Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 57562 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.

Cheyenne

New York, NY

#2577 Jul 3, 2014
Isn't prohibiting homosexual "marriage" just as discriminatory as prohibiting interracial marriage, like some states used to do?This analogy is not valid at all. Bridging the divide of the sexes by uniting men and women is both a worthy goal and a part of the fundamental purpose of marriage, common to all human civilizations. Laws against interracial marriage, on the other hand, served only the purpose of preserving a social system of racial segregation. This was both an unworthy goal and one utterly irrelevant to the fundamental nature of marriage. Allowing a black woman to marry a white man does not change the definition of marriage, which requires one man and one woman. Allowing two men or two women to marry would change that fundamental definition. Banning the "marriage" of same-sex couples is therefore essential to preserve the nature and purpose of marriage itself.
Real Denver

Honolulu, HI

#2578 Jul 3, 2014
*geeze*
Goood night all.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2579 Jul 4, 2014
Wondering wrote:
He disagrees with that law, so do I. Did you see that the supreme court now says that the baker is a "person" with "religious rights?" This should be fun.
You said:
"I do hold a healthy contempt for anyone who argues for equality under the law"
Why is that?
Wondering, you are an idiot.

Fell free to offer a compelling governmental interest served to the contrary that indicates to the contrary. Otherwise, you merely are reaffirming your idiocy.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2580 Jul 4, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Wondering, you are an idiot.
Fell free to offer a compelling governmental interest served to the contrary that indicates to the contrary. Otherwise, you merely are reaffirming your idiocy.
You said:
"I do hold a healthy contempt for anyone who argues for equality under the law"
Why is that?

Are you going to answer the question? That's a strange thing to say, especially for an amateur justice.

As for your comment here:
"offer a compelling governmental interest served to the contrary that indicates to the contrary"

WTF are you babbling about?

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2581 Jul 4, 2014
Wondering wrote:
You said:
"I do hold a healthy contempt for anyone who argues for equality under the law"
Why is that?
Are you going to answer the question? That's a strange thing to say, especially for an amateur justice.
As for your comment here:
"offer a compelling governmental interest served to the contrary that indicates to the contrary"
WTF are you babbling about?
Congratulation on your return to typo trolling, Wondering.

Did you have a valid or on topic argument to make, or can you merely point out when someone forgets to type a word?

I think it is hysterical when you concentrate upon mistakes, the intent of which are obvious to the casual observer who has read some of my posts, rather than making a valid, factually supported, and on topic argument.

On the whole, it makes you look petty, unintelligent, and incompetent.

Happy independence day, moron.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2582 Jul 4, 2014
Cheyenne wrote:
Isn't prohibiting homosexual "marriage" just as discriminatory as prohibiting interracial marriage, like some states used to do?This analogy is not valid at all. Bridging the divide of the sexes by uniting men and women is both a worthy goal and a part of the fundamental purpose of marriage, common to all human civilizations. Laws against interracial marriage, on the other hand, served only the purpose of preserving a social system of racial segregation. This was both an unworthy goal and one utterly irrelevant to the fundamental nature of marriage. Allowing a black woman to marry a white man does not change the definition of marriage, which requires one man and one woman. Allowing two men or two women to marry would change that fundamental definition. Banning the "marriage" of same-sex couples is therefore essential to preserve the nature and purpose of marriage itself.
Banning marriage of same sex couples violates the equal protection guarantees in our Constitution.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2583 Jul 4, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your need, not mine. The Bible god supports slavery and this was a primary justification by American slaveowners, who were Christians.
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance."
<quoted text>
My understanding of history is far superior to yours, which is whitewashed. No kidding people all over the world practiced slavery. The point was that Christianity did not eliminate it. Secular values did.
<quoted text>
Then what is it? Does the baker show up to the wedding and perform a show and then hug everyone in the wedding party and declare "This wedding is awesome"?
<quoted text>
Answer the question. Who are you to declare that the baker's Christian beliefs about marriage are more important than the Chinese cook's beliefs about his food?
<quoted text>
Nor am I. You are the one who won't support law-breaking unless the law-breaker shares the same beliefs as you.
“That's your need, not mine.” Apparently.

“The Bible god supports slavery” Your intellection dishonesty is apparently ignorance and lack of knowledge.

“primary justification by American slaveowners, who were Christians.” Again you need a history class.

“My understanding of history is far superior to yours,” Based on your statements your understanding of history is no better than a 2 year old in Iran.
“which is whitewashed. No kidding people all over the world practiced slavery. The point was that Christianity did not eliminate it. Secular values did.” LOL… Cite your source to support that stamen.

“Then what is it? Does the baker show up to the wedding and perform a show and then hug everyone in the wedding party and declare "This wedding is awesome"?” Your knowledge of wedding cakes and set up equals that of your knowledge of history. The wedding cake needs to be set up for the event and the sole responsibility is on the baker who creates the cake. Government forcing a baker to support and participate in a even of an institution he doesn’t believe in is Un-Constitutional.

“Answer the question. Who are you to declare that the baker's Christian beliefs about marriage are more important than the Chinese cook's beliefs about his food?” One who understands the difference, while you make a void point.

“Nor am I. You are the one who won't support law-breaking unless the law-breaker shares the same beliefs as you.”…

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2584 Jul 4, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is there an absence of a husband or wife? You guessed it! Because the couple is gay.
The baker served gays out of his bakery for years, showing that he doesn’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, but he does when it comes to the institution of marriage.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2585 Jul 4, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Childlaborism and Cockroachanity. Religions are arbitrary inventions; they can be created at the drop of a hat.
This is more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2586 Jul 4, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I know, you have been for some time.
<quoted text>
I do hold a healthy contempt for anyone who argues for equality under the law, while at the same time arguing that people should be able to project their religious morals onto others be discriminating against them.
Your arguments are utterly irrational, and hypocritical.
I'm sorry that you are too slow to see that it does not infringe upon the religious freedom of a business owner to provide service to someone who holds differing beliefs.
It’s clear from many of your posts you are projecting your morals against someone who doesn’t believe as you; to the point of having to lose income from his livelihood, while literally doing NOTHING to the gay couple. It’s not ok for you to support more rights to some while removing rights from others… I seriously feel sorry for you.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2587 Jul 4, 2014
lides wrote:
Distain (verb)
1 archaic : stain
2 archaic : dishonor
Disdain (noun)
1 : a feeling of strong dislike or disapproval of someone or something you think does not deserve respect
2 : a feeling of contempt for someone or something regarded as unworthy or inferior : scorn
I retract distain and replace with hatful, spiteful, and loathsome, and mostly UN-American.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2588 Jul 4, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“The Bible god supports slavery” Your intellection dishonesty is apparently ignorance and lack of knowledge.
I just gave you a quote, attributed directly to your god, that explicitly condones slavery. What's your rebuttal?
Respect71 wrote:
“primary justification by American slaveowners, who were Christians.” Again you need a history class.
How so? Were American slaveowners not Christians? Did they not appeal to the Bible as support for slavery?
Respect71 wrote:
“which is whitewashed. No kidding people all over the world practiced slavery. The point was that Christianity did not eliminate it. Secular values did.” LOL… Cite your source to support that stamen.
Simple: slavery contradicts secular values of freedom and compassion. Abolitionism picked up in the 18th century after the Enlightenment. Christians had been practicing slavery for 1500+ years by then - clearly Christianity wasn't much of an influence on stopping the practice.
Respect71 wrote:
“Then what is it? Does the baker show up to the wedding and perform a show and then hug everyone in the wedding party and declare "This wedding is awesome"?” Your knowledge of wedding cakes and set up equals that of your knowledge of history. The wedding cake needs to be set up for the event and the sole responsibility is on the baker who creates the cake.
I already mentioned the delivery. Delivering the cake is not participation nor an act of speech supporting an event.
Respect71 wrote:
“Answer the question. Who are you to declare that the baker's Christian beliefs about marriage are more important than the Chinese cook's beliefs about his food?” One who understands the difference, while you make a void point.
You haven't said any difference!
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2589 Jul 4, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
The baker served gays out of his bakery for years, showing that he doesn’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, but he does when it comes to the institution of marriage.
He did discriminate against gay people. That he only discriminates with *certain products* is irrelevant.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2590 Jul 4, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.
This post is more evidence than you are too dull to argue principles.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2591 Jul 4, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
It’s clear from many of your posts you are projecting your morals against someone who doesn’t believe as you;
Actually, I am merely holding up a mirror of your purported beliefs. You claim to be Christian, but still wish to judge and treat others not as you would be treated. Seems hypocritical.
Respect71 wrote:
to the point of having to lose income from his livelihood, while literally doing NOTHING to the gay couple.
Actually, foolish person, as the Colorado court pointed out, were he not to illegally refuse service, it would be a wind fall for the business.
Any loss of income comes due to the actions of the baker's refusal to provide service. You can't deny service and then blame the would be client for loss of income, doing so is irrational.
Respect71 wrote:
It’s not ok for you to support more rights to some while removing rights from others…
I'm not, I am supporting equality under the law. You, on the other hand, are supporting discrimination. This isn't a difficult issue to understand.

Should I be able to deny services to jews, black people, or idiots (like yourself)? Of course not. Nor would I deny any of the aforementioned service, because I run a business to generate a profit, not make a political statement.
Respect71 wrote:
I seriously feel sorry for you.
I pity you. particularly when you claim to support gay rights, while at the same time arguing for a free pass for the religious to discriminate. you truly seem confused.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2592 Jul 4, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I retract distain and replace with hatful, spiteful, and loathsome, and mostly UN-American.
I agree, except distain, you are all of the above.

You are also a hypocrite.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2593 Jul 4, 2014
lides wrote:
Actually, foolish person, as the Colorado court pointed out,
Now, foolish person, the supreme court now defines the baker as a person with religious rights. Should be fun.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2594 Jul 4, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Now, foolish person, the supreme court now defines the baker as a person with religious rights. Should be fun.
Dear idiot, learn context. The US Supreme Court ruled on an employer providing benefits to an employee, not denying service to a customer. Were you not an imbecile, you would see the distinction.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2595 Jul 4, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear idiot, learn context. The US Supreme Court ruled on an employer providing benefits to an employee, not denying service to a customer. Were you not an imbecile, you would see the distinction.
Were you not an imbecile you would realize that they defined closely held companies.
Justice Ginsburg gets it. I'm not surprised that Justice Dumbass doesn't.

Do you have anything to add on the wedding cake issue?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2596 Jul 4, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear idiot, learn context.
JD, think milk. The United States v. Carolene Products Co. decision was about milk, you use it for defending gay rights. I would say I learned context from you but it would be a lie. No one can learn anything from you.

Meanwhile, closely held companies are now people with religious rights. Oh boy!

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) 6 hr tbird19482 29,999
Denver co sex right now! (May '15) 20 hr AJS3739 9
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) Wed good hacker here 743
Male on Female Facesitting topix? (Nov '16) Oct 17 Girl-seat 25
Red Dot Storage Oct 16 Doug 4
Men wearing panties and bra and sex with women (Jul '16) Oct 14 Xdresser6317 26
What’s Nicole Rodriguez like? Oct 13 The man 1

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages