Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 51959 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.

d pantz

United States

#359 Dec 19, 2013
equalityboy81 wrote:
Bigotry is bigotry no matter how you justify it.
then isn't the whole concept of "marriage equality" bigotry in itself? The argument is gay couples are treated unfairly (really they're treated the same as any single person, gay or not) and should enjoy the same special rights that straight couples get. Fine, but what happens is you put the same burden on another group, single people who make the free choice to be single. why not call for "tax" equality and an end to insurance laws that "discriminate" gays and single men. Instead they alienate a whole group of people, holding themselves up as deserving special treatment over others. They now become the oppressors .
d pantz

United States

#360 Dec 19, 2013
And who cares what the cake person does. Freedom of choice, its probably going to really hurt their business. When it does we can all say that they deserved it.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#361 Dec 19, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Because the way you and the others on this thread write, make it seem like he’s a criminal.
The Judgment, in this case, goes against the 1st Amendment.
When a person uses religious superstition as an excuse to do crimes; he/she is a criminal
.
duh!
d pantz

United States

#362 Dec 19, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
When a person uses religious superstition as an excuse to do crimes; he/she is a criminal
.
duh!
so when is discrimination legal? When you set up a a fund for kids to get money for college but you are only eligible for it if you're a certain ethnicity? So if the baker was a non profit organization, it's okay? Did the baker refuse to let gays in the store? Refuse to let them use the bathroom there? I wonder what would've happened had the baker been an atheist and refused to make cakes that refer to religious holidays? Probably notthing.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#363 Dec 19, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
When a person uses religious superstition as an excuse to do crimes; he/she is a criminal
.
duh!
Just the same as a person who uses ridicules a religion as “superstition”.
However, the 1st Amendment protects your hateful ignorance as well.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#364 Dec 19, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
Really? Because the way you and the others on this thread write, make it seem like he’s a criminal.
Criminals are those who break laws, right? Guess what he was found guilty of, breaking the law.
Respect71 wrote:
The Judgment, in this case, goes against the 1st Amendment.
You can keep proclaiming it all you want, but NO court in this country has ever been sold on that argument, sorry.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#365 Dec 19, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Criminals are those who break laws, right? Guess what he was found guilty of, breaking the law.
<quoted text>You can keep proclaiming it all you want, but NO court in this country has ever been sold on that argument, sorry.
“Criminals are those who break laws, right? Guess what he was found guilty of, breaking the law.”
Interesting, and if you owned a gay bar, I came in to buy a couple of club sodas and talked to your patrons about God and what He can do to change their lives, would you claim that as criminal? Would you kick me out?

“You can keep proclaiming it all you want, but NO court in this country has ever been sold on that argument, sorry.” Nothing like this has ever gone to the Supreme Court, and most likely if it does, the baker has the right as a Christian to sell wedding cakes to man-woman married couples, and shut down you and your friends bigotry for Christians.
Tax the Churches

Alpharetta, GA

#366 Dec 19, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Criminals are those who break laws, right? Guess what he was found guilty of, breaking the law.”
Interesting, and if you owned a gay bar, I came in to buy a couple of club sodas and talked to your patrons about God and what He can do to change their lives, would you claim that as criminal? Would you kick me out?
“You can keep proclaiming it all you want, but NO court in this country has ever been sold on that argument, sorry.” Nothing like this has ever gone to the Supreme Court, and most likely if it does, the baker has the right as a Christian to sell wedding cakes to man-woman married couples, and shut down you and your friends bigotry for Christians.
Unprovoked snarling fundamentalist terrorists declared WAR on We the People of the Gay Master Race; so we don't socialize with the enemy. It is against our religion
.
War mongering religious perverts who use GOD as their excuse to sneak into gay bars for sex talk with gay people are fooling nobody but themselves and will be shown the door for unacceptable adult behavior
.
We call them 'homophobes' because they are afraid of their own half-gay genitalia

