Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 3,728

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

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#259 Dec 13, 2013
Disgusted wrote:
Gay rights rewind: India criminalizes homosexuality again
ROTFLMFAO !
You evidently haven't heard the whole news, the law they reinstated criminalizes the same non-procreative sexual acts among heterosexual practitioners too. Ha-ha. It's actually written to be equally intrusive and offensive to personal freedom whether you are gay, straight or any where in between. It just never was really enforced that way.
Archie Bunker

Denver, CO

#260 Dec 13, 2013
The issue is so simple, that even I, Archie Bunker , knows that this man is being stripped of his right, to not bake a cake.

Same as the owner of a store posting a sign that reads the following.
-
No Shirt - No Shoes - No Service
-
Then being forced by the courts or some idiotic judge, to serve the person whom may have filed a discrimination suit against said shop owner.

Edith Agrees

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#261 Dec 13, 2013
dbg wrote:
<quoted text>If it's so clear, then please explain how baking a cake for a same-sex wedding prohibits the free exercise of his religion. His religion doesn't forbid doing business with homosexuals. His religion also states that thou shall have no other god before me, yet that doesn't give him grounds to refuse service to people from other religions. He wasn't able to prove that his first amendment rights were violated, so I'd like to see you demonstrate how they were.
The man believes in man-woman relationship marriages and he bakes cakes to celebrate the marriage.

By baking a cake to celebrate gay union goes against his belief in what marriage means.

The case continues to higher courts.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#262 Dec 13, 2013
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, that is how it works, point for point.

Despite their religious beliefs Amish owned businesses do have to pay Social Security taxes for their employees. It is simple fact.

The ACA, and other regs, do require health insurance plans to cover mental health, Scientilogist owned business or not.

A Muslim owned business can not force all its female employees to wear burkas on the basis of the owner's "religious" beliefs.

This is all obvious to anyone with a ninth grade education.

All you can do is deny, deny, lie and dissemble and be ignorant. I gather you're just a stupid troll, but it's much more fun to proceed as though you are just another befuddled, anti rational, theocratic, jeeshush buybull banger.
Did you cite anything? What a surprise.

When you’re ready to cite and support you foul mouthed arguments or even your weak insults... Then we can talk.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#264 Dec 13, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you cite anything? What a surprise.
When you’re ready to cite and support you foul mouthed arguments or even your weak insults... Then we can talk.
You stupid, anti rational filth: Everyone knows or can get their buybull hom skool'd teechur to look up that the ACA requires coverage for mental health care...Scientologist owned business or not.

Anyone with a ninth grade education can look up the fact that Amish employers must pay into Social Security, despite their beliefs compelling them to not want to.

Anyone with a lick of common sense - not our mullah christers - knows that Muslim employers in a private business cannot make all females wear burkas.

And we don't need to provide citations to anti intellectual freaks who "believe" the earth is under 10000 years old. They don't deal in facts. They're unwell bigots is all.

Okay, you lying trash? Now get help for your sexual disorder of homophobia.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#265 Dec 13, 2013
Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
QueerisNotaRace !
Hey cretin, "religious" belief is not a "race," is not an inborn characteristic. Yet the law protects against discrimination on the basis of religious belief.

Also the law doesn't really protect on the basis of race. It protects on the basis of real or perceived race, that is, the often faulty interpretation of the bigot in question is what is prohibited. The victim of any discrimination need not actually be the race that the perpetrator means to discriminate on the basis of.

Same for heterosexuals who are taken by bigots to be homosexual. The law protects on the basis of perceived sexual orientation.(I know this is far, far too complex for you.)

