Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 3,474

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
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2309 Jun 17, 2014
lides wrote:
I have better things to do
No you don't.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2310 Jun 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll tell you what, kiddo, can you turn up some print media, preferably more than one source. I have better things to do that sit around listening to the paranoid rantings of a lunatic. Conversing with you is quite enough lunacy for anyone.
<quoted text>
No one's first amendment rights are violated by anti-discrimination laws. You have the right to speech and free exercise, you don't have the right to make those decisions for others. Ironically, were you able to do so, that would be a first amendment violation, which you don't seem to understand.
<quoted text>
That is true. It is also irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that under Colorado law, if he offers wedding cake, he must offer it to any customer who wishes to purchase one. This isn't rocket science, kiddo.
<quoted text>
Your argument is non existent.
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, a person doesn't have the right to force clients to conform the the religious views of the owner in order to obtain service, and it in no way violates the rights of the proprietor to offer services to someone who holds differing beliefs.
You are arguing for everyone to be able to ignore any law they do not like based upon their interpretation of their religious beliefs. This about that for a second. It basically means making every man a law unto themselves, and allowing them to ignore any law with which they happen to disagree. Should I be able to drive 90 mph in a school zone because it is my sincere religious conviction that I have a need for speed? Of course this is an absurd hypothetical to pose, but it illustrates the underlying insanity of the position you support.
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, I believe in punishing those who break the law. They could hold similar or opposing beliefs, but that would be irrelevant.
“I'll tell you what, kiddo, can you turn up some print media, preferably more than one source. I have better things to do that sit around listening to the paranoid rantings of a lunatic. Conversing with you is quite enough lunacy for anyone.” LOL!! So called it… Showing blatant ignorance, like the Colorado Civil Liberties Commissioners did.

“No one's first amendment rights are violated by anti-discrimination laws. You have the right to speech and free exercise, you don't have the right to make those decisions for others.
Ironically, were you able to do so, that would be a first amendment violation, which you don't seem to understand.” Based on that statement, you are okay with government deciding it’s good to force the gay graphic designer to design signs for the Westboro Baptist Church for their protests, or else it’s religious discrimination. Sorry, but I stand with the gay graphic designer not being forced to use his talents to support such an events.
“The fact of the matter is that under Colorado law, if he offers wedding cake, he must offer it to any customer who wishes to purchase one. This isn't rocket science, kiddo.” The gay graphic designer as well!? You’re right it’s not rocket science.

“Your argument is non existent.“ Because you choose ignorance over understanding, that’s why you feel my “argument is non existent”

“Sorry, kiddo, a person doesn't have the right to force clients to conform the the religious views of the owner in order to obtain service, and it in no way violates the rights of the proprietor to offer services to someone who holds differing beliefs.” Please explain HOW the non-sale of a wedding cake “to force clients to conform the the religious views of the owner in order to obtain service,”? The truth is it doesn’t.

“I believe in punishing those who break the law. They could hold similar or opposing beliefs, but that would be irrelevant.” Says you because you choose ignorance over understanding.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2311 Jun 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
LOL!! So called it… Showing blatant ignorance, like the Colorado Civil Liberties Commissioners did.
Respect, you have provided one link to a long winded and bigoted gasbag, and none of his assertions are supported by a single written source. Face it, kiddo, you can't remotely support your assertions with facts.
Respect71 wrote:
Based on that statement, you are okay with government deciding it’s good to force the gay graphic designer to design signs for the Westboro Baptist Church for their protests, or else it’s religious discrimination. Sorry, but I stand with the gay graphic designer not being forced to use his talents to support such an events.
Have you read the decision of the Colorado Court, Respect? I have posted it numerous times, and it specifically addresses the very situation that you present.
"Finally, Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respondents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech."
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
Respect71 wrote:
The gay graphic designer as well!? You’re right it’s not rocket science.
So long as the content involved wasn't an "explicit, unmistakable, offensive message."
Respect71 wrote:
Because you choose ignorance over understanding, that’s why you feel my “argument is non existent”
No, because the argument that you are making has already been debunked by a court, whose decision was then unanimously certified by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

