Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 25733 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.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1585 Apr 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Cite the source that proves what you are saying is true. Which justice said that?
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/el...

They declined to hear the case. If they thought there was a substantially new issue or a miscarriage of justice, they would not have done so.

There was no recorded dissent.
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#1586 Apr 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did the Supreme Court post that the reason they denied hearing the case?
You can’t force all Americans to believe and accept a new definition of marriage by using government and laws. Your hate for your fellow Americans who belief different than you doesn’t help either.
Cretin, you're mixed up and ignorant again.

By refusing to hear the case the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court which said businesses do not have the "right" to be bigots. And this idea has been well established for about 60 years.

Similarly, the courts can decide what marriages are legal and what are not.

You are not in contact with reality, Cletus. You're confusing what you think should be the case with what actually is the case. And that makes you funny.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1587 Apr 15, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/el...
They declined to hear the case. If they thought there was a substantially new issue or a miscarriage of justice, they would not have done so.
There was no recorded dissent.
\

“Each year, the court receives approximately 9,000–10,000 petitions for certiorari, of which approximately 80–100 are granted plenary review with oral arguments, and an additional 50 to 60 are disposed of without plenary review.”

The Supreme Court will deny cases for hundreds of reasons.

“There was no recorded dissent.” Therefore your assumption is based on nothing, if this is not true cite the Justice that supports your statement,“If they thought the lower courts were wrong, they would have heard arguments.” The fact is you can’t.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1588 Apr 15, 2014
Fundies R Mentally ill wrote:
<quoted text>
Cretin, you're mixed up and ignorant again.
By refusing to hear the case the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court which said businesses do not have the "right" to be bigots. And this idea has been well established for about 60 years.
Similarly, the courts can decide what marriages are legal and what are not.
You are not in contact with reality, Cletus. You're confusing what you think should be the case with what actually is the case. And that makes you funny.
You do understand that gays that have wanted to be united have been doing so for years without,“courts can decide what marriages are legal and what are not.”?

Your reality is quite skewed, and your ignorance of the US Constitution, as well as the State of Colorado’s Constitution makes it look at though you believe the government has control of the private lives of its citizens. Is this true?
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#1589 Apr 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
gays that have wanted to be united have been doing so for years without,“courts can decide what marriages are legal and what are not.”?
believe the government has control of the private lives of its citizens.
1. Cretin, we're not talking about lgbt people dating. We're discussing the legal contract of marriage which is governed by the state and which confers state and federal benefits.

Don't be so sick and disingenuous.

2. In fact, moron, the Congress and the Executive Branch and the courts has long ago determined that businesses are not permitted to discriminate on a number of criteria. That is simple fact. You don't like that fact. That doesn't mean it isn't a fact.

You are evidently insane.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1590 Apr 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“Each year, the court receives approximately 9,000–10,000 petitions for certiorari, of which approximately 80–100 are granted plenary review with oral arguments, and an additional 50 to 60 are disposed of without plenary review.”
The Supreme Court will deny cases for hundreds of reasons.
“There was no recorded dissent.” Therefore your assumption is based on nothing, if this is not true cite the Justice that supports your statement,“If they thought the lower courts were wrong, they would have heard arguments.” The fact is you can’t.
There is no assumption here, Respect. The court DID NOT take the case, which means the ruling of the lower court stands.

It isn't my fault you cannot construct or defend a rational argument, and instead wish to argue irrelevant minutiae.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1591 Apr 15, 2014
Fundies R Mentally ill wrote:
<quoted text>1. Cretin, we're not talking about lgbt people dating. We're discussing the legal contract of marriage which is governed by the state and which confers state and federal benefits.

Don't be so sick and disingenuous.

2. In fact, moron, the Congress and the Executive Branch and the courts has long ago determined that businesses are not permitted to discriminate on a number of criteria. That is simple fact. You don't like that fact. That doesn't mean it isn't a fact.

You are evidently insane.
1. How many contracts do you have that are governed by the state?

2. Discrimination happens all the time. Would you support in prosecuting the gay photographer for not photographing persons holding signs that state "marriage is only for husbands and wives"?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1592 Apr 15, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>There is no assumption here, Respect. The court DID NOT take the case, which means the ruling of the lower court stands.

It isn't my fault you cannot construct or defend a rational argument, and instead wish to argue irrelevant minutiae.
You stated "If they thought the lower courts were wrong, they would have heard arguments." which is an unfounded assumption... You can play word games all you want but enough cases are popping up the the Supreme Court sooner or later will have to have hearings.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1593 Apr 15, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>There is no assumption here, Respect. The court DID NOT take the case, which means the ruling of the lower court stands.

It isn't my fault you cannot construct or defend a rational argument, and instead wish to argue irrelevant minutiae.
The point is you can't prove your statement true.
Fundies R Mentally ill

Philadelphia, PA

#1594 Apr 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
1. How many contracts do you have that are governed by the state?
2. Discrimination happens all the time. Would you support in prosecuting the gay photographer for not photographing persons holding signs that state "marriage is only for husbands and wives"?
Your typically unhinged first question has nothing to do with the fact that marriage is not dating. Marriage is regulated by the state, little "s," and confers all manner of government benefits. "Marriage equality" doesn't mean "same sex people may co-habitate."

That discrimination happens all the time, likewise, does not speak to the facts, that discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics in places of public accommodations has been illegal for more than half a century. That's fact. The fact that you confuse your wishing it were not fact with reality only speaks to your derangement.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1595 Apr 16, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
You stated "If they thought the lower courts were wrong, they would have heard arguments." which is an unfounded assumption...
Not really. Either they agreed with the ruling of the lower court, or thought it was an issue unworthy of their attention. Either way, their action in refusing to hear it, allows the lower court ruling to stand, and their action was unanimous.
Respect71 wrote:
You can play word games all you want but enough cases are popping up the the Supreme Court sooner or later will have to have hearings.
And this case is a strong indication of what they will do when that time comes. Particularly, given the number of federal and appellate cases being decided in favor of equality.

You seem to be one of the few who cannot see the writing on the wall.
Respect71 wrote:
The point is you can't prove your statement true.
Actually, I can/ The court didn't take the case, and the lower court's ruling does stand. It's not an opinion, that is fact.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1596 Apr 16, 2014
Fundies R Mentally ill wrote:
<quoted text>
Your typically unhinged first question has nothing to do with the fact that marriage is not dating. Marriage is regulated by the state, little "s," and confers all manner of government benefits. "Marriage equality" doesn't mean "same sex people may co-habitate."
That discrimination happens all the time, likewise, does not speak to the facts, that discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics in places of public accommodations has been illegal for more than half a century. That's fact. The fact that you confuse your wishing it were not fact with reality only speaks to your derangement.
“Your typically unhinged first question has nothing to do with the fact that marriage is not dating. Marriage is regulated by the state, little "s," and confers all manner of government benefits. "Marriage equality" doesn't mean "same sex people may co-habitate." Now that’s a great argument to get government OUT of marriage isn’t it? You and I would then have no argument. Imagine a gay couple goes and finds a church to unite them and write out the contract between themselves with a lawyer and NO GOVERNMENT intervention whatsoever. Just so you know gays have been doing that for decades.

“That discrimination happens all the time, likewise, does not speak to the facts, that discrimination on the basis of protected characteristics in places of public accommodations has been illegal for more than half a century.” We all see you are in favor of forcing Americans to use their talents to support your gay agenda, and repeting it over and over only shows your lack of patriotism and respect for our U.S. Constitution.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1597 Apr 16, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. Either they agreed with the ruling of the lower court, or thought it was an issue unworthy of their attention. Either way, their action in refusing to hear it, allows the lower court ruling to stand, and their action was unanimous.
<quoted text>
And this case is a strong indication of what they will do when that time comes. Particularly, given the number of federal and appellate cases being decided in favor of equality.
You seem to be one of the few who cannot see the writing on the wall.
<quoted text>
Actually, I can/ The court didn't take the case, and the lower court's ruling does stand. It's not an opinion, that is fact.
“Not really. Either they agreed with the ruling of the lower court, or thought it was an issue unworthy of their attention. Either way, their action in refusing to hear it, allows the lower court ruling to stand, and their action was unanimous.”
We all understand the lower Court’s ruling will stand. Your assumption, "If they thought the lower courts were wrong, they would have heard arguments." Is false.

“And this case is a strong indication of what they will do when that time comes. Particularly, given the number of federal and appellate cases being decided in favor of equality.

You seem to be one of the few who cannot see the writing on the wall.” The writing is individual liberty will prevail, and gays will get used to going to wedding businesses that want to do business with them just like churches.

“Actually, I can/ The court didn't take the case, and the lower court's ruling does stand. It's not an opinion, that is fact.”< this is fact.
"If they thought the lower courts were wrong, they would have heard arguments." <This is not fact.

Question: If it is so rational to have government redefine marriage to include a tiny group of our population why is it not rational to accept those Americans who believe in the husband and wife institution and allow law to protect wedding venders of faith just like churches?
Fundies R Mentally Eel

Philadelphia, PA

#1598 Apr 16, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Now that’s a great argument to get government OUT of marriage isn’t it? You and I would then have no argument. Imagine a gay couple goes and finds a church to unite them and write out the contract between themselves with a lawyer and NO GOVERNMENT intervention whatsoever....We all see you are in favor of forcing Americans to use their talents to support your gay agenda, and repeting it over and over only shows your lack of patriotism and respect for our U.S. Constitution.
Hey sick troll, we've been over this.

Marriage licenses confer federal benefits. Writing up a pre nup does not. The government regulates marriage for many reasons, but because marriage confers federal (and state) benefits.

If it's the government being involved in marriage you have a problem with then why weren't you right wing rejects complaining about marriage prior to our getting marriage equality in the more educated parts of the country?

The laws are changing via the courts, legislatures and sometimes referenda to permit marriage equality. You sick freeek, "unconstitutional" doesn't mean "something some ignorant, confused, right wing moron doesn't like."

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1599 Apr 17, 2014
Fundies R Mentally Eel wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey sick troll, we've been over this.
Marriage licenses confer federal benefits. Writing up a pre nup does not. The government regulates marriage for many reasons, but because marriage confers federal (and state) benefits.
If it's the government being involved in marriage you have a problem with then why weren't you right wing rejects complaining about marriage prior to our getting marriage equality in the more educated parts of the country?
The laws are changing via the courts, legislatures and sometimes referenda to permit marriage equality. You sick freeek, "unconstitutional" doesn't mean "something some ignorant, confused, right wing moron doesn't like."
“Marriage licenses confer federal benefits.” Describe?
“Writing up a pre nup does not. The government regulates marriage for many reasons, but because marriage confers federal (and state) benefits.” Such as?

“If it's the government being involved in marriage you have a problem with then why weren't you right wing rejects complaining about marriage prior to our getting marriage equality in the more educated parts of the country?” Marriage equality is a lie… You and your side can’t even be honest about that because you only care about the small part of our population that sits OUTSIDE the definition of marriage. If government wasn’t involved in redefining marriage there would be no argument. You charging the government to force Americans to believe as you is not only Unconstitutional but it’s un-American.

“The laws are changing via the courts, legislatures and sometimes referenda to permit marriage equality.” Again propitiating the lie that the gay relationship is somehow the SAME or EQUAL to that of a husband and wife relationship. Even when you’re successful with changing laws to allow gays to marry it will still be “GAY marriage” and “same-sex marriage” Which is, by its very nature DIFFERENT.
“You sick freeek, "unconstitutional" doesn't mean "something some ignorant, confused, right wing moron doesn't like."” Un-Constitutional means government forcing Americans to support and believe is a institution they don’t believe in, and a pitiful attempt to punish, marginalize, and demonize those you don’t believe as you.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1600 Apr 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
You charging the government to force Americans to believe as you is not only Unconstitutional but it’s un-American.
Your framing of the issue is HIGHLY dishonest.

You can believe they're wrong all you want, just like some people think interracial marriages are wrong.

YOU are the one trying to force your beliefs on others by inhibiting their actions: you want to prevent them from getting married.

You can't name one thing they're preventing you from doing because ***they're not trying to prevent you from doing anything.***
Respect71 wrote:
Again propitiating the lie that the gay relationship is somehow the SAME or EQUAL to that of a husband and wife relationship.
As far as a marriage contract is concerned, they are exactly equal. Name ONE part of a marriage contract that a same-sex couple cannot fulfill. Just ONE.
Respect71 wrote:
Un-Constitutional means government forcing Americans to support and believe is a institution they don’t believe in
No, it doesn't. Millions of Americans don't believe in divorce, but we have that. Millions of Americans don't believe in having an aggressive military, but we have that. Millions of Americans don't believe in Islam, but we still allow mosques to be built.

Having something exist that you don't like is not an infringement upon your belief.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1601 Apr 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
We all understand the lower Court’s ruling will stand. Your assumption, "If they thought the lower courts were wrong, they would have heard arguments." Is false.
Reality, get a grip. If they thought that the lower court's ruling were not legally sound, they would have addressed it.
This isn't difficult to understand.
Respect71 wrote:
The writing is individual liberty will prevail, and gays will get used to going to wedding businesses that want to do business with them just like churches.
Individual liberty prevails when a business owner cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, you moron.
Respect71 wrote:
< this is fact.
I know.
Respect71 wrote:
<This is not fact.
Actually, that is your opinion. The fact is that if the court felt the lower court's ruling were legally incorrect, they would have taken the case, they did not do so.
Respect71 wrote:
Question: If it is so rational to have government redefine marriage to include a tiny group of our population why is it not rational to accept those Americans who believe in the husband and wife institution and allow law to protect wedding venders of faith just like churches?
Are you high?
The state governments are instructed by the US Constitution to treat all persons within their jurisdiction with equal protection of the law. That is why the government must "redefine marriage to include a tiny group of our population." To allow business owners of a particular faith to project their religious morals onto others in order to obtain service is actually a violation of the free exercise of religion on the potential clients.

You see, dumb person, the US Constitution holds the plain and simple answer to each of your hypothetical questions.
Fundies R Mentally Eel

Stafford, VA

#1602 Apr 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>“Marriage licenses confer federal benefits.” Describe?
“Writing up a pre nup does not. The government regulates marriage for many reasons, but because marriage confers federal (and state) benefits.” Such as?

“If it's the government being involved in marriage you have a problem with then why weren't you right wing rejects complaining about marriage prior to our getting marriage equality in the more educated parts of the country?” Marriage equality is a lie… You and your side can’t even be honest about that because you only care about the small part of our population that sits OUTSIDE the definition of marriage. If government wasn’t involved in redefining marriage there would be no argument. You charging the government to force Americans to believe as you is not only Unconstitutional but it’s un-American.

“The laws are changing via the courts, legislatures and sometimes referenda to permit marriage equality.” Again propitiating the lie that the gay relationship is somehow the SAME or EQUAL to that of a husband and wife relationship. Even when you’re successful with changing laws to allow gays to marry it will still be “GAY marriage” and “same-sex marriage” Which is, by its very nature DIFFERENT.
“You sick freeek, "unconstitutional" doesn't mean "something some ignorant, confused, right wing moron doesn't like."” Un-Constitutional means government forcing Americans to support and believe is a institution they don’t believe in, and a pitiful attempt to punish, marginalize, and demonize those you don’t believe as you.
You sick pos, leave me alone. I'm tired of going over the same things again and again with you. You're contributing to my mental instability. You closet case filth, leave me alone.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1603 Apr 17, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Your framing of the issue is HIGHLY dishonest.
You can believe they're wrong all you want, just like some people think interracial marriages are wrong.
YOU are the one trying to force your beliefs on others by inhibiting their actions: you want to prevent them from getting married.
You can't name one thing they're preventing you from doing because ***they're not trying to prevent you from doing anything.***
<quoted text>
As far as a marriage contract is concerned, they are exactly equal. Name ONE part of a marriage contract that a same-sex couple cannot fulfill. Just ONE.
<quoted text>
No, it doesn't. Millions of Americans don't believe in divorce, but we have that. Millions of Americans don't believe in having an aggressive military, but we have that. Millions of Americans don't believe in Islam, but we still allow mosques to be built.
Having something exist that you don't like is not an infringement upon your belief.
“Your framing of the issue is HIGHLY dishonest.” No it’s accurate, straight forward, and truthful. Husband and wife relationships are extremely DIFFERENT than a gay relationship.

“You can believe they're wrong all you want, just like some people think interracial marriages are wrong.” Sexual orientation is not the same and skin color, which is more of evidence of your dishonesty.

“YOU are the one trying to force your beliefs on others by inhibiting their actions: you want to prevent them from getting married.” No… I want gays to be with whoever they desire and be honest about their relationships. Colorado has it clearly defined and that is appropriate.

“You can't name one thing they're preventing you from doing because ***they're not trying to prevent you from doing anything.***” I don’t understand what you are talking about here… To what are you referring?

“As far as a marriage contract is concerned, they are exactly equal. Name ONE part of a marriage contract that a same-sex couple cannot fulfill. Just ONE.” I am not speaking to a “marriage contract” I am speaking to the definition of Marriage, of which gays are outside that definition.

“No, it doesn't. Millions of Americans don't believe in divorce, but we have that. Millions of Americans don't believe in having an aggressive military, but we have that. Millions of Americans don't believe in Islam, but we still allow mosques to be built.” We do but we do not charge government to force Americans to use their talents to support sharia.

“Having something exist that you don't like is not an infringement upon your belief.” No. Forcing me to use my talent to support what I don’t believe does.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#1604 Apr 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Reality, get a grip. If they thought that the lower court's ruling were not legally sound, they would have addressed it.
This isn't difficult to understand.
<quoted text>
Individual liberty prevails when a business owner cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, you moron.
<quoted text>
I know.
<quoted text>
Actually, that is your opinion. The fact is that if the court felt the lower court's ruling were legally incorrect, they would have taken the case, they did not do so.
<quoted text>
Are you high?
The state governments are instructed by the US Constitution to treat all persons within their jurisdiction with equal protection of the law. That is why the government must "redefine marriage to include a tiny group of our population." To allow business owners of a particular faith to project their religious morals onto others in order to obtain service is actually a violation of the free exercise of religion on the potential clients.
You see, dumb person, the US Constitution holds the plain and simple answer to each of your hypothetical questions.
“Reality, get a grip. If they thought that the lower court's ruling were not legally sound, they would have addressed it.
This isn't difficult to understand.” Again, that is a huge assumption based on zero evidence.

“Individual liberty prevails when a business owner cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, you moron.” He was willing to serve the gay couple, just not the wedding cake because he doesn’t want to use his talent to support that of what he does not believe.

“I know.” Very little apparently.

“Actually, that is your opinion.” That is my opinion based on fact.

“The fact is that if the court felt the lower court's ruling were legally incorrect, they would have taken the case, they did not do so.” This is your assumption based on no fact.

“The state governments are instructed by the US Constitution to treat all persons within their jurisdiction with equal protection of the law. That is why the government must "redefine marriage to include a tiny group of our population."” The government has to make laws to REDEFINE Marriage to fit gays, so now explain how that treats those who believe marriage as a husband and wife institution as equal and protected under the law?
“To allow business owners of a particular faith to project their religious morals onto others in order to obtain service is actually a violation of the free exercise of religion on the potential clients.” Not explain why churches can get away with it and NOT the religious individual?

“You see, dumb person, the US Constitution holds the plain and simple answer to each of your hypothetical questions.” LOL! Hypothetical like your assumption of the Supreme Court?

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) 6 hr Respect71 19,310
Hillary Clinton OUR next President 7 hr Respect71 554
Why I Am Voting for Trump Sat Jamar 84
News Police: Martino allegedly punched wife in face ... (Dec '13) Sat dGo mdDaen lyHo i... 5
News Chupacabra spotted near Tecumseh? (Jul '10) Fri Anne M 59
Test (Apr '13) Aug 27 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