Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 4,396

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

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#629 Jan 11, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>

Colorado has it right with its Constitution and laws on civil unions.
And yet you're defending someone who ignores the laws of Colorado simply because his views on SSM match your own.

How nice. How convenient. And how phony and hypocritical.

I'm glad my family has traditional values liked treating fellow citizens with respect, dignity and fairness.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#631 Jan 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
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.YOU said they were violating indecency laws, you lied.
[QUOTE who="Respect71"] Quick note... They are “gay married” and not selling a wedding cake isn’t a lack of blessing.
They are legally married dipstick, not gay married and his refusal to sell them a wedding cake was based on his not wanting to bless their marriage.
Respect71 wrote:
Not special, but respected and certainly not prosecuted.
If he isn't special, he gets charged just like any other bigot who breaks the law and doesn't blame God in the process.
Respect71 wrote:
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.YOU said they were violating indecency laws, you lied.
[QUOTE who="Respect71"] Quick note... They are “gay married” and not selling a wedding cake isn’t a lack of blessing.
They are legally married dipstick, not gay married and his refusal to sell them a wedding cake was based on his not wanting to bless their marriage.
Respect71 wrote:
Not special, but respected and certainly not prosecuted.
If he isn't special, he gets charged just like any other bigot who breaks the law and doesn't blame God in the process.
Respect71 wrote:
It might have helped if you had actually bothered to READ the article before you posted it. Reality, whether you like it or not, hasn't changed, the ACLU is still the organization which has secured more rights for Christians than any of the Christian legal groups.
Respect71 wrote:
Violating his right.
But he had no right to violate your rights, prosecuting him does not violate a right he didn't have in the first place, but upholds your rights.
Respect71 wrote:
“He is not protected by the 1st Amendment.” He is.
Back to obtuse.
Respect71 wrote:
Not selling a wedding cake is a “despicable acts” based on your opinion of belief.
No dear, according to the law he was found guilty of violating.
Respect71 wrote:
Sorry but because a wedding cake is a symbol of his religious belief he can not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple.
Once again, the were not seeking his religious blessing and he's not in the business of selling them in the form of a wedding cake. He does not have the right to refuse his services to someone just because they happen to be gay. Preventing illegal acts of discrimination by every business owner, including the sad handful who have the audacity to blame God for their bad behavior, a compelling governmental interest, whether you believe so or not, which makes this an allowable limitation on one's right to express their beliefs.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#633 Jan 12, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>T
“They are legally married dipstick, not gay married and his refusal to sell them a wedding cake was based on his not wanting to bless their marriage.” Are they not a gay couple? Or do you prefer same-sex marriage. Are you going to get the government to force me to state they are just "married"? No matter how you twist it... The gay relationship isn’t the same as a man-woman relationship and will always have to be defined different. Even in the state where “gay-marriage” is legal,“Marriage Equality” is false.

“If he isn't special, he gets charged just like any other bigot who breaks the law and doesn't blame God in the process.” And since you’re a bigot against him, you like the government forcing him to change his view.

“YOU said they were violating indecency laws, you lied.” My mistake... Disorderly conduct laws:“SEC. 4.01.  DISORDERLY CONDUCT,(h) Expose his or her, public hair, buttocks, perineum, anal region or public hair region or any portion of the female breast at or below the areola thereof, except that this section shall not apply to children under the age of five years;”
Your dishonesty diminishes your credibility.

“It might have helped if you had actually bothered to READ the article before you posted it.”
I read it, did you? Please tell us specifically what Cathy did to remove “gay rights” by stating he believe in traditional marriage.

“Reality, whether you like it or not, hasn't changed, the ACLU is still the organization which has secured more rights for Christians than any of the Christian legal groups.” I understand what the ACLU has done in the past, however, its what they are doing at present time that is despicable.

“But he had no right to violate your rights, prosecuting him does not violate a right he didn't have in the first place, but upholds your rights.” Yes, it violates his 1st amendment right and you havn’t shown the rights that were removed form the gay couple.

“No dear, according to the law he was found guilty of violating.” You said it was a “despicable act”.

“Once again, the were not seeking his religious blessing and he's not in the business of selling them in the form of a wedding cake. He does not have the right to refuse his services to someone just because they happen to be gay. Preventing illegal acts of discrimination by every business owner, including the sad handful who have the audacity to blame God for their bad behavior, a compelling governmental interest, whether you believe so or not, which makes this an allowable limitation on one's right to express their beliefs.”... You keep saying it over and over... We understand you don’t like his belief and that you want government to force him to believe as you.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#634 Jan 12, 2014
FU wrote:
<quoted text>
You filthy a:ss queers are the ones who got special rights cause of a close queer broke the tie in a vote.
I have no idea what "vote" you are referring to but what is happening in Utah now is the beginning of the end for you anti-gays and your cause. The Windsor decision will eventually be applied to all other State bans against SSM.

Under Windsor SCOTUS made it clear that gays and lesbians have a right to equal protection under marriage laws.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#635 Jan 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I have no idea what "vote" you are referring to but what is happening in Utah now is the beginning of the end for you anti-gays and your cause. The Windsor decision will eventually be applied to all other State bans against SSM.

Under Windsor SCOTUS made it clear that gays and lesbians have a right to equal protection under marriage laws.
Let's be clear... Gays have been getting together in this Country for decades and most likely centuries... The "ban" you refer to is a myth. It's the definition of marriage that is being fought over.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#637 Jan 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's be clear... Gays have been getting together in this Country for decades and most likely centuries... The "ban" you refer to is a myth. It's the definition of marriage that is being fought over.
Yes we have been around for most of history. Pointing that out doesn't make you that brilliant. As for you saying there is no ban I disagree. For you to claim no ban exists when there are over 29 States that ban SSM and one even makes it a crime for a minister to bless a SSM is ridiculous and dishonest.

As for the "definition" of marriage it's my feeling that the anti gays are the ones trying to redefine marriage into nothing but a human equivalent of two dogs at a puppy mill. For me and the rest of the SSM advocates, marriage will always mean the same to us as it did our parents.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#638 Jan 12, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Yes we have been around for most of history. Pointing that out doesn't make you that brilliant. As for you saying there is no ban I disagree. For you to claim no ban exists when there are over 29 States that ban SSM and one even makes it a crime for a minister to bless a SSM is ridiculous and dishonest.

As for the "definition" of marriage it's my feeling that the anti gays are the ones trying to redefine marriage into nothing but a human equivalent of two dogs at a puppy mill. For me and the rest of the SSM advocates, marriage will always mean the same to us as it did our parents.
You can disagree.... And many do. Truthfully there is very little "anti-gay" sentiment in this Country, that's why gays thrive.

Truly Colorado has this issue of marriage in the correct light.
Christaliban

Philadelphia, PA

#639 Jan 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not "anti-gay" and stand for the individual rights of Americans as guaranteed by our constitution.
You're a common bigot who mistakenly thinks he lives in an xstain theocracy, even though you don't know what a theocracy is or would admit that is what you think if some patient person explained the concept to you.

Now if you're so very concerned about "sin" and scripture then get all your buybull bakers to stop selling wedding cakes to engaged couples who have been co habiting, you stupid hypocrite.
Christaliban

Philadelphia, PA

#640 Jan 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's be clear... Gays have been getting together in this Country for decades and most likely centuries... The "ban" you refer to is a myth. It's the definition of marriage that is being fought over.
We know what the definition of marriage was for centuries, Jethro, you pos for brains:

One man and many brides or child brides or brides as chattel. You know, like it is in the buybull.

Go defend that institution of marriage, you cretin.

Meanwhile, we don't make laws based on your pick and choose understanding of the buybull or based on your personal psycho sexual problems.

You trash.
Archie Bunker

Conifer, CO

#641 Jan 12, 2014
So simple.
-
The rights of the owner of the bakery were, and are being violated, abused and curtailed.

Same principle as any owner of a store, bar, or any business posting
a sign that says the following.
-
No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service.

Edith agrees.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#642 Jan 12, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
A legally married couple is a legally married regardless of its gender make-up. The baker violated a constitutionally valid right, he has no no right to exercise his religious beliefs in ways which violate that law. The only dishonesty here has been your own. I'm done with you.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#643 Jan 13, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a common bigot who mistakenly thinks he lives in an xstain theocracy, even though you don't know what a theocracy is or would admit that is what you think if some patient person explained the concept to you.
Now if you're so very concerned about "sin" and scripture then get all your buybull bakers to stop selling wedding cakes to engaged couples who have been co habiting, you stupid hypocrite.
AGAIN… Why do you think people need God and the Bible. Our constitution allows you to insult me in a thread like this and government has can’t remove, suppress, or negate you from having your opinion and blurting it out the way you do. Same with the baker.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#644 Jan 13, 2014
Christaliban wrote:
<quoted text>
We know what the definition of marriage was for centuries, Jethro, you pos for brains:
One man and many brides or child brides or brides as chattel. You know, like it is in the buybull.
Go defend that institution of marriage, you cretin.
Meanwhile, we don't make laws based on your pick and choose understanding of the buybull or based on your personal psycho sexual problems.
You trash.
Colorado laws, where marriage and civil unions are concerned, are valid, Constitutional and appropriate. Many states will follow in Colorado’s footsteps.
Please, if you’re ever at the capitol for public comment go make your voice heard!

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#645 Jan 13, 2014
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>A legally married couple is a legally married regardless of its gender make-up. The baker violated a constitutionally valid right, he has no no right to exercise his religious beliefs in ways which violate that law. The only dishonesty here has been your own. I'm done with you.
“A legally married couple is a legally married regardless of its gender make-up.” Not to many Americans who recognize and understand the difference between the two. To be gay and married it will still always be prefaced with “gay”, because of the definition.
“The baker violated a constitutionally valid right,” You have Shown no rights removed from the gay couple.
“he has no no right to exercise his religious beliefs in ways which violate that law.” He has every right base on the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.
“The only dishonesty here has been your own. I'm done with you.” I have never been dishonest and I have absolutely straight forward. I showed you the laws gay pride breaks and I still support then having their events… You say they break no laws and include everyone, including children. That’s your “honesty”.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#646 Jan 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Colorado laws, where marriage and civil unions are concerned, are valid, Constitutional and appropriate. Many states will follow in Colorado’s footsteps.
Please, if you’re ever at the capitol for public comment go make your voice heard!
It's amusing watching you stomp your foot over the validity of CO marriage laws while at the same time saying CO Public Accommodation laws can be ignored.

And you're too clueless to see how silly you come across.
Jesus Latter Day Taint

Philadelphia, PA

#647 Jan 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
AGAIN… Why do you think people need God and the Bible. Our constitution allows you to insult me in a thread like this and government has can’t remove, suppress, or negate you from having your opinion and blurting it out the way you do. Same with the baker.
No, liar fer jeesus, "having an opinion" or "having a 'religious' belief" is not the same as "barring customers from a place of public accommodation."

Your post here could not have possibly provided better proof of my assertion that you believe you live in an xstain theocracy...and that you don't know what that phrase means.

And if it were about "religious" beliefs then the baker would have been refusing wedding cakes to engaged, str8 couples who co habitate.

The baker didn't, so we know it's purely about a psycho sexual animus towards glbt people, not anything "scriptural."
Jesus Latter Day Taint

Philadelphia, PA

#648 Jan 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Colorado laws, where marriage and civil unions are concerned, are valid, Constitutional and appropriate. Many states will follow in Colorado’s footsteps.
Please, if you’re ever at the capitol for public comment go make your voice heard!
We're in the process of fixing those backwards states' marriage laws, but these laws prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodations do not rest on whether CO at this time recognizes the same sex marriage in question.

Getting a cake is not a right associated with marriage. It is a right associated with non discrimination clauses covering businesses in this non theocracy. You're very confused, as always.

The baker may be as hypocritically and superficially "devout" as he wishes outside the realm of places of public accommodations. Though we oddly don't see him tossing those who covet or take the lawd's name in vain out of his business.
Jesus Latter Day Taint

Philadelphia, PA

#649 Jan 13, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>It's amusing watching you stomp your foot over the validity of CO marriage laws while at the same time saying CO Public Accommodation laws can be ignored.
And you're too clueless to see how silly you come across.
Uneducated, brain washed, anti rational fundies.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#650 Jan 13, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>It's amusing watching you stomp your foot over the validity of CO marriage laws while at the same time saying CO Public Accommodation laws can be ignored.
And you're too clueless to see how silly you come across.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#651 Jan 13, 2014
Jesus Latter Day Taint wrote:
<quoted text>
No, liar fer jeesus, "having an opinion" or "having a 'religious' belief" is not the same as "barring customers from a place of public accommodation."
Your post here could not have possibly provided better proof of my assertion that you believe you live in an xstain theocracy...and that you don't know what that phrase means.
And if it were about "religious" beliefs then the baker would have been refusing wedding cakes to engaged, str8 couples who co habitate.
The baker didn't, so we know it's purely about a psycho sexual animus towards glbt people, not anything "scriptural."
Another ID... What a surprise.
He didn’t bar them... he didn’t sell a wedding cake because of his belief is on marriage and what he designs those cakes for.
You seem a poor judge on what’s spiritual or legal for that matter.

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
last post wins! (Feb '11) 32 min mr goodwrench 24,749
Internet Marketing Benefits 5 hr Scambo Mc C note 1
Review: Weekly Home Buyers List, Inc. 5 hr Madam Kelly Brooker 6
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 9 hr Maddy 13,724
The Media in Ferguson should be Fair, Balanced,... 12 hr FOX knews 2
4 protester thugs aressted. More to come 15 hr FOX knews 1
Apex fun run a scam? Wed Slumdog gang pimps 71
Sheridan Dating
Find my Match

Sheridan People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Sheridan News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Sheridan

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:17 pm PST

Bleacher Report 3:17PM
Murray's Hype Makes Him Bad Fantasy Option
Yahoo! Sports 4:12 PM
Moore makes comeback from life-threatening injury
Yahoo! Sports 4:50 PM
Week 13 Rankings
Bleacher Report 9:49 PM
Breaking Down Denver's Game Plan vs. KC
Bleacher Report 9:49 PM
Breaking Down Denver's Game Plan vs. KC