Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 58898 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.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2658 Jul 14, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say anything about modern Christians in the world holding slaves. My position was that the god of the Bible supported slavery, and Christian slaveowners have historically used that support to justify their practice.
<quoted text>
Of course, and much of it is vile. Can you refute the quote or not?
<quoted text>
Born? No. Humans aren't born knowing much of anything.
<quoted text>
Again, you refuse to point out a single error in my argument.
<quoted text>
Christians caused slavery and prevented women from voting (both based on Biblical reasons), so how exactly do you take credit for abolition and suffrage?
<quoted text>
You need a history book source for saying that the US is a democratic nation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Co...
<quoted text>
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/ni...
<quoted text>
I love religious liberty.
“I didn't say anything about modern Christians in the world holding slaves. My position was that the god of the Bible supported slavery, and Christian slaveowners have historically used that support to justify their practice.” Only if your use a few verses from the Bible and have very shallow thought.
“Of course, and much of it is vile. Can you refute the quote or not?” Then you don’t know, based on ignorance. The greatest commandment given to humans by God is “ Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this:‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Slavery isn’t a Biblical principle.
“Born? No. Humans aren't born knowing much of anything.”… Interesting.
“Again, you refuse to point out a single error in my argument.” You are ignorant because of your hate for Christians.
“Christians caused slavery and prevented women from voting (both based on Biblical reasons), so how exactly do you take credit for abolition and suffrage?” Pick up a history book… Christians were the primary persons who fought against slavery (of which you tried to say it was SECULAR values), they fought (strong Christian women and men) for woman’s suffrage. For you to deny this is to deny the air you breathe.
Where do “secular values” come from?
“You need a history book source for saying that the US is a democratic nation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Co ...“ We were discussing the 17th century religious groups that started the Abolition Moment… When did America, come to be its own Nation. The US is NOT a democratic nation, it is a REPUBLIC with democratic processes, which is further evidence of you historic ignorance.
“http://nationalhumanitiescent er.org/tserve/ni...” Where in this article does it state “They were small: they lived in a democratic nation yet didn't have the numbers to eliminate slavery. They were opposed by other Christians: the pro-slavery forces in the US consisted of Christians.” President Lincoln was Christian, you know this right? Based on your past few statements you may not.
“I love religious liberty.” Good to know.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2659 Jul 14, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
HL took the position that 4 of the 20 forms of contraception could cause abortions.
By the medical definition of abortion, 0 / 20 caused abortions. But, HL was using an alternate definition of abortion that includes anything that inhibits implantation of a fertilized egg. They believed that 4 / 20 inhibited implantation, however, the scientific evidence shows that they do NOT.
<quoted text>
The Supreme Court ruled that corporations are sometimes people and sometimes not people.
Cite your sources

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2660 Jul 14, 2014
lides wrote:
It's funny, isn't it, that Respect71 is anything but respectful.
Funny how telling the truth is misconstrued as disrespectful, and yet no arguments with exceptions of name calling.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2661 Jul 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Only if your use a few verses from the Bible and have very shallow thought.
You can use the entire Bible and analyze it as much as you want: the god of the Bible supports slavery.

You have presented NO ARGUMENT against this.
Respect71 wrote:
Then you don’t know, based on ignorance. The greatest commandment given to humans by God is “ Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this:‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” Slavery isn’t a Biblical principle.
It's explicitly a Biblical principle and I showed you where.
Respect71 wrote:
… Interesting.
Interesting?
Respect71 wrote:
“Again, you refuse to point out a single error in my argument.” You are ignorant because of your hate for Christians.
Again, you refuse to point out a single error in my argument.
Respect71 wrote:
“Christians caused slavery and prevented women from voting (both based on Biblical reasons), so how exactly do you take credit for abolition and suffrage?” Pick up a history book… Christians were the primary persons who fought against slavery (of which you tried to say it was SECULAR values), they fought (strong Christian women and men) for woman’s suffrage. For you to deny this is to deny the air you breathe.
Christians were the primary persons who fought for slavery and against women's suffrage.
Respect71 wrote:
Where do “secular values” come from?
Reason.
Respect71 wrote:
We were discussing the 17th century religious groups that started the Abolition Moment… When did America, come to be its own Nation. The US is NOT a democratic nation, it is a REPUBLIC with democratic processes, which is further evidence of you historic ignorance.
The colonies had representation within their governments too, Respect. And the US is a democratic nation: a Republic is a form of democracy because the representatives are elected.
Respect71 wrote:
President Lincoln was Christian, you know this right? Based on your past few statements you may not.
He wasn't. You should check out some biographies of his.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2662 Jul 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Cite your sources
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html

"There is no evidence to suggest that [emergency contraception]... works after an egg is fertilized."

Full quote
"There is no evidence to suggest that either of the FDA-approved emergency contraceptive options, levonorgestrel (LNG, such as Plan B One-Step, Take Action, Next Choice One Dose or My Way ) or ulipristal acetate (UPA, such as ella) works after an egg is fertilized."

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2663 Jul 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
???
Tell us how the baker harmed the gay couple by reserving a wedding cake for husbands and wives?
I'll answer that with 3 simple questions:
How were blacks harmed when people refused them service?

How were Irish harmed when people refused to allow them to rent a room?

How clueless are you?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2664 Jul 14, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I'll answer that with 3 simple questions:
How were blacks harmed when people refused them service?
How were Irish harmed when people refused to allow them to rent a room?
How clueless are you?
Questions are not answers.
The gay men were not refused service, just a wedding cake.
The baker did not refuse to rent them a room.
You are as clueless as they come.

Every situation has two sides. You need to keep a open mind to see each point of view.
Gays, at least those here, and lides, who claims to be straight HAHAHA, have a closed minds. They only see their side of it. The other side doesn't matter. Gays want them to change to accommodate themselves and what bakers and churches think about that doesn't matter. The supreme court made a very good move by defining closely held companies as people with religious rights. It's the only way to stop the gay bullying.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2665 Jul 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Questions are not answers.
They answer the question by illustrating a point. At least for those with some semblance of an education.
Wondering wrote:
The gay men were not refused service, just a wedding cake.
Having someone bake a cake for you IS a service, you ignorant *sswipe.
Wondering wrote:
The baker did not refuse to rent them a room.
The baker is a public accommodation just like businesses who rent rooms. Denying access to a public accommodation to the general public violates anti-discrmination law when those refused are members of protected classes.
Wondering wrote:
You are as clueless as they come.
Babbling to yourself in the mirror again, I see.
Wondering wrote:
Every situation has two sides. You need to keep a open mind to see each point of view.
Gays, at least those here, and lides, who claims to be straight HAHAHA, have a closed minds. They only see their side of it. The other side doesn't matter. Gays want them to change to accommodate themselves and what bakers and churches think about that doesn't matter.
The law is the law; it's not subject to self-interpretation. That's what the judicial branch of government is for. The baker challenged the findings and lost. He can challenge the law as well but the fact remains it is soundly within existing SCOTUS precedent governing incidental infringement of religion by general laws that don't specifically target religion.
Wondering wrote:
The supreme court made a very good move by defining closely held companies as people with religious rights. It's the only way to stop the gay bullying.
Except the SCOTUS ruling wasn't a result of a lawsuit involving gays nor was it in regards to discrimination against customers by a public accommodation based on religious beliefs. Plus SCOTUS went to unusual lengths to qualify the decision as applied narrowly only to the facts of the case at hand involving contraception and that it didn't apply to anti-discrmination laws.

I do agree with Justice Ginsberg's dissenting opinion, however, that the Hobby Lobby ruling will likely open a floodgate of litigation by religious people who seek to discriminate against their fellow citizens based on their religious beliefs. Then we'll see if SCOTUS really meant it when they said this was a narrow ruling.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2666 Jul 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Questions are not answers.
The gay men were not refused service, just a wedding cake.
The baker did not refuse to rent them a room.
You are as clueless as they come.
Every situation has two sides. You need to keep a open mind to see each point of view.
Gays, at least those here, and lides, who claims to be straight HAHAHA, have a closed minds. They only see their side of it. The other side doesn't matter. Gays want them to change to accommodate themselves and what bakers and churches think about that doesn't matter. The supreme court made a very good move by defining closely held companies as people with religious rights. It's the only way to stop the gay bullying.
Questions are not answers.

Nice dodge.

Fine.

So answer the question.

Do you feel that a business can refuse service because someone prefers a Tridentine Mass rather than the Presbyterian Service? Because someone's religion (like Mormons) teaches that blacks aren't fit to hold the position of a leader in the Church?

If the guy opposes SSM because the Bible condemns it, PLEASE SHOW US WHERE..

Fact is the guy is using SSM as a smokescreen. He's perfectly happy with his religious beliefs when he can make a few bucks off of two guys or two women he KNOWS have sexual relations, it's just the marriage thing he draws the line at. Odd. He endorses fornication and obimination but not a committed Christian Marriage..

I can't help wondering if the guy is in the middle of phone sex or if his logic and religion are always so fluid.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2667 Jul 14, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Questions are not answers.
The gay men were not refused service, just a wedding cake.
The baker did not refuse to rent them a room.
You are as clueless as they come.
Every situation has two sides. You need to keep a open mind to see each point of view.
Gays, at least those here, and lides, who claims to be straight HAHAHA, have a closed minds. They only see their side of it. The other side doesn't matter. Gays want them to change to accommodate themselves and what bakers and churches think about that doesn't matter. The supreme court made a very good move by defining closely held companies as people with religious rights. It's the only way to stop the gay bullying.
Strange but everything you claimed about gays (ME) seems to be more of a reflection on you.

I have been advocating compassion far longer than you when it comes to this issue.

Stop trying to perpetrate.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2668 Jul 14, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
You can use the entire Bible and analyze it as much as you want: the god of the Bible supports slavery.
You have presented NO ARGUMENT against this.
<quoted text>
It's explicitly a Biblical principle and I showed you where.
<quoted text>
Interesting?
<quoted text>
Again, you refuse to point out a single error in my argument.
<quoted text>
Christians were the primary persons who fought for slavery and against women's suffrage.
<quoted text>
Reason.
<quoted text>
The colonies had representation within their governments too, Respect. And the US is a democratic nation: a Republic is a form of democracy because the representatives are elected.
<quoted text>
He wasn't. You should check out some biographies of his.
“You can use the entire Bible and analyze it as much as you want: the god of the Bible supports slavery.” Since your such a Bible scholar, why don’t you share the purpose of Leviticus 25:44, what God is saying directly to a Jewish/Christian believer, and in what context does it sit within the entire book?

“You have presented NO ARGUMENT against this.” I have, but your choose ignorance.

“… Interesting.
Interesting?” Yes.

“Again, you refuse to point out a single error in my argument.” If your argument had merit all of Christianity would currently own slaves.

“Christians were the primary persons who fought for slavery and against women's suffrage.” Persons who claim to be Christians aren’t always Christians... You should know this with such an extensive understanding of the Bible. Regardless, Christians caused our great Nation, Abolition, woman’s suffrage, and a wonderful place for gays to flourish. These are historical fact which you have yet to dispute.

“Reason.” Based on what?

“The colonies had representation within their governments too, Respect. And the US is a democratic nation: a Republic is a form of democracy because the representatives are elected.” We were discussing the 17th century religious groups that started the Abolition Moment… When did America, come to be its own Nation. The US is NOT a democratic nation, it is a REPUBLIC with democratic processes, which is further evidence of you historic ignorance.

