Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 44064 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.

ZZZzz

Honolulu, HI

#2430 Jun 25, 2014
1.
Yeshet Gobena wrote:
<quoted text> I bake your cake if they don't
2.
Yeshet Eddie wrote:
Being a Bi-Sexual woman and hoping to made a nice Ethiopian lady one day I think it is wrong to discrimate against gays, I also go by Yeshet Gobena, I am out of the closet
3.
ZZZzz

Honolulu, HI

#2431 Jun 25, 2014
Abrahammock Religions wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me, sexually sick trash, you don't understand the law. As I said the presence of some sign like that has no bearing on the issue at hand. I explained the difference, but as usual the tee baggrz, who "have no political affiliation," except ignorance, misogyny and homophobia, could not avail themselves of actual information.
(.)

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2432 Jun 25, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>A wedding cake has no inherent meaning. It is simply a cake that is served at a wedding.

Respect71 wrote, "
To discriminate service for any reason is against Colorado law. So says you and your friends.
"

False. Anti-discrimination laws protect people based on certain traits like race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. They do not cover "any reason".
So what it comes down to is you support punishing an American for not believing the same as you, while denying facts that the baker serves gays all his products with the exception of a wedding cake which he reserves because of his belief in marriage.

Forcing an American to support and participate in something he doesn't belief in is un-American.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2433 Jun 25, 2014
Abrahammock Religions wrote:
<quoted text>You predictably have confused love (marriage) for hate (homophobic performance art.)

You're very sick, it pleases me to note. And there's no place in educated society for trash like you.
You confuse LIBERTY withy TYRANNY.
Your lack of education shows how sad and destructive your thought is to American society.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2434 Jun 25, 2014
Abrahammock Religions wrote:
<quoted text>You're sick, and lying about the law. You're lying about the law despite the additional fact that you are incapable of understanding the law.

A graphic designer may not refuse service to all Christians just because they are Christians.

The sexually sick, hypocritical christianist - who bakes wedding cakes for co habitating couples, divorced people who are re marrying, couples who commit the sin of coveting - refuses service to an entire protected class of persons.

He's a stu pid bigot who does not follow scripture. He has a homosexual fixation, as you do.
You're right! And the baker didn't refuse service because they were gay! He denied a WEDDING CAKE because he didn't want to support and participate in an institution he doesn't believe in.

I stand and support the gay graphic designer in not having to design protest signs same as I do the baker who doesn't want to be forced to support and participate in "gay weddings".

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2435 Jun 25, 2014
igotta ASK wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, you know those signs up in some businesses that say
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" ?
Did the bakery have one of those signs and
and if so how has that worked out for the baker?
What is the CURRENT status of this issue ?
I don't believe he had a sign. Not sure the law would permit.

The Colorado civil liberties commission, ignored law and ordered the baker to serve wedding cakes to gays (as of now I haven't seen a written order from to commission as of yet). His lawyer is assessing the next step for this case.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2436 Jun 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>No, moron, as I have pointed out time and time again, that is a different issue.

"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...

You look positively mindless, when you routinely raise this argument, not acknowledging that it has already been addressed as a matter of law, and it doesn't pass the lowest levels of judicial scrutiny.
I'm not the one calling you the names, hating on you, while mindlessly citing the same court ruling over and over, trying to justify you hate and fustian for those who don't believe as you do.

I'm the one standing for liberty for ALL Americans... "Gay marriage" and bakers who want their talents to be used for traditional marriage ceremonies, because of our Constitution!
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2437 Jun 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
So what it comes down to is you support punishing an American for not believing the same as you
False. His beliefs are irrelevant. His actions are what matter. If he wants to run a business, he must follow certain guidelines: paying taxes, keeping his kitchen clean, not hiring children, and not discriminating.

I don't care if his religion says taxes are evil, that cockroaches are holy creatures, that children must be enslaved, or that gay people don't deserve service.
Respect71 wrote:
, while denying facts that the baker serves gays all his products with the exception of a wedding cake which he reserves because of his belief in marriage.
I never denied that fact - it simply isn't relevant.
Respect71 wrote:
Forcing an American to support and participate in something he doesn't belief in is un-American.
That isn't occurring, so stop repeating that lie.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2438 Jun 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right! And the baker didn't refuse service because they were gay!
If that couple requesting a wedding cake was straight, he would have sold it to them. Therefore, it was their sexuality that caused the refusal.
Respect71 wrote:
I stand and support the gay graphic designer in not having to design protest signs same as I do the baker who doesn't want to be forced to support and participate in "gay weddings".
Of course. You're too dumb to see the difference even after it's been explained to you a dozen times.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2440 Jun 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I'm not the one calling you the names, hating on you, while mindlessly citing the same court ruling over and over, trying to justify you hate and fustian for those who don't believe as you do.
Respect, in all fairness, you have earned every insult with your witless assertions.
You can't support something, while simultaneously constructing a framework upon which people can discriminate against the very same activity you just claimed to support. The reason I keep referring to that court decision is the same reason that you cannot refute it. It provides an excellent overview of the topic, and rightly refutes each of your arguments in support of discrimination. It also annihilates the notion that providing a service for someone with differing beliefs is a violation of any of the rights of the proprietor.
Respect71 wrote:
I'm the one standing for liberty for ALL Americans... "Gay marriage" and bakers who want their talents to be used for traditional marriage ceremonies, because of our Constitution!
No, Respect, you aren't. You routinely claim to support same sex marriage, but then immediately seek to allow others to discriminate against same sex couples who choose to marry. That isn't support, it is hypocrisy.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2441 Jun 26, 2014
lides wrote:
You routinely claim to support same sex marriage, but then immediately seek to allow others to discriminate against same sex couples who choose to marry. That isn't support, it is hypocrisy.
Is a gay marriage a person? The baker doesn't want to participate in a same sex wedding.
This is yet another example of you not understanding the difference between a person and an event. The men were regular customers of that bakery. They were never denied service.
There was no discrimination. There was a refusal to participate in an event.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2442 Jun 26, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Is a gay marriage a person?
No, the customer is. The baker made wedding cakes and sold them regularly. When a gay couple attempted to buy one, they were denied.
Wondering wrote:
The baker doesn't want to participate in a same sex wedding.
No one asked him too. Baking a cake isn't participation in an event where the cake is eaten.
Wondering wrote:
This is yet another example of you not understanding the difference between a person and an event. The men were regular customers of that bakery. They were never denied service.
There was no discrimination. There was a refusal to participate in an event.
This is another example of your dishonesty.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2443 Jun 26, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>False. His beliefs are irrelevant. His actions are what matter. If he wants to run a business, he must follow certain guidelines: paying taxes, keeping his kitchen clean, not hiring children, and not discriminating.

I don't care if his religion says taxes are evil, that cockroaches are holy creatures, that children must be enslaved, or that gay people don't deserve service.

Respect71 wrote, "
, while denying facts that the baker serves gays all his products with the exception of a wedding cake which he reserves because of his belief in marriage.
"

I never denied that fact - it simply isn't relevant.

Respect71 wrote, "
Forcing an American to support and participate in something he doesn't belief in is un-American.
"

That isn't occurring, so stop repeating that lie.
Showing you hate for religion is telling.
Sad, especially when our Country was founded on the idea of religious freedom.

Government forcing a American to support and participate in an event he doesn't believe in is un-American.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2444 Jun 26, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>If that couple requesting a wedding cake was straight, he would have sold it to them. Therefore, it was their sexuality that caused the refusal.

Respect71 wrote, "
I stand and support the gay graphic designer in not having to design protest signs same as I do the baker who doesn't want to be forced to support and participate in "gay weddings". "

Of course. You're too dumb to see the difference even after it's been explained to you a dozen times.
It's the institution not the sexuality.

It's your intellectual dishonesty that gets in your way.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2445 Jun 26, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>Respect, in all fairness, you have earned every insult with your witless assertions.
You can't support something, while simultaneously constructing a framework upon which people can discriminate against the very same activity you just claimed to support. The reason I keep referring to that court decision is the same reason that you cannot refute it. It provides an excellent overview of the topic, and rightly refutes each of your arguments in support of discrimination. It also annihilates the notion that providing a service for someone with differing beliefs is a violation of any of the rights of the proprietor.
Respect71 wrote, "I'm the one standing for liberty for ALL Americans... "Gay marriage" and bakers who want their talents to be used for traditional marriage ceremonies, because of our Constitution! "

No, Respect, you aren't. You routinely claim to support same sex marriage, but then immediately seek to allow others to discriminate against same sex couples who choose to marry. That isn't support, it is hypocrisy.
The name calling shows you're sustain for those who don't believe as you.

We are so far beyond that court case and the bias that has continued while ignoring law is staggering and sad.

I can absolutely support "gay marriage" while pointing to the flawed law that force and punish Americans to support and participate in an institution they don't believe in. It's sad that your desire is to punish and force Americans to you belief when the Constitution allows for our differences.

I am for the liberty of ALL Americans, and I understand that the majority of Americans believe in traditional marriage. I am for "gay marriage" and NOT for punishing those who don't believe "gay marriage".

My guess is you are for diversity until you spot someone who doesn't believe as you and you want to punish them. THAT'S hypocrisy!

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2446 Jun 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you agree in prosecuting the gay graphic designer who denies services to Westboro baptist church for discrimination.
Yes. Denying service because of religion is religious discrimination., Your "what if" is the same thing the baker did. So yes that person should face prosecution.

Religious discrimination is illegal and wrong.

Happy now?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2447 Jun 26, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The name calling shows you're sustain for those who don't believe as you.
We are so far beyond that court case and the bias that has continued while ignoring law is staggering and sad.
I can absolutely support "gay marriage" while pointing to the flawed law that force and punish Americans to support and participate in an institution they don't believe in. It's sad that your desire is to punish and force Americans to you belief when the Constitution allows for our differences.
I am for the liberty of ALL Americans, and I understand that the majority of Americans believe in traditional marriage. I am for "gay marriage" and NOT for punishing those who don't believe "gay marriage".
My guess is you are for diversity until you spot someone who doesn't believe as you and you want to punish them. THAT'S hypocrisy!
Funny but you don't seem to have spent nearly as much time complaining about laws that would jail ministers for performing SSM's as you have spent on this thread defending a man who admitted to using religion as a basis to discriminate.

Now your turn.

Do you support people refusing service to blacks and Jews because of their religious beliefs?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2448 Jun 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Showing you hate for religion is telling.
Sad, especially when our Country was founded on the idea of religious freedom.
All people deserve religious freedom. That being said, religion is a plague. It causes people to be irrational and treat their fellow man poorly.
Respect71 wrote:
Government forcing a American to support and participate in an event he doesn't believe in is un-American.
It is doing neither.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2449 Jun 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
It's the institution not the sexuality.
It's your intellectual dishonesty that gets in your way.
The only difference in the "institution" is their sexuality. You'd have to be blind not to see that.

Please explain how I'm being intellectually dishonest.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2450 Jun 27, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I am for the liberty of ALL Americans, and I understand that the majority of Americans believe in traditional marriage.
Liar. You don't support all instances of people breaking the law simply because their religion tells them to.

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
Tracy Pickerell calls for assassination 6 hr Know what they are 1
Why is story of NY lawyer who assaulted a woman... 10 hr Respect71 33
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 10 hr Respect71 26,788
Mayor Dave Mayer makes History raising Highest ... 12 hr Recall Mayor Davi... 1
Mexicans (Mar '14) 12 hr Assquatch 115
Colorado Adoptees can get their Original birth ... 14 hr joanNYadoptees 1
Ban the user above you game (Oct '11) 14 hr joanNYadoptees 2,824

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages