Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 3,301

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
Chrsitsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#296 Dec 14, 2013
The Troll Doll wrote:
<quoted text>
Noooooo, you didn't read it. Let me help you. Now just sound out the words.
Hey cretin, as I said we are discussing Amish employers: They must pay Social Security and unemployment taxes, even though those taxes violate their religious beliefs.

We are talking in this thread about a fundie mullah _business_ being bigoted.

We therefore know that a claim of "religious" belief by an _employer or business_ does not automatically trump everything else.

Because Amish _employers_ must pay these taxes they consider to be sinful.

We are not discussing whether an individual Amish person may avoid the draft or maybe opt out of Social Security, because those issues have no bearing on the one this story relates to: What _business owners_ may and may not do with respect to employees and clients.

Okay, you moron?
Chrsitsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#297 Dec 14, 2013
The Troll Doll wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Hey dumb pos, feelings aren't being legislated. You and he are free to hold ignorant, bigoted attitudes.

This is about the illegality of discriminatory acts in places of public accommodation.

The homophobic bigots have already lost in educated parts of the country, a trends which will only accerlerate. Chick fil A and its customers do not fall into that category of "educated," imo, but even that company will face increasing trouble as time goes on, particularly on college campuses or if it tries to expand into bluer parts of the country.

“If you can't beat um join um”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Under the troll bridge

#299 Dec 14, 2013
Chrsitsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey cretin, as I said we are discussing Amish employers: They must pay Social Security and unemployment taxes, even though those taxes violate their religious beliefs.
We are talking in this thread about a fundie mullah _business_ being bigoted.
We therefore know that a claim of "religious" belief by an _employer or business_ does not automatically trump everything else.
Because Amish _employers_ must pay these taxes they consider to be sinful.
We are not discussing whether an individual Amish person may avoid the draft or maybe opt out of Social Security, because those issues have no bearing on the one this story relates to: What _business owners_ may and may not do with respect to employees and clients.
Okay, you moron?
Noooooooo, try going to the link and read it out loud. Listen real close to yourself.
Here........I'll try again using real little words.
The LAW says Amish employers DO NOT have to pay Social Security taxes unless they have someone who is not a member of the Amish Church working for them.
Is that clear enough? If not maybe you could have a friend go to the link and read it and explain it to you. Cripes, you're calling me a moron? Do you hear that word a lot?

“If you can't beat um join um”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Under the troll bridge

#300 Dec 14, 2013
Chrsitsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey dumb pos, feelings aren't being legislated. You and he are free to hold ignorant, bigoted attitudes.
This is about the illegality of discriminatory acts in places of public accommodation.
The homophobic bigots have already lost in educated parts of the country, a trends which will only accerlerate. Chick fil A and its customers do not fall into that category of "educated," imo, but even that company will face increasing trouble as time goes on, particularly on college campuses or if it tries to expand into bluer parts of the country.
Why are you calling me names? I'm neither ignorant or bigoted. I'm just stating facts. I have no problem with gays. I even have some friends that are gay. Why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married and eat cake? Why are they allowed to just break up and keep all their own stuff? Why aren't they subjected to the same misery the rest of society is?. Isn't it about time they started giving all their money to divorce attorneys and dragging their misery though the courts and paying alimony too? Why do they get off so easy? It's not fair to the lawyers that they just merrily move on. Lawyers have bills too!

I still wouldn't force a "public place of accommodation" to prepare something I'm going to eat when I know they don't like me. You know they're going to spit in it. Besides, it makes more sense to support a business that supports you.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#301 Dec 14, 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.
“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.” ACA is falling apart under it’s own weight, and there will be many more Constitutional challenges for that tiny 2500 page law.

“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.” Yet you post nothing to support.

“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.” Again, no cite.

“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.” When you post a fact then you have a stance until then you’re ranting like a 12 year old.

“Okay, you lying trash? Now get help for your sexual disorder of homophobia.” LOL... I have very good friends who are gay... They know my stance and yet love me anyway just as much as I love them.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#302 Dec 14, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>h inflict it on unsuspecting homosexuals. Sorry. He gave that up when he opened for business.
“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.” Because of the 1st Amendment.

