Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Denver Post

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)

Comments
1,441 - 1,460 of 2,596 Comments Last updated 46 min ago

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1665
Apr 25, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a clue, kiddo, equal protection under the law isn't different.
<quoted text>
Actually, it is. Equality for all is the law of the land.
As for changing long standing definitions, we did away with slavery, allowed women the right to vote, and desegregated schools. Historical precedent alone is not a valid argument.
<quoted text>
I see you have no valid response. Well played.
<quoted text>
So long as you argue against equal protection for same sex couples, you do just that, kiddo.
<quoted text>
I am not trying to deny anything that I have said, and have, in fact, stood behind everything I have said. You are the one trying to retreat from their words.
<quoted text>
Here's a clue, no one does.
Feel free to prove otherwise.
<quoted text>
Hey, kiddo, congress didn't. An enacting an anti-discrimination law doesn't violate the constitution. If you believe otherwise, offer an argument to the contrary.
<quoted text>
This is about equality under the law, grow up.
<quoted text>
Separate is inherently unequal. See Brown v Board of Education. What is more, civil unions are not equal to civil marriage. Only a fool would claim otherwise.
Grow a brain.
“Here's a clue, kiddo, equal protection under the law isn't different.” Marriage and “gay marriage” is vastly different.

“Actually, it is. Equality for all is the law of the land.
As for changing long standing definitions, we did away with slavery, allowed women the right to vote, and desegregated schools. Historical precedent alone is not a valid argument.” The NATURE of the relationship are a valid argument, and your dishonesty about them is sad.

“I see you have no valid response. Well played.” Why respond to a person who can’t acknowledge the truth and throw an insult because of their cluelessness?

“So long as you argue against equal protection for same sex couples, you do just that, kiddo.” I don’t argue against equal protection, which again shows your bent, but I am for clear definition which is absolutely appropriate.

“I am not trying to deny anything that I have said, and have, in fact, stood behind everything I have said. You are the one trying to retreat from their words.” LOL... That’s even more hysterical than your insults.

“Here's a clue, no one does.” Not in the case of the baker or wedding photographer, but I calk that up to your intellectual dishonesty.

“Hey, kiddo, congress didn't. An enacting an anti-discrimination law doesn't violate the constitution. If you believe otherwise, offer an argument to the contrary.” I have but you ignore it because of your bent... It’s your right to be ignorant.

“This is about equality under the law, grow up.” It’s not, and your dishonesty proves it.

“Separate is inherently unequal.” AGAIN, SHOW HOW A GAY RELATIONSHIP IS THE SAME OR EQUAL TO A HUSBAND AND WIFE RELATIONSHIP, and I will concede to you...

“See Brown v Board of Education. What is more, civil unions are not equal to civil marriage. Only a fool would claim otherwise.” Read the law and you will see that they are, so what does that make you?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1666
Apr 25, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Respect71 wrote:
Marriage and “gay marriage” is vastly different.
Legally, there is no such thing as gay marriage, there is just marriage. States that allow same sex marriage do not have separate statutes governing gay marriage, or use different forms, they simply allow all of their citizens to legally marry the adult consenting partner of their choosing.
Respect71 wrote:
The NATURE of the relationship are a valid argument, and your dishonesty about them is sad.
There is no state interest in the nature of the relationship. You lack of rational basis is pathetic.
Respect71 wrote:
Why respond to a person who can’t acknowledge the truth and throw an insult because of their cluelessness?
I frequently acknowledge the truth.
Our constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Homosexuals are people. Marriage is a protection of the law.
Respect71 wrote:
I don’t argue against equal protection, which again shows your bent, but I am for clear definition which is absolutely appropriate.
Actually, that is exactly what you do. You wish to exclude some people from being able to legally marry absent any rational reason to do so.
Respect71 wrote:
LOL... That’s even more hysterical than your insults.
Oddly, I wish I could say your responses are hysterical. Unfortunately they are simply pitiable.
Respect71 wrote:
Not in the case of the baker or wedding photographer, but I calk that up to your intellectual dishonesty.
The courts have found in both of those cases that providing the service in no way infringed upon the religious freedom of the parties in question. Your argument has already been dismissed as incorrect in the courts, and they were right to do so.
Business owners do not have the right to project their religious beliefs onto their customers, or to force them to comply with the religious moral standards of the proprietor in order to obtain service. Were they to do so, then it is the religious freedom of the customer that would have been infringed.
Respect71 wrote:
I have but you ignore it because of your bent... It’s your right to be ignorant.
You have offered no way in which allowing same sex marriage infringes upon anyone's free exercise of religion. Keep in mind, the court in Colorado ruled that providing a cake for a same sex couple wasn't an infringement upon the baker's rights, and did not infringe upon his freedom to exercise his religion.
He doesn't have the right to project his religious beliefs onto others, or to refuse to serve those who believe differently.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s not, and your dishonesty proves it.
It is about equality under the law, nothing more. That you are trying to make the argument that it is about anything else speaks volumes to your character, as does the fact that you are arguing for fellow citizens to be treated as second-class citizens with less than equal protection of the law.
Respect71 wrote:
AGAIN, SHOW HOW A GAY RELATIONSHIP IS THE SAME OR EQUAL TO A HUSBAND AND WIFE RELATIONSHIP, and I will concede to you...
Simple, it's two people involved in a relationship seeking equal status and protection of the law.
That they are physically unequal is irrelevant. A straight couple that is impotent is physically unequal to a fertile couple, yet they can both marry. Interracial couples are different that same race couples, yet they can both marry. Your arguments of physical or biological difference are utterly irrelevant to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law.
Respect71 wrote:
Read the law and you will see that they are, so what does that make you?
No, actually, they are not entirely equal, they afford most, but not all protections afforded by civil marriage, and only a very foolish or ignorant person would claim otherwise.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1667
Apr 25, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lides wrote:
they simply allow all of their citizens to legally marry the adult consenting partner of their choosing.
False. Every state has a long list of people you can't marry. Your "all citizens" is not true.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1668
Apr 25, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lides wrote:
There is no state interest in the nature of the relationship.
Actually, there is. A family headed by a mother and father is far less likely to require state aid and other services.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1669
Apr 25, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lides wrote:
Our constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
They do. States have general laws and they apply equally to each "persons within their jurisdiction."
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1670
Apr 25, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lides wrote:
The courts have found in both of those cases that providing the service in no way infringed upon the religious freedom of the parties in question.
The courts were wrong, it's not the first time, won't be the last.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1671
Apr 25, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Grow a brain.
Yours would make excellent fertilizer.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1672
Apr 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
“Legally, there is no such thing as gay marriage, there is just marriage. States that allow same sex marriage do not have separate statutes governing gay marriage, or use different forms, they simply allow all of their citizens to legally marry the adult consenting partner of their choosing.” Even when government changes the definition to include gays it will always be “gay marriage” by the nature of the relationship... For you, the courts and government to call it the same is dishonest and a lie.

“There is no state interest in the nature of the relationship. You lack of rational basis is pathetic.” Of course there is... The social nature of the relationships are different and because you, courts and government insist on blurring the lines the individual American is then force to endorse “gay marriage” through their talents (as in the baker and the wedding photographer) and public schools will have to force the idea of “gay marriage” in the class room imposing on millions of Americans who want their kids to understand traditional marriage, which is their Constitutional right. So your claim there is no state interest is false.

“I frequently acknowledge the truth.
Our constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Homosexuals are people. Marriage is a protection of the law.” Yet you leave out the truth of the nature of the relationship then lie and call it “equal”.

“Actually, that is exactly what you do. You wish to exclude some people from being able to legally marry absent any rational reason to do so.” Like I said, you’re bent leads you to lie. Colorado has appropriate laws with clear definitions. Gays have ALL the legal rights they’ve wanted with civil unions and not they are sewing and you can’t be honest with why that is.

“Simple, it's two people involved in a relationship seeking equal status and protection of the law.” In order to d that the government has to change the law to include gays.

“That they are physically unequal is irrelevant.” It’s ABSOLUTELY relevant, and for you to claim that it’s not shows more of your intellectual dishonesty.

“No, actually, they are not entirely equal, they afford most, but not all protections afforded by civil marriage, and only a very foolish or ignorant person would claim otherwise.” Calling me names doesn’t change the truth.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1673
Apr 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Respect71 wrote:
Even when government changes the definition to include gays it will always be “gay marriage” by the nature of the relationship... For you, the courts and government to call it the same is dishonest and a lie.
Although you may make that distinction, the government does not. No state has gay marriage, although some do allow same sex couples to legally marriage.

In the eyes of the state, marriage is marriage. That you draw a distinction says more about you than anything else.
Respect71 wrote:
Of course there is...
You have never proven capable of articulating one.
Respect71 wrote:
The social nature of the relationships are different and because you, courts and government insist on blurring the lines the individual American is then force to endorse “gay marriage” through their talents (as in the baker and the wedding photographer) and public schools will have to force the idea of “gay marriage” in the class room imposing on millions of Americans who want their kids to understand traditional marriage, which is their Constitutional right. So your claim there is no state interest is false.
First of all, none of this rises to the level of a compelling state interest that would render laws preventing same sex marriage constitutional.
Secondly, how about citing the court case where a photographer or baker has won their claim that providing a service for someone with differing views infringes upon their free speech or free exercise.

Simply put, you can't. All of the claims have failed in court because providing such a service does not infringe upon the rights of the proprietor in any way.
Respect71 wrote:
Yet you leave out the truth of the nature of the relationship then lie and call it “equal”.
We aren't talking about the relationship, We are talking about equality under the law. No two relationships are equal, so actually your argument on this part is as absurd as it is irrelevant.
Respect71 wrote:
Like I said, you’re bent leads you to lie. Colorado has appropriate laws with clear definitions. Gays have ALL the legal rights they’ve wanted with civil unions and not they are sewing and you can’t be honest with why that is.
I am not lying, nor am I arguing for fellow citizens to be treated with anything less than equality under the law.
That you do is despicable.
Respect71 wrote:
In order to d that the government has to change the law to include gays.
The constitution requires states to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
The court has held that before such equality can be withheld, and it can, doing so must serve a compelling governmental interest.
So here are a few questions for you:
Are you asserting that homosexuals aren't people?
Are you asserting that civil marriage does not provide protections of law?
Are you asserting that there is a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being only between opposite sex couples?
If so, then feel free to cite what that interest is. Be specific.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s ABSOLUTELY relevant, and for you to claim that it’s not shows more of your intellectual dishonesty.
No, it isn't relevant. No two couples, even heterosexual ones are equal. Physical equality is an absurd argument from someone who can't establish a rational argument.
Respect71 wrote:
Calling me names doesn’t change the truth.
No, but it is amusing, particularly when you have worked so hard to earn the insult.

Civil unions simply do not provide the same rights and protections of marriage. The most obvious being that they are not recognized by the federal government.

It is odd that you accuse me of lying, when you are offering up statements that are patently untrue.

Your claims are both foolish and ignorant, so I see no reason not to call you out on the fact that you are both foolish and ignorant.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1674
Apr 26, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>.
“Although you may make that distinction, the government does not. No state has gay marriage, although some do allow same sex couples to legally marriage.” I do not make the distinction, there is a distinction. Thats where you place your ignorance and dishonesty.

“In the eyes of the state, marriage is marriage.” Correct... Especially in Colorado.

“You have never proven capable of articulating one.” Repeatedly which you ignore.

“First of all, none of this rises to the level of a compelling state interest that would render laws preventing same sex marriage constitutional.
Secondly, how about citing the court case where a photographer or baker has won their claim that providing a service for someone with differing views infringes upon their free speech or free exercise.

Simply put, you can't. All of the claims have failed in court because providing such a service does not infringe upon the rights of the proprietor in any way.” Like I said... Ignorance... Funny you can’t argue public schools as they infringe your morals upon Americans. Why is that? We all know you will answer dishonest.

“We aren't talking about the relationship,” Sorry but that’s the difference.

“We are talking about equality under the law.” Of which government has to use courts and it’s powers to redefine marriage to accommodate such a relationship... There lies within your lie...

“No two relationships are equal, so actually your argument on this part is as absurd as it is irrelevant.” If thats true then why don’t fathers marry daughters, mothers mary daughters, or brother marry brother? Again, more dishonesty.

“I am not lying, nor am I arguing for fellow citizens to be treated with anything less than equality under the law.
That you do is despicable.” You are lying, and I don’t argue for second-class anything, only clear definitions.

“Are you asserting that homosexuals aren't people?” Absolutely not.
“Are you asserting that civil marriage does not provide protections of law?” Because of the nature of marriage government doesn’t truly have any right to be involved at all... Especially in light of prosecution bakers and wedding photographers in favor of forcing talent to be used in support of gay views.
“Are you asserting that there is a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being only between opposite sex couples?” The is... If government endorses “gay marriage” they will start to force “gay views” upon citizens through publics schools, bakers and wedding photographers, and they have a right to believe in traditional marriage without government say.

“No, it isn't relevant. No two couples, even heterosexual ones are equal. Physical equality is an absurd argument from someone who can't establish a rational argument.” More dishonesty... please show how a man loves a man is the SAME or EQUAL to a husband loving a wife...“marriage equality” is a lie if you can’t do this.

“No, but it is amusing, particularly when you have worked so hard to earn the insult.” Yet the truth remains.

“Civil unions simply do not provide the same rights and protections of marriage. The most obvious being that they are not recognized by the federal government.” Name one!

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1675
Apr 27, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Respect71 wrote:
I do not make the distinction, there is a distinction. Thats where you place your ignorance and dishonesty.
No, foolish person, you make the distinction. States allowing same sex marriage just have marriage, not tradition and same sex marriage.
Respect71 wrote:
Correct... Especially in Colorado.
What a stupid thing to say, as I have explained before the separate but equal stance of Colorado's same sex civil unions, not recognized by the federal government, in no way satisfy equal protection.
Respect71 wrote:
Repeatedly which you ignore.
Lovely sentence fragment. You have made no valid argument to ignore.
Respect71 wrote:
Like I said... Ignorance... Funny you can’t argue public schools as they infringe your morals upon Americans. Why is that? We all know you will answer dishonest.
Ignorance? You are full of that. Public schools are irrelevant to the topic. It's funny how you often make arguments that are irrelevant.
Respect71 wrote:
Sorry but that’s the difference.
Between what and what? Sentence fragments make for terribly poor arguments.
Respect71 wrote:
Of which government has to use courts and it’s powers to redefine marriage to accommodate such a relationship... There lies within your lie...
Sorry, kiddo, several states have now enacted marriage equality by a popular vote. Not that this is legally necessary, as the US Supreme Court has held that fundamental rights may not be put to a vote.
Respect71 wrote:
If thats true then why don’t fathers marry daughters, mothers mary daughters, or brother marry brother? Again, more dishonesty.
Because a compelling state interest exists in preventing such unions. You have been incapable of articulating any such interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry.
Respect71 wrote:
You are lying, and I don’t argue for second-class anything, only clear definitions.
In arguing the definition you see fit, you are absolutely arguing for second-class citizenship for those your definition excludes, hypocrite.
Respect71 wrote:
Absolutely not.
Then they are entitled to equality under the law.
Respect71 wrote:
Because of the nature of marriage government doesn’t truly have any right to be involved at all...
Great! So, we should just ditch legal marriage altogether then?
Respect71 wrote:
Especially in light of prosecution bakers and wedding photographers in favor of forcing talent to be used in support of gay views.
Sorry, kiddo, the individuals in question broke the law, and the courts (PLURAL) have held that their actions were illegal.
Respect71 wrote:
The is... If government endorses “gay marriage” they will start to force “gay views” upon citizens through publics schools, bakers and wedding photographers, and they have a right to believe in traditional marriage without government say.
Funny, I know some folks who don't like black people, and they are entitled to their views in spite of desegregation.
Respect71 wrote:
More dishonesty... please show how a man loves a man is the SAME or EQUAL to a husband loving a wife...“marriage equality” is a lie if you can’t do this.
I don't think you could be more dishonest. They are still two people entitled by the federal constitution to equality under the law.
Respect71 wrote:
Yet the truth remains.
That you are an idiot? I quite agree.
Respect71 wrote:
Name one!
Federal recognition, which I have already mentioned, idiot.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1676
Apr 27, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, foolish person,
What a stupid thing to say,
Ignorance? You are full of that.
That you are an idiot? I quite agree.
idiot.
There is the meat of your argument. Pathetic.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1677
Apr 28, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
“No, foolish person, you make the distinction.” See that’s a lie. There is a BLATANT distinction and for you and states to say otherwise and willful ignorance.

“What a stupid thing to say, as I have explained before the separate but equal stance of Colorado's same sex civil unions, not recognized by the federal government, in no way satisfy equal protection.” That’s funny because the Obama administration has rewritten federal rules to afford benefits to gays who marry or civil unite. Even though they ar not the same is seems as though they are getting “equal protection”.
“Lovely sentence fragment. You have made no valid argument to ignore.” You love to be willfully ignorant to push your agenda, which is more than just “gay marriage”.

“Ignorance? You are full of that. Public schools are irrelevant to the topic. It's funny how you often make arguments that are irrelevant.” Good... Remember you said that.

“Sorry, kiddo, several states have now enacted marriage equality by a popular vote.” You mean like California, the most liberal state in our Union, when the voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 8? How about Colorado when voters approved to clearly define marriage as between one man and one woman, as you turn around a lie about a marriage ban?

“Gay marriage” will be forced into law by you, the courts, and by government. The question is will you be willing to let bakers, wedding photographers, jewelers of wedding rings, and churches with venues deny gay couples because it goes against their personal beliefs? More importantly, are you going to allow parents of elementary kids not allow the reading of books the portray gay relationships as the same of equal to a husband and wife relationship?

“In arguing the definition you see fit, you are absolutely arguing for second-class citizenship for those your definition excludes, hypocrite.” In ignoring the definition you impose your view upon Americans who don’t share your view, and that’s unconstitutional.

“Great! So, we should just ditch legal marriage altogether then?” Yes.

“Sorry, kiddo, the individuals in question broke the law, and the courts (PLURAL) have held that their actions were illegal.” The ruling was unconstitutional. Forcing a photographer to endorse a institution she doesn’t believe in goes against our First Amendment.

“Funny, I know some folks who don't like black people, and they are entitled to their views in spite of desegregation.” Denying race isn’t the same as government forcing a business to support an institution of which they wouldn’t support as a individual. The fact that you pull that comparison shows more of your willful ignorance of the issue.

“I don't think you could be more dishonest. They are still two people entitled by the federal constitution to equality under the law.” If you could show the two relationships as being the same or equal I would concede to you... But thus far, you keep blurting,“equality under the law.”

“That you are an idiot? I quite agree.” That you ignore the distinction between the relationship of a gay couple and a husband and wife.

“Federal recognition, which I have already mentioned, idiot.” You’re going to have to name another because Obama handled tat one for you.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1679
Apr 28, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Yours would make excellent fertilizer.
Sort of like claiming that using ones religious beliefs to deny service to a group of people (which is what this is about) isn't religious discrimination if they are used to deny someone service?

