Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 21799 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.

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!
Real Denver

Hemet, CA

#2597 Jul 4, 2014
"Colorado Law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on certain protected classes (characteristics). Examples of prohibited discriminatory practices include: terms of service; denial of full and equal service; intimidation; failure to accommodate; access; conditions; privileges; advertising; and retaliation. A place of public accommodation can be a: bar; restaurant; financial institution; school or educational institution; health club; theater; hospital; museum or zoo; hotel or motel; public club; retail store; medical clinic; public transportation; nursing home; recreational facility or park; and library.
Colorado law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. By legal definition, sexual orientation means heterosexuality, homosexuality (lesbian or gay), bisexuality, and transgender status. Transgender status means a gender indentity or gender expression that differs from societal expectations based on gender assigned at birth."
- a Gracious reply to educate me without judgment!

Sooo.....
check the rulebook on this- there/\

CakeyKins (Whatever his name is)
already broke the law in Colorado,
IF
the marriage in Massawhozits is legally recognized in Colorado
(pretty sure it is)
Colorado DA can only issue complaints based upon 'existing law' violations.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2598 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.
In fact the same claims to justify SSM bans today were used to justify bans on inter-racial marriages and even as far back as when blacks couldn't marry at all.

Those who claim it's insulting to blacks to make comparisons to the fight for SSM don't know their history very well.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2599 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.
Wow. I missed the last part where you make your Moms marriage the human equivalent of being a bitch at a breeding farm.

In his ruling, District Judge John G. Heyburn II shredded the state's argument that a gay marriage ban was necessary from a biological standpoint because "traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state's long-term economic stability." Heyburn pulled no punches in labeling that claim "disingenuous."

“….These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have.[...] The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering….”.

http://www.edgemiami.com/index.php...

An Arkansas judge on Friday struck down the state’s 10-year-old ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional. Listed are some quotes from Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza’s 13-page order, plus reaction to his decision:
___
"Arkansas’s marriage laws discriminate against same-sex couples in violation of the Equal Protection Clause because they do not advance any conceivable legitimate state interest." - Piazza’s order.
___
"The Plaintiffs’ desire to publicly declare their vows of commitment and support to each other is a testament to the strength of marriage in society, not a sign that, by opening its doors to all individuals, it is in danger of collapse." - Piazza’s order, quoting a Utah federal judge.
___
In rejecting the state’s claim that opposite-sex marriage promotes procreation: "Procreation is not a prerequisite in Arkansas for a marriage license. Opposite-sex couples may choose not to have children or they may be infertile, and certainly we are beyond trying to protect the gene pool. A marriage license is a civil document and is not, nor can it be, based upon any particular faith. Same-sex couples are a morally disliked minority and the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages is driven by animus rather than a rational basis. This violates the United States Constitution." - Piazza’s order.
___
"Tradition alone cannot form a rational basis for a law. The fact that a particular discrimination has been ’traditional’ is even more of a reason to be skeptical of its rationality." - Piazza’s order.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2600 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.
IOW he doesn't practice his religious beliefs very seriously when he can make money of abominations.

He just hopes no one notices his hypocrisy.

Epic Fail on his part.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2601 Jul 4, 2014
IOW he doesn't practice his religious beliefs very seriously when he can make money off of abominations.

(correction)

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2602 Jul 4, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
I do.

The baker, you and Respect remind me of the money-changers Jesus beat.

None of you object to "the abomination" when it comes to making money off of gays and lesbians whenever else you can.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2603 Jul 4, 2014
Wondering wrote:
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, you are an idiot. The ruling has no impact upon existing anti discrimination law. Once again, you are just illustrating how stupid you are.
Wondering wrote:
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!
Wondering, that ruling contained a footnote addressing levels of judicial review. Can you cite any such footnote in the Hobby Lobby case addressing anti-discrimination law, or are you just reasserting that you are an imbecile?

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2604 Jul 4, 2014
Real Denver wrote:
"Colorado Law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on certain protected classes (characteristics). Examples of prohibited discriminatory practices include: terms of service; denial of full and equal service; intimidation; failure to accommodate; access; conditions; privileges; advertising; and retaliation. A place of public accommodation can be a: bar; restaurant; financial institution; school or educational institution; health club; theater; hospital; museum or zoo; hotel or motel; public club; retail store; medical clinic; public transportation; nursing home; recreational facility or park; and library.
Colorado law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. By legal definition, sexual orientation means heterosexuality, homosexuality (lesbian or gay), bisexuality, and transgender status. Transgender status means a gender indentity or gender expression that differs from societal expectations based on gender assigned at birth."
- a Gracious reply to educate me without judgment!
Sooo.....
check the rulebook on this- there/\
CakeyKins (Whatever his name is)
already broke the law in Colorado,
IF
the marriage in Massawhozits is legally recognized in Colorado
(pretty sure it is)
Colorado DA can only issue complaints based upon 'existing law' violations.
As we've been pointing out, this guy wants an exemption to the same laws every other business in Colorado has to follow because to him marriage is one man one woman.

He broke State Law.

His supporters can't explain why is he a hero for violating Anti Discrimination laws especially those that specifically address using religion as a basis to deny service.

Add to that the fact that he doesn't apply his religious views about homosexuality to gays and lesbians when he can make money on other items. If they are truly abominations according to his faith, why is he serving them anything at all?

These are the question wondering, respect and many others fail or refuse to address.
Real Denver

Hemet, CA

#2605 Jul 4, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>As we've been pointing out, this guy wants an exemption to the same laws every other business in Colorado has to follow because to him marriage is one man one woman.
He broke State Law.
His supporters can't explain why is he a hero for violating Anti Discrimination laws especially those that specifically address using religion as a basis to deny service.
Add to that the fact that he doesn't apply his religious views about homosexuality to gays and lesbians when he can make money on other items. If they are truly abominations according to his faith, why is he serving them anything at all?
These are the question wondering, respect and many others fail or refuse to address.
I know baby, i know now
*Honestly!* I was PIGnorant of the existing Colorado myself, but YOU educated ME without
judgment or scorn.
THAT is GRACE by example folks, right there!
Real Denver

Hemet, CA

#2606 Jul 4, 2014
\/
law......
thank you soo much!
*wow*... Luv U !

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2607 Jul 4, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I just gave you a quote, attributed directly to your god, that explicitly condones slavery. What's your rebuttal?
<quoted text>
How so? Were American slaveowners not Christians? Did they not appeal to the Bible as support for slavery?
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
I already mentioned the delivery. Delivering the cake is not participation nor an act of speech supporting an event.
<quoted text>
You haven't said any difference!
“I just gave you a quote, attributed directly to your god, that explicitly condones slavery.” What quote? If you had, I’m sure it was one verse that you use out of context of the entire Bible, which is what many misguided people do.

“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?” Humanity is the primary justification for slavery. Just because Christians participated never made it a Christian justification.

“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.” You have a very poor understand of history. The abolitionist movement started in the 17th by Quakers and evangelical religious groups (CHRISTIANS) who condemned slavery as un-Christian. Then in the 18th century, abolition was part of the message of the First Great Awakening in the Thirteen Colonies which was a CHRISTIAN movement, and a short time after the rational thinkers of the Enlightenment claim slavery violate the rights of man. I’m sure your ignorance bodes well for you in your circles.

“I already mentioned the delivery. Delivering the cake is not participation nor an act of speech supporting an event.” I’m sure your ignorance bodes well for you in your circles.

“You haven't said any difference!” Didn’t need to as the difference speaks for itself and you act as though there is none. I’m sure your ignorance bodes well for you in your circles.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2608 Jul 4, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
He did discriminate against gay people. That he only discriminates with *certain products* is irrelevant.
It’s irrelevant to you because you want to demonize the baker for hating gays, when he only has a problem with supporting an institution he doesn't believe in. I bet you believe Hobby Lobby had a problem with ALL contraceptives too.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2609 Jul 4, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
Im truthful, consistent and an American, and your harsh vulgar word towards me doesn’t change these facts.

Gays should be allowed to “gay marry” and Americans should be allowed not to have the CHOICE to participate in gay institutions or not. Government shouldn’t punish Americans for the choice you wouldn’t make.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2610 Jul 4, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, except distain, you are all of the above.
You are also a hypocrite.
And you are what? Glorious? Outstanding, understanding and caring for all Americans?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2611 Jul 4, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>IOW he doesn't practice his religious beliefs very seriously when he can make money of abominations.
He just hopes no one notices his hypocrisy.
Epic Fail on his part.
“IOW he doesn't practice his religious beliefs very seriously when he can make money of abominations.” So it’s up to the Government to judge and force this man to do what the government thinks is right? Or is it up to you?

“He just hopes no one notices his hypocrisy.” Why do you think he needs Jesus?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2612 Jul 4, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
What quote? If you had, I’m sure it was one verse that you use out of context of the entire Bible, which is what many misguided people do.
"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."
Leviticus 25:44
Respect71 wrote:

“primary justification by American slaveowners, who were Christians.” Again you need a history class.
Where's your rebuttal? It's missing. You keep saying I'm in error but you never correct it. "You're wrong" isn't a response. Try "You're wrong, because ________."
Respect71 wrote:

“How so? Were American slaveowners not Christians? Did they not appeal to the Bible as support for slavery?” Humanity is the primary justification for slavery.
Humanity is the primary justification for slavery? This sentence doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "The color of that truck is four." Humanity isn't a justification.
Respect71 wrote:

Just because Christians participated never made it a Christian justification.
No, the clear support in the Bible for slavery is the Christian justification.
Respect71 wrote:

“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.” You have a very poor understand of history. The abolitionist movement started in the 17th by Quakers and evangelical religious groups (CHRISTIANS) who condemned slavery as un-Christian. Then in the 18th century, abolition was part of the message of the First Great Awakening in the Thirteen Colonies which was a CHRISTIAN movement, and a short time after the rational thinkers of the Enlightenment claim slavery violate the rights of man.
You stole this text from wikipedia. That's very dishonest.

The early Christian-based movements towards abolition were small, and remained opposed by other Christians.
Respect71 wrote:

“You haven't said any difference!” Didn’t need to as the difference speaks for itself and you act as though there is none. I’m sure your ignorance bodes well for you in your circles.
The difference speaks for itself? You're such a coward. You can't answer anything so you just repeat the same garbage over and over.
Real Denver

Hemet, CA

#2613 Jul 4, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
It’s irrelevant to you because you want to demonize the baker for hating gays, when he only has a problem with supporting an institution he doesn't believe in. I bet you believe Hobby Lobby had a problem with ALL contraceptives too.
Q. How do you LOOK RIGHT AT EXISTING Colorado LAW and PRETEND it doesn't EXIST???

A. ABUSE TECHIQUE -INVALIDATION-
ABUSERS
WIFE BEATERS
CHILD MOLESTERS
Families with PREVASIVE, repetitive INCEST
use this technique to psychologically trap and PREVENT victims from calling the POLICE
or even CALLING OUT for HEEEEeeeeeellllp !!!
I'm JUST SAYIN'!!! I see this all the time where defenseless People are being harmed by persons in positions of authority, control and trust.
ALLL THE TIME!!!
Real Denver

Hemet, CA

#2614 Jul 4, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I retract distain and replace with hatful, spiteful, and loathsome, and mostly UN-American.
And BTW..... lol ! I can't believe you said "stain"!
anyway, it's (right from Google search)
Even if miss spelled:

dis·dain

/dis&#712;d&#257;n/

noun

noun: disdain; plural noun: disdains

1. he feeling that someone or something is unworthy of one's consideration or respect; contempt.
"her upper lip curled in disdain"

synonyms: contempt, scorn, scornfulness, contemptuousness, derision, disrespect; More
disparagement, condescension, superciliousness, hauteur, haughtiness, arrogance, snobbishness, indifference, distaste, dislike, disgust

"she looked at him with disdain"

antonyms: respect

verb

verb: disdain; 3rd person present: disdains; past tense: disdained; past participle: disdained; gerund or present participle: disdaining

1. consider to be unworthy of one's consideration.
"gamblers disdain four-horse races"

synonyms: scorn, deride, pour scorn on, regard with contempt, sneer at, sniff at, curl one's lip at, look down one's nose at, look down on;

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
Open Borders Have Crushed Our Immigration Court... 49 min Stephen 11
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 2 hr Stephen 18,195
Julia Lopez 3 hr Local 9
COMFORT DENTAL ....How Many of you feel Ripped ... (Apr '08) 3 hr Josh 89
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 3 hr WeTheSheeple 4,644
black market or dispensaries? 3 hr art 1
Democrats the party of SCUM 11 hr Sharon L 34
More from around the web

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]