If one is appealing a legal matter that they have lost, they need to apply new arguments in support of their position. Merely reiterating the existing ones, which have already been addressed and dismissed will seldom, if ever, prove effective.
Respect71 wrote:
Please explain HOW the non-sale of a wedding cake “to force clients to conform the the religious views of the owner in order to obtain service,”? The truth is it doesn’t.
They were denied service on the basis of their sexuality in violation of Colorado state law. Simply put, the baker broke the law by denying service on such a basis.
From the same Colorado Administrative Law Judge's decision:
"The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is
the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex
weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a
same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation."
Respect71 wrote:
Says you because you choose ignorance over understanding.
No, it is because I support the rule of law, and the US Constitution. You, on the other hand, apparently support lawlessness, where every man is a law unto themselves and can ignore any law that does not fit with their interpretation of their religion.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2312 Jun 17, 2014
lides wrote:
Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse.
I'll help you understand. To the baker, making a gay wedding cake sends what to him is an explicit, unmistakable, offensive message. Beyond that, it is contrary to his religious beliefs.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2313 Jun 17, 2014
Wondering wrote:
I'll help you understand. To the baker, making a gay wedding cake sends what to him is an explicit, unmistakable, offensive message. Beyond that, it is contrary to his religious beliefs.
Sorry kiddo, the court disagrees with you. The problem with this argument is that the discussion never proceeded as far as how they would like the cake to be decorated, so for all the baker knew, they could want a simple white cake with no message whatsoever, which negates the claim of an explicit, unmistakeable, and offensive message.

The simple fact that the cake was for a same sex wedding does not rise to that level, as the court correctly held.

As usual, you are making an argument that has already been debunked by people a great deal smarter than you.

What else have you got?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2314 Jun 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry kiddo, the court disagrees with you. The problem with this argument is that the discussion never proceeded as far as how they would like the cake to be decorated, so for all the baker knew, they could want a simple white cake with no message whatsoever, which negates the claim of an explicit, unmistakeable, and offensive message.
The simple fact that the cake was for a same sex wedding does not rise to that level, as the court correctly held.
As usual, you are making an argument that has already been debunked by people a great deal smarter than you.
What else have you got?
Wow! That's all I can say. If all they wanted was a "simple white cake with no message whatsoever" they would have got it.

Who are you to decide what " that level" is for anyone but yourself?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2315 Jun 17, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Wow! That's all I can say. If all they wanted was a "simple white cake with no message whatsoever" they would have got it.
Who are you to decide what " that level" is for anyone but yourself?
Wow, is right kiddo. You are arguing from such ignorance that you don't even know the facts of the case. The reality is that I am sure you don't feel a need to have any knowledge on the subject, because your bigoted opinion has no basis in fact logic or reason.

The baker turned them away before any details of what the cake was to be were even discussed, and that fact is not in dispute.
"5. Complainants sat down with Phillips at the cake consulting table. They
introduced themselves as “David” and “Charlie” and said that they wanted a wedding
cake for “our wedding.”
6. Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for
same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men,“I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes,
sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”
7. Complainants immediately got up and left the store without further discussion with Phillips.
8. The whole conversation between Phillips and Complainants was very
brief, with no discussion between the parties about what the cake would look like."

Even the baker stipulates to these facts, Wondering.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2316 Jun 17, 2014
lides wrote:
1. The baker turned them away before any details of what the cake was to be were even discussed, and that fact is not in dispute.
2. "Complainants sat down with Phillips at the cake consulting table. They
introduced themselves as “David” and “Charlie” and said that they wanted a wedding
cake for “our wedding.”
3. Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for
same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men,“I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes,
sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”
1. That's false. See #2
2.“David” and “Charlie” and said that they wanted a wedding cake for “our wedding.”
That's a gay wedding cake.
3. Yes, he would even make them a white cake with no message. Go play with the other kids.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2317 Jun 17, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll help you understand. To the baker, making a gay wedding cake sends what to him is an explicit, unmistakable, offensive message. Beyond that, it is contrary to his religious beliefs.
And yet he happily took gay money on many other occasions.

Seems his beliefs aren't that deeply held IMO.

Let's be honest now. This is about anti-gay feelings not religion.

Neither you or Respect would ever say to a Jewish businessman that it's OK for him to refuse service to Baptists.

So cut the crap already. This is simply animus against gays not "religious freedom."

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2318 Jun 17, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>

3. Yes, he would even make them a white cake with no message. Go play with the other kids.
So this really isn't about his religious beliefs about homosexuality after all. It's simply animus to SSM.

What part of, "Using religion as a basis to deny service is religious discrimination and against the law" gets you and Respect so darned confused?

Basically you and respect (and the rest of the 'religious freedom' movement) are saying that if a person says it's because of their "deeply held religious beliefs" they can ignore any law.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2319 Jun 17, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. That's false. See #2
Wondering, the baker stipulated to the facts of the case. They are not inquestion. He did turn them away because it was a same sex wedding. The court went on to state, "There is no dispute that Respondents are “persons” and that Masterpiece Cakeshop is a “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of the law. There is also no dispute that Respondents refused to provide a cake to Complainants for their same-sex wedding. Respondents, however, argue that the refusal does not violate § 24-34-601(2) because it was due to their objection to same-sex weddings, not because of Complainants’ sexual orientation. Respondents deny that they hold any animus toward homosexuals or gay couples, and would willingly provide other types of baked goods to Complainants or any other gay customer. On the other hand, Respondents would refuse to provide a wedding cake to a heterosexual customer if it was for a same- sex wedding. The ALJ rejects Respondents’ argument as a distinction without a difference.
The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
Wondering wrote:
2.“David” and “Charlie” and said that they wanted a wedding cake for “our wedding.” That's a gay wedding cake.
As the court rightly pointed out, that is of no concern to the business.
Wondering wrote:
3. Yes, he would even make them a white cake with no message. Go play with the other kids.
Actually, Wondering, the cake maker also stipulated to the fact that he would not. The mother called the next day and attempted to order the cake again, and “Phillips advised Ms. Munn that he does not create wedding cakes for same- sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, and because Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriages.”

He broke the law, plain and simple. Personally, I don’t understand why you continue to argue a point that you are almost entirely wrong about, and on a subject of which you are clearly utterly ignorant.
Here’s a clue, learn something and try to make an intelligent argument, if you are capable of doing so. Personally, I don’t think you are up to the task.
Baweet

Anonymous Proxy

#2320 Jun 17, 2014

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2321 Jun 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, the baker stipulated to the facts of the case. They are not inquestion. He did turn them away because it was a same sex wedding. The court went on to state, "There is no dispute that Respondents are “persons” and that Masterpiece Cakeshop is a “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of the law. There is also no dispute that Respondents refused to provide a cake to Complainants for their same-sex wedding. Respondents, however, argue that the refusal does not violate § 24-34-601(2) because it was due to their objection to same-sex weddings, not because of Complainants’ sexual orientation. Respondents deny that they hold any animus toward homosexuals or gay couples, and would willingly provide other types of baked goods to Complainants or any other gay customer. On the other hand, Respondents would refuse to provide a wedding cake to a heterosexual customer if it was for a same- sex wedding. The ALJ rejects Respondents’ argument as a distinction without a difference.
The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
<quoted text>As the court rightly pointed out, that is of no concern to the business.
<quoted text>
Actually, Wondering, the cake maker also stipulated to the fact that he would not. The mother called the next day and attempted to order the cake again, and “Phillips advised Ms. Munn that he does not create wedding cakes for same- sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, and because Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriages.”
He broke the law, plain and simple. Personally, I don’t understand why you continue to argue a point that you are almost entirely wrong about, and on a subject of which you are clearly utterly ignorant.
Here’s a clue, learn something and try to make an intelligent argument, if you are capable of doing so. Personally, I don’t think you are up to the task.
As soon as I read the part I knew one of these two would vote you clueless. The baker admits to the facts that the Court determined. What parts do they have trouble understanding? The baker admits it's about SSM; not religion but sexual orientation.

clueless?

"...the baker stipulated to the facts of the case. They are not inquestion. He did turn them away because it was a same sex wedding. The court went on to state, "There is no dispute that Respondents are “persons” and that Masterpiece Cakeshop is a “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of the law. There is also no dispute that Respondents refused to provide a cake to Complainants for their same-sex wedding. Respondents, however, argue that the refusal does not violate § 24-34-601(2) because it was due to their objection to same-sex weddings, not because of Complainants’ sexual orientation. Respondents deny that they hold any animus toward homosexuals or gay couples, and would willingly provide other types of baked goods to Complainants or any other gay customer. On the other hand, Respondents would refuse to provide a wedding cake to a heterosexual customer if it was for a same- sex wedding. The ALJ rejects Respondents’ argument as a distinction without a difference.
The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation."
The baker admits it's about SSM; not religion but sexual orientation. What parts do they have trouble understanding?
The Courts have rejected similar claims in the past when "Christians" didn't want their schools desegregated

