing unborn babies), the members who whole heartedly believe in “human caused climate change”, or what about members of society that believe Israel needs to be wiped off the planet?
Promoting women's rights and protecting the environment are both good outcomes. I'm not sure what Israel has to do with domestic issues.
Respect71 wrote:
“...no.” Then you point is what?
That Israel having conflicts now doesn't mean that the world isn't, on the whole, more peaceful than it has been in the past. You even agreed to this.
Respect71 wrote:
“So why were you complaining so much when I said that modern day is relatively peaceful compared to past eras? Now you're agreeing.” No. Do you understand that I am saying NONE of those decades had any more or less peace between them?
They don't? So 2010-2014 hasn't been more peaceful than the 1940s, when half the world was at war resulting in more than 70,000,000 casualties?
Respect71 wrote:
“You didn't answer the questions. How so? By what mechanism is freedom created?” I did..
No, you didn't. You just said it comes from God. That's not a how. That's not a mechanism.
Respect71 wrote:
“Here's another one: before the point when God "created" freedom, did God himself not have freedom?” yes.
Yes, he didn't have freedom? So before he "created" freedom, he didn't even have it himself?
Respect71 wrote:
“Of course there is: people enjoy being free.” Based on what?
All of human experience.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3177 Aug 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
How does the non-sale of a wedding cake “project his religious moral views onto his customers in violation of their rights.”?
Simple, it is the denial of service to a client on the basis that they do not hold the same religious moral views as the proprietor. Such a denial of service violates the free exercise of the would be client, and also breaks the law in the state of Colorado. The baker has every right to feel that gay marriage is wrong and not to enter into such a union. He does not have the right to deny service to those who choose to do so.
Respect71 wrote:
It does but you deny him that by supporting government punishment or forcing him out of his wedding cake business.
The government is in no way punishing him, it is preserving freedom by preventing him from projecting his religious moral views onto others by illegally denying service.
Respect71 wrote:
You mean a state that forces a person to support and participate in something that he doesn’t believe in is NOT dangerous? You insults don’t change facts.
The state did nothing of the kind. It merely said that if he provides the service, he must do so equally to anyone who wishes to obtain said service. The court even explained when such service may be denied, simply because the client holds differing religious views does not qualify.

The funny part about your argument is that you fail to see how easily it could be used to deny Christians services based upon their religious views. Your argument is nothing if not short cited.
Respect71 wrote:
And he has beliefs and shouldn’t be forced to support and participate in a institution that he doesn’t believe in.
And, his beliefs are utterly irrelevant to the services he provides through his business.

Applying your logic, people could discriminate for any reason and simply cite nebulous religious beliefs as the cause. if you don't see why that is dangerous, then you aren't terribly bright.
Respect71 wrote:
How many times have I insulted you and made fun of your stance on this issue? Now truly who is the one that is disrespectful?
We all see the difference between you and me.
DisRespect, you have earned any insults that have been leveled at you. Your argument is laughable, short sighted, and without basis in reality. The fact of the matter is that the baker's beliefs are utterly irrelevant to the business they operate, and providing a cake for a same sex marriage in no way interferes with any of the baker's beliefs or freedoms.

In fact, denying service merely reinforces that he doesn't follow the beliefs he purports tot follow in the first place, as he is casting judgment and treating others not as he would be treated.

His argument is nothing more than a novelty defense, and a cheap attempt to avoid compliance with the law. Both the court and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the latter unanimously, saw through this transparent argument.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3178 Aug 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
People typically have a lot of the same basic desires: health, happiness, safety, freedom, etc.
<quoted text>
Promoting women's rights and protecting the environment are both good outcomes. I'm not sure what Israel has to do with domestic issues.
<quoted text>
That Israel having conflicts now doesn't mean that the world isn't, on the whole, more peaceful than it has been in the past. You even agreed to this.
<quoted text>
They don't? So 2010-2014 hasn't been more peaceful than the 1940s, when half the world was at war resulting in more than 70,000,000 casualties?
<quoted text>
No, you didn't. You just said it comes from God. That's not a how. That's not a mechanism.
<quoted text>
Yes, he didn't have freedom? So before he "created" freedom, he didn't even have it himself?
<quoted text>
All of human experience.
“People typically have a lot of the same basic desires: health, happiness, safety, freedom, etc.” Which people? Who? Why?

“Promoting women's rights and protecting the environment are both good outcomes.” Why based on what?
“I'm not sure what Israel has to do with domestic issues.” I am asking you about WHO knows what the best outcomes are? Can you not answer the question?

“That Israel having conflicts now doesn't mean that the world isn't, on the whole, more peaceful than it has been in the past. You even agreed to this.” No… In all of human history there has never been world peace and you trying to ignore that is a “secular value”?

“They don't? So 2010-2014 hasn't been more peaceful than the 1940s, when half the world was at war resulting in more than 70,000,000 casualties?” Correct… Less casualties does not constitute peace.

“No, you didn't. You just said it comes from God. That's not a how. That's not a mechanism.” It is… Otherwise the mechanism has to be a human one of which can be removed at any time for any reason.

“Yes, he didn't have freedom?” Read slower… Yes God had, has and is forever free…

“All of human experience.” Who’s human experience? Iran? North Korea? America?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3179 Aug 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“People typically have a lot of the same basic desires: health, happiness, safety, freedom, etc.” Which people? Who? Why?
All people, excluding some of the mentally ill. Why do people like being healthy, happy, safe, and free? Is that an honest question?
Respect71 wrote:
“Promoting women's rights and protecting the environment are both good outcomes.” Why based on what?
You're not even interested in an honest conversation. You're just saying "BUT WHY?" to every response, like a small child.
Respect71 wrote:
“That Israel having conflicts now doesn't mean that the world isn't, on the whole, more peaceful than it has been in the past. You even agreed to this.” No… In all of human history there has never been world peace and you trying to ignore that is a “secular value”?
I never said there has ever been world peace. What are you talking about?
Respect71 wrote:
“They don't? So 2010-2014 hasn't been more peaceful than the 1940s, when half the world was at war resulting in more than 70,000,000 casualties?” Correct… Less casualties does not constitute peace.
If MORE war doesn't constitute LESS peace, then what would? How do you define peace?
Respect71 wrote:
“No, you didn't. You just said it comes from God. That's not a how. That's not a mechanism.” It is…
No, it isn't. Do you know what 'how' means? Do you know what 'mechanism' means?

If show you a cool paper airplane and tell you that "Jimmy made it", and you ask me 'how', and I tell you "Jimmy made it"...that's not how.
Respect71 wrote:
“Yes, he didn't have freedom?” Read slower… Yes God had, has and is forever free
Then God did not create freedom. Thanks for blowing up your own argument.
Respect71 wrote:
“All of human experience.” Who’s human experience? Iran? North Korea? America?
Any of them.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3180 Aug 27, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple, it is the denial of service to a client on the basis that they do not hold the same religious moral views as the proprietor. Such a denial of service violates the free exercise of the would be client, and also breaks the law in the state of Colorado. The baker has every right to feel that gay marriage is wrong and not to enter into such a union. He does not have the right to deny service to those who choose to do so.
<quoted text>
The government is in no way punishing him, it is preserving freedom by preventing him from projecting his religious moral views onto others by illegally denying service.
<quoted text>
The state did nothing of the kind. It merely said that if he provides the service, he must do so equally to anyone who wishes to obtain said service. The court even explained when such service may be denied, simply because the client holds differing religious views does not qualify.
The funny part about your argument is that you fail to see how easily it could be used to deny Christians services based upon their religious views. Your argument is nothing if not short cited.
<quoted text>
And, his beliefs are utterly irrelevant to the services he provides through his business.
Applying your logic, people could discriminate for any reason and simply cite nebulous religious beliefs as the cause. if you don't see why that is dangerous, then you aren't terribly bright.
<quoted text>
DisRespect, you have earned any insults that have been leveled at you. Your argument is laughable, short sighted, and without basis in reality. The fact of the matter is that the baker's beliefs are utterly irrelevant to the business they operate, and providing a cake for a same sex marriage in no way interferes with any of the baker's beliefs or freedoms.
In fact, denying service merely reinforces that he doesn't follow the beliefs he purports tot follow in the first place, as he is casting judgment and treating others not as he would be treated.
His argument is nothing more than a novelty defense, and a cheap attempt to avoid compliance with the law. Both the court and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the latter unanimously, saw through this transparent argument.
I merely stand for the freedoms of ALL Americans while you continue to argue government punishment for a man you clearly believes different than you.

No matter how you try to demonize and marginalize my stance it’s clear that my stance lifts ALL Americans up in who they are and their beliefs while you continue to call me names because you lack argument; because you can’t state what is truly in your heart.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#3181 Aug 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
All people, excluding some of the mentally ill. Why do people like being healthy, happy, safe, and free? Is that an honest question?
<quoted text>
You're not even interested in an honest conversation. You're just saying "BUT WHY?" to every response, like a small child.
<quoted text>
I never said there has ever been world peace. What are you talking about?
<quoted text>
If MORE war doesn't constitute LESS peace, then what would? How do you define peace?
<quoted text>
No, it isn't. Do you know what 'how' means? Do you know what 'mechanism' means?
If show you a cool paper airplane and tell you that "Jimmy made it", and you ask me 'how', and I tell you "Jimmy made it"...that's not how.
<quoted text>
Then God did not create freedom. Thanks for blowing up your own argument.
<quoted text>
Any of them.
“All people, excluding some of the mentally ill. Why do people like being healthy, happy, safe, and free? Is that an honest question?” Not all people do or even know that they can. So therefore is it not an honest question to ask you Which people? Who? Why “typically have a lot of the same basic desires: health, happiness, safety, freedom, etc.”?

“You're not even interested in an honest conversation. You're just saying "BUT WHY?" to every response, like a small child.” I’m very interested and it seems you can’t answer the question… Why would you consider ripping an innocent baby from her mother’s womb a “good outcomes.”?

“I never said there has ever been world peace. What are you talking about?” In many of your post you seem to be oblivious to human conflict… Why is that?

“If MORE war doesn't constitute LESS peace, then what would? How do you define peace?” PEACE: a state of tranquillity or quiet: as

a : freedom from civil disturbance

b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom <a breach of the peace>
2
: freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
3
: harmony in personal relations
4
a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments

b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity
5

“No, it isn't. Do you know what 'how' means? Do you know what 'mechanism' means?” I do. So please explain the of which Americans have freedom.

“Then God did not create freedom. Thanks for blowing up your own argument.” Playing word games shows your blatant ignorance and immaturity in regards to proving “secular values” are superior to Christian values.

“Any of them.” All places where freedom means nothing…

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#3182 Aug 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“All people, excluding some of the mentally ill. Why do people like being healthy, happy, safe, and free? Is that an honest question?” Not all people do or even know that they can. So therefore is it not an honest question to ask you Which people? Who? Why “typically have a lot of the same basic desires: health, happiness, safety, freedom, etc.”?
Your question isn't honest? Thanks for the admission.
Respect71 wrote:
“You're not even interested in an honest conversation. You're just saying "BUT WHY?" to every response, like a small child.” I’m very interested and it seems you can’t answer the question… Why would you consider ripping an innocent baby from her mother’s womb a “good outcomes.”?
It improves the life of the mother while harming no one.
[Note: I support abortion to around 5 months term. Around that time, fetal brain development gives the fetus the ability to experience things]
Respect71 wrote:
“I never said there has ever been world peace. What are you talking about?” In many of your post you seem to be oblivious to human conflict… Why is that?
Don't try to weasel your way out of my question. I never said there has ever been world peace, so why did you accuse me of that?

I'm not oblivious to human conflict at all, I simply recognize that the modern world has LESS than it used to.
Respect71 wrote:
“If MORE war doesn't constitute LESS peace, then what would? How do you define peace?” PEACE:
Your definition confirms my statement. The WW2 era had less tranquility, less order, less mutual concord between governments, and more hostilities.
Respect71 wrote:
“No, it isn't. Do you know what 'how' means? Do you know what 'mechanism' means?” I do.
Clearly not, because you keep answering my HOW questions with WHO answers. How did God create freedom?
Respect71 wrote:
“Then God did not create freedom. Thanks for blowing up your own argument.” Playing word games shows your blatant ignorance and immaturity in regards to proving “secular values” are superior to Christian values.
I'm not playing word games. You just ran yourself into a corner. If God inherently has freedom, then freedom is not a concept that God had to create. It just IS, as I said to begin with.
Respect71 wrote:
“Any of them.” All places where freedom means nothing…
Freedom means nothing in Iran, North Korea, or America? Please explain your statement.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#3183 Aug 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I merely stand for the freedoms of ALL Americans while you continue to argue government punishment for a man you clearly believes different than you.
Actually, you are the one who isn't arguing for all Americans. You argue only for those you happen to agree with, and think that they should be able to discriminate against those who believe differently. You have made this abundantly clear.
Respect71 wrote:
No matter how you try to demonize and marginalize my stance it’s clear that my stance lifts ALL Americans up in who they are and their beliefs while you continue to call me names because you lack argument; because you can’t state what is truly in your heart.
No, DisRespect, it doesn't. It takes us back to segregation and discrimination. Providing a service for someone with differing views regarding religion in no way infringes upon the free exercise of the baker, nor does it infringe upon any of the baker's rights. The court has rightly found this to be the case, as did the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

You have been utterly incapable of offering a single way in which the baker's rights are affected by making a baked good for someone who believes differently.

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) 1 hr River Tam 27,735
Looking for blues 9 hr Sara11790 1
Local Politics Do you approve of Michael B. Hancock as Mayor? (Feb '12) 12 hr chad 5
Nicole DuBois Savage Thu Jamie Dundee 5
Male on Female Facesitting topix? Thu Anonymous 8
Lookin in denver Wed Gotthatitch 2
Looking for blues. Out of towner Wed Jiggy420 3

Elizabeth Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Elizabeth Mortgages