Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 42900 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.

Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2289 Jun 14, 2014
lides wrote:
....and the ones have you have offered are specifically
Huh? Brain fart?
did you mean: and the ones you have offered?
Keep lit matches away from your ears.
KA-BOOM!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2290 Jun 14, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You are the one comparing abortion to making wedding cakes.
I think you missed that part
You brought up human sacrifice and compared to a wedding cake.
I brought up Abortion to point out in American there is LEGALIZED child sacrifice going on that you support.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2291 Jun 14, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>for someone who claims they agree with SSM it's strange you keep insisting that Wedding cakes are for hetero couples only.
Hmm another fact you fail to mention.
I’m saying I understand where this baker is coming from and I don’t support the government forcing him to use his talents to support something he doesn’t believe in.

I support “gay marriage” and if I was a baker I would bake wedding cakes for them.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2292 Jun 14, 2014
lides wrote:
Respect, get a grip. The man has had his day in court, and he appealed to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who unanimously upheld the ruling of the Administrative Law Judge.
The reality is that providing the same service he would provide any other customer for a gay couple in no way violates the free speech or free exercise of religion. You have offered no new arguments, and the ones have you have offered are specifically refuted by the existing ruling.
Grow up. You have freedom of religion, not the right to project your religion onto others, or force them to conform to your religious views in order to obtain service.
The reality is the decision was made without legal basis (law ignored) and was made with political bias.
You support that because of your bias.

You desire to punish those who don’t believe the same as you... I support our Constitution and believe the government has no place forcing him to support something with his talents he doesn’t want to support.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2293 Jun 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The reality is the decision was made without legal basis (law ignored) and was made with political bias.
You support that because of your bias.
You desire to punish those who don’t believe the same as you... I support our Constitution and believe the government has no place forcing him to support something with his talents he doesn’t want to support.
Made without legal basis?

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...

The legal basis is laid out quite clearly there in the judge's decision..... SCOTUS precedents and everything.

Would you care to correct your statement, or are you going to continue to cling to your ignorance?

Why do you think lying about it is going to change anything? You are wrong. Admit it and LEARN SOMETHING.

You may not like it, and you may not agree with it, but in this country, SCOTUS says what the law means, not you.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2294 Jun 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I’m saying I understand where this baker is coming from and I don’t support the government forcing him to use his talents to support something he doesn’t believe in.
I support “gay marriage” and if I was a baker I would bake wedding cakes for them.
No one forced the baker to do anything. Stop with the hysterical hyperbole.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2295 Jun 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The reality is the decision was made without legal basis (law ignored) and was made with political bias.
Actually, the decision is supported by the law through and through, and has been unanimously upheld by the 7 member review board of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Just because you disagree with the ruling does not make it wrong, invalid, or lacking in a rational basis in law.
Respect71 wrote:
You support that because of your bias.
I support is because it was a rational decision with a valid legal basis. Have you read it? I somehow doubt that you have, in spite of the fact that I have linked to the text many times.
Respect71 wrote:
You desire to punish those who don’t believe the same as you...
Actually, you are the one that wishes to do so by allowing business owners to force their clients to conform to the religious views of the proprietor in order to obtain service.

Ironically, you don't have the foresight to see how disastrous such an action would be, as it basically would allow everyone to be a law unto themselves and to ignore any law they did not wish to comply with.
Respect71 wrote:
I support our Constitution and believe the government has no place forcing him to support something with his talents he doesn’t want to support.
No, you support freedom of bigotry, and you support proprietors being able to project their religious views onto would-be clients in violation of their freedoms.

Your argument is anything but constitutional.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2296 Jun 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You brought up human sacrifice and compared to a wedding cake.
I brought up Abortion to point out in American there is LEGALIZED child sacrifice going on that you support.
What makes you think I agree with abortion?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2297 Jun 15, 2014
I saw this article the other day and immediately thought of all the posturing being done by the "religious freedom" folks.

It's about opposition to gays and lesbians and has little to do with religious freedom.

Check it out:
‘Religious Freedom’ Not to Serve Jews?
http://news.yahoo.com/religious-freedom-not-s...

“I don’t think about—things I don’t think about.” So said William Jennings Bryan, the lawyer arguing against evolution, at the infamous Scopes “monkey trial.” The question was about Cain’s wife; the answer was about willful ignorance.

The same philosophy was on display this week in Congress, when Mat Staver of the U.S. Liberty Counsel—which, like its better-known cousin the Alliance Defending Freedom, works in courts and legislatures to carve out religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws—struggled to distinguish between a wedding photographer turning away gay customers and one turning away black or Jewish ones....

The Nadler-Staver battle (Nadler 1, Staver 0) was eerily similar to a hilarious but little-reported exchange in Houston last month between City Councilwoman Ellen Cohen and the aptly-named Paster Betty Riggle of Grace Community Church.

Like Nadler, Cohen—who is also Jewish—substituted “Jewish” for “gay” and watched Riggle wriggle. The judge asked:“If somebody owns a store …. and I come in as a woman, or a senior, or a person of the Jewish faith … they have a right to refuse me business, is that what you’re saying?”

“I don’t have any problem with that. That’s not the issue,” Riggle replied. As Cohen continued, Riggle said,“They have the right … to be able to refuse service that goes against their religious belief.”

“That’s what I’m saying,” Cohen said.“So … they have a right to refuse me service.”

“Yes,” Riggle said quietly.

“So you’re saying ‘Yes,’ they do have the right to refuse me service as someone of the Jewish faith.” And here’s the best line, unedited:

“No. No, I’m not saying—Yes, I am saying that, but that is not the issue that we’re talking about.”

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2298 Jun 15, 2014
Of course, religiously-motivated racial discrimination used to be “good,” right up through the 1980s. One of the most notorious desegregation cases, about the Heart of Atlanta Motel, centered around a restaranteur who said his religion forbade mixed-race seating. And the evangelical Bob Jones University went all the way to the Supreme Court to defend its religiously-grounded racist policies, as recently as the Reagan administration.

Now, of course, Staver, Riggle, and the like are shocked, shocked, that anyone might want to discriminate against blacks or Jews.(Although it’s interesting that Staver refused to fold when Nadler asked about African-Americans; perhaps a Jewish wedding, unlike a “black wedding,” is really a thing, and something that someone might object to supporting.)

‘Religious Freedom’ Not to Serve Jews?
http://news.yahoo.com/religious-freedom-not-s...

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2299 Jun 16, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Made without legal basis?
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
The legal basis is laid out quite clearly there in the judge's decision..... SCOTUS precedents and everything.
Would you care to correct your statement, or are you going to continue to cling to your ignorance?
Why do you think lying about it is going to change anything? You are wrong. Admit it and LEARN SOMETHING.
You may not like it, and you may not agree with it, but in this country, SCOTUS says what the law means, not you.
No the original case… When legal facts are ignored and decisions are made by the Colorado Civil Liberties Commission, the only thing left is the bias.
You want desire to punish Americans who don’t believe as you, as I stand for freedom for ALL Americans. That’s sad.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2300 Jun 16, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
No one forced the baker to do anything. Stop with the hysterical hyperbole.
The baker no longer will create wedding cakes based on the bias of persons like you. Now you will say it is his choice, and to do so is a sad lie on your part.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2301 Jun 16, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the decision is supported by the law through and through, and has been unanimously upheld by the 7 member review board of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Just because you disagree with the ruling does not make it wrong, invalid, or lacking in a rational basis in law.
<quoted text>
I support is because it was a rational decision with a valid legal basis. Have you read it? I somehow doubt that you have, in spite of the fact that I have linked to the text many times.
<quoted text>
Actually, you are the one that wishes to do so by allowing business owners to force their clients to conform to the religious views of the proprietor in order to obtain service.
Ironically, you don't have the foresight to see how disastrous such an action would be, as it basically would allow everyone to be a law unto themselves and to ignore any law they did not wish to comply with.
<quoted text>
No, you support freedom of bigotry, and you support proprietors being able to project their religious views onto would-be clients in violation of their freedoms.
Your argument is anything but constitutional.
Legal facts were ignored by the Commission, and based on their statements made the decision on political bias.
The baker did absolutely NOTHING to the gay couple and you want government to punish him, or force his to conform to your belief.
I support freedom for ALL Americans whether you agree with them or not. You support punishment for those who don’t believe the same as you.
Sad.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2302 Jun 16, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>What makes you think I agree with abortion?
That’s for a different thread… At some point in this thread the non-sale of a wedding cake was being compared to human sacrifice… That is an intellectually dishonest argument.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2303 Jun 16, 2014
DNF wrote:
I saw this article the other day and immediately thought of all the posturing being done by the "religious freedom" folks.
It's about opposition to gays and lesbians and has little to do with religious freedom.
Check it out:
‘Religious Freedom’ Not to Serve Jews?
http://news.yahoo.com/religious-freedom-not-s...
“I don’t think about—things I don’t think about.” So said William Jennings Bryan, the lawyer arguing against evolution, at the infamous Scopes “monkey trial.” The question was about Cain’s wife; the answer was about willful ignorance.
The same philosophy was on display this week in Congress, when Mat Staver of the U.S. Liberty Counsel—which, like its better-known cousin the Alliance Defending Freedom, works in courts and legislatures to carve out religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws—struggled to distinguish between a wedding photographer turning away gay customers and one turning away black or Jewish ones....
The Nadler-Staver battle (Nadler 1, Staver 0) was eerily similar to a hilarious but little-reported exchange in Houston last month between City Councilwoman Ellen Cohen and the aptly-named Paster Betty Riggle of Grace Community Church.
Like Nadler, Cohen—who is also Jewish—substituted “Jewish” for “gay” and watched Riggle wriggle. The judge asked:“If somebody owns a store …. and I come in as a woman, or a senior, or a person of the Jewish faith … they have a right to refuse me business, is that what you’re saying?”
“I don’t have any problem with that. That’s not the issue,” Riggle replied. As Cohen continued, Riggle said,“They have the right … to be able to refuse service that goes against their religious belief.”
“That’s what I’m saying,” Cohen said.“So … they have a right to refuse me service.”
“Yes,” Riggle said quietly.
“So you’re saying ‘Yes,’ they do have the right to refuse me service as someone of the Jewish faith.” And here’s the best line, unedited:
“No. No, I’m not saying—Yes, I am saying that, but that is not the issue that we’re talking about.”
We are talking about religious discrimination against the baker for his convictions.

Marriage is something that means something to Americans. Whether you agree with what the meaning of marriage is to another American doesn’t mean you have to right to ask their talents support what your idea of a wedding is. The reservation of a wedding cake one feels should be reserved for a husband and wife should be respected under our First Amendment. The baker was literally being punished for doing ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to the gay couple.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2304 Jun 16, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Legal facts were ignored by the Commission, and based on their statements made the decision on political bias.
What facts were ignored? Be specific.
Respect71 wrote:
The baker did absolutely NOTHING to the gay couple and you want government to punish him, or force his to conform to your belief.
Sorry, kiddo, the baker broke the laws of the state of Colorado when he refused service on the basis of sexual orientation. This isn't particularly difficult to understand.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
Read the section starting on page 4. One need only read the first five paragraphs of the section to see that your argument is utterly without rational foundation. The reality is that the court followed the law, and the baker had no rational defense of their ILLEGAL actions.

That you disagree with the court does not mean they were wrong.
Respect71 wrote:
I support freedom for ALL Americans whether you agree with them or not. You support punishment for those who don’t believe the same as you.
No, you only support the freedom of Americans you happen to agree with, which isn't freedom at all.
Respect71 wrote:
Sad.
I agree, you are.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2305 Jun 16, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
What facts were ignored? Be specific.
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, the baker broke the laws of the state of Colorado when he refused service on the basis of sexual orientation. This isn't particularly difficult to understand.
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
Read the section starting on page 4. One need only read the first five paragraphs of the section to see that your argument is utterly without rational foundation. The reality is that the court followed the law, and the baker had no rational defense of their ILLEGAL actions.
That you disagree with the court does not mean they were wrong.
<quoted text>
No, you only support the freedom of Americans you happen to agree with, which isn't freedom at all.
<quoted text>
I agree, you are.
“What facts were ignored? Be specific.” The gay couple 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.” The Colorado Civil Liberties Commission called these legal facts “technicalities” in order to decide up their political bias.

“No, you only support the freedom of Americans you happen to agree with, which isn't freedom at all.” I am not the one advocating government punishment against Americans who believe different than me. You are.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2306 Jun 16, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“What facts were ignored? Be specific.” The gay couple 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.” The Colorado Civil Liberties Commission called these legal facts “technicalities” in order to decide up their political bias.
Can you substantiate this garbage with facts? I don't think you can.
First of all, I can find no indication that the charge was brought outside the statute of limitations. Secondly, the charge was entirely valid. Third, nowhere did the ALJ mention these conditions, much less dismiss them as a technicality.

You seem to be, as usual, off your rocker.

The fact of the matter is, if these were legally significant, they would be sufficient grounds for appeal. Have you noticed that Phillips has not pursued such an appeal? Perhaps he realizes, as you do not, that these are in fact technicalities.
Respect71 wrote:
“No, you only support the freedom of Americans you happen to agree with, which isn't freedom at all.” I am not the one advocating government punishment against Americans who believe different than me. You are.
Sorry kiddo, the government is punishing those who break the law.

Look at the findings of fact, which are undisputed. The baker did turn away the same sex couple, because the event was a gay wedding, that is not in dispute.

"The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is
the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex
weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a
same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation. "
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...

Your argument is completely lacking in rational foundation, kiddo.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2307 Jun 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you substantiate this garbage with facts? I don't think you can.
First of all, I can find no indication that the charge was brought outside the statute of limitations. Secondly, the charge was entirely valid. Third, nowhere did the ALJ mention these conditions, much less dismiss them as a technicality.
You seem to be, as usual, off your rocker.
The fact of the matter is, if these were legally significant, they would be sufficient grounds for appeal. Have you noticed that Phillips has not pursued such an appeal? Perhaps he realizes, as you do not, that these are in fact technicalities.
<quoted text>
Sorry kiddo, the government is punishing those who break the law.
Look at the findings of fact, which are undisputed. The baker did turn away the same sex couple, because the event was a gay wedding, that is not in dispute.
"The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is
the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex
weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a
same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation. "
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
Your argument is completely lacking in rational foundation, kiddo.
“Can you substantiate this garbage with facts? I don't think you can.” http://dancaplis.podbean.com/2014/06/02/ But because of your bias, like the Colorado Liberties Commission, and mass liberal media, this kind of information is suppressed. My guess is you won’t even listen to Phillip’s lawyer’s entire segment, again, because of your bias.

“Sorry kiddo, the government is punishing those who break the law.” Of which you support, despite the First Amendment.

“Look at the findings of fact, which are undisputed. The baker did turn away the same sex couple, because the event was a gay wedding, that is not in dispute.” In the same findings of fact he would serve them anything else outside of the wedding cake.

“Your argument is completely lacking in rational foundation, kiddo.” My argument is solid. I individual American who believes using his talents for a wedding cake is reserved for a husband and wife, and the government is forcing him out of that part of his business because of your belief.

We continue to see that you support punishing those who don’t believe as you, and I believe Americans are free to believe in marriage how they choose.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2308 Jun 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
http://dancaplis.podbean.com/2 014/06/02/ But because of your bias, like the Colorado Liberties Commission, and mass liberal media, this kind of information is suppressed. My guess is you won’t even listen to Phillip’s lawyer’s entire segment, again, because of your bias.
I'll tell you what, kiddo, can you turn up some print media, preferably more than one source. I have better things to do that sit around listening to the paranoid rantings of a lunatic. Conversing with you is quite enough lunacy for anyone.
Respect71 wrote:
Of which you support, despite the First Amendment.
No one's first amendment rights are violated by anti-discrimination laws. You have the right to speech and free exercise, you don't have the right to make those decisions for others. Ironically, were you able to do so, that would be a first amendment violation, which you don't seem to understand.
Respect71 wrote:
In the same findings of fact he would serve them anything else outside of the wedding cake.
That is true. It is also irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that under Colorado law, if he offers wedding cake, he must offer it to any customer who wishes to purchase one. This isn't rocket science, kiddo.
Respect71 wrote:
My argument is solid.
Your argument is non existent.
Respect71 wrote:
I individual American who believes using his talents for a wedding cake is reserved for a husband and wife, and the government is forcing him out of that part of his business because of your belief.
Sorry, kiddo, a person doesn't have the right to force clients to conform the the religious views of the owner in order to obtain service, and it in no way violates the rights of the proprietor to offer services to someone who holds differing beliefs.

You are arguing for everyone to be able to ignore any law they do not like based upon their interpretation of their religious beliefs. This about that for a second. It basically means making every man a law unto themselves, and allowing them to ignore any law with which they happen to disagree. Should I be able to drive 90 mph in a school zone because it is my sincere religious conviction that I have a need for speed? Of course this is an absurd hypothetical to pose, but it illustrates the underlying insanity of the position you support.
Respect71 wrote:
We continue to see that you support punishing those who don’t believe as you, and I believe Americans are free to believe in marriage how they choose.
Sorry, kiddo, I believe in punishing those who break the law. They could hold similar or opposing beliefs, but that would be irrelevant.

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.

Greenwood Village Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 2 hr But But But 26,186
News 200+ Cases of Harassment & Abuse of People of C... 3 hr Rattlesnake Pete 28
News Support strong for assisted suicide ballot meas... 4 hr Rattlesnake Pete 23
Lookin For Tar 7 hr Bfilly 67
News Kathy Sabine (Sep '07) 18 hr Marie 101
Denver tar (Nov '14) 18 hr Pillma 61
The female orgasm is it a myth? does it exist? (Nov '15) 18 hr Pillma 21

Greenwood Village Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Greenwood Village Mortgages