Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 42791 comments on the Denver Post story from Jun 6, 2013, titled Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake. In it, Denver Post reports that:

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

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

Since: 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.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#381 Dec 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Yhat makes his excuse special?
Continued
“You keep saying this as if mere repetition of the same meme will somehow convince me you are right.” I know I won’t convince you, but this case isn’t about you, it about the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.
“Your responses are form over function.” I’m sorry? Mine are? That’s funny.

“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.” That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Are you not gay even in the public square? How do you explain the Gay Pride Parade? Such a family friend thing to attend right? Yet government allows that, or are you saying we should make it illegal because “public square don't get that same level of scrutiny when it comes to evaluating whether your right to practice what you preach”?

“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?”
I get that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and it applies ESPECIALLY in the “public square”.

“Whether it is his actual belief or not is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not he broke a constitutionally valid law.” He broke a bad law in this case and the Constitution protects him.

“If it is going to become relevant to the question, isn't the question of the depth of of those beliefs relevant as well?” Why would the “depth of of those beliefs relevant” and how do you intend to prove “depth of of those beliefs”?

“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.” How do you know this?

“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?” America is special enough to allow freedom.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#382 Dec 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Y.
“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?” As far as not selling a wedding cake to a gay couple because it goes against a religious belief.
“When does the right to practice what one preaches in this scenario cross the line into unacceptable behavior on the owner's part?” When he does hard to that couple.

“Running them off with pitchforks and torches in the name of God or is the bar a little lower?” sure and lower.

“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?” No.

“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?” No.

“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?” No.

“Even if you are doing it to folk who don't share in your beliefs?” Do you mean the gay couple?

“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?” It’s a pretty clear answer, however, you hold your opinion government holds a special interest in forcing people to do things whether or not the have conviction outside of Church.

“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.” You are equal as a individual and different as far as relationship regarding marriage. Unity churches have been uniting gays for decades and bakes have been baking cakes for them I am sure, yet the one that chooses to stand by his faith you label as a bigot, a hater, and using his religion as an excuse for this. This is a huge assumption on your part and if you’re willing to remove his freedom don’t be surprised when government decides to force you to do something in your place of business.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#383 Dec 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Then how would their actions be a violation of your right to be Christian in public?
<quoted text>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.
<quoted text>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.
“Then how would their actions be a violation of your right to be Christian in public?” Whose ations are you speaking of?

“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.” Sorry, about the “hate” you feel, however, that doesn’t mean that Christians or anyone for that matter hates you. My suggestion to you is that if someone says they hate you, it’s a good bet they do, otherwise to assume they hate you is foolish and misunderstood.

“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.” I never said you hate anyone. Please re-read my post.

“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.” Wow... Again, my suggestion to you is that if someone says they hate you, it’s a good bet they do, otherwise to assume they hate you is foolish and misunderstood. For you to assume like that is only self-inflicting damage you don’t need.

“it may not make 'em feel better about us, but it will get them to treat us better in spite of that.” Nope, people who truly hate will avoid you like the plague or they will do something really cruel to you (and NOT selling a wedding cake is no where near cruel) regardless of any law.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#384 Dec 20, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
Agreed.
However, in this case the baker is free to not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.
No he is not, it is why he was found guilty.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.
He's not being discriminated against, he is just as guilty of violating a constitutionally valid law as anyone who refuses service and doesn't invoke their religious beliefs. The law doesn't prohibit just religiously motivated acts of discrimination, nor subjects it to harsher sanction, thus no discrimination.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#385 Dec 20, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>No he is not, it is why he was found guilty.
<quoted text>He's not being discriminated against, he is just as guilty of violating a constitutionally valid law as anyone who refuses service and doesn't invoke their religious beliefs. The law doesn't prohibit just religiously motivated acts of discrimination, nor subjects it to harsher sanction, thus no discrimination.
“No he is not, it is why he was found guilty.” Of breaking the law of which the 1st Amendment protects him from.

“He's not being discriminated against, he is just as guilty of violating a constitutionally valid law” Cite your source on this “constitutionally valid law”.

“as anyone who refuses service and doesn't invoke their religious beliefs. The law doesn't prohibit just religiously motivated acts of discrimination, nor subjects it to harsher sanction, thus no discrimination.” EXCEPT in this case of a wedding cake, of which a man who believes in one-man and one-woman marriage, based on his faith, only sells to people who are participating in marriage ceremonies. Catholic or otherwise.

