Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 61059 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.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2268 Jun 13, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
What words did the gay couple want displayed on their cake? Nothing. No words at all. Your analogy fails.
Since when is baking a cake part of a belief system?
“What words did the gay couple want displayed on their cake? Nothing. No words at all. Your analogy fails.” So you’re saying the gay graphic designer doesn’t get punished for discrimination against Christians and their beliefs? The law doesn't work that way... Wasn't that your argument?

“Since when is baking a cake part of a belief system?” A wedding cake to the baker is for a husband and wife. Kind of you to be so understanding.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2269 Jun 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Are men and women not going to get married to each other anymore?”…
“Our government doesn't force anyone to believe anything. You are free to believe whatever you wish, even if it is unsupported, hysterical hyperbole. You are not free to violate the law and use religion as your defense.”
I stand for freedom for ALL Americans making the argument it’s wrong to punish an American for when he/she believes and you stand for punishment for a baker who LITERALLY did NOTHING to the gay couple. That’s the difference between you and me.
He refused service..... that is an action, whether you believe it is or not. And refusing service based on sexual orientation is illegal in Colorado.

What would you think if the situation was reversed? A Christian couple goes into a gay bakery to order a wedding cake and the proprietor says "we don't make wedding cakes for breeders."?

The difference between you and me is: I did my homework. You didn't.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2270 Jun 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
More facts: He served gays all the time.
He refused to serve this gay couple.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2271 Jun 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“What words did the gay couple want displayed on their cake? Nothing. No words at all. Your analogy fails.” So you’re saying the gay graphic designer doesn’t get punished for discrimination against Christians and their beliefs? The law doesn't work that way... Wasn't that your argument?
“Since when is baking a cake part of a belief system?” A wedding cake to the baker is for a husband and wife. Kind of you to be so understanding.
I didn't say ANYTHING about the gay graphic designer, so don't even try that. Having something printed is a freedom of speech issue. A wedding cake is NOT speech.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2272 Jun 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<
“Since when is baking a cake part of a belief system?” A wedding cake to the baker is for a husband and wife. Kind of you to be so understanding.
Where is the baker's understanding of the law?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2273 Jun 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
These are the FACTS of the case… You can deny them all you want.
More facts: I stand for freedom of ALL Americans while you continue to rail and desire government to punish those you don’t believe the same as you.
Here are the facts of the case: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...

Let's see your proof.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2274 Jun 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
These are the FACTS of the case… You can deny them all you want.
More facts: I stand for freedom of ALL Americans while you continue to rail and desire government to punish those you don’t believe the same as you.
Lying about my position won't make your argument valid. I think the government SHOULD punish people who break the law. It has nothing to do with belief.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2275 Jun 13, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
People DO care about discrimination.
<quoted text>
You cannot reserve a cake for only straight people any more than you can reserve an apartment for only white people.
<quoted text>
How many times do these stupid analogies have to be refuted? The cake had NO message on it. CONTENT is not part of anti-discrimination laws.
“People DO care about discrimination.” This is where your side dishonesty creeps in.

“You cannot reserve a cake for only straight people any more than you can reserve an apartment for only white people.” A wedding is not the same as white people renting apartments, please stick to the subject. Hundreds of millions of Americans understand what marriage and weddings mean to them and some don’t believe it includes same-sex couples, so you are for punishing those who reserve wedding cakes for only husbands and wives.

“How many times do these stupid analogies have to be refuted? The cake had NO message on it. CONTENT is not part of anti-discrimination laws.” The cake is a message by itself… So now we see you ONLY punish those you don’t believe as you. A great American, you are.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2276 Jun 13, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
He refused service..... that is an action, whether you believe it is or not. And refusing service based on sexual orientation is illegal in Colorado.
What would you think if the situation was reversed? A Christian couple goes into a gay bakery to order a wedding cake and the proprietor says "we don't make wedding cakes for breeders."?
The difference between you and me is: I did my homework. You didn't.
Then why do you ignore the facts?
If you did your homework you would see he serves gays all the time for many many years.
If you did your homework you would see the Commission ignored the legal grounds of the case calling it “mere technicalities”.
So you show your bias and you support punishment.

I stand for freedom for ALL Americans and no punishment for those you believe strongly in what a wedding cake represents.

You continue to marginalize that American and desire to punish him.

That’s the difference.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2277 Jun 13, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
He refused to serve this gay couple.
Only reserving the wedding cake of which he reserves for a husband and wife couple. He has served gays for years…these are facts.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2278 Jun 13, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say ANYTHING about the gay graphic designer, so don't even try that. Having something printed is a freedom of speech issue. A wedding cake is NOT speech.
Blatant dishonesty, but I expect nothing less from someone you desires punishment for those who doesn’t believe as themselves.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2279 Jun 13, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are the facts of the case: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
Let's see your proof.
Findings of fact 6.

By that fact ALONE, shows there is no discrimination… You do understand the original law suit failed right? But that’s a “mere technicality” to you who wants to punish someone who doesn’t believe as you.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2280 Jun 13, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying about my position won't make your argument valid. I think the government SHOULD punish people who break the law. It has nothing to do with belief.
That’s where you are being dishonest or otherwise facts wouldn’t be ignored.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2281 Jun 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
This is where your side dishonesty creeps in.
How so?
Respect71 wrote:
A wedding is not the same as white people renting apartments, please stick to the subject.
Excuse me? Who are you to tell a landlord that renting apartments is not a religious act for him? That's HIS belief. By forcing him not to discriminate against tenants, you are violating his religious beliefs.
Respect71 wrote:
The cake is a message by itself
Look at it this way. The baker makes a wedding cake and he puts it on the counter for sale. What is the message being delivered by the cake?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2282 Jun 13, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
How so?
<quoted text>
Excuse me? Who are you to tell a landlord that renting apartments is not a religious act for him? That's HIS belief. By forcing him not to discriminate against tenants, you are violating his religious beliefs.
<quoted text>
Look at it this way. The baker makes a wedding cake and he puts it on the counter for sale. What is the message being delivered by the cake?
“How so?” Your posts say you’re willing to punish the baker and you call it law when you state you will support the gay graphic designer to discriminate against free speech and religious speech.

“Excuse me? Who are you to tell a landlord that renting apartments is not a religious act for him? That's HIS belief. By forcing him not to discriminate against tenants, you are violating his religious beliefs.” No you are restricting the tenant to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing was restricted to the gay couple by the baker not selling them a wedding cake.

“Look at it this way. The baker makes a wedding cake and he puts it on the counter for sale. What is the message being delivered by the cake?” The fact in the case is he believes the wedding cake created by his hands and is reserved for a husband and wife.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2283 Jun 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
No they don’t because your “ritual sacrifice” would impose your belief upon an innocent, removing their individual rights given by their Creator. What rights were removed from the gay couple by the non-sale of a wedding cake? Did the baker deny their marriage? Take away their MA License? Remove their gayness? No, only a wedding cake of which they can take a pick of many other cake shops in the metro area.
My guess is you believe in Abortion under the guides of “woman’s right to choose” don’t you? Child sacrifice is real and legal in the USA and my guess is you support that without reservation. Do you really want to compare ripping babies from their mother’s womb to the non-sale of a WEDDING CAKE? No comparison.
You are the one comparing abortion to making wedding cakes.

I think you missed that part

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2284 Jun 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
That’s where you are being dishonest or otherwise facts wouldn’t be ignored.
You mean like the fact the baker BROKE THE LAW and you want to excuse him because it's about SSM?

That fact?

You mean like THE FACT that the baker agreed to the finding of facts (he pled guilty basically)?

You mean like the fact that you oppose religious people having to obey the same laws as every other business owner?

Those facts?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2285 Jun 13, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“How so?” Your posts say you’re willing to punish the baker and you call it law when you state you will support the gay graphic designer to discriminate against free speech and religious speech.
“Excuse me? Who are you to tell a landlord that renting apartments is not a religious act for him? That's HIS belief. By forcing him not to discriminate against tenants, you are violating his religious beliefs.” No you are restricting the tenant to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing was restricted to the gay couple by the baker not selling them a wedding cake.
“Look at it this way. The baker makes a wedding cake and he puts it on the counter for sale. What is the message being delivered by the cake?” The fact in the case is he believes the wedding cake created by his hands and is reserved for a husband and wife.
for someone who claims they agree with SSM it's strange you keep insisting that Wedding cakes are for hetero couples only.

Hmm another fact you fail to mention.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2288 Jun 14, 2014
Respect, get a grip. The man has had his day in court, and he appealed to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who unanimously upheld the ruling of the Administrative Law Judge.

The reality is that providing the same service he would provide any other customer for a gay couple in no way violates the free speech or free exercise of religion. You have offered no new arguments, and the ones have you have offered are specifically refuted by the existing ruling.

Grow up. You have freedom of religion, not the right to project your religion onto others, or force them to conform to your religious views in order to obtain service.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2289 Jun 14, 2014
lides wrote:
....and the ones have you have offered are specifically
Huh? Brain fart?
did you mean: and the ones you have offered?
Keep lit matches away from your ears.
KA-BOOM!

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.

Denver Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hey everybody 6 hr Snow 1
What is the best adult dating site in Denver? Wed Coins 7
Time to Chill it's 4/20!! Apr 24 test 2
What gangs are in Denver? (Sep '17) Apr 23 Walsh 3
Respect71 is a hypocritical LOSER (Dec '15) Apr 23 tbird19482 26
... Apr 23 Ripoff 6
COLORADO the NEW CALIFORNIA Apr 22 haha 8

Denver Jobs

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages