Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Denver Post 8,175

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

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.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2699 Jul 17, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Best dance moves I've seen on Topix.
What I think is most sad about your statements is you make SSM about sexuality.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2700 Jul 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
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 already told you the context. Now you are just being dishonest. If the context contradicted the meaning I am giving for the passage, then you would have pointed that out.

You haven't, because the context doesn't change the meaning at all. The context is God telling the Israelites how to practice slavery.
Respect71 wrote:
You can use as many verses as you want out of context but it doesn’t change the purpose of the Bible.
I have not used any verses out of context. I CHALLENGE YOU to show how I am quoting Leviticus 25:44 out of context.
Respect71 wrote:
“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?
Can you answer a question?
Respect71 wrote:
“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.
What specifically are you looking for a citation for? Are you denying that the majority of pro-slavery, anti-suffrage, and anti-gay rights people were Christians? Surely you can't be that ignorant.

Are you denying that the majority of Christians now are anti-slavery and pro-suffrage? Surely not. Are you denying that a large portion of Christians are now pro-gay rights, when virtually none were 50 years ago? Surely not.
Respect71 wrote:
“No, it wasn't, because the Christian god is explicitly pro-slavery, as I have shown.” Cite your source.
I already have.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#2701 Jul 17, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
More childish off-topic drivel. That baker is now a "person" with "religious rights."
Should be interesting.
Interesting. For years you have been stomping your foot about States Rights and now you want to ignore States Rights.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2702 Jul 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
So how do you define Abortion? As murder?
We're talking about definitions of actions that constitute abortion, not the legality of abortion itself.
Respect71 wrote:
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.
The Court ruled against contraception, not for religious freedom. If they were ruling for religious freedom, they'd have to throw out countless laws, because you can say ANY law contradicts your religious beliefs.

DNF

““Be guided by principles..."”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Baltimore

#2703 Jul 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
What I think is most sad about your statements is you make SSM about sexuality.
At least I'm not supporting discrimination against gays and lesbians and other minorities as you are.

I am not supporting ignoring the law.

That would be you and wondering.

Call me whatever names you wish. But you two are the ones advocating lawlessness.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2704 Jul 17, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
I already told you the context. Now you are just being dishonest. If the context contradicted the meaning I am giving for the passage, then you would have pointed that out.
You haven't, because the context doesn't change the meaning at all. The context is God telling the Israelites how to practice slavery.
<quoted text>
I have not used any verses out of context. I CHALLENGE YOU to show how I am quoting Leviticus 25:44 out of context.
<quoted text>
Can you answer a question?
<quoted text>
What specifically are you looking for a citation for? Are you denying that the majority of pro-slavery, anti-suffrage, and anti-gay rights people were Christians? Surely you can't be that ignorant.
Are you denying that the majority of Christians now are anti-slavery and pro-suffrage? Surely not. Are you denying that a large portion of Christians are now pro-gay rights, when virtually none were 50 years ago? Surely not.
<quoted text>
I already have.
“I already told you the context. Now you are just being dishonest. If the context contradicted the meaning I am giving for the passage, then you would have pointed that out.

You haven't, because the context doesn't change the meaning at all. The context is God telling the Israelites how to practice slavery.” The Context is EVERYTHING… Sad you hate Christians so badly that you choose to argue point like the confederacy.

“I have not used any verses out of context. I CHALLENGE YOU to show how I am quoting Leviticus 25:44 out of context.” Removing it from the context of the ENTIRE book of Leviticus.

“Can you answer a question?” God is the only One who can answer that question for you.
A great place to start is, do you know and understand the purpose of the Bible?

“What specifically are you looking for a citation for?” What publication are you getting your information from? You can’t just state “SECULAR VALUES” caused Abolition without showing some kind of evidence of that.

“Are you denying that the majority of pro-slavery, anti-suffrage, and anti-gay rights people were Christians? Surely you can't be that ignorant.” I am denying your far earlier statement that [“SECULAR VALUES” caused Abolition] and your denial of Christians causing abolition, woman’s suffrage, and a great Country for gays to flourish without persecution.

“Are you denying that the majority of Christians now are anti-slavery and pro-suffrage? Surely not.” Because of their Christian values and God Himself, there is nothing to deny.

“Are you denying that a large portion of Christians are now pro-gay rights, when virtually none were 50 years ago? Surely not.” Because of their Christian values and God Himself, there is nothing to deny, with the slight correction of INDIVIDUAL rights, not “gay rights”.

“I already have.” I’ve sifted through many of your posts and I am not seeing anything you have cited… Please do so again.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2705 Jul 17, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
We're talking about definitions of actions that constitute abortion, not the legality of abortion itself.
<quoted text>
The Court ruled against contraception, not for religious freedom. If they were ruling for religious freedom, they'd have to throw out countless laws, because you can say ANY law contradicts your religious beliefs.
We are talking about definitions themselves. Once they get skewed clarity is lost.
The Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby allowing religious freedom which you said you ‘love”d. That’s why definitions are important so there can be specific and clear lines between law, religious freedom, and what government can force you to door not to do.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2706 Jul 17, 2014
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>At least I'm not supporting discrimination against gays and lesbians and other minorities as you are.
I am not supporting ignoring the law.
That would be you and wondering.
Call me whatever names you wish. But you two are the ones advocating lawlessness.
“At least I'm not supporting discrimination against gays and lesbians and other minorities as you are.” No you are for religious discrimination, with a desire to fore a individual to support something you believe in and he does not.

“I am not supporting ignoring the law.” You are for laws the support religious discrimination and forcing an individual to support something you believe in.

“That would be you and wondering.”??? I have no wondering… What are you referring to?

“Call me whatever names you wish. But you two are the ones advocating lawlessness.”??? I never called you a name? I advocate individual freedom for ALL Americans NOT just for Americans that believe the same as you.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2707 Jul 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Were you there? It is absolutely true!
I've read the law. And I've read the Administrative Law Judge's ruling. The ruling is consistent with the law. On what technicality are you claiming the Commission ignored the law?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2708 Jul 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The Context is EVERYTHING
I'm not disagreeing. Are you ever going to tell me how I'm taking the verse out of context?

This is getting really repetitive and boring.

Me: The Bible god tells the Israelites "You may have slaves."
You: That's out of context! What's the context?
Me: The context is God telling the Israelites how to properly practice slavery.
You: That's out of context!
Me: How so?
You: That's out of context!
Respect71 wrote:
Removing it from the context of the ENTIRE book of Leviticus.
The context of the book of Leviticus is god giving commands for how to live. Within that context, he tells the Israelites that they may practice slavery.

You need to show how broadening the context *changes* the meaning of the verse and shows that I'm wrong.
Respect71 wrote:
“What specifically are you looking for a citation for?” What publication are you getting your information from?
You didn't answer the question. What are you looking for a citation for? I'm stating well-known facts. It's like if I said Obama was president and you said "Citation please!".
Respect71 wrote:
You can’t just state “SECULAR VALUES” caused Abolition without showing some kind of evidence of that.
Compassion for fellow man is a secular value. So is promotion of freedom.
Respect71 wrote:
I’ve sifted through many of your posts and I am not seeing anything you have cited… Please do so again.
Leviticus 25:44.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2709 Jul 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
We are talking about definitions themselves.
No, the legal status of abortion was not at issue in this conversation nor that case. All of the drugs in question, and abortion itself, are legal.

You are trying to divert the topic.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2710 Jul 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Gays are a “protected class”, meaning they have MORE RIGHTS than a husband and wife couple?
The protected class is "sexual orientation". So it includes protection from discrimination based on being heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual. Which means it covers EVERYONE if they're discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

It appears you have a poor understanding of how anti-discrimination laws actually work. Protected classes cover all variants of the protected class so no one has "more rights" than others. What typically happens is only certain variants of a class have historically been the target of discrimination so when people possessing that variant (such as homosexual) of the class (such as sexual orientation) are discriminated against and file a complaint, people like you erroneously jump to the conclusion that have "more rights" when in fact majority variants like heterosexuals are rarely discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.”[QUOTE who="Respect71"] Many saw and news report where the gay guy stated,“ I may or may not have flipped him the bird.”
The judge's finding of facts didn't state the gay couple employed a vulgar gesture nor did the baker or his legal counsel dispute that finding of fact.
Respect71 wrote:
They are and they blatantly disregard the First Amendment of our Constitution.
No they aren't and no they don't. You, like many Americans, are simply ignorant of the fact none of our fundamental rights, including freedom of religion, are absolute. ALL of them are subject to government regulation within allowed constitutional parameters as established by the Supreme Court. And fundamental rights like freedom of religion can be incidentally impacted by general laws that serve a compelling state interest that don't target religion specifically. In this case, the states compelling interest is ensuring equal access to public accommodations for all citizens.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2711 Jul 17, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
No you are for religious discrimination, with a desire to fore a individual to support something you believe in and he does not.
The gay couple simply asked the baker to bake a cake. You know, one of the services the baker purports to be in business to offer the general public. If the baker wishes to portray his business activities as an act of worship, that's his prerogative but the law is neither obligated to view it as such nor extend first amendment protection to that view just so the individual can pick and choose which laws and under what circumstances the individual will deign to obey and comply with the law.
Respect71 wrote:
You are for laws the support religious discrimination and forcing an individual to support something you believe in.
Baking a cake isn't an act of worship nor does baking a cake make one a participant in the activity for which a customer buys a cake. It's not religious discrimination to expect citizens to comply with general laws that apply to everyone that don't target religion specifically. Christians (nor any member of other religions) are not above the law.

The baker has determined he will comply with the law by no longer offering wedding cakes as part of the range of goods he sells since he is not willing to sell wedding cakes to all members of the general public as the law requires.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2712 Jul 18, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I explained it to you many times and the Colorado Civil Liberties Commission admitted they ignored the law based on “technicality”.
It's still a lie no matter how many times you repeat it.

Where and when did the Colorado Civil Liberties Commission say that? They didn't.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2713 Jul 18, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
What I think is most sad about your statements is you make SSM about sexuality.
Is there something about the concept of SAME SEX that escapes you?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2714 Jul 18, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
Baking a cake isn't an act of worship nor does baking a cake make one a participant in the activity for which a customer buys a cake.
But it does make one a participant. Just like your supermarket participates in feeding you.
Just like your dentist cleans your teeth. They are participants. Good news, the supreme court now defines these businesses as people with religious rights.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#2715 Jul 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
But it does make one a participant. Just like your supermarket participates in feeding you.
Just like your dentist cleans your teeth. They are participants. Good news, the supreme court now defines these businesses as people with religious rights.
The recent Hobby Lobby decision does NOTHING to change anti-discrimination laws.

The hired help are NOT participants.

“abstractions of thought...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#2716 Jul 18, 2014
Wondering wrote:
But it does make one a participant.
Nope. A baker merely sells goods How the customer uses that good is up to the customer. And the baker isn't involved in how the good is used after it leaves the store.
Wondering wrote:
Just like your supermarket participates in feeding you.
Nope. They merely sell goods. As a customer I can use them for any purpose I desire or simply throw them away or donate them to someone else. The super market neither knows nor has a say in it.
Wondering wrote:
Just like your dentist cleans your teeth.
That's a service. Services may or may not be used on the provider's premises. If used off site, the service provider must provide the service for a particular kind of event to any member of the general public requesting service for that type of event. Refusal to do so to a member of a protect class violates anti-discrmination law.
Wondering wrote:
They are participants.
When selling goods, no. When selling services, it depends. The key then becomes if you offer services for a particular type of event like a wedding, you must offer that event service to all members of the general public as a public accommodation.
Wondering wrote:
Good news, the supreme court now defines these businesses as people with religious rights.
The bad news is SCOTUS specifically stated in it's Hobby Lobby ruling that it did not apply to instances of discrimination in hiring or being a public accommodation.

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
Man takes legal action after Denver baker refus... 30 min Reverend Alan 301
Denver police fatally shoot teen girl suspect; ... 2 hr LEO 477 1
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 8 hr Bud 15,120
Gay/Bi teens in/near Denver, Colorado 10 hr cumslurperrr 34
last post wins! (Feb '11) 15 hr Hatti_Hollerand 24,929
~:Any Word:~ (Sep '13) 15 hr Hatti_Hollerand 41
Play the "end of the word" game (Jul '11) Mon Hannah Sera 4,226
Denver Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 8:52 pm PST

NBC Sports 8:52PM
Report: Texans D-line coach Bill Kollar to join Gary Kubiak in Denver
NBC Sports 3:16 AM
Report: Broncos reach out to Wade Phillips with defensive coordinator needed
NBC Sports 4:09 AM
Bears add two more assistants
Bleacher Report 6:03 AM
Is Balance of Power Shifting in AFC West?
Bleacher Report 7:42 AM
Kubiak the Right Coach, with or Without Peyton