Gay rights are not violated, whereas the bake’s 1st Amendment right is.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#386 Dec 20, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
I know I won’t convince you, but this case isn’t about you, it about the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.
You keep claiming that, but I keep proving that it isn't and why, which you refuse to address.
Respect71 wrote:
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Are you not gay even in the public square? How do you explain the Gay Pride Parade? Such a family friend thing to attend right? Yet government allows that, or are you saying we should make it illegal because “public square don't get that same level of scrutiny when it comes to evaluating whether your right to practice what you preach”?
Instead of addressing the differences between the compelling interests the government has in the activities of the church and those of the individual believer, you slam it into reverse. Family friendly is in the eyes of the beholder. My parents went with me to one in New York, years back. They weren't offended by any of it. We call 'em gay pride parades, but you don't have to be one of us to be a part of or to watch, we don't discriminate and are an incredibly diverse community. You can even come protest if you don't disrupt. I've been a marshal at a number of gay events where I was one of the lucky ones to stand between self-professed good Christians and the ones they are protesting. It's a truly enlightening experience.
Respect71 wrote:
I get that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and it applies ESPECIALLY in the “public square”.
So, it would be illegal to prohibit virgin sacrifice if that is what someone's beliefs dictate? Like I apparently have to keep saying, it isn't an absolute right, it can be limited, regulated and even prohibited if it serves a compelling governmental interest in order to do so. The government has more interests in what is going on in the public square than it does in what's going on in your home, or place of worship. The government has an interest in preventing discrimination in the public square by any business owner, not just one's claiming it as an act of faith.
Respect71 wrote:
He broke a bad law in this case and the Constitution protects him.
Bad, how? Don't the gay folk have a right to share the public square and access to all the goods and services provided in it? Don't the gay folk have a right to not be ambushed someone else's prejudices against them? Do they deserve to be discriminated against? Should it really matter to someone that the reason they are being persecuted for who they are is approved by a higher authority or not? Doesn't the government have an interest in protecting folk who other folk are sometimes irrationally prejudiced against? is it a violation of the Constitution for the government to do this?
Respect71 wrote:
Why would the “depth of of those beliefs relevant” and how do you intend to prove “depth of of those beliefs”?
You are proposing a right available only to those invoking religious beliefs, I'm just wondering if taking the Lord's name in vain while you are showing someone the door qualifies as invocation of your right to discriminate or not?

How do you judge the depths of someone's beliefs in such a situation, you ask them which marriages they don't approve of according to their faith and a list of anyone he has declined his services to on that basis. If his list is just same sex marriages and this is the first time he's refused on moral grounds. He's got a problem. if there are other marriages which his faith disapproves of but no one else he has refused service to, he's got a problem.
Respect71 wrote:
How do you know this?
Because he was found guilty of violating a constitutionally valid law.
Respect71 wrote:
America is special enough to allow freedom.
But you are wanting a special freedom that others cannot share in, that ain't right.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#387 Dec 20, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
As far as not selling a wedding cake to a gay couple because it goes against a religious belief.
And that's it, only bakers of wedding cakes get the right to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs and that's it? I asked how far this right went and it apparently goes to silly.
Respect71 wrote:
When he does hard to that couple.
So if he says or does anything to offend them, he's blown his right?
Respect71 wrote:
sure and lower.
At least pitchforks and torches are out, what else?
Respect71 wrote:
No.
If you give some folk the right to violate laws that you aren't giving EVERYBODY, those you are giving it to are getting a special right. You can't possibly be this obtuse.
Respect71 wrote:
No
So, as long as you invoke God you are pretty much free to do whatever to whoever and we have to respect that right? That's actually the reason why it isn't an absolute right.
Respect71 wrote:
No.
Now you are contradicting what you just said with your last no. Your last no told me that the individual has the right to do whatever to whoever in the name of their faith, but this no says there might be some sort of limit. Which is it?
Respect71 wrote:
Do you mean the gay couple?
I mean anyone on the receiving end of an individual's religious beliefs who doesn't share in them and who would rather not be on the receiving end of them.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s a pretty clear answer, however, you hold your opinion government holds a special interest in forcing people to do things whether or not the have conviction outside of Church.
Your answer had nothing to do with the question. The government doesn't have an interest in limiting the individual's religious freedom, but if it happens to be a casualty of something that the government does have an interest in, like preventing discrimination by ALL business owners, the constitution gives lawmakers the authority to do so.
Respect71 wrote:
You are equal as a individual and different as far as relationship regarding marriage. Unity churches have been uniting gays for decades and bakes have been baking cakes for them I am sure, yet the one that chooses to stand by his faith you label as a bigot, a hater, and using his religion as an excuse for this. This is a huge assumption on your part and if you’re willing to remove his freedom don’t be surprised when government decides to force you to do something in your place of business.
No we label him as a violator of the law meant to prohibit discrimination in the public square. I was in business for years, owned lots of rental properties. The government forces you to do all sorts of things. As a landlord, if I had my druthers, I would have never rented to an unmarried opposite sex couple, especially with kids by someone else, over the years I found most of them to be nightmares as tenants. Guess what is a suspect classification that even good Christian landlords have to abide by in avoiding discrimination on the basis of? Marital status. It is illegal to reject tenants for no other reason than they aren't married, even if you believe God disapproves, even if you believe as I do that they are likely to be the worst tenants.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#388 Dec 20, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
Whose ations are you speaking of?
The atheist who kicked you out of their establishment for being Christian.
Respect71 wrote:
Sorry, about the “hate” you feel, however, that doesn’t mean that Christians or anyone for that matter hates you. My suggestion to you is that if someone says they hate you, it’s a good bet they do, otherwise to assume they hate you is foolish and misunderstood.
“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.” I never said you hate anyone. Please re-read my post.
You want to feel better about hating folk and/or the things you imagine them doing, like getting married, but we don't have to. Love the sinner hate the sin is nothing more than a polite version of God hates ****. You disrespect your very dear gay friends, you're not a very good friend. You want me to feel better about your attitudes towards us so you can. I don't.
Respect71 wrote:
Wow... Again, my suggestion to you is that if someone says they hate you, it’s a good bet they do, otherwise to assume they hate you is foolish and misunderstood. For you to assume like that is only self-inflicting damage you don’t need.
“it may not make 'em feel better about us, but it will get them to treat us better in spite of that.” Nope, people who truly hate will avoid you like the plague or they will do something really cruel to you (and NOT selling a wedding cake is no where near cruel) regardless of any law.
You're on here telling me that I should accept discrimination from folk professing faith because they have a right to hate **** or the things **** do, like getting married, but you, yourself, don't hate us, even though if you were the baker, you would have done the same damn thing. I'm misunderstanding nothing here. You are either with us or against us, there's no in between.
d pantz

United States

#389 Dec 21, 2013
equalityboy81 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your opinion! Religion is a chosen lifestyle which the beliefs cannot be proven as fact.
"religion cannot be proven as fact" uhhh okay. Ever seen a Bible or a Koran? That's pretty good proof religion is real. Unless you're saying they can't prove there is a god which I would agree . You also can't prove there isn't. The fact that your version of "equality" involves special rights for married couples and alienates the group of people who make a free choice to be single makes you just as bad as the zealots in my opinion. But if you go on a lot of the gay forums, they're a lot of them quoting the bible.
Plus when have you ever seen a straight pride parade with naked men running down the streets? Just sayn.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#390 Dec 21, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
WHAT?! Do you believe men and women are the same?! Unfortunately, the facts are that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to love another man the SAME as a man loves another woman. Aside from the drastic modifications of the act of physical love, the mental and emotional parts of a gay relationship are drastically modified as well…
Please show me your 'facts'. The only ones you have are pulled directly out of your butt. This is more close minded and bigoted rhetoric. How dare you say that their mental and emotional love is not real. There are plenty of gay couples who have been in monogamous loving relationships for years while straight couples divorce 4 times.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#391 Dec 21, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The law is unconstitutional because it FORCES the company to pay and provide for service that goes against their belief.
Where in the constitution does it say you can disobey the law if you don't like it? If that was the case, no one would pay taxes, drive the speed limit, etc. Religious beliefs are not absolute.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#392 Dec 21, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you are being bigoted towards the Christian teacher. The 1st amendment protects that teacher as well as the baker.
Christian teachers are not immutable characteristics of a person. No one is born that way. Much different than being gay or black. Anyone against someone for how they are born is a bigot. Speaking out against bigots is just being 'right'.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#393 Dec 21, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
That being said where does it state gay couples have the RIGHT to purchase a wedding cake from a Christian man who believes these cakes are for man and wife?
The 14th amendment you keep ignoring. Plus there is an added law in Colorodo about gay discrimination.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#394 Dec 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
“You keep claiming that, but I keep proving that it isn't and why, which you refuse to address.”
You refuse the First Amendment of our Constitution in favore of a law that doesn’t apply to a wedding cake just like a church would preform a “gay-marriage” ceremony.

“Instead of addressing the differences between the compelling interests the government has in the activities of the church and those of the individual believer, you slam it into reverse. Family friendly is in the eyes of the beholder.” Really? They why aren't they televised?

“My parents went with me to one in New York, years back. They weren't offended by any of it. We call 'em gay pride parades, but you don't have to be one of us to be a part of or to watch, we don't discriminate and are an incredibly diverse community. You can even come protest if you don't disrupt. I've been a marshal at a number of gay events where I was one of the lucky ones to stand between self-professed good Christians and the ones they are protesting. It's a truly enlightening experience” The question was, does being gay in “public square get that same level of scrutiny when it comes to evaluating whether your right to practice what you preach”? That’s the argument you throw up for a Christian yet from what you wrote it doesn’t apply towards gays.

“So, it would be illegal to prohibit virgin sacrifice if that is what someone's beliefs dictate?” How is not selling a wedding cake the same?

“Like I apparently have to keep saying, it isn't an absolute right, it can be limited, regulated and even prohibited if it serves a compelling governmental interest in order to do so.” You keep saying it but you do hear that I have already acknowledged that!

“The government has more interests in what is going on in the public square than it does in what's going on in your home, or place of worship.” Like “gay pride parades”.

“The government has an interest in preventing discrimination in the public square by any business owner, not just one's claiming it as an act of faith.” Like “gay pride parades”?

“Bad, how?”“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” By government forcing him to sell a wedding cake goes against his belief as a Christian. You and I don’t have to like it, but it’s a bad precedent to allow government that much power.

“Don't the gay folk have a right to share the public square and access to all the goods and services provided in it?” Yes, with the exception of a man who believes a wedding cake is only for a man-woman marriage.

“Don't the gay folk have a right to not be ambushed someone else's prejudices against them?”< this question isn’t clear... Maybe a word was missed... please clarify and I’ll answer.

“Do they deserve to be discriminated against?” Yes, with the exception of a man who believes a wedding cake is only for a man-woman marriage.

“Should it really matter to someone that the reason they are being persecuted for who they are is approved by a higher authority or not?” To answer this you will have to show that one shop owner not selling them a wedding cake is persecution.

“Doesn't the government have an interest in protecting folk who other folk are sometimes irrationally prejudiced against? is it a violation of the Constitution for the government to do this?” It’s first the government’s job to protect our rights and the 1st Amendment is one of them.

“You are proposing a right available only to those invoking religious beliefs,” Absolutely not! You believe in gay pride and have parades... You are protected under the 1st amendment no matter how un-family friendly it is.

“I'm just wondering if taking the Lord's name in vain while you are showing someone the door qualifies as invocation of your right to discriminate or not?” That’s not a kind statement... Care to clarify that one?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#395 Dec 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
“How do you judge the depths of someone's beliefs in such a situation, you ask them which marriages they don't approve of according to their faith and a list of anyone he has declined his services to on that basis. If his list is just same sex marriages and this is the first time he's refused on moral grounds. He's got a problem. if there are other marriages which his faith disapproves of but no one else he has refused service to, he's got a problem.” Ok...
“Because he was found guilty of violating a constitutionally valid law.” An un-Constitutional law, in this case.

“But you are wanting a special freedom that others cannot share in, that ain't right.” You mean like a gay pride parade?

The 1st Amendment protects all Americans.

“And that's it, only bakers of wedding cakes get the right to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs and that's it? I asked how far this right went and it apparently goes to silly.” That you are willing to allow the government ruin a man’s business for.

“So if he says or does anything to offend them, he's blown his right?” No.

“At least pitchforks and torches are out, what else?” Let’s deal with the reality of this case... You are already all over the board.

“If you give some folk the right to violate laws that you aren't giving EVERYBODY, those you are giving it to are getting a special right. You can't possibly be this obtuse.” What public decency laws do gay pride parades break that they obviously make SPECIAL exceptions for?

“So, as long as you invoke God you are pretty much free to do whatever to whoever and we have to respect that right?” No.

“Now you are contradicting what you just said with your last no. Your last no told me that the individual has the right to do whatever to whoever in the name of their faith, but this no says there might be some sort of limit. Which is it?” You seem to be reading into what no means.

“I mean anyone on the receiving end of an individual's religious beliefs who doesn't share in them and who would rather not be on the receiving end of them.” Like the gay pride parade?