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2322 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Respect, you have provided one link t"explicit, unmistakable, offensive message."
<quoted text>
No, because the argument that you are making has already been debunked by a court, whose decision was then unanimously certified by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
If one is appealing a legal matter that they have lost, they need to apply new arguments in support of their position. Merely reiterating the existing ones, which have already been addressed and dismissed will seldom, if ever, prove effective.
<quoted text>
They were denied service on the basis of their sexuality in violation of Colorado state law. Simply put, the baker broke the law by denying service on such a basis.
From the same Colorado Administrative Law Judge's decision:
"The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is
the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex
weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a
same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation."
<quoted text>
No, it is because I support the rule of law, and the US Constitution. You, on the other hand, apparently support lawlessness, where every man is a law unto themselves and can ignore any law that does not fit with their interpretation of their religion.
“Respect, you have provided one link to a long winded and bigoted gasbag, and none of his assertions are supported by a single written source. Face it, kiddo, you can't remotely support your assertions with facts.” Did you listen? Doubt it… You ignored the FACTS just like the Commission did based on your bias.

“Have you read the decision of the Colorado Court, Respect?” You are okay with government deciding it’s good to force the gay graphic designer to design signs for the Westboro Baptist Church for their protests, or else it’s religious discrimination. Sorry, but I stand with the gay graphic designer not being forced to use his talents to support such an events.

“So long as the content involved wasn't an "explicit, unmistakable, offensive message."” Sorry… The law is the law. Discrimination of any kind is unlawful, so says you!

“No, because the argument that you are making has already been debunked by a court, whose decision was then unanimously certified by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.”

“They were denied service on the basis of their sexuality in violation of Colorado state law. Simply put, the baker broke the law by denying service on such a basis.” If one is appealing a legal matter that they have lost, they need to apply new arguments in support of their position. Merely reiterating the existing ones, which have already been addressed and dismissed will seldom, if ever, prove effective.” Nice but you ignored and didn’t answer my question, Please explain HOW the non-sale of a wedding cake “to force clients to conform the the religious views of the owner in order to obtain service,”?

“No, it is because I support the rule of law, and the US Constitution.” You are dishonest. You are dishonest about what “gay marriage” is, in that a wedding cake has just as much meaning as a protest sign, and you are dishonest about your end game, punish those who don’t believe as you.

“You, on the other hand, apparently support lawlessness, where every man is a law unto themselves and can ignore any law that does not fit with their interpretation of their religion.” While you make an exception for the gay graphic designer to deny service based on religious discrimination.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2323 Jun 18, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Did you listen? Doubt it… You ignored the FACTS just like the Commission did based on your bias.
No, I didn't. And, as I have already explained, I will not waste my time listening to the rantings of a lunatic, that you aren't able to support through written media, which I can digest more quickly. The end game seems to be that you have found a single source that supports your fiction, and that you are incapable of substantiating their opinion either. Merely presenting a like minded talk radio host spouting the same opinion is not factual substantiation.
Respect71 wrote:
You are okay with government deciding it’s good to force the gay graphic designer to design signs for the Westboro Baptist Church for their protests, or else it’s religious discrimination. Sorry, but I stand with the gay graphic designer not being forced to use his talents to support such an events.
Respect, are you high? The court addressed EXACTLY this scenario in their decision, the text of which has been provided to you repeatedly, along with a link to the full decision.
Here you are again, kiddo:
"Finally, Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respondents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech."
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/asse...
Respect71 wrote:
Sorry… The law is the law. Discrimination of any kind is unlawful, so says you!
Actually, as the court rightly pointed out, free speech has limits. If you don't like the law, work to change it. Merely disagreeing with a provision does not invalidate it.
Respect71 wrote:
Nice but you ignored and didn’t answer my question, Please explain HOW the non-sale of a wedding cake “to force clients to conform the the religious views of the owner in order to obtain service,”?
They were denied service on the basis of their sexuality, supposedly because their sexuality "violated" the baker's free exercise. If the baker requires clientele to conform to his religious views in order to obtain service, then he is infringing upon the religious freedom of his would-be customers.
Respect71 wrote:
You are dishonest. You are dishonest about what “gay marriage” is, in that a wedding cake has just as much meaning as a protest sign, and you are dishonest about your end game, punish those who don’t believe as you.
No, I am not. You are being dishonest when you conflate the baking of a cake with an offensive protest sign. The court was quite clear on this point. That you don't understand that says more about you than anything else.
Respect71 wrote:
While you make an exception for the gay graphic designer to deny service based on religious discrimination.
There is no exception to be made. No one, regardless of their sexuality, age, race, religion, gender, etc is beholden to produce content with an explicit, unmistakable, or offensive message.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2324 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Wondering, the baker stipulated to the facts of the case. They are not inquestion.
2. He did turn them away because it was a same sex wedding.
3. The court went on to state, "There is no dispute that Respondents are “persons” and that Masterpiece Cakeshop is a “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of the law. 4. There is also no dispute that Respondents refused to provide a cake to Complainants for their same-sex wedding.
5. Respondents, however, argue that the refusal does not violate § 24-34-601(2) because it was due to their objection to same-sex weddings, not because of Complainants’ sexual orientation.
Respondents deny that they hold any animus toward homosexuals or gay couples, and would willingly provide other types of baked goods to Complainants or any other gay customer.
6. On the other hand, Respondents would refuse to provide a wedding cake to a heterosexual customer if it was for a same- sex wedding. The ALJ rejects Respondents’ argument as a distinction without a difference.
7. The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
8. As the court rightly pointed out, that is of no concern to the business.
9. Actually,
1. Yes he did. "inquestion" is two words.
2.. Of course he did. He found it to be offensive and against his religion.
3. That's why they should just make the "Happy Birthday Adolph" cake and shut up, according to you and the court.
4. You are being boringly redundant.
5. A well established fact.
6. True, they won't make a gay wedding cake for anyone.
7. It makes all kinds of sense. The gay wedding is offensive to him and it's against his religion.
8. See #3.
9. Misguided opinion deleted.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2325 Jun 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. Yes he did. "inquestion" is two words.
Wondering, if you spent a little less time offering commentary about typos, and a little more time trying to offer an argument of substance you might look more intelligent.
Wondering wrote:
2.. Of course he did. He found it to be offensive and against his religion.
And, in so doing, he broke the law. That isn't my opinion, Wondering, it is that of a Colorado Administrative Law Judge, whose decision was unanimously affirmed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (including 2 Republican members).
Wondering wrote:
3. That's why they should just make the "Happy Birthday Adolph" cake and shut up, according to you and the court.
Wondering, are you referring to the case in New Jersey, when the Neo-Nazi parents ended up losing custody of their children? Because the two cases are not remotely correlative, and only a terribly disingenuous person would suggest that they are.
Wondering wrote:
4. You are being boringly redundant.
And you are an imbecile, what's your point?
Wondering wrote:
5. A well established fact.
No, Wondering, it's just a claim by the defendant, it is neither well established, nor is it documented.
Wondering wrote:
6. True, they won't make a gay wedding cake for anyone.
Which means that they will routinely break the law.
Do you notice that you are often times offering a defense for those who have broken the law, Wondering?
Wondering wrote:
7. It makes all kinds of sense. The gay wedding is offensive to him and it's against his religion.
Wondering, by that logic, anyone of any religious affiliation could ignore any law based upon their interpretation of their religious beliefs.

Do you see why that would be dangerous?
Wondering wrote:
8. See #3.
Which is every bit as mindless a suggestion here as it was in #3.
Wondering wrote:
9. Misguided opinion deleted.
Translation, Wondering lacks the mental capacity to offer a rational rebuttal, so instead they truncate the portion of the post to which they are too stupid to respond.

That said, you should have truncated much more, Wondering. Probably all of it.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2326 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Wondering, if you spent a little less time offering commentary about typos, and a little more time trying to offer an argument of substance you might look more intelligent.
2. And, in so doing, he broke the law. That isn't my opinion, Wondering, it is that of a Colorado Administrative Law Judge, whose decision was unanimously affirmed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (including 2 Republican members).
3. Wondering, are you referring to the case in New Jersey, when the Neo-Nazi parents ended up losing custody of their children? Because the two cases are not remotely correlative, and only a terribly disingenuous person would suggest that they are.
4. And you are an imbecile, what's your point?
5. No, Wondering, it's just a claim by the defendant, it is neither well established, nor is it documented.
6. Which means that they will routinely break the law.
Do you notice that you are often times offering a defense for those who have broken the law, Wondering?
7. Wondering, by that logic, anyone of any religious affiliation could ignore any law based upon their interpretation of their religious beliefs.
Do you see why that would be dangerous?
8. Translation, Wondering lacks the mental capacity to offer a rational rebuttal
1. You don’t make many typos, lots of brain farts.
2. Yes, he broke the gay law. Gays know they are offensive to some people. When they find one they should just take their money elsewhere.
3. No. I’m not referring to any case. Just a baker that might find the name “Adolph” offensive.
4. Right back at you.
5. Because he served these gay men regularly, it was a well established fact.
6. Wrong, JD. They stopped making wedding cakes for anyone. I defend people that break laws that are wrong.
7. Wrong. I’m not religious and I think gay marriage is offensive to the whole idea of marriage and family.
It wouldn’t be ‘dangerous’ at all. There will always be someone who will serve you and make anything you want made.
8. Translation, JD is a biased idiot.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2327 Jun 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
1. You don’t make many typos, lots of brain farts.
As opposed to you, who makes no valid, factually supported, or on topic arguments. Wondering, if you were more intelligent, and less intent upon trolling, you might not make yourself look like quite such an idiot.
Wondering wrote:
2. Yes, he broke the gay law. Gays know they are offensive to some people. When they find one they should just take their money elsewhere.
No, Wondering, he just broke the law.
Thank you for actually stating that you support those who break the law.
Wondering wrote:
3. No. I’m not referring to any case. Just a baker that might find the name “Adolph” offensive.
Wondering, you do understand that in order to refuse service it can't just be offensive to the person, it must be plainly offensive to most people. If this were not the case, I would be able to run a bakery and refuse you service because I find morons to be offensive.
Wondering wrote:
4. Right back at you.
Once again, you offer nothing of substance.
Wondering wrote:
5. Because he served these gay men regularly, it was a well established fact.
Even if he did, that is irrelevant to the matter. Actually, if anything, that makes him more of a hypocrite. Of course, you love law breaking hypocrites and hate groups, don't you Wondering.
Wondering wrote:
6. Wrong, JD. They stopped making wedding cakes for anyone. I defend people that break laws that are wrong.
Which was one remedy pointed out by the court, that brings them into compliance with the law. It also illustrates that they are bigots and poor businessmen, as this move costs them profits from those potential sales, as did refusing service to the gay couple. I have friends who are photographers in New York, and their business more than doubled when gay marriage passed. You see, Wondering, if one is not an idiot, they realize that gay people's money is just as valuable as straight people's, and a business is not a mouthpiece for the owners opinions.
Wondering wrote:
7. Wrong. I’m not religious and I think gay marriage is offensive to the whole idea of marriage and family.
It wouldn’t be ‘dangerous’ at all. There will always be someone who will serve you and make anything you want made.
No, you are just an idiot.
Wondering wrote:
8. Translation, JD is a biased idiot.
Translation, Wondering lacks the mental capacity to offer intelligent, factually supported, on topic arguments, so instead he stoops to calling people juvenile names (that he made up), and does so by acronym, because he is too lazy to type.

Face it kiddo, you have no valid argument against equal protection of the law for same sex couples to marry, which you prove each and every time you make a post and fail to address the topic (much less offer a compelling governmental interest served by excluding same sex couples from marriage that would render such a restriction constitutional).

You have long since abandoned any attempt to engage in rational debate, and have descended into infantile trolling, that makes you look pretty unintelligent.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2328 Jun 18, 2014
lides wrote:
Even if he did, that is irrelevant to the matter.
You're putting me to sleep with your boring and repetitive BS. I would support the baker all day long. The gays were childish, you know about that, and unreasonable. The sad part is that you support a law that disregards what this baker/photographer/florist says is offensive and support a law that that protects these same people for other reasons. Who decides what is and what isn't offensive? Can you see how dangerous this is?

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
Rocky Mountain Upset? Polling shows once-popula... 4 hr harmonious 73
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 6 hr KarlVIIIII 12,608
COMFORT DENTAL ....How Many of you feel Ripped ... (Apr '08) Mon Tooth Fairy 86
Nude photos of 12-year-old girl circulated via ... (Feb '10) Mon jayaraj 306
Investigation underway after one found dead (Jul '07) Sun Gomez 25
Review: Weekly Home Buyers List, Inc. Sep 26 scott grawler 1
Parents on separate journeys after tragedy (May '07) Sep 25 KJWyoming 19

Denver Jobs

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Denver News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Denver

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]