Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 38791 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.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#609 Jan 9, 2014
yallsofunny wrote:
Gays are so funny. Go to another Bakery! End of Story. Next!
They went to another bakery AND filed charges against the one which had violated their civil rights. Why let this fool off the hook just because there's another bakery down the street? This one broke the law. You don't get to mug anybody in the name of God either.
Christianist Taliban

Philadelphia, PA

#610 Jan 9, 2014
yallsofunny wrote:
Gays are so funny. Go to another Bakery! End of Story. Next!
They went to another baker. The first, hypocritical and bigoted baker will pay for their wedding and honeymoon via the civil damages...unless the Supreme Court goes mullah.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#611 Jan 9, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>What exception to indecency laws are you babbling about? I've seen people being told to cover it or to take what they are doing elsewhere, rather than being arrested or cited, but they do try to enforce the law at these events.
Sorry, but as long as there are businesses that try to offer their goods and services on a on an unacceptably discriminatory basis, this is a regulation that ALL businesses are going to have to live with, regardless of their faith or even complete lack thereof. The couple had a right to shop for a wedding cake and anything else in his place of business while homosexual, his right to his religious beliefs does not translate into a right to refuse them this or any other service because they are homosexual. It's just as offensive to the law as if he said Jesus doesn't bless any other couple who the law would otherwise protect. Would you be as true in your defense of his theorized 1st Amendment right, if what he was convicted of had been denying a wedding cake to an opposite sex couple getting married in your church, on the grounds that Jesus doesn't approve them? Or would you be advising the couple to call the ACLU? I get the feeling that your defense of his so-called rights is strictly do unto others what you would scream like hell if done unto you.
“What exception to indecency laws are you babbling about?”
http://www.pbase.com/billphoto/image/12603663...
http://www.pbase.com/billphoto/image/12602398...
http://www.pbase.com/billphoto/image/12602398...
Were these people arrested? Doubtful.

“The couple had a right to shop for a wedding cake and anything else in his place of business while homosexual, his right to his religious beliefs does not translate into a right to refuse them this or any other service because they are homosexual.” If the meaning of the wedding cake symbolizes marriage to him, then it does.

“It's just as offensive to the law as if he said Jesus doesn't bless any other couple who the law would otherwise protect.” So therefore what? You make government thrown him in jail for making that statement?

“Would you be as true in your defense of his theorized 1st Amendment right, if what he was convicted of had been denying a wedding cake to an opposite sex couple getting married in your church, on the grounds that Jesus doesn't approve them?” Yes.
“Or would you be advising the couple to call the ACLU?” LOL... You mean the leftist organization who main goal is to remove rights from Christians? Not a chance.

“I get the feeling that your defense of his so-called rights is strictly do unto others what you would scream like hell if done unto you.” I would shop elsewhere and do business with people who desire to do business with me... I would make the government prosecute and ruin the guys livelihood and possibly his life.

I get the felling that you think I selectively apply the 1st Amendment to those I agree with?

It’s despicable what the baker did, in my opinion and I will not do business with him, however he is protected by the 1st Amendment, whether I like it or not... Whether you like it or not. My advise to you... Don’t give him your business for ANY type of cake.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#612 Jan 9, 2014
Dr Reker s Bellhop wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey mongolid, I know why you simply can't deal with the issue of your hypocritically obsessing on one "sin," the one that activates your psycho sexual problems, as against every other "sin."
Because you don't have an answer. I am correct. You are a stupid cafeteria christianist without the insight or the intellectual capacity or the common decency to admit or notice this fact.
And we know who the bigots are, you trash. I never said ignorant, lying freeeks like you can't adopt kids, for example.
You're beneath stupid, hateful trash. Feel the society circling to reject mullah dissemblers like yourself, Jedediah.
Says the hate-filled bigot, who changes his ID regularly. How many more id’s do you have?

You spew,“And we know who the bigots are, you trash. I never said ignorant, lying freeeks like you can't adopt kids, for example. You're beneath stupid, hateful trash.” < this is why you’re a hate-filled bigot.

I stand by the Constitution of these United States and allow everyone their individual rights and given by God... That includes you.
Quest

Boston, VA

#613 Jan 9, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
..........
I get the felling that you think I selectively apply the 1st Amendment to those I agree with?
It’s despicable what the baker did, in my opinion and I will not do business with him, however he is protected by the 1st Amendment, whether I like it or not... Whether you like it or not. My advise to you... Don’t give him your business for ANY type of cake.
The first amendment does not apply to all actions, just speech. Try robbing a bank and arguing that arresting you is a violation of your free speech. ALL places of public accommodation are covered by certain laws, which the baker agreed to when they took out a business license. The owner broke the law.

It's just that simple.

No person should have to try business after business just to find one that serves "their kind", and no business should be allowed to place signs on their doors listing those groups that they find undesirable and that they refuse to serve.
Christianist Taliban

Philadelphia, PA

#614 Jan 9, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the
You're a kkk-alike bigot. You think the buybull is the Constitution. You're too stupid to engage in a discussion of existing laws and of the court system. You don't know what "place of public accommodations" means.

And you have sexual problems, not "religious" principles. Otherwise you and all your fundie, sc um brethren would be taking civil rights away from other "sinners."

Filthy, mullah bigots.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#615 Jan 9, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“What exception to indecency laws are you babbling about?”
http://www.pbase.com/billphoto/image/12603663...
http://www.pbase.com/billphoto/image/12602398...
http://www.pbase.com/billphoto/image/12602398...
Were these people arrested? Doubtful.
No genitals, no nipples, no violation of indecency laws. They weren't arrested because what they were wearing wasn't illegal. In seriously questionable taste but not an exception to the law happening in any of them. Sorry.
Respect71 wrote:
If the meaning of the wedding cake symbolizes marriage to him, then it does.
It's a wedding cake, of course it symbolizes marriage. They had gotten married, that's why they were shopping for a wedding cake. They were asking for his services as a cake designer, not his blessing.
Respect71 wrote:
So therefore what? You make government thrown him in jail for making that statement?
When have I said that people should be thrown in jail or even punished in any way other than being made to abide by the law, just like every other business owner has to. His religious beliefs don't make him special.
Respect71 wrote:
Yes.
Show of hands in the room. Who believes that you would tell someone that you knew and worshiped with that the baker's right to HIS religious beliefs outweighed their right to theirs and gave him the right to refuse them his services as a wedding designer because God disapproves of their getting married in your place of worship? That they should just politely smile while getting the shaft from Jesus and go somewhere else, because he had every freaking right to p*ss on their rights like that?
Respect71 wrote:
LOL... You mean the leftist organization who main goal is to remove rights from Christians? Not a chance.
Shows how little you know, the ACLU probably has a better track record of securing the rights of the Christians in the courts than any of the right wing, allegedly Christian legal groups like the ADF, Liberty Counsel, Thomas More Law Center or Pacific Justice Institute.
Respect71 wrote:
I would shop elsewhere and do business with people who desire to do business with me... I would make the government prosecute and ruin the guys livelihood and possibly his life.
Unless you misspoke, you actually went further than this couple did. They shopped elsewhere AND had the government prosecute him, not to ruin the guy's livelihood and possibly his life, but to get him to follow the law just like that other bakery did.
Respect71 wrote:
I get the felling that you think I selectively apply the 1st Amendment to those I agree with?
It’s despicable what the baker did, in my opinion and I will not do business with him, however he is protected by the 1st Amendment, whether I like it or not... Whether you like it or not. My advise to you... Don’t give him your business for ANY type of cake.
He is not protected by the 1st Amendment. In order to limit the individual's 1st amendment right to free exercise, a compelling interest must be served by doing so. Protecting folk from despicable acts, even polite ones, just such a compelling interest. Since the law is not aimed at a specific religious belief, or belief system but at all discrimination, regardless of the motive, it is an acceptable governmental limitation on the individual's right. Sorry, but if the law can survive strict scrutiny, it can limit his right to exercise his beliefs if his beliefs result in a suspect classification of someone under the law.
urinal deuce for mayor

Barberton, OH

#616 Jan 9, 2014
I think turning the other cheek and letting the bad publicity punish them would've been enough. Americas youth supports marriage equality.
Spooge on a piece of poop.
Christianist Taliban

Philadelphia, PA

#617 Jan 9, 2014
urinal deuce for mayor wrote:
I think turning the other cheek and letting the bad publicity punish them would've been enough. Americas youth supports marriage equality.
Spooge on a piece of poop.
On second thought, let's put a stop to the stupid bigots thinking they can continue to discriminate the way they always have.

Tough if the bigots whine about it. They're not allowed to (in theory) make their brand of xstainity the national religion, either.
car mat

Lexington, KY

#618 Jan 10, 2014
make it a felony of unnatural sex and this will put all the queers and lesbians back in the closet
urinal deuce for mayor

Barberton, OH

#619 Jan 10, 2014
Christianist Taliban wrote:
<quoted text>
On second thought, let's put a stop to the stupid bigots thinking they can continue to discriminate the way they always have.
Tough if the bigots whine about it. They're not allowed to (in theory) make their brand of xstainity the national religion, either.
every bar I go to has a sign posted "we can refuse to serve anyone for any reason". I hardly doubt that has anything to do with some kind of religious conquest. How do you determine if its discriminatory? I pay more for my auto insurance because I have a penis and a set of balls... so is the insurance company discriminating against me? Single people pay more in taxes than married couples....are they being discriminated against? There seems to be a lot of this going on on a larger scale that just gets totally ignored. Probably because you can't use it to piss a bunch of zealots off. You two groups don't seem to care about discrimination as much as you're just hell bent on trying to tell each other and everybody else what to do.
urinal deuce for mayor

Barberton, OH

#620 Jan 10, 2014
Christsharian Deelite

Philadelphia, PA

#621 Jan 10, 2014
urinal deuce for mayor wrote:
<quoted text> every bar I go to has a sign posted "we can refuse to serve anyone for any reason"
Well among your other many problems you don't understand the law. And you have repeatedly and purposefully failed to understand the law.

A business can toss out a customer for some individuated reason - such as you for your alcoholic brawling.

Businesses cannot just refuse service to some customer on the basis of that customer being in some protected group, or being perceived to be in that group.

Everyone understands this distinction.

Everyone understands this has been the law since the Civil Rights Act of 64. Even so called libertarians who disagree with the premises of the Civil Rights Act of 64 at least understand what the Act means.

Not you, you stupid rube.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#622 Jan 11, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>.
“No genitals, no nipples, no violation of indecency laws. They weren't arrested because what they were wearing wasn't illegal. In seriously questionable taste but not an exception to the law happening in any of them. Sorry.” Don’t be... I support their expression and I disagree with the public display, regardless of what the law say of grabbing clothed body parts. Still sad that you would take a child to participate.

“It's a wedding cake, of course it symbolizes marriage. They had gotten married, that's why they were shopping for a wedding cake. They were asking for his services as a cake designer, not his blessing.” Quick note... They are “gay married” and not selling a wedding cake isn’t a lack of blessing.

“When have I said that people should be thrown in jail or even punished in any way other than being made to abide by the law, just like every other business owner has to. His religious beliefs don't make him special.” Not special, but respected and certainly not prosecuted.

“Show of hands in the room. Who believes that you would tell someone that you knew and worshiped with that the baker's right to HIS religious beliefs outweighed their right to theirs and gave him the right to refuse them his services as a wedding designer because God disapproves of their getting married in your place of worship? That they should just politely smile while getting the shaft from Jesus and go somewhere else, because he had every freaking right to p*ss on their rights like that?” Show off that bigotry.

