Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 15,457

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)

Full Story

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2717 Jul 18, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. A baker merely sells goods How the customer uses that good is up to the customer. And the baker isn't involved in how the good is used after it leaves the store.
Which is why I keep asking them how he justifies selling other products to gays and lesbians as he has done before all this started and still wants to do.

Harvey Milk to Jimmy Carter's evangelical sister: "I'm surprised you shook my hand."

"Why??"

"You never know where it's been."
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2718 Jul 18, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. A baker merely sells goods How the customer uses that good is up to the customer. And the baker isn't involved in how the good is used after it leaves the store.
<quoted text>
Nope. They merely sell goods. As a customer I can use them for any purpose I desire or simply throw them away or donate them to someone else. The super market neither knows nor has a say in it.
<quoted text>
That's a service. Services may or may not be used on the provider's premises. If used off site, the service provider must provide the service for a particular kind of event to any member of the general public requesting service for that type of event. Refusal to do so to a member of a protect class violates anti-discrmination law.
<quoted text>
When selling goods, no. When selling services, it depends. The key then becomes if you offer services for a particular type of event like a wedding, you must offer that event service to all members of the general public as a public accommodation.
<quoted text>
The bad news is SCOTUS specifically stated in it's Hobby Lobby ruling that it did not apply to instances of discrimination in hiring or being a public accommodation.
The fact is they are all participants. We'll see how that ruling plays out.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2719 Jul 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
The fact is they are all participants.
No it's not; it's merely your erroneous personal opinion.
Wondering wrote:
We'll see how that ruling plays out.
Indeed. It will be interesting if SCOTUS actually adheres to the language in their majority ruling that limited it to just the instant case of contraceptive mandates or whether Justice Ginsberg's fears expressed in her dissent are closer to the mark. At a minimum, it appears there will likely be a lot of litigation testing the boundaries of the ruling.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2720 Jul 19, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
We are talking about definitions themselves. Once they get skewed clarity is lost.
The Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby allowing religious freedom which you said you ‘love”d. That’s why definitions are important so there can be specific and clear lines between law, religious freedom, and what government can force you to door not to do.
Actually, the court decision arguably lessens religious freedom, as it allows employers to make decisions not only for themselves, but to require employees to abide by the religious moral beliefs of the employer. This is, at best, dangerous logic.

Religious freedom is a personal, not institutional freedom.

Tell me, how does that have any relevance to the topic at hand?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2721 Jul 19, 2014
lides wrote:
1. Religious freedom is a personal, not institutional freedom.
2. Tell me, how does that have any relevance to the topic at hand?
1. Now closely held companies are people with religious rights.
2. I like cake, tell us more about cakes. Do you have a good devil's food cake recipe?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2722 Jul 19, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. Now closely held companies are people with religious rights.
Wondering, if you believe that corporations are people, you are dumber than I have given you credit for being. The reality is that corporations are legal instruments used by people to isolate themselves form the businesses they run as a means to limit legal liability. This means that if a company becomes involved in a lawsuit and loses, the plaintiff may only seek to recover damages from the business. If this exceeds their ability to pay, the liability stops at the business and it's assets, the plaintiff cannot seek to take additional money or assets from employees, owners, or share holders. Were you smarter, you would understand the dangerous implications of acknowledging a corporation as a person with rights that threatens limited liability. All of this is well beyond your meager comprehension.
Wondering wrote:
2. I like cake, tell us more about cakes. Do you have a good devil's food cake recipe?
You are an idiot.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2723 Jul 19, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Wondering, if you believe that corporations are people, you are dumber than I have given you credit for being.
2. You are an idiot.
1. Just repeating what the supreme court said.. How you feel about them is irrelevant.
2. No good recipes?
Delroy

San Jose, CA

#2724 Jul 19, 2014
STOP the damn cake issue is over you peeples are arguing for the sake of arguing. Bottom line a gay couple to lazy to go else where to purchase a (which they probably did) feeling got hurt so make a big deal out of nothing. Gay ignorance nothing more.
They requested a wedding cake with cream spurting out.(Phalas cake) designed to to mimic a 40" erect penis with testicles as big as cantaloupes with cream spurting out. The honest hard working baker refused said No i don't support gay marriage but how about some brownies still warm in the oven with coffee on the house my friends. BUTT NO the gays refused the offer because the brownies were not poo brownies again their feelings were hurt. Colorado famous brownies are hard to turn down. "But without poo who eat that crap" said one of the disgruntled homo patrons. "I have a better ideal" whispered the other homo said sue the poor hardworking honest man ruin his life and lively hood because our fragile feeling were hurt. Then the homos left the bakery walked 3 doors down to the Gay bakery "Pals GLBT Wedding Cake Emporium" ordered the Phalas cake and skipped to a attorney office around the corner while their feeling were hurt uncontrollable crying and whined to the gay lawyer. "out for revenged" said one homo the other would not shut up "we should have taken the brownies"

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2725 Jul 19, 2014
Delroy wrote:
Bottom line a gay couple to lazy to go else where to purchase a (which they probably did) feeling got hurt so make a big deal out of nothing. Gay ignorance nothing more.
Actually, they refused to tolerate a business breaking the laws of the State of Colorado.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2726 Jul 21, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is they are all participants. We'll see how that ruling plays out.
Your idea of "facts" and what legally are "facts" are obviously two different things. Yes.... let's wait and see how the ruling plays out.... just like we did with your hero David Parker. That went all the way to SCOTUS, yet you still whine about it. Can you never admit to being incorrect? It's ok to have an opinion. It is crazy to hold onto an incorrect opinion.

The baker, florist, caterer, photographer, DJ....... they are the help. They are not guests. They are not participants. They are the hired help. Here's a hint: they sign a contract
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2727 Jul 21, 2014
Delroy wrote:
STOP the damn cake issue is over you peeples are arguing for the sake of arguing. Bottom line a gay couple to lazy to go else where to purchase a (which they probably did) feeling got hurt so make a big deal out of nothing. Gay ignorance nothing more.
They requested a wedding cake with cream spurting out.(Phalas cake) designed to to mimic a 40" erect penis with testicles as big as cantaloupes with cream spurting out. The honest hard working baker refused said No i don't support gay marriage but how about some brownies still warm in the oven with coffee on the house my friends. BUTT NO the gays refused the offer because the brownies were not poo brownies again their feelings were hurt. Colorado famous brownies are hard to turn down. "But without poo who eat that crap" said one of the disgruntled homo patrons. "I have a better ideal" whispered the other homo said sue the poor hardworking honest man ruin his life and lively hood because our fragile feeling were hurt. Then the homos left the bakery walked 3 doors down to the Gay bakery "Pals GLBT Wedding Cake Emporium" ordered the Phalas cake and skipped to a attorney office around the corner while their feeling were hurt uncontrollable crying and whined to the gay lawyer. "out for revenged" said one homo the other would not shut up "we should have taken the brownies"
"...the bottom line..." actually, is you had to make up a ridiculous lie to live with this decision. In case you didn't know.... there was a summary judgment against the baker. So who is lying? You.... or the baker?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2728 Jul 21, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Now closely held companies are people with religious rights.
No, they aren't

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2729 Jul 22, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
No, they aren't
You are correct, but this doesn't change the fact that Wondering is an idiot.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2730 Jul 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct, but this doesn't change the fact that Wondering is an idiot.
Indeed!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2731 Jul 22, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read the law. And I've read the Administrative Law Judge's ruling. The ruling is consistent with the law. On what technicality are you claiming the Commission ignored the law?
The legal motions to dismiss the case:“They failed to sew Phillips individually before the statute of limitations expired” and “The division of civil rights never notified Phillips or the cake shop of the statute that he allegedly violated, never providing factual and legal basis, and was charged under the incorrect statute.” And the commission were very quick to write off the law as “These are mere technicalities” and “this case is too important to not proceed with said technicalities”.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2732 Jul 22, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not disagreeing. Are you ever going to tell me how I'm taking the verse out of context?
This is getting really repetitive and boring.
Me: The Bible god tells the Israelites "You may have slaves."
You: That's out of context! What's the context?
Me: The context is God telling the Israelites how to properly practice slavery.
You: That's out of context!
Me: How so?
You: That's out of context!
<quoted text>
The context of the book of Leviticus is god giving commands for how to live. Within that context, he tells the Israelites that they may practice slavery.
You need to show how broadening the context *changes* the meaning of the verse and shows that I'm wrong.
<quoted text>
You didn't answer the question. What are you looking for a citation for? I'm stating well-known facts. It's like if I said Obama was president and you said "Citation please!".
<quoted text>
Compassion for fellow man is a secular value. So is promotion of freedom.
<quoted text>
Leviticus 25:44.
“I'm not disagreeing. Are you ever going to tell me how I'm taking the verse out of context?

This is getting really repetitive and boring.

Me: The Bible god tells the Israelites "You may have slaves."
You: That's out of context! What's the context?
Me: The context is God telling the Israelites how to properly practice slavery.
You: That's out of context!
Me: How so?
You: That's out of context!” One verse from the Bible is in FACT out of context… By picking and choosing small parts from the Bible you can justify anything.

“The context of the book of Leviticus is god giving commands for how to live. Within that context, he tells the Israelites that they may practice slavery.” There you go! Making some progress… Why is it so important to for God to give commands on how to live? What is the PURPOSE of the BIBLE?

“You need to show how broadening the context *changes* the meaning of the verse and shows that I'm wrong.” You are obviously wrong. If you were correct then Jews and Christian would not have fought free slaves and would own them still today. Therefore your assertion is false based on facts and evidence, and affirming the evidence of ignorance on your part.

“You didn't answer the question. What are you looking for a citation for? I'm stating well-known facts. It's like if I said Obama was president and you said "Citation please!".” LOL.. Sorry… It’s nothing like that. It’s like saying “global warming will kill us all!” as mountains of evidence go ignored in favor of that assertion.

“Compassion for fellow man is a secular value. So is promotion of freedom.” Yet, abortion is legal and OBAMACARE was passed to force Americans to purchase PERSONAL healthcare, and FORCE companies to provide live injuring medicines for women… Your so called “Secular Values” have been much more destructive to humanity than Christians ever have.

“No, the legal status of abortion was not at issue in this conversation nor that case. All of the drugs in question, and abortion itself, are legal.

You are trying to divert the topic.” Says the one who started a anti-Christian thread within the wedding cake thread.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2733 Jul 22, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
No, the legal status of abortion was not at issue in this conversation nor that case. All of the drugs in question, and abortion itself, are legal.
You are trying to divert the topic.
If you aren’t willing to discuss with proper definitions then how do you know what you’re talking about? Or is it a “secular value” to skew definitions to make you feel better about the result?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2734 Jul 22, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The protected class is "sexual orientation". So it inclua class have historically been the target of discrimination so when people possessing that variant (such as homosexual) of the class (such as sexual orientation) are discriminated against and file a complaint, people like you erroneously jump to the conclusion that have "more rights" when in fact majority variants like heterosexuals are rarely discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
<quoted text>
The judge's finding of facts didn't state the gay couple employed a vulgar gesture nor did the baker or his legal counsel dispute that finding of fact.
<quoted text>
No they aren't and no they don't. You, like many Americans, are simply ignorant of the fact none of our fundamental rights, including freedom of religion, are absolute. ALL of them are subject to government regulation within allowed constitutional parameters as established by the Supreme Court. And fundamental rights like freedom of religion can be incidentally impacted by general laws that serve a compelling state interest that don't target religion specifically. In this case, the states compelling interest is ensuring equal access to public accommodations for all citizens.
“The protected class is "sexual orientation". So it includes protection from discrimination based on being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual. Which means it covers EVERYONE if they're discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

It appears you have a poor understanding of how anti-discrimination laws actually work. Protected classes cover all variants of the protected class so no one has "more rights" than others. What typically happens is only certain variants of a class have historically been the target of discrimination so when people possessing that variant (such as homosexual) of the class (such as sexual orientation) are discriminated against and file a complaint, people like you erroneously jump to the conclusion that have "more rights" when in fact majority variants like heterosexuals are rarely discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.” The issue is the wedding cake and the symbolism and meaning of the cake towards an institution. NOT sexual orientation. The facts in the case are he serves gays baked goods, yet the judge, with a liberal opinion. set that aside as meaningless, as did the Colorado Civil Liberties Commission.

“The judge's finding of facts didn't state the gay couple employed a vulgar gesture nor did the baker or his legal counsel dispute that finding of fact.” I will concede to that fact, based on the video interviews seems to have been clean wiped off the internet. However it doesn’t change the air or hatred toward the baker from the gay couple and others like them.

