Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 25627 comments on the Denver Post story from Jun 6, 2013, titled Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake. In it, Denver Post reports that:

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

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

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1171 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The 1st Amendment does, in fact that’s why it says “Congress shall make no laws”...
Are you under the impression that Constitutional rights are unlimited?

You have freedom of speech, but you cannot lie in court or yell fire in a theater.
You have freedom of assembly, but cannot hold a meeting in the middle of a highway.
You have freedom to arm yourself, but cannot own a nuclear weapon.

Similarly, freedom of religion does not allow you do to anything you want just because you have a religious reason for it. Some Mormons belief that black people are evil, with the curse of Ham. Yet, they may not refuse to serve a black customer.

Not liking gay people does not allow you to break anti-discrimination laws.
Respect71 wrote:
Being gay is not being black, jewish, or Irish...
It's similar. More similar to being black or Irish than being a member of a particular religion is.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1172 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“How so?” Do you have children? What do they ask you when they see gay relations on tv?
I do have a child. He understands that while most boys like girls, some boys like other boys. He does not happen to be one of them - he is interested in girls. Still, he knows that people do not control who they like and that everyone deserves to be treated well.
Respect71 wrote:
Dead serious. Tell me your definition of marriage and that’s how it’s changed.
The Netherlands has had SSM for over a decade. Why hasn't their society fallen apart? It's working the same way it did before they had SSM.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s not about loosing power but when a baker is “marginalized” for believing a wedding cake is for a husband and wife, that goes against American freedoms.
The baker hasn't been marginalized. The baker merely needs to abide by anti-discrimination laws.

Are you against all forms of anti-discrimination laws, or only the ones that protect gay people?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1173 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The baker faces jail and fines for literally doing nothing to a gay couple. He believes that the institution of marriage belongs to one-man and one-woman and the wedding cake is a symbol of that and now government is punishing him for his belief.
The baker faces fines for breaking the law by discriminating against a gay couple, not for "doing nothing".

The government is punishing him for his actions, not his beliefs.
Respect71 wrote:
What rights were removed from the gay couple?
I didn't say they lost any rights due to the baker's actions.

Now answer my question: what rights were removed from Christians?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1174 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You tell me? Can you or can you not explain? Was it you I was asking originally?
They don't.

Is it a problem for me to comment and ask you to elaborate on your point?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1175 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
The 1A does not protect business discrimination.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#1179 Jan 27, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, obviously this is going to be a very, very important decision when it arrives.
What the law in CO is at present is just a tiny part of the picture.
The case was decided about a month ago.

The Baker was convicted of violating the Public Accommodations law.

CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple Wedding Cake - May Face a Year in Jail
http://www.topix.com/forum/us/T50DHSFRAPF0RC1...