“Shows how little you know, the ACLU probably has a better track record of securing the rights of the Christians in the courts than any of the right wing, allegedly Christian legal groups like the ADF, Liberty Counsel, Thomas More Law Center or Pacific Justice Institute.” https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-lgbt-ri...

“Unless you misspoke, you actually went further than this couple did. They shopped elsewhere AND had the government prosecute him, not to ruin the guy's livelihood and possibly his life, but to get him to follow the law just like that other bakery did.” Violating his right.

“He is not protected by the 1st Amendment.” He is.
“Protecting folk from despicable acts, even polite ones, just such a compelling interest.” Not selling a wedding cake is a “despicable acts” based on your opinion of belief.

“Since the law is not aimed at a specific religious belief, or belief system but at all discrimination, regardless of the motive, it is an acceptable governmental limitation on the individual's right. Sorry, but if the law can survive strict scrutiny, it can limit his right to exercise his beliefs if his beliefs result in a suspect classification of someone under the law.” Sorry but because a wedding cake is a symbol of his religious belief he can not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#623 Jan 11, 2014
Christsharian Deelite wrote:
<quoted text>
Well among your other many problems you don't understand the law. And you have repeatedly and purposefully failed to understand the law.
A business can toss out a customer for some individuated reason - such as you for your alcoholic brawling.
Businesses cannot just refuse service to some customer on the basis of that customer being in some protected group, or being perceived to be in that group.
Everyone understands this distinction.
Everyone understands this has been the law since the Civil Rights Act of 64. Even so called libertarians who disagree with the premises of the Civil Rights Act of 64 at least understand what the Act means.
Not you, you stupid rube.
I'll keep saying it until the anti-gays get it through their thick heads, You anti gay christo-talibangelicals all kept screaming for a decade about the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE". Just like you're doing now in Utah.

Well folks, the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" of Colorado said, "You can't refuse to serve gays and lesbians and hide behind the Bible".

Now suddenly you don't give a rat's ass for the "WILL of the People"

Talk about entitlement issues!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#624 Jan 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“No genitals, no nipples, no violation of indecency laws. They weren't arrested because what they were wearing wasn't illegal. In seriously questionable taste but not an exception to the law happening in any of them. Sorry.” Don’t be... I support their expression and I disagree with the public display, regardless of what the law say of grabbing clothed body parts. Still sad that you would take a child to participate.
“It's a wedding cake, of course it symbolizes marriage. They had gotten married, that's why they were shopping for a wedding cake. They were asking for his services as a cake designer, not his blessing.” Quick note... They are “gay married” and not selling a wedding cake isn’t a lack of blessing.
“When have I said that people should be thrown in jail or even punished in any way other than being made to abide by the law, just like every other business owner has to. His religious beliefs don't make him special.” Not special, but respected and certainly not prosecuted.
“Show of hands in the room. Who believes that you would tell someone that you knew and worshiped with that the baker's right to HIS religious beliefs outweighed their right to theirs and gave him the right to refuse them his services as a wedding designer because God disapproves of their getting married in your place of worship? That they should just politely smile while getting the shaft from Jesus and go somewhere else, because he had every freaking right to p*ss on their rights like that?” Show off that bigotry.
“Shows how little you know, the ACLU probably has a better track record of securing the rights of the Christians in the courts than any of the right wing, allegedly Christian legal groups like the ADF, Liberty Counsel, Thomas More Law Center or Pacific Justice Institute.” https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-lgbt-ri...
“Unless you misspoke, you actually went further than this couple did. They shopped elsewhere AND had the government prosecute him, not to ruin the guy's livelihood and possibly his life, but to get him to follow the law just like that other bakery did.” Violating his right.
“He is not protected by the 1st Amendment.” He is.
“Protecting folk from despicable acts, even polite ones, just such a compelling interest.” Not selling a wedding cake is a “despicable acts” based on your opinion of belief.
“Since the law is not aimed at a specific religious belief, or belief system but at all discrimination, regardless of the motive, it is an acceptable governmental limitation on the individual's right. Sorry, but if the law can survive strict scrutiny, it can limit his right to exercise his beliefs if his beliefs result in a suspect classification of someone under the law.” Sorry but because a wedding cake is a symbol of his religious belief he can not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.
see my last post.

And please stop taking the sacred act of marriage into nothing but morally sanctioned legal fornication. Marriage means much more than just sexual gratification. It's as symbolically important morally, emotionally, and psychologically important to gays and lesbians who want to form a family unit as it is for any man and woman who want to make such an important step in life.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#625 Jan 11, 2014
sorry.
should read "twisting the sacred act" and not ""taking"
my bad

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#626 Jan 11, 2014
urinal deuce for mayor wrote:
I think turning the other cheek and letting the bad publicity punish them would've been enough. Americas youth supports marriage equality.
Spooge on a piece of poop.
Nice to know that the "traditional family values" you were raised with include condoning criminal behavior.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#627 Jan 11, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>see my last post.

And please stop taking the sacred act of marriage into nothing but morally sanctioned legal fornication. Marriage means much more than just sexual gratification. It's as symbolically important morally, emotionally, and psychologically important to gays and lesbians who want to form a family unit as it is for any man and woman who want to make such an important step in life.
I am not "anti-gay" and stand for the individual rights of Americans as guaranteed by our constitution.

As for marriage... I agree with you that it is very sacred and important. I am also willing to be honest that the definition of marriage should always be for one man-one woman relationship and a gay couples relationship should be defined as something different.

You obviously haven't been reading my posts because if you have you wouldn't state that I believe, "taking the sacred act of marriage into nothing but morally sanctioned legal fornication."
Perhaps you're confusing me with a different poster.

Colorado has it right with its Constitution and laws on civil unions.

I am not calling for gays to not be together or have families but I recognize not all Americans feel it's a positive thing to be imposed on them and their families.

You don't have to like it, but they have a right to believe what they believe and it's not up to government to impose laws to change their hearts and minds.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#628 Jan 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not "anti-gay" and stand for the individual rights of Americans as guaranteed by our constitution.
As for marriage... I agree with you that it is very sacred and important. I am also willing to be honest that the definition of marriage should always be for one man-one woman relationship and a gay couples relationship should be defined as something different.
You obviously haven't been reading my posts because if you have you wouldn't state that I believe, "taking the sacred act of marriage into nothing but morally sanctioned legal fornication."
Perhaps you're confusing me with a different poster.
Colorado has it right with its Constitution and laws on civil unions.
I am not calling for gays to not be together or have families but I recognize not all Americans feel it's a positive thing to be imposed on them and their families.
You don't have to like it, but they have a right to believe what they believe and it's not up to government to impose laws to change their hearts and minds.
I have been reading your posts. You have FAILED to give any rational reason why the government should give you special rights when it comes to marriage.

Religion can't apply as a reason because many faiths now marry same sex couples. And SCOTUS already ruled in Windsor that marriage is a FEDERAL right for same sex couples.

So before you decide you have some RIGHT to deny a Federal Right to certain groups of people under some state law ask the NRA, the NAACP, NAMI, or the NFB how well that strategy works.

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.

Sheridan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
New chiropractor in town - and he's fantastic! 1 hr Burdbrain 3
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 2 hr tbird19482 24,705
(.R ox y Bulk!!) ku*sh !! 7 hr Uncle 5
News Denver cops on the chopping block? (Sep '09) 8 hr Scared in Denver 46
last post wins! (Feb '11) 13 hr Knock off purse s... 26,133
Zanax?? (Dec '12) Dec '12 Anonymous 1
News Man claims he was assaulted, abused by Mountain... (Oct '11) Oct '11 They do like to beat 1

Sheridan Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Sheridan Mortgages