“Your answer had nothing to do with the question. The government doesn't have an interest in limiting the individual's religious freedom, but if it happens to be a casualty of something that the government does have an interest in, like preventing discrimination by ALL business owners, the constitution gives lawmakers the authority to do so.” Except in this case which isn’t ALL business owners.

“No we label him as a violator of the law meant to prohibit discrimination in the public square. I was in business for years, owned lots of rental properties. The government forces you to do all sorts of things. As a landlord, if I had my druthers, I would have never rented to an unmarried opposite sex couple, especially with kids by someone else, over the years I found most of them to be nightmares as tenants. Guess what is a suspect classification that even good Christian landlords have to abide by in avoiding discrimination on the basis of? Marital status. It is illegal to reject tenants for no other reason than they aren't married, even if you believe God disapproves, even if you believe as I do that they are likely to be the worst tenants.” Rental property isn’t a wedding cake. See what I mean by ALL OVER THE BOARD?

“The atheist who kicked you out of their establishment for being Christian.” The 1st amendment protects all Americans.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#396 Dec 22, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
“You want to feel better about hating folk and/or the things you imagine them doing, like getting married, but we don't have to. Love the sinner hate the sin is nothing more than a polite version of God hates ****. You disrespect your very dear gay friends, you're not a very good friend. You want me to feel better about your attitudes towards us so you can. I don't.” That’s all on you. That’s your choice based on your ignorance and your “hate” for your perceived hate. I would die for my friends and the fact you, in your ignorance, say otherwise only shows your insecurity in your own self worth. America is a great place for gays to live and flourish and one baker or wedding photographer doesn’t change that fact, nor does your perspective change that fact either.
“You're on here telling me that I should accept discrimination from folk professing faith because they have a right to hate **** or the things **** do, like getting married, but you, yourself, don't hate us, even though if you were the baker, you would have done the same damn thing. I'm misunderstanding nothing here. You are either with us or against us, there's no in between.” I’m telling you you need to check with the hate in your heart.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#397 Dec 22, 2013
southern alien wrote:
<quoted text>
Please show me your 'facts'. The only ones you have are pulled directly out of your butt. This is more close minded and bigoted rhetoric. How dare you say that their mental and emotional love is not real. There are plenty of gay couples who have been in monogamous loving relationships for years while straight couples divorce 4 times.
“Please show me your 'facts'. The only ones you have are pulled directly out of your butt.”
Fact: A gay man can’t insert his penis into his lover’s vagina. A gay man isn’t mystified by the mind of another man because he himself is a man. A gay man loves his partner VERY DIFFERENTLY than if he were to love another woman...

“This is more close minded and bigoted rhetoric.” This is fact.

“How dare you say that their mental and emotional love is not real. There are plenty of gay couples who have been in monogamous loving relationships for years while straight couples divorce 4 times.” How dare you say that. I NEVER stated “their mental and emotional love is not real” and the fact that you feel like I did shows your prejudice instead of rational thought.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#398 Dec 22, 2013
southern alien wrote:
<quoted text>
Christian teachers are not immutable characteristics of a person. No one is born that way. Much different than being gay or black. Anyone against someone for how they are born is a bigot. Speaking out against bigots is just being 'right'.
“Christian teachers are not immutable characteristics of a person. No one is born that way. Much different than being gay or black. Anyone against someone for how they are born is a bigot. Speaking out against bigots is just being 'right'.” Your argument is very poor...

The definition of BIGOT: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.: a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

Apparently, by definition you’re a bigot.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#399 Dec 22, 2013
southern alien wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in the constitution does it say you can disobey the law if you don't like it? If that was the case, no one would pay taxes, drive the speed limit, etc. Religious beliefs are not absolute.
“Where in the constitution does it say you can disobey the law if you don't like it?” 1st Amendment.

“If that was the case, no one would pay taxes, drive the speed limit, etc. Religious beliefs are not absolute.” In this case of the baker it applies.

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
News Mother, 2 Kids Go Missing In Highlands Ranch 1 hr Captain Dunghorse 5
Nicole Dubois Savage 3 hr Jamie Dundee 2
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 7 hr Respect71 26,155
Local Denver Street Gang Gets Exposure! (Mar '10) 22 hr Reallife cerealkilla 319
kinfolk mc member a snitch! Fri TRUTH45 1
News Colorado Hemp Honey Is the Bee's Knees - and a ... (Nov '15) Nov '15 Elise Gingerdoodle 1
News District: Colorado lunch worker not fired for g... (Jun '15) Jun '15 PeanutButtercup 1

Greenwood Village Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Greenwood Village Mortgages