Better look of the definition of religious discrimination in Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1680
May 1, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Respect71 wrote:
See that’s a lie.
Actually, it is not. The law in states that allow same sex couples to marry does not make a distinction between same sex couples who marry and traditional marriage.
Respect71 wrote:
There is a BLATANT distinction and for you and states to say otherwise and willful ignorance.
You are the idiot claiming there are two different forms of marriage in states that allow same sex marriage. The reality is that those states simply don't discriminate against same sex couples marrying, there is no separate classification.
Respect71 wrote:
That’s funny because the Obama administration has rewritten federal rules to afford benefits to gays who marry or civil unite. Even though they ar not the same is seems as though they are getting “equal protection”.
Sorry, kiddo, civil unions are only applicable at the state level.
Respect71 wrote:
You love to be willfully ignorant to push your agenda, which is more than just “gay marriage”.
No, I fight for equality under the law.
Respect71 wrote:
Good... Remember you said that.
That you are a foolish person who makes irrelevant arguments? I seriously doubt I will forget, everything you say reinforces the notion.
Respect71 wrote:
You mean like California, the most liberal state in our Union, when the voters overwhelmingly approved Prop 8? How about Colorado when voters approved to clearly define marriage as between one man and one woman, as you turn around a lie about a marriage ban?
I was referring to Maine, Maryland, and Washington.
Respect71 wrote:
“Gay marriage” will be forced into law by you, the courts, and by government. The question is will you be willing to let bakers, wedding photographers, jewelers of wedding rings, and churches with venues deny gay couples because it goes against their personal beliefs? More importantly, are you going to allow parents of elementary kids not allow the reading of books the portray gay relationships as the same of equal to a husband and wife relationship?
You really are an idiot. Performing a service for someone with differing views in no way impacts the rights of the proprietor.
Respect71 wrote:
In ignoring the definition you impose your view upon Americans who don’t share your view, and that’s unconstitutional.
I'm not ignoring the definition. I am pointing out that the existing definition in many jurisdictions is unconstitutional.
Why do you hate the US Constitution?
Respect71 wrote:
Yes.
Good luck with that. I suspect your notion will prove wildly unpopular with everyone.
Respect71 wrote:
The ruling was unconstitutional. Forcing a photographer to endorse a institution she doesn’t believe in goes against our First Amendment.
The court was quite clear that providing a service is in no way an endorsement, nor did it infringe upon the rights of the photographer. The photographer has repeatedly lost in court, and the US Supreme Court refused to hear the case. You might do better to find a case where your side won.
Respect71 wrote:
Denying race isn’t the same as government forcing a business to support an institution of which they wouldn’t support as a individual. The fact that you pull that comparison shows more of your willful ignorance of the issue.
Actually, it is exactly the same.
Respect71 wrote:
If you could show the two relationships as being the same or equal I would concede to you... But thus far, you keep blurting,“equality under the law.”
They need not be equal physically in order to be entitled to equality under the law. Were you not an idiot, you would understand.
Respect71 wrote:
That you ignore the distinction between the relationship of a gay couple and a husband and wife.
No, I support equality under the law for all.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1681
May 1, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Respect71 wrote:
You’re going to have to name another because Obama handled tat one for you.
This does not extend to civil unions as you idiotically assert.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1682
May 1, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Food for thought, or at least information for ignorance abatement.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/07/08/2267...

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/261728/w...
Trigger

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1683
May 1, 2014
 
I have cakes made by a large company that doesn't advertise and only gets business by word of mouth, NO GAYs. They operate under the radar and make the best cakes in the world.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1684
May 1, 2014
 
Trigger wrote:
I have cakes made by a large company that doesn't advertise and only gets business by word of mouth, NO GAYs. They operate under the radar and make the best cakes in the world.
Wow you mustt think you might turn gay if you eat a cake made by a company that will serve anyone.

Enjoy your little country club; just don't get mad when you end up alone. People of faith are seeing the real brand of "religious liberty" you folks are trying top pass off as decent and good and they see what a crock of BS it is.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1685
May 1, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If these florists and bakers are truly committed to their religious principles, ask them if they are also denying service to non christians. Are they providing their services to all others they would consider sinners? If the answers are "no" to either of those questions, then it's clear this is just about gay discrimination and not religious liberty.

Romans 13:1-5
English Standard Version (ESV)
Submission to the Authorities

13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••

Flash Flood Watch for Arapahoe County was issued at July 29 at 1:52PM MDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Greenwood Village Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Greenwood Village People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Greenwood Village News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Greenwood Village
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••