Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 4,356

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
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2349 Jun 20, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>You are attempting to rationalize the fundamentally irrational notion that the baker's rights were violated, when plainly, they were not.
Really? May I check with you often to see what I am attempting to do? Or is this a one time freebie?

Sometimes I might get silly and need someone to explain what I am attempting to do. You'd be perfect. Let me know.

Name's Frankie. Frankie Rizzo.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2350 Jun 20, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? May I check with you often to see what I am attempting to do? Or is this a one time freebie?
Sometimes I might get silly and need someone to explain what I am attempting to do. You'd be perfect. Let me know.
Name's Frankie. Frankie Rizzo.
Glad to help.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2351 Jun 20, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Glad to help.
That remains to be seen.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#2352 Jun 20, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That remains to be seen.
True. Now that I think about it more, you really don't need anyone's help.

You do a fine job on your own being ridiculous.

BTW: You still haven't explained why you want to deny the children of SSC's the same legal protections enjoyed by children of all other married couples.

"The choice here is between allowing same-sex couples to marry, thereby conferring on their children the benefits of marriage, and depriving those children of married parents altogether,"

Why are you anti-family? Why do you wish to harm children?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#2353 Jun 20, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>True. Now that I think about it more, you really don't need anyone's help.
You do a fine job on your own being ridiculous.
BTW: You still haven't explained why you want to deny the children of SSC's the same legal protections enjoyed by children of all other married couples.
"The choice here is between allowing same-sex couples to marry, thereby conferring on their children the benefits of marriage, and depriving those children of married parents altogether,"
Why are you anti-family? Why do you wish to harm children?
By the way you still haven't gotten a clue that I support SSM and don't want to deny children... bla bla bla.

Get a grip. Do you understand this simple concept? I support same sex marriage. So you're being very stupid.

OK everybody. Laugh at DNF for being real stupid and attacking someone who supports him.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2354 Jun 20, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Respect, I'm sorry, you have misinterprto others it would negate free exercise of religion.
If the baker feels that homosexuality is wrong, he is free not to enter into such a relationship. Similarly, if he feels that same sex marriage is wrong, he has a right not to enter into such a union. He does not have the right to deny services to others because they choose to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing.
You are attempting to rationalize the fundamentally irrational notion that the baker's rights were violated, when plainly, they were not.
“I hold intense disdain for anyone who would hold fellow countrymen as second-class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws.” Are you are ASSUMING I “hold fellow countrymen as second-class citizens with less than equal protection of the laws.”?

“You say this, but then you frequently make arguments to the contrary, as you do below.” They are not contrary, they are consistent, fair, and no one gets punished by the stand that I am taking.

“Providing a service, like a cake, for a same sex wedding in no way violates the proprietor's free exercise of religion or freedom of speech. The Colorado Administrative Law Judge did a fine job of thoroughly illustrating this simple fact. The reality is that the baker does not have the right to refuse services for a same sex couple that they would provide for a traditional marriage. He may not agree with it, he may not like it, but providing a service for a ceremony he does not agree with doesn't violate his rights.” Government forcing him to provide a wedding cake to support and participate in the event violates his belief that marriage is only between a husband and wife.

“You are functioning under the delusion that free exercise of religion includes the ability to project one's religious beliefs onto others, or make them conform to the religious beliefs of the proprietor in order to obtain service. This is both incorrect, and were it allowed, would be inherently dangerous. This is because if one were allowed to wield their religious freedom in such a manner ignoring laws that they saw as inconvenient on the basis of their interpretation of their religious views, then every man would be a law unto himself, which is to say that the law would basically seek to exist, as it would become optional. This is also dangerous because if citizens were allowed to project their religious beliefs onto others it would negate free exercise of religion.” Government forcing him to use his talents to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple is marginalizing the bakers religious views, and i understand that is hard for you too understand because of your distain.

“If the baker feels that homosexuality is wrong, he is free not to enter into such a relationship. Similarly, if he feels that same sex marriage is wrong, he has a right not to enter into such a union. He does not have the right to deny services to others because they choose to marry the adult consenting same sex partner of their choosing.

You are attempting to rationalize the fundamentally irrational notion that the baker's rights were violated, when plainly, they were not.” You marginalize, ridicule, and demonize a person because of their belief in what marriage is and your desire to use government to force them to believe as you is wrong.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2355 Jun 20, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Whine and sniffle all you want. Discrimination based of religion is against thge law. Has been for a long time now.
Don't like it?
Too bad.
Change the law if you can. Until then stop crying about having to obey the laws that everyone else has to obey.
You have STILL failed to explain why he's perfectly happy taking gay dollars for other services. His "religious beliefs" seem to be based more on $$$$
The Constitution is what it is.

BUT...

Good to know you would support government to punish the gay graphic designer that is commissioned by Westboro Baptist church members to designee signs for anti-gay protests.

I will stand for the gay persons right to deny service.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2356 Jun 21, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
They are not contrary, they are consistent, fair, and no one gets punished by the stand that I am taking.
You are consistent within your own argument, but it doesn't make you any less wrong. The long and the short of it is that you make qualifying statements that you support marriage equality, but then instantly reverse your position by arguing that people should be able to refuse service to such couples on the basis of their free exercise of religion. You couldn't be more wrong. In no way does providing a service (baked goods, flowers, photography, etc) infringe upon the religious freedom of the vendors in question.
The courts in the several states where this question has been raised have consistently ruled against your position, and the issue has been appealed as far as the US Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case.
Respect71 wrote:
Government forcing him to provide a wedding cake to support and participate in the event violates his belief that marriage is only between a husband and wife.
Of course, you misinterpret the issue. The government did not force him to do anything. They held that IF he chooses to bake wedding cakes, that he must do so for ANY client who chooses to order one. They also left him the ability not to offer the service, which similarly satisfies the non-discrimination question. To allow him to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation is no different than refusing service because one doesn't like Jews, black people, or idiots.
I think it is terribly curious that some people are actually arguing in favor of discrimination on the basis of religious belief. That seems fundamentally anti-American.
Respect71 wrote:
Government forcing him to use his talents to provide a wedding cake to a gay couple is marginalizing the bakers religious views, and i understand that is hard for you too understand because of your distain.
No, it isn't. It is the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, which have regularly been upheld as constitutional.
A business is an economic engine, which exist to provide a service to generate a profit. It is not a ministry, or a mouthpiece to spread one's religious moral beliefs. If they have a strong objection, then they are free not to provide the service of baking wedding cakes. They don't have the right to make customers comply with the religious beliefs of the owner in order to obtain service.
Respect71 wrote:
You marginalize, ridicule, and demonize a person because of their belief in what marriage is and your desire to use government to force them to believe as you is wrong.
No, I don't. Actually, it is the baker who is marginalizing, ridiculing, and demonizing the homosexuals. No judgment of the baker has taken place, in fact the couple in question has paid homage to their skills and reputation by selecting that baker to provide services.

You see, Respect, the person who actually takes the action, in this case denying service, is the one marginalizing, ridiculing, and demonizing. The baker has no right to project their religious beliefs onto others.

Your argument is extremely poorly reasoned, which is why it has CONSITENTLY failed in various courts of law.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2357 Jun 21, 2014
lides wrote:
The government did not force him to do anything. They held that IF he chooses to bake wedding cakes, that he must do so for ANY client who chooses to order one.
You have already gone to great lengths to say that wasn't true. Remember, Justice Dementia, "happy birthday Adolph?" A person ordering such a cake would be in the "ANY client" group.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2358 Jun 21, 2014
Wondering wrote:
You have already gone to great lengths to say that wasn't true. Remember, Justice Dementia, "happy birthday Adolph?" A person ordering such a cake would be in the "ANY client" group.
No, Wondering, I didn't. He broke the law by denying service on the basis of sexual orientation. What is more, he didn't even contest the fact.

A cake labeled as you state hear would not be offensive, and there would be no reason to deny service. The only similar such instance I am aware of is this one.
"The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28269290/ns/us_news...

The full name Adolf Hitler Campbell, is a bit of a different issue, and ultimately the state intervened in this case and ended up removing the children from the unfit parents.

As per usual, your generic and irrelevant argument merely serves to illustrate what a half-wit you really are.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2359 Jun 21, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Wondering, I didn't. He broke the law by denying service on the basis of sexual orientation. What is more, he didn't even contest the fact.
A cake labeled as you state hear would not be offensive, and there would be no reason to deny service. The only similar such instance I am aware of is this one.
"The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance."
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28269290/ns/us_news...
The full name Adolf Hitler Campbell, is a bit of a different issue, and ultimately the state intervened in this case and ended up removing the children from the unfit parents.
As per usual, your generic and irrelevant argument merely serves to illustrate what a half-wit you really are.
You are now denying that you made the offensive speech distinction?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2360 Jun 21, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
You are now denying that you made the offensive speech distinction?
No, I'm not. A cake saying "Happy Birthday Adolf" would not be offensive. I am not aware of any person seeking a cake that said what you have presented who was denied service.

I am aware of the instance in New Jersey where a couple WERE denied service, however their cake was to read "Adolf Hitler Campbell," which is another story.

I didn't make the offensive speech distinction, the Colorado ALJ made that point.
"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...

Both your ignorance, as well as your arrogance, are hysterical.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2361 Jun 21, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm not.
Good, then:
You have already gone to great lengths to say that wasn't true.

You see, when you say "ANY client" then you argue that there are exceptions you are contradicting yourself. When you do that you are either lying, stupid or both. I'd go with both.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2362 Jun 21, 2014
lides wrote:
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 refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like."

That's false. The baker said he would bake them any kind of cake but not a gay wedding cake. Not to mention that these men were customers. They were never refused service.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2363 Jun 21, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Good, then:
You have already gone to great lengths to say that wasn't true.
You see, when you say "ANY client" then you argue that there are exceptions you are contradicting yourself. When you do that you are either lying, stupid or both. I'd go with both.
Wondering, the law contains shade of grey, and your example is risible.

That you cannot understand that there is a difference between being asked to make a product that is unmistakably offensive (to anyone), and denying service because someone holds a different view or religious belief, or your are simply bigoted against are two distinctly different situations. Were you not a complete imbecile, you might begin to understand this simple fact.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2364 Jun 21, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, the law contains shade of grey, and your example is risible.
That you cannot understand that there is a difference between being asked to make a product that is unmistakably offensive (to anyone), and denying service because someone holds a different view or religious belief, or your are simply bigoted against are two distinctly different situations. Were you not a complete imbecile, you might begin to understand this simple fact.
So, when you say "ANY client" you don't really mean any client. Got it.
I think it's hilarious how you word things to make some weak point and then backtrack and say you never said it.

You are doing it again right here in this post. Here you go:
Part 1: "That you cannot understand that there is a difference between being asked to make a product that is unmistakably offensive (to anyone),"
Part 2: "and denying service because someone holds a different view or religious belief"

There is not even a fine line there. They are one and the same. A gay wedding cake IS offensive to the baker, he's included in 'to anyone' is he not? Baking a gay wedding cake is offensive to him because he believes gay marriage is a sin and doesn't want to be a participant in this wedding.

Anyway, it's all water under the bridge now. The baker had his first amendment rights trampled upon. Score one for this gay couple. Very sad.
Buulllffffff

Hemet, CA

#2365 Jun 21, 2014
For GOD's sake
*PLEASE*
No More Cake!
NoMoreCake

Hemet, CA

#2366 Jun 21, 2014
the f*ckin thing is 2 years old
and you're STILL wolfin' it down!

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2367 Jun 22, 2014
Wondering wrote:
So, when you say "ANY client" you don't really mean any client. Got it.
You are a twit.
Wondering wrote:
I think it's hilarious how you word things to make some weak point and then backtrack and say you never said it.
You are a twit.
Wondering wrote:
You are doing it again right here in this post. Here you go:
Part 1: "That you cannot understand that there is a difference between being asked to make a product that is unmistakably offensive (to anyone),"
Part 2: "and denying service because someone holds a different view or religious belief"
There is not even a fine line there. They are one and the same. A gay wedding cake IS offensive to the baker, he's included in 'to anyone' is he not? Baking a gay wedding cake is offensive to him because he believes gay marriage is a sin and doesn't want to be a participant in this wedding.
You are a twit.
Wondering wrote:
Anyway, it's all water under the bridge now. The baker had his first amendment rights trampled upon. Score one for this gay couple. Very sad.
The baker broke the law, and had a legal decision that rectified the situation.

You are a twit.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2368 Jun 22, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a twit.
<quoted text>
You are a twit.
<quoted text>
You are a twit.
<quoted text>
The baker broke the law, and had a legal decision that rectified the situation.
You are a twit.
As evidenced here, you have no argument. You're a loser.

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
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 2 hr mjjcpa 13,682
Local Denver Street Gang Gets Exposure! (Mar '10) 19 hr SashaStarr 262
scum of the earth. Sat purbutfly 1
Apex fun run a scam? Sat Bewildered Accoun... 65
Morgan Ingram was not murdered nor stalked. (Nov '12) Sat Clear Eyed Cat 52
drugs and dealers Fri purbutfly 1
Obamacare creator calls Americans" too stupid" 6.0 Fri Carlos 7
Denver Dating
Find my Match

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:43 pm PST

Bleacher Report11:43PM
Anderson Cements Himself as Starting RB with Breakout Day
NBC Sports12:48 AM
Broncos rally for 39-36 win over Dolphins - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 5:27 AM
Peyton credits Gase for game-changing play call
NBC Sports 6:06 AM
Danny Trevathan expected back at practice for Broncos
NFL 9:03 AM
Danny Trevathan, Jarvis Jones will return to practice