“The right to freely exercise your beliefs is not an absolute one.” AGAIN, I never said it was, but in this case the 1st Amendment protects him.

“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.” Weak... Please show how the state is protecting gays by forcing him to sell a wedding cake?

“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.” I never said their was, but how did he violate gay’s rights? Can you cite please.
“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.” Sorry... That’s no where close to the SAME... Same usually mean EQUAL... EXAMPLE 2=2. Apples=Apples.

“That's why I said what I did.” So you did.

“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.” Sorry, but you’ll need to cite your source for that claim. You may need to research Chick-fill-a or hobby lobby.

“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.” Correct, and you are not bound to shop his cake shop either. He believe he makes cake for a sacred celebration and it’s his right to do so.

“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.”
Refusing to bake a cake for gays is “inflict [his belief] on unsuspecting homosexuals.”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#303 Dec 14, 2013
dbg wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” You can rationalize all you want but in this case he is protected.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#304 Dec 14, 2013
southern alien wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
“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.” He can because this is America, and the 1st Amendment protects that right.

“I am unaware of any books about gay parents that are mandatory.” Did i say mandatory?
“In our modern society though, I don't think there should be any teachers that push their agenda of bigotry in any form.” I will ask again, 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?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#305 Dec 14, 2013
southern alien wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
“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.” What should be illegal?

“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.” Wow.

“There is no difference.” Really? Your dad loved your mom EXACTLY the same as a gay man loves another gay man? You are being intellectually dishonest.
“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.” Wow you really twisted that one up...

Marriage as defined by our state Constitution is a solid proven benefit to society as a whole, and gays having civil unions is a great benefit as they now have the SAME benfits as recognized by the State. This is a very good thing and it by no means makes then 2nd class.

“It IS the Constitution! I've showed you the 14th amendment multiple times.” Which also protects the baker.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#306 Dec 14, 2013
The REAL Troll Stopper wrote:
<quoted text>
No more so than the act of being straight is a behavior. Bottom line: You can't change which gender you're attracted to; it's hardwired into you from birth, and every respected medical and mental-health organization worldwide agrees that pursuing a love life in a way that goes against the sexual orientation you're born with isn't healthy.
<quoted text>
Sorry, bub, but our Constitution doesn't protect business owners who serve the general public the right to pick and choose which parts of the general public to serve. Deal with it.
“No more so than the act of being straight is a behavior. Bottom line: You can't change which gender you're attracted to; it's hardwired into you from birth, and every respected medical and mental-health organization worldwide agrees that pursuing a love life in a way that goes against the sexual orientation you're born with isn't healthy.” So therefore what?

“Sorry, bub, but our Constitution doesn't protect business owners who serve the general public the right to pick and choose which parts of the general public to serve. Deal with it.” In this case it does, and if you’re a business owner you should be very worried on how this case ends up.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#307 Dec 14, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, no cite.
You're a homophobic bigot who wishes to "pretend" that xstain fundies have not tried to stop the building of mosques in many communities.

You have no understanding of the Establishment Clause, and you're a serial liar.

As some "of your best friends are [self hating] homosexuals," some of my best friends are Christians. Not theocratic, mullah trash, however.

Couldn't be simpler.
Christsharian Law

Philadelphia, PA

#308 Dec 14, 2013
The Troll Doll wrote:
<quoted text>
Noooooooo, try going to the link and read it out loud. Listen real close to yourself.
Here........I'll try again using real little words.
The LAW says Amish employers DO NOT have to pay Social Security taxes unless they have someone who is not a member of the Amish Church working for them.
Is that clear enough? If not maybe you could have a friend go to the link and read it and explain it to you. Cripes, you're calling me a moron? Do you hear that word a lot?
Hey moron, Amish employers have to pay these taxes they consider sinful.

The "religious" businesses which wish to not offer birth control in their health insurance do not have employees who are all part of their religion, so your BS example does not even apply in that sense.

But we are discussing businesses which wish to discriminate against members of the public who are in protected categories. Again, your BS Amish example - outlier cases - has no bearing here.

"Religious" businesses are subject to secular laws, as my many examples show. So stop wondering why you're being called stupid, you stupid bigot.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#309 Dec 14, 2013
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a homophobic bigot who wishes to "pretend" that xstain fundies have not tried to stop the building of mosques in many communities.
You have no understanding of the Establishment Clause, and you're a serial liar.
As some "of your best friends are [self hating] homosexuals," some of my best friends are Christians. Not theocratic, mullah trash, however.
Couldn't be simpler.
“You're a homophobic bigot who wishes to "pretend" that xstain fundies have not tried to stop the building of mosques in many communities.” You seem to be a bigot towards me. You keep repeating yourself over and over.
Cite your source...

“You have no understanding of the Establishment Clause, and you're a serial liar.” Then why do you explain it for us?

“As some "of your best friends are [self hating] homosexuals," some of my best friends are Christians. Not theocratic, mullah trash, however.” I hope they pray for you as much as I do.

“Couldn't be simpler.” Your mind?

Level 3

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#310 Dec 15, 2013
Christsharian Law wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey moron, Amish employers have to pay these taxes they consider sinful.
The "religious" businesses which wish to not offer birth control in their health insurance do not have employees who are all part of their religion, so your BS example does not even apply in that sense.
But we are discussing businesses which wish to discriminate against members of the public who are in protected categories. Again, your BS Amish example - outlier cases - has no bearing here.
"Religious" businesses are subject to secular laws, as my many examples show. So stop wondering why you're being called stupid, you stupid bigot.
You do know that I posted the link proving that they do NOT have to pay Social Security or Medicare taxes and anyone reading this thread can look at it. Screaming the opposite of the facts that I proved will not change the facts. It does however, affect your credibility and people won't believe anything else you scream either.

Why are you so hateful? You have no idea what my religious beliefs are do you? All I did is prove that not all religious businesses are subject to all secular laws. All I did is point out that you cannot legislate feelings and changing the laws will not change peoples minds. Has it occurred to you that you are just as hateful as homo phobics? You've just chosen to hate a different group of people. Tell me, how many religious folks have you been able to convert to atheism with your hate filled rants? You see, it doesn't work to DEMAND tolerance. What works better is setting an example by being tolerant yourself.

“If you can't beat um join um”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Under the troll bridge

#311 Dec 15, 2013
just a shill wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know that I posted the link proving that they do NOT have to pay Social Security or Medicare taxes and anyone reading this thread can look at it. Screaming the opposite of the facts that I proved will not change the facts. It does however, affect your credibility and people won't believe anything else you scream either.
Why are you so hateful? You have no idea what my religious beliefs are do you? All I did is prove that not all religious businesses are subject to all secular laws. All I did is point out that you cannot legislate feelings and changing the laws will not change peoples minds. Has it occurred to you that you are just as hateful as homo phobics? You've just chosen to hate a different group of people. Tell me, how many religious folks have you been able to convert to atheism with your hate filled rants? You see, it doesn't work to DEMAND tolerance. What works better is setting an example by being tolerant yourself.
Oops :)

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#312 Dec 15, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
“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.” Because of the 1st Amendment.
Sorry, he can blame God for violating their civil rights all he wants, but the law itself allows no special protections for believers while non-believing bigots have to obey it.
Respect71 wrote:
“The right to freely exercise your beliefs is not an absolute one.” AGAIN, I never said it was, but in this case the 1st Amendment protects him.
No, it does not. The state's interest in preventing discrimination in places of public accommodation for EVERYONE outweighs the individual's right to practice their beliefs on others. It's why he lost.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.” Weak... Please show how the state is protecting gays by forcing him to sell a wedding cake?
He sells wedding cakes, any customer who comes in can order a wedding cake, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender and/or sexual orientation, etc. We are not only protecting gays, but we are protecting everybody from random acts of bigotry.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.” I never said their was, but how did he violate gay’s rights? Can you cite please.
His suspect classification of their sexual orientation as God unapproved as the reason he refused a service of his guaranteed to them under the law. He has been found guilty.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.” Sorry... That’s no where close to the SAME... Same usually mean EQUAL... EXAMPLE 2=2. Apples=Apples.
Apple #1. Elaine Huguenin refused her services as a wedding photographer to two women wanting photographs of their commitment ceremony on the basis of their relationship being unapproved by God. Apple #2. Jack Phillips refused his services as a wedding cake designer to two men wanting to celebrate their wedding, on the basis of their relationship being unapproved by God. Her apple was made uglier than his by a couple of holier than thou unsolicited emails, but it's still an apple. Given that her apple is the one in the in-box of the SC, if they judge her apple as being the standard, no more apples.

continued

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#313 Dec 15, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
“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.” Sorry, but you’ll need to cite your source for that claim. You may need to research Chick-fill-a or hobby lobby.
Chik-fil-A was singled out by elements in our community for a boycott, because the corporation has a rather large charitable wing which has a long history of substantial donations to organizations that are not only less than charitable to the gay folk, they actively work to persecute us in the name of God. As far as I know, no one has sued the company for their practices, namely because none of them are illegal. It was an attempt at the public shaming of the company that back-fired. Hobby Lobby is attempting to force the next step in the brave new world of corporate "personhood". The notion that as a corporation, they share the same 1st amendment rights as any individual and can act corporately based on their beliefs as they are permitted to. The SC opened that door when they ruled that corporations had the individual right to political beliefs and thus could play by the same rules as one.

The Amish and members of a number of other old order Protestant denominations don't participate in governmental entitlement programs like Social Security and unemployment. If someone who is of these denominations works for someone who isn't, their employer is still on the hook for the taxes associated with these programs, even though the person he's doing this for won't ever receive the benefit of them. This also applies if there is a mixed ownership of members of these denominations and non-members. Only if someone is working for a company wholly owned by members of these denominations are the taxes not collected. HOWEVER, if these companies hire non-members, guess what they are on the hook for, even though it is against their faith to do so? If it works for the Amish, it should work for Hobby Lobby if a corporate entity is going to be seen as having a right to A religious belief.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.” Correct, and you are not bound to shop his cake shop either. He believe he makes cake for a sacred celebration and it’s his right to do so.
While the couple is not bound to patronize his establishment, they do have the recognized right to. He is free to believe that he is making a cake for a "sacred celebration", but since the ONLY such celebrations that don't qualify as "sacred" in his book are same sex ones, his practicing what he preaches is against the common good. One Shrek or similarly themed wedding cake in his portfolio, the whole notion of what this guy actually holds "sacred" becomes harder to defend.

still continued

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

#314 Dec 15, 2013
Respect71 wrote:
“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.”
Refusing to bake a cake for gays is “inflict [his belief] on unsuspecting homosexuals.”
Under the law, his signs technically read, "come in, we're open (regardless of your: disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry)" and "we do wedding cakes (regardless of your: disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry) ", He's the one who didn't read them.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#316 Dec 15, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, he can blame God for violating their civil rights all he wants, but the law itself allows no special protections for believers while non-believing bigots have to obey it.
<quoted text>No, it does not. The state's interest in preventing discrimination in places of public accommodation for EVERYONE outweighs the individual's right to practice their beliefs on others. It's why he lost.
<quoted text>He sells wedding cakes, any customer who comes in can order a wedding cake, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender and/or sexual orientation, etc. We are not only protecting gays, but we are protecting everybody from random acts of bigotry.
<quoted text>His suspect classification of their sexual orientation as God unapproved as the reason he refused a service of his guaranteed to them under the law. He has been found guilty.
<quoted text>Apple #1. Elaine Huguenin refused her services as a wedding photographer to two women wanting photographs of their commitment ceremony on the basis of their relationship being unapproved by God. Apple #2. Jack Phillips refused his services as a wedding cake designer to two men wanting to celebrate their wedding, on the basis of their relationship being unapproved by God. Her apple was made uglier than his by a couple of holier than thou unsolicited emails, but it's still an apple. Given that her apple is the one in the in-box of the SC, if they judge her apple as being the standard, no more apples.
continued
“Sorry, he can blame God for violating their civil rights all he wants, but the law itself allows no special protections for believers while non-believing bigots have to obey it.” What “civil rights” did he violate?

“No, it does not. The state's interest in preventing discrimination in places of public accommodation for EVERYONE outweighs the individual's right to practice their beliefs on others. It's why he lost.” What did he practice on others?

“He sells wedding cakes, any customer who comes in can order a wedding cake, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender and/or sexual orientation, etc. We are not only protecting gays, but we are protecting everybody from random acts of bigotry.” The 1st Amendment protects him in this case.

“His suspect classification of their sexual orientation as God unapproved as the reason he refused a service of his guaranteed to them under the law. He has been found guilty.” With the exception the 1st Amendment protects him. That’s why he isn’t in jail right now.

“Apple #1. Elaine Huguenin refused her services as a wedding photographer to two women wanting photographs of their commitment ceremony on the basis of their relationship being unapproved by God. Apple #2. Jack Phillips refused his services as a wedding cake designer to two men wanting to celebrate their wedding, on the basis of their relationship being unapproved by God. Her apple was made uglier than his by a couple of holier than thou unsolicited emails, but it's still an apple. Given that her apple is the one in the in-box of the SC, if they judge her apple as being the standard, no more apples.” You’re examples are becoming mixed and matched... Did the baker send a email or mean letter?

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#317 Dec 15, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Chik-fil-A was singled out by elements in our community for a boycott, because the corporation has a rather large charitable wing which has a long history of substantial donations to organizations that are not only less than charitable to the gay folk, they actively work to persecute us in the name of God. As far as I know, no one has sued the company for their practices, namely because none of them are illegal. It was an attempt at the public shaming of the company that back-fired. Hobby Lobby is attempting to force the next step in the brave new world of corporate "personhood". The notion that as a corporation, they share the same 1st amendment rights as any individual and can act corporately based on their beliefs as they are permitted to. The SC opened that door when they ruled that corporations had the individual right to political beliefs and thus could play by the same rules as one.
The Amish and members of a number of other old order Protestant denominations don't participate in governmental entitlement programs like Social Security and unemployment. If someone who is of these denominations works for someone who isn't, their employer is still on the hook for the taxes associated with these programs, even though the person he's doing this for won't ever receive the benefit of them. This also applies if there is a mixed ownership of members of these denominations and non-members. Only if someone is working for a company wholly owned by members of these denominations are the taxes not collected. HOWEVER, if these companies hire non-members, guess what they are on the hook for, even though it is against their faith to do so? If it works for the Amish, it should work for Hobby Lobby if a corporate entity is going to be seen as having a right to A religious belief.
<quoted text>While the couple is not bound to patronize his establishment, they do have the recognized right to. He is free to believe that he is making a cake for a "sacred celebration", but since the ONLY such celebrations that don't qualify as "sacred" in his book are same sex ones, his practicing what he preaches is against the common good. One Shrek or similarly themed wedding cake in his portfolio, the whole notion of what this guy actually holds "sacred" becomes harder to defend.
still continued
What about hiring ONLY people of faith? What about their charities? You filled the page with a lot of information, so therefore what?

“While the couple is not bound to patronize his establishment, they do have the recognized right to. He is free to believe that he is making a cake for a "sacred celebration", but since the ONLY such celebrations that don't qualify as "sacred" in his book are same sex ones, his practicing what he preaches is against the common good. One Shrek or similarly themed wedding cake in his portfolio, the whole notion of what this guy actually holds "sacred" becomes harder to defend.” So how do you suppose he is bound to a gay couple? So therefore what?

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) 3 hr positronium 12,546
Nude photos of 12-year-old girl circulated via ... (Feb '10) 4 hr Eaddae 305
9news: USGS: Oil, gas at fault for Colo. earth... 8 hr Bev Jamison 1
ISSL - Bushes legacy. What is the lure? 12 hr Bev Jamison 2
Denver Dispatch'Awesome' Michelle Obama Thrills... 14 hr disgruntled reader 1
Play the "end of the word" game (Jul '11) Wed sss 4,216
Old evidence at new trial (May '06) Sep 17 Dad 1,110
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••