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#367 Dec 19, 2013
Tax the Churches wrote:
<quoted text>
Unprovoked snarling fundamentalist terrorists declared WAR on We the People of the Gay Master Race; so we don't socialize with the enemy. It is against our religion
.
War mongering religious perverts who use GOD as their excuse to sneak into gay bars for sex talk with gay people are fooling nobody but themselves and will be shown the door for unacceptable adult behavior
.
We call them 'homophobes' because they are afraid of their own half-gay genitalia
“Unprovoked snarling fundamentalist terrorists declared WAR on We the People of the Gay Master Race; so we don't socialize with the enemy. It is against our religion” Lol... Very funny statement.
.
“War mongering religious perverts who use GOD as their excuse to sneak into gay bars for sex talk with gay people are fooling nobody but themselves and will be shown the door for unacceptable adult behavior” Sorry, that’s against the law. You can’t discriminate based on religion.
.
“We call them 'homophobes' because they are afraid of their own half-gay genitalia” You call them 'homophobes' because you don’t know how to deal with the stark difference of being gay, and so different from so many others.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#368 Dec 19, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
Calling the baker names makes you look as bigoted as he.
As a business owner, he has an obligation to follow both the letter and intent of the laws which apply, he was foolish enough to disregard that.
Respect71 wrote:
He didn’t serve a wedding cake, that he believes is for a man and woman who are married, to a gay couple.
It doesn't matter what his motives were, he still violated the law and while God might forgive or even approve of his act, it does not excuse him from his obligations to CIVIL law.
Respect71 wrote:
but he is protected because of the 1st Amendment, to serve a wedding cake to only man woman married couples.
Not according to the Judge who heard his case, he found him guilty of illegal discrimination.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#369 Dec 19, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
Interesting, and if you owned a gay bar, I came in to buy a couple of club sodas and talked to your patrons about God and what He can do to change their lives, would you claim that as criminal? Would you kick me out?
Nice try, but if my other customers did not want to hear you talk about God and you did not respect their right to not have to listen to you tell them about God, I as a business owner would be well within my right to show you the door. It would be discriminatory to kick you out for acting Christian, not for acting annoying to my other customers.
Respect71 wrote:
Nothing like this has ever gone to the Supreme Court, and most likely if it does, the baker has the right as a Christian to sell wedding cakes to man-woman married couples, and shut down you and your friends bigotry for Christians.
You keep forgetting that there is a case just like this one that is in their in basket even as we speak and if they take up the case of the photographer from New Mexico, it will all be over quickly. The reality check is that there have been enough local, state and federal restrictions on religious liberty cases, that have gone before the Court, to tell you how this one goes. The government's compelling interest in preventing random acts of discrimination meets the requirements of strict scrutiny necessary for the government to limit the individual's right to practice what they preach.

I thought y'all were dead set against some people getting special rights, but here you are arguing for a right which would only apply to the "religious". Folk who don't blame God for their bigotry when they are committing discrimination against the gay folk would face sanction which you would not. You're not asking the law be overturned, just that it not apply only to those who invoke their alleged religious beliefs while they break it. Apparently no matter how badly they break it, or is there some sort of line even good Christians aren't allowed to cross? Even if you have a line in there somewhere, this would still be one seriously special right you would have compared to those who don't think of blaming God when they are breaking it.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question of just how far does this right go, does God get veto power over race, religion, ethnicity or any of the other suspect classifications too? What other crimes can you commit with an invocation of the name of your higher power(s)?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#370 Dec 19, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
Sorry, that’s against the law. You can’t discriminate based on religion.
If they invoke their atheistic beliefs as the reason they are discriminating against someone on the basis of their choice of religion, wouldn't they enjoy the same rights as a Theist who invoke their theistic beliefs as the reason they are discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation? Or is your special right getting more and more special?
Respect71 wrote:
You call them 'homophobes' because you don’t know how to deal with the stark difference of being gay, and so different from so many others.
Most of us know we are different from the vast majority of those around us long before anybody starts labeling what that difference is. We also often find out long before people start labeling our difference for us just how unpopular our difference is with some folk. It's a heterosexual world out there, those of us who aren't going to be one are pretty much left to our own devices to learn how to live with our difference in an occasionally really ugly, violent, hateful, mean-spirited world. It's not easy being different, believe me. If you want to pray that God hates **** or just **** being ****, that is between you and Him, but y'all folk just won't stop exercising your right to tell us frequently repeatedly and often just how much God hates us. We don't just have you folk blaming God for hating on us, we've got non-theistic rationales for irrational hate to deal with to. There are plenty of non-theists and maybe even atheists who either hate **** or just us **** being ****, more than we need, but our reality is that there are a lot more of you religious folk. We get along fine being different, happy, healthy and sane, as long as we don't allow the ugliness we have to face for being different chew us up and spit us out. We get being different, but what we don't get us is you hating on us for being different. My difference is a gift, it is treated with respect and always has been, by me anyways. It's time all you who haven't been given this gift to respect it and us as different.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#373 Dec 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>As a business owner, he has an obligation to follow both the letter and intent of the laws which apply, he was foolish enough to disregard that.
<quoted text>It doesn't matter what his motives were, he still violated the law and while God might forgive or even approve of his act, it does not excuse him from his obligations to CIVIL law.
<quoted text>Not according to the Judge who heard his case, he found him guilty of illegal discrimination.
Whether you like it or not: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#374 Dec 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Nice try, but if my other customers did not want to hear you talk about God and you did not respect their right to not have to listen to you tell them about God, I as a business owner would be well within my right to show you the door. It would be discriminatory to kick you out for acting when they are committing discrimination against the gay folk would face sanction which you would not. You're not asking the law be overturned, just that it not apply only to those who invoke their alleged religious beliefs while they break it. Apparently no matter how badly they break it, or is there some sort of line even good Christians aren't allowed to cross? Even if you have a line in there somewhere, this would still be one seriously special right you would have compared to those who don't think of blaming God when they are breaking it.
By the way, you still haven't answered the question of just how far does this right go, does God get veto power over race, religion, ethnicity or any of the other suspect classifications too? What other crimes can you commit with an invocation of the name of your higher power(s)?
“Nice try, but if my other customers did not want to hear you talk about God and you did not respect their right to not have to listen to you tell them about God, I as a business owner would be well within my right to show you the door. It would be discriminatory to kick you out for acting Christian, not for acting annoying to my other customers.”
The baker is well within his rights for not serving a wedding cake to gays because of his religious beliefs.

“You keep forgetting that there is a case just like this one that is in their in basket even as we speak and if they take up the case of the photographer from New Mexico, it will all be over quickly. The reality check is that there have been enough local, state and federal restrictions on religious liberty cases, that have gone before the Court, to tell you how this one goes. The government's compelling interest in preventing random acts of discrimination meets the requirements of strict scrutiny necessary for the government to limit the individual's right to practice what they preach.” How can I forget? You’re only responding to me, right?

“I thought y'all were dead set against some people getting special rights, but here you are arguing for a right which would only apply to the "religious".” No, it applies to ALL Americans.
“Folk who don't blame God for their bigotry when they are committing discrimination against the gay folk would face sanction which you would not.” Let’s be clear… You are okay with a church and their bigotry, but a baker is unable to have the same bigotry because why?
“You're not asking the law be overturned, just that it not apply only to those who invoke their alleged religious beliefs while they break it.”“alleged religious beliefs”? Because you don’t think it’s his belief you label him a criminal.
“Apparently no matter how badly they break it, or is there some sort of line even good Christians aren't allowed to cross?” Not selling a cake crosses that line?
“Even if you have a line in there somewhere, this would still be one seriously special right you would have compared to those who don't think of blaming God when they are breaking it.” For example, whom?

“By the way, you still haven't answered the question of just how far does this right go” Far enough to where political correctness does not trump individual freedoms.
“does God get veto power over race, religion, ethnicity or any of the other suspect classifications too?” The truth is God has veto power over ANYTHING… You are asking the wrong question here.
“What other crimes can you commit with an invocation of the name of your higher power(s)?” I expect you next step after this is to force churches to perform “gay marriage” ceremonies.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#375 Dec 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>If they invoke their atheistic beliefs as the reason they are discriminating against someone on the basis of their choice of religion, wouldn't they enjoy the same rights as a Theist who invoke their theistic beliefs as the reason they are discriminating against them on the basis us is you hating on us for being different. My difference is a gift, it is treated with respect and always has been, by me anyways. It's time all you who haven't been given this gift to respect it and us as different.
“If they invoke their atheistic beliefs as the reason they are discriminating against someone on the basis of their choice of religion, wouldn't they enjoy the same rights as a Theist who invoke their theistic beliefs as the reason they are discriminating against them on the basis of their sexual orientation?” Yes.

“Or is your special right getting more and more special?”“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Applies to every American.
“Most of us know we are different from the vast majority of those around us long before anybody starts labeling what that difference is. We also often find out long before people start labeling our difference for us just how unpopular our difference is with some folk. It's a heterosexual world out there, those of us who aren't going to be one are pretty much left to our own devices to learn how to live with our difference in an occasionally really ugly, violent, hateful, mean-spirited world. It's not easy being different, believe me.” Not selling you a wedding cake is so “ugly, violent, hateful, mean-spirited”?
“If you want to pray that God hates **** or just **** being ****, that is between you and Him, but y'all folk just won't stop exercising your right to tell us frequently repeatedly and often just how much God hates us.” I sorry… When did I say God hates you? How does the non-sale of a wedding cake say God hates you pr the baker for that matter?
“We don't just have you folk blaming God for hating on us, we've got non-theistic rationales for irrational hate to deal with to. There are plenty of non-theists and maybe even atheists who either hate **** or just us **** being ****, more than we need, but our reality is that there are a lot more of you religious folk. We get along fine being different, happy, healthy and sane, as long as we don't allow the ugliness we have to face for being different chew us up and spit us out. We get being different, but what we don't get us is you hating on us for being different. My difference is a gift, it is treated with respect and always has been, by me anyways. It's time all you who haven't been given this gift to respect it and us as different.” While reading your post I believe you need to define this ‘hate” for you that you are writing about.
I never said I hate, and in fact myself and may of my Christian friends have gay friends who we love dearly despite our views of marriage and wedding cakes.
The simple fact is wedding cake or no wedding cake, no law in the land is going to force people to like, love, hate, fear or care more or less about gays or any other group, and the 1st Amendment applies to all Americans.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#376 Dec 20, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
Whether you like it or not: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Whether you like it or not, that is still not an absolute right we enjoy. It can be limited, regulated and even prohibited if it serves a compelling governmental interest in doing so. Hopefully preventing random ambushes of discrimination based on prejudice in the public square is a legitimate and particularly compelling governmental interest, given our nation's history of some seriously ugly acts of discrimination. Since the law applies equally to both believers and non-believers as business owners and applies regardless of the sexual orientation someone might discriminate against, bakery boy is not being singled out for his choice of beliefs, he's being singled out because he broke a constitutionally valid law, whether God approves or not. This is what Jesus meant by render unto Caesar in case you hadn't noticed.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#377 Dec 20, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
The baker is well within his rights for not serving a wedding cake to gays because of his religious beliefs.
You keep saying this as if mere repetition of the same meme will somehow convince me you are right. It's not working. Why you thought it a legitimate response to what you had claimed you had just read is beyond me. Your responses are form over function.
Respect71 wrote:
How can I forget? You’re only responding to me, right?
This is because you are revving your engine in neutral. Since you aren't actually responding to what I am saying, just making the same points over and over, you are limiting forward progress here. Take your foot off the gas pedal, put it on the clutch and at least aim for first gear here. Actually answer a point at some point and the discussion can go somewhere.
Respect71 wrote:
Let’s be clear… You are okay with a church and their bigotry, but a baker is unable to have the same bigotry because why?
The only compelling governmental interest in the goings on of a place of worship and its personnel is the health and safety of them and those around them. Doctrinal and other internal matters, none of their business, unless they act in a way that limits that right (their charities putting tax dollars to work for example). Individuals who share that doctrine and aren't in that place of worship or in their own home but the public square don't get that same level of scrutiny when it comes to evaluating whether your right to practice what you preach, because the government has more interests in your actions than theirs. We are to know better than walk into such a place of worship or your own home and claim a right to be there, but this was a bakery near a neighborhood gayer than most, that didn't have a God says no to same sex marriage and so do I sign in the window. They have a constitutionally recognized right to be in his establishment that they don't in his place of worship or his home. They also have a constitutionally recognized right to any and all services available from that establishment that they don't in his place of worship or his own home. Getting it now?
Respect71 wrote:
Because you don’t think it’s his belief you label him a criminal.
Whether it is his actual belief or not is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not he broke a constitutionally valid law. If it is going to become relevant to the question, isn't the question of the depth of of those beliefs relevant as well? I've met Christians and other folk of faith whose beliefs are miles wide, but you could wade through without worrying about getting your ankles wet. The law labels him a criminal, his beliefs are nothing more than his excuse. Non-believers and those who believe but do not invoke their right to who commit the same act, also criminals, regardless of their excuse, what makes his excuse special?

Continued

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#378 Dec 20, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
Not selling a cake crosses that line?
You missed the point. I'm asking you just how far an individual can go in this right to practice as one preaches exception you are asking for? When does the right to practice what one preaches in this scenario cross the line into unacceptable behavior on the owner's part? Running them off with pitchforks and torches in the name of God or is the bar a little lower?
Respect71 wrote:
For example, whom?
Anyone and everyone who either doesn't have a religious excuse for the same act, or those who do, but don't exercise it at the time. They still face sanctions that those who invoke their excuse don't for the same act. That makes those who invoke special, doesn't it?
Far enough to where political correctness does not trump individual freedoms.That's a bumper sticker slogan, not an answer. Are all acts of deliberate discrimination against folk in the public square, regardless of race, etc, acceptable, as some do get pretty darn ugly, or is there a line in there somewhere that individual freedom gets trumped, no matter what their excuse is for their actions?
Respect71 wrote:
The truth is God has veto power over ANYTHING… You are asking the wrong question here.
So it really doesn't matter what in the hell you are doing, if you say you have a religious right to do it, we have to let you do it, unless we can prove you are risking the health and safety of yourself or those around you? Even if you are doing it to folk who don't share in your beliefs?
Respect71 wrote:
I expect you next step after this is to force churches to perform “gay marriage” ceremonies.
How is this an answer to the question of what other crimes an individual can commit by exercising their right to practice what they preach? This is why my answers get repetitive, I keep having to cover the same points over and over again. The answer to your non-answer is still, that not even a Catholic has a right to a Catholic wedding, neither does anyone else, regardless of race, etc. We're not special, just equal.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#379 Dec 20, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
Yes.“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Applies to every American.
Then how would their actions be a violation of your right to be Christian in public?
Respect71 wrote:
I sorry… When did I say God hates you? How does the non-sale of a wedding cake say God hates you pr the baker for that matter?
There are only two ways to teach God's alleged disapproval of "homosexuality", either God hates ****. or God hates **** doing the things **** do. Having been on the receiving end of both, one isn't any more acceptable than the other, just because folk like you feel better about not sounding like Fred Phelps, you are working from the same playbook. By refusing his services, the baker reminded his unsuspecting customers that God hates **** doing the things **** do, no matter how polite he was about it.
Respect71 wrote:
While reading your post I believe you need to define this ‘hate” for you that you are writing about.
I never said I hate, and in fact myself and may of my Christian friends have gay friends who we love dearly despite our views of marriage and wedding cakes.
The simple fact is wedding cake or no wedding cake, no law in the land is going to force people to like, love, hate, fear or care more or less about gays or any other group, and the 1st Amendment applies to all Americans.
You haven't had to say that you hate, your disapproval and invocation of God's is more than enough proof of that, whether you want to say so or not. it may not make 'em feel better about us, but it will get them to treat us better in spite of that.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#380 Dec 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Whether you like it or not, that is still not an absolute right we enjoy. It can be limited, regulated and even prohibited if it serves a compelling governmental interest in doing so. Hopefully preventing random ambushes of discrimination based on prejudice in the public square is a legitimate and particularly compelling governmental interest, given our nation's history of some seriously ugly acts of discrimination. Since the law applies equally to both believers and non-believers as business owners and applies regardless of the sexual orientation someone might discriminate against, bakery boy is not being singled out for his choice of beliefs, he's being singled out because he broke a constitutionally valid law, whether God approves or not. This is what Jesus meant by render unto Caesar in case you hadn't noticed.
“Whether you like it or not, that is still not an absolute right we enjoy.” Agreed.
However, in this case the baker is free to not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.

“bakery boy” Is being discriminated by you, and the actual law, and you feel the government can make him do what he doesn’t believe is right to do.

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) 58 min ReplaceGOP 29,080
CHI-St. Lukes Health CEO's Wed anonymous 5
woman have you ever cought someone jacking off ... (Aug '15) Mon JRoy 46
Beware of Remedy roofing (May '11) Mon Janet B 46
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Mon Phillip 22
Looking for Robert Mendoza (Oct '16) Mon Phillip 13
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