Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 57487 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

#2678 Jul 15, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think your post is particularly on topic or enlightening?
Not that one. It was, however, of equal or greater value than 99.9% of yours.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2679 Jul 15, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Logic, experience, empathy, happiness, health.
<quoted text>
Try Lamon or Herndon.
“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.” What God is saying directly to a Jewish/Christian believer, and in what context does it sit within the entire book? Better yet what’s the purpose of the Bible, what is God’s purpose of the Bible?
 
“You literally only told me that I was wrong. There was no argument alongside it.” You are wrong, because you are using one verse from the Bible to justify slavery.  With that strategy you can justify ANY behavior you want, whether it’s good or evil. 
 
“You simply cannot refute the fact that the god of the Bible explicitly supports slavery.”  It does not…  God explicitly speaks to slavery because of the sin nature of man, but you wouldn’t know that because to you humans are born knowing nothing.  So how far from that are you?

&#8232;“I already refuted this notion. Christians have adopted modern secular values that oppose slavery.”  Yet you have NO stats to support that statement…  In fact history shows that “secular values” have what been far more destructive to humanity than Judeo-Christian Values.&#8232;
“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?”  No…  Are you claiming all secularists and non-religious persons from the 1st century to now who own slaves don’t have “reason”?
 
Slavery has been the practice of the WORLD population for centuries…  Christianity was the primary cause of abolition of the centuries old practice.
 
“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.”  So therefore what?
 
“Try Lamon or Herndon.”  Lemon was a friend and body guard for the President and in his biography said,“he was not a Christian in the orthodox sense of the term, yet he was as conscientiously religious as any man.” Do you know what the “orthodox sense of the term,” means?  Noah Brooks was a biographer and  friend of Lincoln and stated,“I will state that I have had many conversations with Mr. Lincoln, which were more or less of a religious character, and while I never tried to draw anything like a statement of his views from him, yet he freely expressed himself to me as having 'a hope of blessed immortality through Jesus Christ.' His views seemed to settle so naturally around that statement, that I considered no other necessary. His language seemed not that of an inquirer, but of one who had a prior settled belief in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion.” 
As for Herndon, I haven’t read his biography.

Truly all for a different thread.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/arvada-co/T97...

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2680 Jul 15, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Hysterical you qualify you statement with,“the normal definition”.
You still have 3 more forms...
Regardless... The it is not the government’s place to force American businesses to pay for a supply these forms of birth control... In fact it used to be the responsibility of the American to choose and pay for their own birth control.... BUT again a different thread.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/arvada-co/T97...

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2681 Jul 15, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>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?)
“Umm I hate to break this to you but if the guy opposes SSM it's about sexuality.” I hate to break this to you, it’s about the institution of marriage and what it means to him. You make it about sexuality because apparently that’s the important part to you.

“Why does he endorse homosexuality by selling to gays and lesbians items other than wedding cakes, if his religious beliefs say homosexuality is wrong?” The question isn’t clear... The facts in the case are he serves baked good to the gay community and reserves the wedding cake for husbands and wives because of the belief in the institution of marriage.

“What harm did blacks have by being refused service?” Degradation, because of the amount of business and public places that didn’t allow it based on the color of their skin.

“What harm did Jews and Catholics suffer due to religious discrimination in public accommodations?” Be specific please... Hitler killed many Jews and Stalin killed even more Christians so the harm is self explanatory.

“You are essentially excusing such discrimination with your mental gymnastics trying to hide your opposition to equal protection under the law.” No... I respect that gays want to be “gay married” and support that and I respect a bakers belief in the institution of marriage as being between a husband and wife. they all have equal protections it just you’re ager towards people who don’t accept “gay marriage” as a institution, that skews your judgment.

“You have given no reason why he should be exempt from following the same laws every other business in the State must follow.” Because of the First Amendment of these United States the baker is free to contribute and celebrate the institution of his choosing. It’s not up to government to force him to support and participate in a institution that you think he should support.

“I thought you agreed with the "will of the people" idea when it comes to passing laws.” Not sure how you came up with that idea?

“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.” It is the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of ALL Americans to support and participate in institutions of THEIR choosing, not for our government to decide.

“Yup it's about marriage not the sexuality of the people being married.” That’s the problem with this case, it’s skewed by the left as a SEXUALITY thing when it’s about marriage and family values.

“(Are you having phone sex or are your logical processes always this amusing?)”...

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2682 Jul 15, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
What law was "disregarded?" Was it a law that exists, or one found only in your mind?
I explained it to you many times and the Colorado Civil Liberties Commission admitted they ignored the law based on “technicality”.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2683 Jul 15, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
The baker violated the gay couple's civil rights. Period.
Spin it however you can live with it.
The baker LITERALLY did noting to harm injure, and didn’t even judge the gay couple... he politely declined and the gay couple got vulgar toward he baker and tried to sue him.

These are facts.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2684 Jul 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“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.” What God is saying directly to a Jewish/Christian believer, and in what context does it sit within the entire book?
 
I already told you. He is telling the Israelites how to practice slavery.
Respect71 wrote:
You are wrong, because you are using one verse from the Bible to justify slavery.  
I can provide other pro-slavery verses if needed, but I wanted you to focus on this one. If you can't refute ONE, there's no need to involve the rest.
Respect71 wrote:
With that strategy you can justify ANY behavior you want, whether it’s good or evil.
Absurd. You can't justify worshiping idols because worshiping idols is specifically prohibited. Practicing slavery is specifically allowed.
 
Respect71 wrote:
God explicitly speaks to slavery because of the sin nature of man, but you wouldn’t know that because to you humans are born knowing nothing. 
Why does God specifically tell the Israelites that they can practice slavery? Why not tell them NOT to?
Respect71 wrote:
&#8232;“I already refuted this notion. Christians have adopted modern secular values that oppose slavery.”  Yet you have NO stats to support that statement…  In fact history shows that “secular values” have what been far more destructive to humanity than Judeo-Christian Values.&#8232;
I gave you specific examples, which you completely ignored: slavery, women's rights, gay rights. All undeniable examples of issues which a huge majority of Christians were on one side of, and later on moved to the other side.
Respect71 wrote:
No…  Are you claiming all secularists and non-religious persons from the 1st century to now who own slaves don’t have “reason”?
They have reason; they're just selfish people. 
Respect71 wrote:
Slavery has been the practice of the WORLD population for centuries…  Christianity was the primary cause of abolition of the centuries old practice.
No, it wasn't, because the Christian god is explicitly pro-slavery, as I have shown.
 
Respect71 wrote:
“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.”  So therefore what?
So therefore your examples are meaningless.
 
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2685 Jul 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hysterical you qualify you statement with,“the normal definition”.
Why is it hysterical to point out that Hobby Lobby is using a non-standard definition? The normal definition of abortion is an action that ends a pregnancy. The HL definition is an action that ends a pregnancy or prevents a fertilized egg from implanting.
Respect71 wrote:
You still have 3 more forms...
3 more forms of what?
Respect71 wrote:
Regardless... The it is not the government’s place to force American businesses to pay for a supply these forms of birth control... In fact it used to be the responsibility of the American to choose and pay for their own birth control.... BUT again a different thread.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/arvada-co/T97...
Yeah, I understand your desire to move away from this topic that you were clearly wrong on.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2686 Jul 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I explained it to you many times and the Colorado Civil Liberties Commission admitted they ignored the law based on “technicality”.
That's just another of your lies.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2687 Jul 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The baker LITERALLY did noting to harm injure, and didn’t even judge the gay couple...
Yes, literally doing nothing did in fact harm the gay couple by violating their civil rights. Refusing service to members of the general public who were also members of a protected class violated Colorado anti-discmination law and violated the civil rights of the couple seeking a wedding cake. Violation of one's civil rights is a legally recognized harm whether you think so or not.
Respect71 wrote:
he politely declined and the gay couple got vulgar toward he baker
Not according to the Administrative Law Judge's finding of facts which are listed in his ruling as undisputed by either party. His findings indicated the gay couple simply got up and left. Obviously you felt compelled to lie. Again.
Respect71 wrote:
and tried to sue him.
Actually, they filed a complaint of sexual orientation discrimination against the baker with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It was a proceeding under administrative law.
Respect71 wrote:
These are facts.
They may be your "facts" but they are certainly not THE facts.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2688 Jul 15, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“Umm I hate to break this to you but if the guy opposes SSM it's about sexuality.” I hate to break this to you, it’s about the institution of marriage and what it means to him. You make it about sexuality because apparently that’s the important part to you.
“Why does he endorse homosexuality by selling to gays and lesbians items other than wedding cakes, if his religious beliefs say homosexuality is wrong?” The question isn’t clear... The facts in the case are he serves baked good to the gay community and reserves the wedding cake for husbands and wives because of the belief in the institution of marriage.
“What harm did blacks have by being refused service?” Degradation, because of the amount of business and public places that didn’t allow it based on the color of their skin.
“What harm did Jews and Catholics suffer due to religious discrimination in public accommodations?” Be specific please... Hitler killed many Jews and Stalin killed even more Christians so the harm is self explanatory.
“You are essentially excusing such discrimination with your mental gymnastics trying to hide your opposition to equal protection under the law.” No... I respect that gays want to be “gay married” and support that and I respect a bakers belief in the institution of marriage as being between a husband and wife. they all have equal protections it just you’re ager towards people who don’t accept “gay marriage” as a institution, that skews your judgment.
“You have given no reason why he should be exempt from following the same laws every other business in the State must follow.” Because of the First Amendment of these United States the baker is free to contribute and celebrate the institution of his choosing. It’s not up to government to force him to support and participate in a institution that you think he should support.
“I thought you agreed with the "will of the people" idea when it comes to passing laws.” Not sure how you came up with that idea?
“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.” It is the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT of ALL Americans to support and participate in institutions of THEIR choosing, not for our government to decide.
“Yup it's about marriage not the sexuality of the people being married.” That’s the problem with this case, it’s skewed by the left as a SEXUALITY thing when it’s about marriage and family values.
“(Are you having phone sex or are your logical processes always this amusing?)”...
Best dance moves I've seen on Topix.

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2689 Jul 16, 2014
Wondering wrote:
Not that one. It was, however, of equal or greater value than 99.9% of yours.
Come back to the topic, Wondering. You are much more amusing when you are ineptly attempting to defend the indefensible. Your support of those who break the law is hysterical, and constantly brings to light your lack of prowess in debate.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2691 Jul 16, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Come back to the topic, Wondering. You are much more amusing when you are ineptly attempting to defend the indefensible. Your support of those who break the law is hysterical, and constantly brings to light your lack of prowess in debate.
You are hilarious! I can't wait until this weeks editions of "lides Friday Funnies."

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2692 Jul 16, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Come back to the topic, Wondering. You are much more amusing when you are ineptly attempting to defend the indefensible. Your support of those who break the law is hysterical, and constantly brings to light your lack of prowess in debate.
Yup. Much like Respect71 and Frankie Dizzso.

It always the same



enjoy

lides

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2693 Jul 17, 2014
Wondering wrote:
You are hilarious! I can't wait until this weeks editions of "lides Friday Funnies."
I love allowing you to display how unintelligent you are.

You never disappoint. Quite frankly, it's pathetic that someone would so consistently demean themselves.

Tell me wondering, why do you defend the lawless?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2694 Jul 17, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
I love allowing you to display how unintelligent you are.
You never disappoint. Quite frankly, it's pathetic that someone would so consistently demean themselves.
Tell me wondering, why do you defend the lawless?
More childish off-topic drivel. That baker is now a "person" with "religious rights."
Should be interesting.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2695 Jul 17, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
 
I already told you. He is telling the Israelites how to practice slavery.
<quoted text>
I can provide other pro-slavery verses if needed, but I wanted you to focus on this one. If you can't refute ONE, there's no need to involve the rest.
<quoted text>
Absurd. You can't justify worshiping idols because worshiping idols is specifically prohibited. Practicing slavery is specifically allowed.
 
<quoted text>
Why does God specifically tell the Israelites that they can practice slavery? Why not tell them NOT to?
<quoted text>
I gave you specific examples, which you completely ignored: slavery, women's rights, gay rights. All undeniable examples of issues which a huge majority of Christians were on one side of, and later on moved to the other side.
<quoted text>
They have reason; they're just selfish people. 
<quoted text>
No, it wasn't, because the Christian god is explicitly pro-slavery, as I have shown.
 
<quoted text>
So therefore your examples are meaningless.
 
“I already told you. He is telling the Israelites how to practice slavery.” You continue to remove the context of the verse that is framed. Why is that? Is it that you have no understanding or you understand you you want to be dishonest to support your stance?

“I can provide other pro-slavery verses if needed, but I wanted you to focus on this one. If you can't refute ONE, there's no need to involve the rest.” You can use as many verses as you want out of context but it doesn’t change the purpose of the Bible. Do you know the purpose of the Bible?

“Practicing slavery is specifically allowed.” So says the person with out of context verses and NO examples of Jews or Christians owning slaves. In fact Christian values were the primary CAUSE of abolition.

“Why does God specifically tell the Israelites that they can practice slavery? Why not tell them NOT to?” Do you know and understand the purpose of the Bible?

“I gave you specific examples, which you completely ignored: slavery, women's rights, gay rights. All undeniable examples of issues which a huge majority of Christians were on one side of, and later on moved to the other side.” Cite your source. In fact history shows that “secular values” have what been far more destructive to humanity than Judeo-Christian values, which abolished slavery in the US, helped women, civil rights (Dr. Martin Luther King was a Christian, or will you claim he wasn’t?), and made a great Country for gays to flourish without persecution.

“No, it wasn't, because the Christian god is explicitly pro-slavery, as I have shown.” Cite your source.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2696 Jul 17, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it hysterical to point out that Hobby Lobby is using a non-standard definition? The normal definition of abortion is an action that ends a pregnancy. The HL definition is an action that ends a pregnancy or prevents a fertilized egg from implanting.
<quoted text>
3 more forms of what?
<quoted text>
Yeah, I understand your desire to move away from this topic that you were clearly wrong on.
So how do you define Abortion? As murder?

Contraception

Only stating what most Americans want to state… The Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby allowing religious freedom which you said you ‘love”d.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2697 Jul 17, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
That's just another of your lies.
Were you there? It is absolutely true!

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2698 Jul 17, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, literally doing nothing did in fact harm the gay couple by violating their civil rights. Refusing service to members of the general public who were also members of a protected class violated Colorado anti-discmination law and violated the civil rights of the couple seeking a wedding cake. Violation of one's civil rights is a legally recognized harm whether you think so or not.
<quoted text>
Not according to the Administrative Law Judge's finding of facts which are listed in his ruling as undisputed by either party. His findings indicated the gay couple simply got up and left. Obviously you felt compelled to lie. Again.
<quoted text>
Actually, they filed a complaint of sexual orientation discrimination against the baker with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It was a proceeding under administrative law.
<quoted text>
They may be your "facts" but they are certainly not THE facts.
“Yes, literally doing nothing did in fact harm the gay couple by violating their civil rights.Refusing service to members of the general public who were also members of a protected class violated Colorado anti-discmination law and violated the civil rights of the couple seeking a wedding cake. Violation of one's civil rights is a legally recognized harm whether you think so or not.” Gays are a “protected class”, meaning they have MORE RIGHTS than a husband and wife couple?

“Not according to the Administrative Law Judge's finding of facts which are listed in his ruling as undisputed by either party. His findings indicated the gay couple simply got up and left. Obviously you felt compelled to lie. Again.” Many saw and news report where the gay guy stated,“ I may or may not have flipped him the bird.”
“They may be your "facts" but they are certainly not THE facts.” They are and they blatantly disregard the First Amendment of our Constitution.

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
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) 15 hr good hacker here 743
Denver co sex right now! (May '15) Tue great huh 8
Male on Female Facesitting topix? (Nov '16) Tue Girl-seat 25
Red Dot Storage Oct 16 Doug 4
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) Oct 15 tbird19482 29,997
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