“No they aren't and no they don't. You, like many Americans, are simply ignorant of the fact none of our fundamental rights, including freedom of religion, are absolute.” No they are not!“

“ALL of them are subject to government regulation within allowed constitutional parameters as established by the Supreme Court. And fundamental rights like freedom of religion can be incidentally impacted by general laws that serve a compelling state interest that don't target religion specifically. In this case, the states compelling interest is ensuring equal access to public accommodations for all citizens.” Got you! It was a typo above…

In this case the government is forcing the baker to participate and support an institution with his very own talents that he doesn’t believe in. To be honest if ALL bakers held to this policy across America I would be compelled to agree with you, however because there is an ABUNDANCE of ACCOMIDATION for gays to acquire wedding cakes it is clear the government, the left and yourself feel it is appropriate to punish a man because he doesn’t believe the same as you.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2735 Jul 22, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
The gay couple simply asked the baker to bake a cake. You know, one of the services the baker purports to be in business to offer the general public. If the baker wishes to portray his business activities as an act of worship, that's his prerogative but the law is neither obligated to view it as such nor extend first amendment protection to that view just so the individual can pick and choose which laws and under what circumstances the individual will deign to obey and comply with the law.
<quoted text>
Baking a cake isn't an act of worship nor does baking a cake make one a participant in the activity for which a customer buys a cake. It's not religious discrimination to expect citizens to comply with general laws that apply to everyone that don't target religion specifically. Christians (nor any member of other religions) are not above the law.
The baker has determined he will comply with the law by no longer offering wedding cakes as part of the range of goods he sells since he is not willing to sell wedding cakes to all members of the general public as the law requires.
“The gay couple simply asked the baker to bake a cake.” You are incorrect. They asked him to bake a WEDDING CAKE. Definitions are important in this discussion.

“You know, one of the services the baker purports to be in business to offer the general public. If the baker wishes to portray his business activities as an act of worship, that's his prerogative but the law is neither obligated to view it as such nor extend first amendment protection to that view just so the individual can pick and choose which laws and under what circumstances the individual will deign to obey and comply with the law.” Except when it violates the First Amendment of our Constitution.

“Baking a cake isn't an act of worship nor does baking a cake make one a participant in the activity for which a customer buys a cake. It's not religious discrimination to expect citizens to comply with general laws that apply to everyone that don't target religion specifically. Christians (nor any member of other religions) are not above the law.” The First Amendment of the US Constitution allows for a person to participate and support the institution of their choosing. Farcing a baker to use his talent to support and participate in a institution that he dose not believe in is un-Constitutional.

“The baker has determined he will comply with the law by no longer offering wedding cakes as part of the range of goods he sells since he is not willing to sell wedding cakes to all members of the general public as the law requires.” It wasn’t the baker’s choice… It was the government forcing him to support and participate in a “gay wedding” or face fines and jail time. No matter how you try to justify your position the simple fact is you support the government stripping a man of a high paying part of his livelihood to force him to support and participate in what you believe. That’s not an American value.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2736 Jul 22, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
It's still a lie no matter how many times you repeat it.
Where and when did the Colorado Civil Liberties Commission say that? They didn't.
Were you there? They ABSOLUTLY did.


The legal motions to dismiss the case:“They failed to sew Phillips individually before the statute of limitations expired” and “The division of civil rights never notified Phillips or the cake shop of the statute that he allegedly violated, never providing factual and legal basis, and was charged under the incorrect statute.” And the commission were very quick to write off the law as “These are mere technicalities” and “this case is too important to not proceed with said technicalities”.

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.

Northglenn Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
You rule the planet. How do you save the human... (Dec '12) 1 hr Jesus Gonzalez 1,306
Missouri has plan to get rid of illegals..Examp... (Mar '11) 1 hr Jesus Gonzalez 62
cops murder another child 2 hr civilliberty 3
last post wins! (Feb '11) 2 hr LSD 25,069
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 3 hr tbird19482 16,078
BNSF railroad plans $141 million capital progra... 3 hr Elise Gingerich 1
To all OBAMA LOVERS 9 hr Maude 4
Northglenn Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Northglenn People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:49 am PST

Bleacher Report11:49AM
Buzz: Manning Expected to Push for Julius' Return
ESPN12:44 PM
Chiefs release veteran tight end Fasano
Bleacher Report10:03 PM
Can Osweiler Be the Broncos' Heir to Manning?
NFL 4:53 PM
Julius Thomas to leave Broncos for Jaguars or Raiders?
Bleacher Report 9:14 PM
Is Kelce Destined for Stardom in 2015?