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#1180 Jan 27, 2014
The_Box wrote:
Are you under the impression that Constitutional rights are unlimited?
Reading her posts should be accompanied by the theme from the Twilight Zone. She's had the concept of limited rights explained to her, several times. She has also had it explained to her how even using the strict scrutiny necessary to limit somebody practicing what they preach, that this is a constitutionally valid law that this baker has violated. She's still absolutely convinced the baker had an absolute right to do this and she really can't come up with a good idea as to why.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1181 Jan 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“I am not distracting from the facts, you are an idiot, and that is a fact.” I disagree with you and because of that you call me names. That’s the fact.
You are an idiot, whether I say so or not, so I might as well say so.
Respect71 wrote:
I can. But I prefer the government to stay out of affairs of the heart. Meaning, men and women can marry and gays can be together however they want within their definition.
This has nothing to do with "affairs of the heart" it has to do with constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the law.
It is hysterical that you offered this pathetic rationalization instead of an answer, which tends to imply that you cannot, in point of fact, indicate any compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman.
Respect71 wrote:
I know both amendments and if you can’t explain what your intent is by stating,““None of which has any impact upon the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.” Then we can assume your point and opinion is null and void.
We could also infer that you are an idiot with poor reading comprehension skills.
Respect71 wrote:
No, I am pointing to the fact that the relationships are DIFFERENT, and the centuries long definition of marriage has never included same-sex. That’s a fact.
And? Interracial marriage is different that marriage to someone of the same race. Actually, ALL marriages are different. At question is equal protection of the law and if there is an state interest served by denying same sex couples equal protection of the law to marry.
Respect71 wrote:
The definition of marriage between a man-woman relationships has been a what makes strong, healthy and progressed human societies. It provides defined significant roles that not only make a family structured and strong but contributes positively to their community and societies. Marriage is an institution that has and should be a solid building block to progress and grow human society. Same-sex marriage is causing sexual confusion among young people where there is no need, and imposing a belief and lifestyle upon Americans who believe the nuclear family is the best way to achieve a great and continued society (removing our 1st amendment rights). I good man once wrote,“Nothing imaginable -- leftward or rightward -- would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing” and “Traditional Jews and Christians -- i.e. those who believe in a divine scripture -- will be marginalized.” Obviously, that’s what you and others on here are about. NOT Freedom
That's the best you can do? Clearly, you can't offer any rational basis for excluding same sex couples from the legal protections of marriage. Of course, that is what I would expect from an idiot.
Respect71 wrote:
If you can ONLY define marriage as between TWO PEOPLE, then you are a fool to believe that marriage won’t diverge into those directions. That’s why it is so important to define the Marriage relationship as between one-man and one-woman, and the gay relationship as what it is... Especially if you are so willing to use a vague definition as “two people”.
Only an idiot would think that marriage will diverge into those directions. They are separate issues that will be unaffected by allowing same sex marriage.

You haven't done anything to make yourself look any more intelligent.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1183 Jan 28, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you under the impression that Constitutional rights are unlimited?
You have freedom of speech, but you cannot lie in court or yell fire in a theater.
You have freedom of assembly, but cannot hold a meeting in the middle of a highway.
You have freedom to arm yourself, but cannot own a nuclear weapon.
Similarly, freedom of religion does not allow you do to anything you want just because you have a religious reason for it. Some Mormons belief that black people are evil, with the curse of Ham. Yet, they may not refuse to serve a black customer.
Not liking gay people does not allow you to break anti-discrimination laws.
<quoted text>
It's similar. More similar to being black or Irish than being a member of a particular religion is.
“Are you under the impression that Constitutional rights are unlimited?” No, however, are you under the impression that no American can disagree with gays, their lifestyle, and the idea that same-sex marriage doesn’t apply to them? &#8232;&#8232;“You have freedom of speech, but you cannot lie in court or yell fire in a theater.&#8232;You have freedom of assembly, but cannot hold a meeting in the middle of a highway.&#8232;You have freedom to arm yourself, but cannot own a nuclear weapon. &#8232;&#8232;Similarl y, freedom of religion does not allow you do to anything you want just because you have a religious reason for it. Some Mormons belief that black people are evil, with the curse of Ham. Yet, they may not refuse to serve a black customer.”  You are correct freedom of religion doesn’t allow you to do anything your want, but it certainly allows for a wedding cake to symbolize a husband and wife marriage.
&#8232;“It's similar. More similar to being black or Irish than being a member of a particular religion is.”  It’s irrational argument to push your belief upon a baker.
 

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1184 Jan 28, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I do have a child. He understands that while most boys like girls, some boys like other boys. He does not happen to be one of them - he is interested in girls. Still, he knows that people do not control who they like and that everyone deserves to be treated well.
<quoted text>
The Netherlands has had SSM for over a decade. Why hasn't their society fallen apart? It's working the same way it did before they had SSM.
<quoted text>
The baker hasn't been marginalized. The baker merely needs to abide by anti-discrimination laws.
Are you against all forms of anti-discrimination laws, or only the ones that protect gay people?
 
“I do have a child. He understands that while most boys like girls, some boys like other boys. He does not happen to be one of them - he is interested in girls. Still, he knows that people do not control who they like and that everyone deserves to be treated well.”  And what would you do if he comes across a family who believes strongly in the nuclear family and they share that with him all the time?
 
“The Netherlands has had SSM for over a decade. Why hasn't their society fallen apart? It's working the same way it did before they had SSM.” Their birth rate has shrunk.
 
“The baker hasn't been marginalized. The baker merely needs to abide by anti-discrimination laws.”  Next will you force the Church to marry same-sex couples?  If a gay man can be who he is in public why can’t a baker?  What was the consequent to the gay couple?  What of their rights were removed?&#8232;&#8232; “Are you against all forms of anti-discrimination laws, or only the ones that protect gay people?”  I am for freedom for ALL Americans. Those who who are gay and the ones who believe that man-woman relationships are defined as marriage.
 

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1185 Jan 28, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The baker faces fines for breaking the law by discriminating against a gay couple, not for "doing nothing".
The government is punishing him for his actions, not his beliefs.
<quoted text>
I didn't say they lost any rights due to the baker's actions.
Now answer my question: what rights were removed from Christians?
“The baker faces fines for breaking the law by discriminating against a gay couple, not for "doing nothing". &#8232;The government is punishing him for his actions, not his beliefs.”  The man believes a wedding cake is a symbol for a husband and wife, he didn’t sell it to a gay couple…  He did nothing and now government is punishing him for his religious belief which breaks the 1st Amendment of our Constituion.
“I didn't say they lost any rights due to the baker's actions.”  Then why is the baker being punished for his belief?  &#8232;&#8232;“Now answer my question: what rights were removed from Christians?”  Apparently the ability to believe that marriage is reserved for man-woman couples, that children do better when they are raised by both a mom and a dad, and the family is vitally important not just for the family members but for the community and for society.  NOW we get to be bashed as bigots because of our belief, and according to the folks here on this thread have no freedom.
 

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1187 Jan 28, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't.
Is it a problem for me to comment and ask you to elaborate on your point?
I was asking a question not making a point.

Understandable if your can’t answer.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1188 Jan 28, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The 1A does not protect business discrimination.
It dose.  What if he was a Christian business?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1189 Jan 28, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
Learn how to quote, you cretin.
Repeating "First Amendment" and "Constitutional Republic" doesn't mean fundie scum get to break long established laws.
Of course you can never deal with the counter factual of some other business owner turning away all fundie halfwits on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs - which would also be clearly illegal.
That's because you think xstains have their own special laws, i.e., that this is an xstian theocracy, you're lying on the subject notwithstanding. But vile christianists are bound by the same laws as jews or muslims or buddhists are.
A seven year old can understand this, Jethro.
 
“Learn how to quote, you cretin.”  Are you going to charge the government to force me?&#8232;&#8232;

“Repeating "First Amendment" and "Constitutional Republic" doesn't mean fundie scum get to break long established laws.”  It does if it breaks the First Amendment.&#8232;&#823 2;“Of course you can never deal with the counter factual of some other business owner turning away all fundie halfwits on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs - which would also be clearly illegal.&#8232;&#8232; That's because you think xstains have their own special laws, i.e., that this is an xstian theocracy, you're lying on the subject notwithstanding. But vile christianists are bound by the same laws as jews or muslims or buddhists are.&#8232;&#8232;A seven year old can understand this, Jethro.”  No special laws but our Constitution protects each individual’s liberty, even if they disagree with you.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1190 Jan 28, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Cletus, you tried to make some inane argument that glbt rights don't apply here because (you think erroneously) that sexual orientation is a choice.
We have demolished that simple minded argument by pointing out to the hom skooled morons among us that it is religious belief which is a choice...and it is protected.
So the matter you raised of what is choice or not has not bearing here.
Now stop lyin fer jeeesus by pretending not to understand this and by changing the subject.
Also, the fundies' fake claims of being "religious" doesn't mean they get to discriminate against the public, because the public has no obligation to be subject to any particular "religious" dogman.
No. My argument is that First Amendment rights are being violated. Because you believe the baker’s right are less, that is what I have a problem with....

Keep making it about ‘Anti-gay’ because it’s so about that! <sarcasm.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1192 Jan 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, however, are you under the impression that no American can disagree with gays, their lifestyle, and the idea that same-sex marriage doesn’t apply to them?
No. You can hate gay people all you like.
Respect71 wrote:
You are correct freedom of religion doesn’t allow you to do anything your want, but it certainly allows for a wedding cake to symbolize a husband and wife marriage.
Freedom of religion does not allow for a public business owner to discriminate against customers.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s irrational argument to push your belief upon a baker.
 
No one is pushing beliefs upon a baker. The baker is simply required not to discriminate. The baker can hate black people, but cannot refuse to serve one. The baker can hate Christians, but cannot refuse to serve one.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1193 Jan 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
And what would you do if he comes across a family who believes strongly in the nuclear family and they share that with him all the time?
Why would my son be exposed to a family constantly sharing their politics views with them? That would be bizarre. When my son's friends come over, I do not give them lectures on politics.
Respect71 wrote:
Their birth rate has shrunk.
Their birth rate has gone from 12 to 11 births/1000. Many nations in Europe have had a decline in birth rate, including those that do NOT have SSM, like Greece.

So, 1) how do you associate SSM with a mildly declining birth rate?
2) how is a mildly declining birth rate indicative of a society being turned upside down?
Respect71 wrote:
Next will you force the Church to marry same-sex couples?
Of course not. Churches are private institutions and have no obligation to marry anyone.
Respect71 wrote:
  If a gay man can be who he is in public why can’t a baker?
He can.
Respect71 wrote:
  What was the consequent to the gay couple?
They were denied service.
Respect71 wrote:
I am for freedom for ALL Americans. Those who who are gay and the ones who believe that man-woman relationships are defined as marriage.
 
So you oppose all anti-discrimination laws? You believe businesses should be able to refuse to serve black people or Christians or Jews or Irish people or women?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1194 Jan 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The man believes a wedding cake is a symbol for a husband and wife, he didn’t sell it to a gay couple…  He did nothing and now government is punishing him for his religious belief which breaks the 1st Amendment of our Constituion.
He discriminated against a gay couple for being gay. That is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
Respect71 wrote:
Apparently the ability to believe that marriage is reserved for man-woman couples, that children do better when they are raised by both a mom and a dad, and the family is vitally important not just for the family members but for the community and for society. 
 
You can have those beliefs all you want. This is about actions, not belief.

You may believe that a gay couple shouldn't be able to raise a child, but if you kidnap that child, you're still going to be arrested.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1195 Jan 28, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
It dose. 
If this were true, the Civil Rights Acts would have been declared unconstitutional. Why haven't they?
Respect71 wrote:
What if he was a Christian business?
A bakery is not a Christian institution.
Warm Heart

White Plains, KY

#1196 Jan 28, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You can hate gay people all you like.
<quoted text>
Freedom of religion does not allow for a public business owner to discriminate against customers.
<quoted text>
No one is pushing beliefs upon a baker. The baker is simply required not to discriminate. The baker can hate black people, but cannot refuse to serve one. The baker can hate Christians, but cannot refuse to serve one.
Who ever said that the baker hated anybody? Just because we don't agree with that lifestyle does not mean that we hate the people that live it.

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 Police: Martino allegedly punched wife in face ... (Dec '13) 2 hr dGo mdDaen lyHo i... 5
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 4 hr Shela 19,297
Hillary Clinton OUR next President 4 hr Jose 551
News Chupacabra spotted near Tecumseh? (Jul '10) 19 hr Anne M 59
Why I Am Voting for Trump Fri Deanna M 82
Test (Apr '13) Thu THE GREEK GOD 9
News District: Colorado lunch worker not fired for g... Jun '15 PeanutButtercup 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Greenwood Village Mortgages