By the way, we know you're a white supremacist. We can tell by the sheety arguments you make.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#266 Dec 13, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
He sells wedding cakes, all customers who come in have a right to that service on an equal basis, despite ANY religious objection he claims. This applies whether his religious objection is based on their race, nationality, religion or ant other suspect classification. He sells WEDDING cakes to man-woman couples that he believes are the only one who should marry, based on his conviction and religion.
The real reason he only made wedding cakes for opposite sex couples was because no one had asked for anything but, until this couple, acting on his reputation as having a friendly establishment that does good work, came in. That's when he dragged God in on his ambush violation of their rights as customers, he played no role into it before then. He has every right to believe that God only blesses opposite sex marriages, but he's not God, he's a baker with a legal obligation that he was more than happy to violate.
Respect71 wrote:
Sorry, but your right to practice your beliefs ends at you practicing them on others uninvited in the public square. Im sorry, but the 1st Amendment is clear, whether you agree or disagree with his belief.
The right to freely exercise your beliefs is not an absolute one. You are free to believe that lobbing virgins into the nearest volcano is the only way to save the world, that right is protected, a right you might have to exercising that belief freely, not so much. The state has an obligation to virgins to protect them from you. You are free to believe God doesn't approve of same sex marriage, that right is protected, a right you might have to exercising that belief freely, not so much. The state has an obligation to protect us from you. You may not be lobbing us into the nearest volcano, but the principle is the same. You don't get to ambush us with your beliefs simply because we surprised you by being homosexual.
Respect71 wrote:
If he isn't prosecuted, it would set the precedent that this kind of do unto others something they cannot legally do unto you in the name of God ambush is an acceptable expression of one's freedom of religion. The precedent is government prosecution for not selling a WEDDING cake based on his religious belief.
He can climb down from his martyr's cross, that just doesn't sell. He violated their rights, he can blame God for doing so, but it is no excuse for his behavior.
Respect71 wrote:
Respect71 wrote:
Should the government then force Churches to provide wedding ceremonies for gay couples, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of someone's sexual orientation?
No place of worship or member of the clergy could be forced to perform or host ANY wedding even before same sex weddings. You don't have a right to a Catholic wedding, even if you are Catholic. Same sex marriage changes nothing in that regard, even with anti-discrimination protections in place. Government cant force a baker to make a wedding cake for gay couples because of the 1st Amendment and what this baker believes. What he is doing (or not doing) is a far cry from a unsolicited tract with hell statements on it.
While his was one of the more polite refusal of services while gay cases that I have heard of, his fate is currently attached to a nut sending hate mail in the name of God. Sorry, that's just the reality of it. If they take her case, he's toast. She did the exact same thing he did, she just got carried away.

Continued.

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#267 Dec 13, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
I'd personally be fine in holding places of worship and their clergy were bound by all the same laws that the rest of us individuals have to abide by regarding the services they provide, but that ain't happening, nor would we really want it to. Because the 1st Amendment affords it to everyone, including individuals who exercise their faith.
That's why I said what I did.
Respect71 wrote:
Churches and those they employ in a religious role have to adhere to church doctrine, individuals do not. Im sorry, WHAT?! Are you saying a Christian individual can only be a Christian in Church?
The guarantee of your right to freely practice can vary depending on where you are at any given moment. You have more individual protection in your place of worship than your home and more in your home than anywhere else. Places of worship and their religious personnel are freer to practice their beliefs than individual believers, because they are acting as agents of the place, individual believers like you are not. Churches are freer to hire only fellow believers and to serve only fellow believers than you are. You are doing business in the secular world, governed by civil law, you are required to act like it.
Respect71 wrote:
He faces no repercussions from his faith for doing such a cake. If he was going to be drummed out of his Church for doing what they asked for, he might have an argument, but no. He believes he does and its an eternal repercussion for him.
He is free to believe that, we are not bound by it. They were not asking for his religious services, whatever those might, be nor even his version of God's blessing, let alone his, they were asking for a better than average non-denominational wedding cake.
Respect71 wrote:
A 1st Amendment right to be right b*st*rds to unsuspecting customers, because we choose to believe that God hates you or what you're doing. Does this right to p*ss on the day of gay folk in the name of God stop with us, or does God get you out of p*ssing on the day of anyone you say he hates? God hates the Swedes, the Rev Fred Phelps has told us that one. Can I start with them? Obviously you are very angry, and based on your post you will disregard our Constitution to prosecute a man for being a jerk.
Shouldn't we all be angry when someone blaming god for their actions violates the civil rights of people who don't happen to share their beliefs? Shouldn't those who commit such public wrongs be held to the full extent of the law? How would you feel if you were ambushed by someone's beliefs that you had no idea you were crossing? Smile and take it?
Respect71 wrote:
. Well, contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of Christian jerks in the world just as there are secular and other religions, but it doesnt mean break the Constitution because you dont understand and disagree with his religious belief.
Jerkdom is a cross cultural phenomenon. He has a right to his belief, he does not have the right to inflict it on unsuspecting homosexuals. Sorry. He gave that up when he opened for business.

dbg

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#270 Dec 13, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Baker is a Christian baking WEDDING CAKES for an institution that he believes to be sacred. Not serving a gay couple a cake does NOTHING to the gay couple, but jail time and fines because for his religious belief does... If this happens to him will set a precedent and opens a door for government to force others HOW to do business... Will they force churches to perform gay wedding ceremonies?
He obviously didn't thing that it was that sacred when he agreed to bake a cake for a wedding ceremony for two dogs. Quit trying to make this guy out to be a christian martyr, when he's anything but. He got caught discriminating, tried to play the "religion" card and didn't get away with it. There's nothing in this guys religion that prevents him from doing business with homosexuals. Baking a cake for a same-sex ceremony doesn't interfere with his freedom to practice his religion. He can disapprove of it. He can disagree with it. But it doesn't prevent him from doing the job that he was supposed to be contracted for.

Again, he's getting fined for not complying with the law. The government already dictates how businesses are to be run. It's part of what you agree to when you register you business with the state and local governments. If you aren't willing to abide by the rules, then you shouldn't run a business.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#274 Dec 13, 2013
Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you now saying that HoMoSeXuAlItLy is a religion ?
No sexually sick moron, I was refuting the earlier post's implicit claim that a protected category needs to be racially based. They do not.

Neither religion nor veteran's status nor disability nor religion are inborn, like race is, and yet are protected categories.

So your inane complaint that sexual orientation - clearly an inborn tendency, like handedness - is not a race makes no sense.

Okay, you stupid fundie? Was the simple enough for your disturbed mind?

“If you can't beat um join um”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Under the troll bridge

#277 Dec 13, 2013
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
You stupid, anti rational filth: Everyone knows or can get their buybull hom skool'd teechur to look up that the ACA requires coverage for mental health care...Scientologist owned business or not.
Anyone with a ninth grade education can look up the fact that Amish employers must pay into Social Security, despite their beliefs compelling them to not want to.
Anyone with a lick of common sense - not our mullah christers - knows that Muslim employers in a private business cannot make all females wear burkas.
And we don't need to provide citations to anti intellectual freaks who "believe" the earth is under 10000 years old. They don't deal in facts. They're unwell bigots is all.
Okay, you lying trash? Now get help for your sexual disorder of homophobia.
In this case you're wrong. Most Amish are exempt from Social Security. Google it........
http://amishamerica.com/do-amish-pay-taxes/

In this case you're right. Scientologists owned businesses that offer medical benefits are required by ACA to provide mental health benefits. It really doesn't matter though. The fine for not providing benefits is less than it will cost an employer to provide them so it's kind of a moot point. They just won't provide medical benefits.

I have never understood this particular lawsuit. I used to date a guy who treated wait staff badly and then left a bad tip. I dumped him. I've often wondered how many times they spit in his food when they recognized him. Why in the world would someone want food prepared by someone who didn't like them? Especially something as important as a wedding cake? Aren't there any gay friendly bakers that they could help support? I generally try to spend my money where I'm treated well and don't frequent establishments that don't make me feel welcome for whatever reason. Common sense isn't very common anymore..........

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#279 Dec 13, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
He owns his business. Are you suggesting he close shop and do a different profession? Would you be willing to do the same when the government tells you you have to do something that you dont believe in?

Is it the same when a public school teacher refuses to read books about gay parents to 1st graders? They can go be teachers somewhere else?
If he or I weren't actually doing the profession we signed up for, yes we should be out on our asses. I can't go become a coal miner and refuse to go underground. That would be silly. He can't go be be a baker for the public and refuse to do his job.

I am unaware of any books about gay parents that are mandatory. In our modern society though, I don't think there should be any teachers that push their agenda of bigotry in any form.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#280 Dec 13, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I didnt claim being gay is a choice. In fact it doesnt matter is it is or is not. 2. Marriage is between one-man and one-woman, and history shows us the importance of that relationship for societies The gay relationship is very different for that of a man-woman relationship, physically, emotionally and mentally, that it deserves its own definition. I am proud to live in Colorado where the State Amendment upholds marriage as between a man-woman relationship and our great State allows gays to have civil unions where they have the same benefits and married couples. What a blessing!

Then you disregard our Constitution and are willing to give up your rights for political correctness.
1. Agreed. Whether it is a choice or not, no one can show a valid reason why it should be illegal. No different than trying to bad people who get tattoos or piercings.
2. Your opinion. Marriage is now seen as more than just man-woman throughout modern society. Things change, get over it. You say it is different thatn the man-woman relationship physically, emotionally and mentally. That right there shows your closed mindedness and bigotry. There is no difference. You want them to have civil unions but keep your 'marriage'. You want to be a 1st class citizen and designate them as 2nd class citizens. I'm sorry, but America is better than that.

It IS the Constitution! I've showed you the 14th amendment multiple times.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#283 Dec 14, 2013
The Real Troll Stopper wrote:
Homosexuality is a mental illness due to a birth defect.
Not according to doctors, who know more than you.

dbg

Since: Aug 07

Location hidden

#284 Dec 14, 2013
Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW sodomy vs anti discrimination in your case same thing !
I was thinking about this statement that you made and want to dive a little deeper into what you're actually trying to say. Let's see if I'm interpreting this correctly as to why sodomy and anti discrimination is the same thing:

- Sodomy is an action that is a fundamental part of identifying as a gay man and laws that outlaw sodomy are actually suppressing gay men.

- Discrimination is an action that is a fundamental part of identifying as a christian and laws that outlaw discrimination are actually suppressing christians.

Not sure if this is actually what you meant but it certainly says a lot about the nature of this discussion.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#289 Dec 14, 2013
The Real Troll Stopper wrote:
Homosexuality is a mental illness due to a birth defect.
Oh well, there went the fundie trash's "it's a choice" lie.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#290 Dec 14, 2013
The Troll Doll wrote:
<quoted text>
In this case you're wrong. Most Amish are exempt from Social Security. Google it........
http://amishamerica.com/do-amish-pay-taxes/
In this case you're right.
You don't know how to use a search engine or read.

Amish employers must pay Social Security and unemployment taxes.

This is different from whether "Amish are exempt from Social Security."

This thread is about places of public accommodation, specifically, this business that wishes to operate as though this were a theocracy. I gave several counter examples. It's not that difficult to absorb the general idea.

Oh, and the earth is billions of years old. Not thousands. But I do like how the fundie trash, reading their inerrant buybull, can't agree amongst themselves how many thousands of years old the earth is [sic], the stupid bigots.

Level 1

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

#292 Dec 14, 2013
fr Respect71:

>He faces fines and jail time for what he believes Yes, his rights are being removed.<

No, they are not. Have mommy sign you up for a kindergarten class in government. You need it, badly. He can use Betty Crocker mixes to make cakes for his family and ever-shrinking circle of friends, but to serve the PUBLIC he has to follow anti-discrimination laws. It's very simple,

“If you can't beat um join um”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Under the troll bridge

#293 Dec 14, 2013
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know how to use a search engine or read.
Amish employers must pay Social Security and unemployment taxes.
This is different from whether "Amish are exempt from Social Security."
This thread is about places of public accommodation, specifically, this business that wishes to operate as though this were a theocracy. I gave several counter examples. It's not that difficult to absorb the general idea.
Oh, and the earth is billions of years old. Not thousands. But I do like how the fundie trash, reading their inerrant buybull, can't agree amongst themselves how many thousands of years old the earth is [sic], the stupid bigots.
Noooooo, you didn't read it. Let me help you. Now just sound out the words.

"Though they are generally exempted from Social Security, in some cases Amish may in fact be required to pay Social Security taxes. This may happen when working for a business that is of mixed Amish and non-Amish ownership. Amish business owners are also required to pay Social Security taxes when employing non-Amish workers, or Amish youth that have not yet been baptized in the church.

Did you read all of the words? The part about Amish EMPLOYERS only have to pay Social Security taxes if they employ non Amish workers or Amish that have not yet been baptized into the church? Do you need it explained with one syllable words?

Dang! Those religious Amish people are SO EVIL that they take such good care of their elderly that the taxpayers don't have to. WOW! That's just not right! Why are you such a hater? Why do you hate religion?

Why are you calling me fundie trash? What does being afraid that forcing some hater to make me a cake because they might spit in it have to do with religion? Get over it. You can make all the laws you want but you can't legislate feelings. The haters will still hate and I'm definitely smart enough to know it's not a good idea to have someone who hates me prepare my food. I'd rather pay someone friendly, that I could trust do it. It's just common sense.

“If you can't beat um join um”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Under the troll bridge

#294 Dec 14, 2013
Pattysboi wrote:
fr Respect71:
>He faces fines and jail time for what he believes Yes, his rights are being removed.<
No, they are not. Have mommy sign you up for a kindergarten class in government. You need it, badly. He can use Betty Crocker mixes to make cakes for his family and ever-shrinking circle of friends, but to serve the PUBLIC he has to follow anti-discrimination laws. It's very simple,
His sales have actually increased because of this. It seems he has a lot of supporters who feel he should have the right to make the cakes he wants to. You can't legislate feelings but you sure can aggravate the situation when you try.

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) 4 min mjjcpa 12,808
COP CRimes : Trooper Dope Dealer /Trooper ... (Jun '12) 5 hr Alice 3
Attire for Formal Weddings 13 hr kately 1
Teacher back in class after Bush-Hitler comparison (Mar '06) 22 hr Swedenforever 64
T r a m a d o l & X A N A X and much more Sun Deal 1
Gay/Bi teens in/near Denver, Colorado Sat Teen1616 2
What is Credence Independent Auditors and Advis... Oct 17 cuthbertellen 3
Denver Dating
Find my Match

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 ]