“He wasn't. You should check out some biographies of his.” You mean like Noah Brooks? Ignorance.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2669 Jul 14, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html
"There is no evidence to suggest that [emergency contraception]... works after an egg is fertilized."
Full quote
"There is no evidence to suggest that either of the FDA-approved emergency contraceptive options, levonorgestrel (LNG, such as Plan B One-Step, Take Action, Next Choice One Dose or My Way ) or ulipristal acetate (UPA, such as ella) works after an egg is fertilized."
Interesting... I slightly old study, however, and not what the FDA states. Nice try for once...
http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/postmarke...
3 more to go, keep going.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2670 Jul 14, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I'll answer that with 3 simple questions:
How were blacks harmed when people refused them service?
How were Irish harmed when people refused to allow them to rent a room?
How clueless are you?
You ask me about other circumstances that don’t relate to the institution of marriage, and yet, you can’t seem to answer how ONE baker removed the rights of this gay couple and caused them harm in any way, shape or from, by reserving a wedding cake for a husband and wife as a symbol of the institution of marriage?

So, how clueless are you?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2671 Jul 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“You can use the entire Bible and analyze it as much as you want: the god of the Bible supports slavery.” Since your such a Bible scholar, why don’t you share the purpose of Leviticus 25:44, what God is saying directly to a Jewish/Christian believer, and in what context does it sit within the entire book?
The purpose of Leviticus 25:44 is to regulate slavery. The preceding and following passages outline how slavery is to be practiced, regarding both Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves.
Respect71 wrote:
“You have presented NO ARGUMENT against this.” I have, but your choose ignorance.
You literally only told me that I was wrong. There was no argument alongside it.

You simply cannot refute the fact that the god of the Bible explicitly supports slavery.
Respect71 wrote:
“Again, you refuse to point out a single error in my argument.” If your argument had merit all of Christianity would currently own slaves.

I already refuted this notion. Christians have adopted modern secular values that oppose slavery.

[QUOTE who="Respect71"]
“Christians were the primary persons who fought for slavery and against women's suffrage.” Persons who claim to be Christians aren’t always Christians... You should know this with such an extensive understanding of the Bible.
So now you're claiming that the countless Christians from the first century to the 19th century who practiced slavery...none of them were actually Christians?
Respect71 wrote:
Regardless, Christians caused our great Nation, Abolition, woman’s suffrage, and a wonderful place for gays to flourish. These are historical fact which you have yet to dispute.
The US is a predominantly Christian nation. Most of the things that have happened here, good or bad, were performed by people who were Christian. That doesn't tell us much about Christianity itself.
Respect71 wrote:
“Reason.” Based on what?
Logic, experience, empathy, happiness, health.
Respect71 wrote:
“He wasn't. You should check out some biographies of his.” You mean like Noah Brooks? Ignorance.
Try Lamon or Herndon.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2672 Jul 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Interesting... I slightly old study, however, and not what the FDA states. Nice try for once...
http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/postmarke...
3 more to go, keep going.
The Princeton study cites studies from 2007, 2010, and 2011. The FDA site you linked was last updated in 2009.

YOUR link is the outdated information.

I can even give you a history lesson on this. Normal birth control pills, which consist of hormones, are known to have a minor effect on the endometrium: the lining of the uterus. It is speculated that this effect could affect implantation. There is no current evidence that it does, but the speculation remains.

When these emergency contraception pills were developed, the FDA saw that they used the same hormones as regular birth control pills, so they added the same "could affect implantation" statement to the boxes.

Subsequent research has shown that emergency contraception pills do NOT affect the endrometrium. They are currently in the process of removing that statement from the box, and from the site you linked to. The European equivalent of the FDA has already done so.

So in summary, emergency contraception has NO ability to prevent implantation. They are not abortion pills by the normal definition or even the conservative pro-life definition.

Hobby Lobby's belief was false.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2673 Jul 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Interesting... I slightly old study, however, and not what the FDA states. Nice try for once...
http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/postmarke...
Apparently you can't be bothered to actually read the citation given. Or perhaps, based on the general lack of education demonstrated in your posting in this thread, you just don't know how.

All three studies cited at http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecwork.html are newer than the Q&A from your FDA website citation. Hint: the footnotes are actually part of information in the citation. The studies cited specifically:

1. Novikova N, Weisberg E, Stanczyk FZ, Croxatto HB, Fraser, IS. Effectiveness of levonorgestrel emergency contraception given before or after ovulation - a pilot study.Contraception 2007;75: 112-118.

2. Noé G, Croxatto HB, Salvatierra AM, Reyes V, Villarroel C, Muñoz C, Morales G, Retamales A. Contraceptive efficacy of emergency contraception with levonorgestrel given before or after ovulation. Contraception 2011;84:486-492.

3. Stratton P, Levens E, Hartog B, Piquion J, Wei Q, Merino M, Nieman L. Endometrial effects of a single early luteal dose of the selective progesterone receptor modulator CDB-2915. Fertility and Sterility 2010;93:2035-2041

Note the years of the publication of the studies: 2007, 2011 and 2010. Compare that to your FDA citation dated 2006 with unspecified parts of it updated in 2009.
Respect71 wrote:
3 more to go, keep going.
If you're referring to your lies, you've grossly undercounted them.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2674 Jul 14, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text> You ask me about other circumstances that don’t relate to the institution of marriage,
Umm I hate to break this to you but if the guy opposes SSM it's about sexuality.

DOOFUS ALERT

twirl on.

But first will you address my questions?

Why does he endorse homosexuality by selling to gays and lesbians items other than wedding cakes, if his religious beliefs say homosexuality is wrong?

What harm did blacks have by being refused service?

What harm did Jews and Catholics suffer due to religious discrimination in public accommodations?

You are essentially excusing such discrimination with your mental gymnastics trying to hide your opposition to equal protection under the law.

You have given no reason why he should be exempt from following the same laws every other business in the State must follow.

I thought you agreed with the "will of the people" idea when it comes to passing laws.

You want the guy to get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card because he says it's only about SSM and not gays and lesbians as people.

Yup it's about marriage not the sexuality of the people being married.

(Are you having phone sex or are your logical processes always this amusing?)
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2675 Jul 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
And the Colorado Liberties Commission disregarded law so they could impose the same decision. Sadly it will continue until true Liberty is left.
No one can seem to explain the pain that was cause or the right that was removed by the baker when he reserved his cake for a husband and wife.
What law was "disregarded?" Was it a law that exists, or one found only in your mind?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2676 Jul 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text> You ask me about other circumstances that don’t relate to the institution of marriage, and yet, you can’t seem to answer how ONE baker removed the rights of this gay couple and caused them harm in any way, shape or from, by reserving a wedding cake for a husband and wife as a symbol of the institution of marriage?
So, how clueless are you?
The baker violated the gay couple's civil rights. Period.

Spin it however you can live with it.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2677 Jul 15, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Off-topic. Childish.
Do you think your post is particularly on topic or enlightening?

Tell me, Wondering, why do you defend those who break the law? That the baker broke the laws of the state of Colorado was never in question. At trial it was basically stipulated as a fact of the case. What possible rationale can you provide for defending those who admit to having broke the law?

This is why I call you an idiot.
Respect71 wrote:
Funny how telling the truth is misconstrued as disrespectful, and yet no arguments with exceptions of name calling.
No, advocating for those who break the law by discrimination is disrespectful. That you can't see that they broke the law is pathetic, as is your argument.

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
Yvonne Anderson of Ya Ya Services, Inc. 8 hr Pissed customer 2
News Man fatally stabs pit bull to stop dog fight (Aug '07) Sat bloodfleshbones 517
The horrible murder of Brandy Duvall. (Aug '11) Sat bloodfleshbones 64
Play the "end of the word" game (Jul '11) Feb 17 responsibility 4,304
Male on Female Facesitting topix? (Nov '16) Feb 17 Girl-Seat_Lover 49
... Feb 15 Help 1
Can-nabis-blue-dream-moon-rocks available Feb 12 Hemp oil 3

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages