Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 36375 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 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2757 Jul 23, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Observers have consistently found that 'gay rights' seem to trump all other rights and the constitution.
No, but they do trump phony rights like "I get to ignore any laws I want to because my religion says so."

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2758 Jul 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I know, right?! It’s so frustrating that the media chooses to omit information in favor of a personal agenda. It’s a disservice to all Americans.
There is nothing stopping the baker's lawyers from posting the information on their website. In fact, the links I provided came from there. And yet there is nothing available in written form regarding the allegations you've quoted. And these allegations aren't mentioned in the appeal of the Commission's confirmation of the judge's ruling. All of those things are wholly within the control of the baker's lawyers. If they fail to raise these as issues or errors in the proceedings, then one must conclude either the allegations did not actually occur or the lawyers are incompetent.
Respect71 wrote:
I can’t find anywhere that the Colorado Civil Liberties Commission has released a written order either… Which is concerning.
Nor did I but I don't know what the documentation requirements are in Colorado for a public hearing of that sort. Presumably one could request it under a Freedom of Information request. Regardless, the decision was communicated and the absence of a publicly available written order of the Commission's decision wasn't raised as an issue on appeal by the baker's lawyers.
Respect71 wrote:
The only thing I can find is a radio interview with Phillip’s Lawyer.
http://dancaplis.podbean.com/e/the-dan-caplis...
Personal opinions expressed in a radio interview do not prove or corroborate allegations. The fact these allegations were not raised in the appeal is rather impugning of their validity.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2759 Jul 23, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
The issue we are discussing is the INSTITUTION of marriage, and is it appropriate for government to force a WEDDING BUINESS to support and participate in an a ceremony of which they do not believe in.
Indeed. And that encompasses many things, including the fact all businesses are subject to government regulation as are our constitutional rights within the constitutional parameters as set forth by SCOTUS.
Respect71 wrote:
I will ask you this: Will you support the government forcing and punishing a gay graphic designer to make anti gay signs for the Westboro Baptist Church event? That falls within the public accommodation law.
Yes, gay owned graphic design businesses are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws that wedding vendor businesses are. Printing shirts with the Westboro church's name, for example, can't be refused if the reason given is they are Christians (as this discriminates on the basis of religion, which is a protected class of which the Westboro congregants are members).

On the other hand a request to print offensive language on the shirts being ordered can in fact be refused because, unlike a decorated cake that contains no written messages or even colors/symbols associated with a particular group or organization, that is legally considered compelled speech. While you, the baker and his lawyers obviously consider an iced cake with no writing or symbols as "speech" and artistic expression, courts generally have disagreed with that assertion. Hence the reason the infringement of free speech regiment has been rejected in this case and similar cases in other states.

There's also very specific standards regarding general laws that have incidental impact to religious beliefs/religiously motivated actions to determine whether the law can be enforced or not. And again, courts generally have agreed the incidental religious impact resulting from anti-discrimination laws are constitutionally permissible because there's a compelling government interest served by them.

The bottom line is neither you nor the baker nor the baker's lawyers are the arbiters of the meaning and interpretation of either the constitution or civil law; the courts are. And if you disagree with heir decisions, you can always exercise your constitutional right to petition government to redress that grievance. Which the baker is doing in part by appealing the decision. And if he ultimately loses in court, then he can lobby the state and/or federal governments for changes in the law to grant exemptions from compliance with certain laws.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2760 Jul 23, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
hahahahahah
ahahahahhaha
1. Never notified Phillips of statute violated
2. Never provided legal basis
3. Charged under the incorrect statute
Are you kidding me with this crap?
It's telling that none of these issues were raised by the baker's lawyers in the appeal they just filed.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2761 Jul 24, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, no rebuttal from you. Just another "you're wrong".
<quoted text>
That doesn't make a lick of sense. Leviticus contains many rul
lol, I haven't? So all Jews Christians have held the exact same positions for thousands of years? All the slave-owner Christians of the past didn't exist? All the anti-suffrage Christians of the past didn't exist?
Just look at RIGHT NOW: many Christians strongly support gay marriage while many others
strongly oppose it. It is undeniable that Christians hold views that are a mix of their religion and secular values.
<quoted text>
You haven't refuted what the verse says even ONCE. And you've got it backwards: Confederates used the Bible to justify owning slaves because the Bible says it's okay.
The god of the OT explicitly says it's okay and even Jesus never says otherwise.
<quoted text>
Here are some I think are quite valuable though: freedom, compassion, reason, understanding, knowledge, safety, peace. They don't "come" from anywhere; they're natural traits. We can use reason and evidence to find the actions that best promote them.
“The Bible has many purposes, but we're only discussing one verse at the moment. Stop trying to distract from the topic.” That is the topic. You are citing ONE verse from the entire Bible of which you know very little about Just like the Confederates.
“lol, I haven't? So all Jews Christians have held the exact same positions for thousands of years? All the slave-owner Christians of the past didn't exist? All the anti-suffrage Christians of the past didn't exist?”“What document on earth SHOWS that Jews and Christians mix with “secular values” and where do these “secular values” come from? If you can’t provide documentation than you’re spewing drivel.

“Just look at RIGHT NOW: many Christians strongly support gay marriage while many others strongly oppose it. It is undeniable that Christians hold views that are a mix of their religion and secular values.” Cite your source. Otherwise you’re spewing drivel.

“You haven't refuted what the verse says even ONCE. And you've got it backwards: Confederates used the Bible to justify owning slaves because the Bible says it's okay.” That’s what you’re claiming right? And you believe the God of the Bible wants Jews and Christians to own slaves, correct. I am telling you that it was Christians who know God, and the Bible of its entirety who fought to abolish slavery and history backs up my statement. YOU are like the confederates, trying to apply a very small part of the Bible to justify slavery when Jews and Christians understand the Truth of the Bible where God says to love Him and them to Love others… NOT OWN SLAVES.

“The god of the OT explicitly says it's okay and even Jesus never says otherwise.” He did… He gave his creation the two greatest commandments. Matthew 22:37-40New International Version (NIV) Jesus replied:“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it:‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Which part of this states,“you may own each other”?
“Here are some I think are quite valuable though: freedom,” Freedom from what or from who?“compassion,” For what or for who?“reason, understanding, knowledge,” Of what and of who?“safety,” Interesting.“peace.” Of what and from who?“They don't "come" from anywhere; they're natural traits.” I’m sorry what? Natural traits? What happened to your idea that people are boron knowing nothing? If these are natural traits than why do humans war throughout all of human history?
“We can use reason and evidence to find the actions that best promote them.” And say words that sound like they mean something but truly are meaningless.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2762 Jul 24, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's go from the distraction you're trying to make? I don't think so.
The topic was whether or not the drugs in the HL case caused abortions. They do not. Both you and HL were factually wrong.
Based on your “secular values” of the definition, of which you admit come from nowhere.

Secularism has been the most destructive force of human kind, for the reason your state,“They don't "come" from anywhere;” so ALL is relative… and history supports my assertion.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2763 Jul 24, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, the courts have consistently found that anti-discrimination laws do not hamper free exercise. What else have you got? Baking a cake for someone who holds different views doesn't infringe upon free exercise.
It does, when they ask them to support and participate in that of which they don’t believe.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2764 Jul 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
hahahahahah
ahahahahhaha
1. Never notified Phillips of statute violated
2. Never provided legal basis
3. Charged under the incorrect statute
Are you kidding me with this crap?
Fine, ignore the facts.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2765 Jul 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Cake baking is not, and never has been considered a religious practice.
The purchase of a wedding cake has never been considered a right.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2766 Jul 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
This is about public accommodation law, not marriage.
Then it becomes a First Amendment issue.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2767 Jul 24, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Observers have consistently found that 'gay rights' seem to trump all other rights and the constitution.
That’s a surprise… I was there it’s a first hand account.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2768 Jul 24, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. And that encompasses many things, including the fact all businesses are subject to government regulation as are our constitutional rights within the constitutional parameters as set forth by SCOTUS.
<quoted text>
Yes, gay owned graphic design businesses are subject to the same anti-discrimination laws that wedding vendor businesses are. Printing shirts with the Westboro church's name, for example, can't be refused if the reason given is they are Christians (as this discriminates on the basis of religion, which is a protected class of which the Westboro congregants are members).
On the other hand a request to print offensive language on the shirts being ordered can in fact be refused because, unlike a decorated cake that contains no written messages or even colors/symbols associated with a particular group or organization, that is legally considered compelled speech. While you, the baker and his lawyers obviously consider an iced cake with no writing or symbols as "speech" and artistic expression, courts generally have disagreed with that assertion. Hence the reason the infringement of free speech regiment has been rejected in this case and similar cases in other states.
There's also very specific standards regarding general laws that have incidental impact to religious beliefs/religiously motivated actions to determine whether the law can be enforced or not. And again, courts generally have agreed the incidental religious impact resulting from anti-discrimination laws are constitutionally permissible because there's a compelling government interest served by them.
The bottom line is neither you nor the baker nor the baker's lawyers are the arbiters of the meaning and interpretation of either the constitution or civil law; the courts are. And if you disagree with heir decisions, you can always exercise your constitutional right to petition government to redress that grievance. Which the baker is doing in part by appealing the decision. And if he ultimately loses in court, then he can lobby the state and/or federal governments for changes in the law to grant exemptions from compliance with certain laws.
Eventually a case will make it to SCOTUS and will be found that the wedding industry will be allowed discretion, just like churches, in regards to the support and participation of a marriage institution.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2769 Jul 24, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
It does, when they ask them to support and participate in that of which they don’t believe.
Sorry, kiddo, providing a service to a person who holds differing beliefs in no way infringes upon the religious freedom of the proprietor. Feel free to offer a detailed argument of how it does. I will be more than happy to dissect and refute your misconceptions.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2770 Jul 24, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Eventually a case will make it to SCOTUS and will be found that the wedding industry will be allowed discretion, just like churches, in regards to the support and participation of a marriage institution.
Sorry, kiddo, eventually the US Supreme Court will wake up and offer a decision that religious freedom is a personal, not institutional choice. If the baker, photographer, florist, etc doesn't approve of same sex marriage, they have the right not to enter into such a union. They don't have the right to deny services to those who do. These businesses are places of public accommodation and are beholden to provide services to anyone who would frequent them, they have no inherent right to discriminate, nor does providing service in any way infringe upon the free exercise of religion of the proprietors.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2771 Jul 24, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
That is the topic. You are citing ONE verse from the entire Bible of which you know very little about Just like the Confederates.
The topic is the Bible and slavery. We are focusing on one verse which is explicitly pro-slavery. You REFUSE to address this verse.
Respect71 wrote:
What document on earth SHOWS that Jews and Christians mix with “secular values” and where do these “secular values” come from? If you can’t provide documentation than you’re spewing drivel.
What document is necessary? I asked you questions and you didn't answer them. So all Jews Christians have held the exact same positions for thousands of years? All the slave-owner Christians of the past didn't exist? All the anti-suffrage Christians of the past didn't exist?
Respect71 wrote:
“Just look at RIGHT NOW: many Christians strongly support gay marriage while many others strongly oppose it. It is undeniable that Christians hold views that are a mix of their religion and secular values.” Cite your source. Otherwise you’re spewing drivel.
Is this a joke? Here you go: gay marriage support is over 50% in America. The percentage of Americans who are Christian is around 70%. Therefore, some Christians support gay marriage. Other Christians oppose gay marriage.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriag...
Respect71 wrote:
That’s what you’re claiming right? And you believe the God of the Bible wants Jews and Christians to own slaves, correct.
Incorrect. The god of the Bible accepts slavery. This doesn't mean it's expected.
Respect71 wrote:
I am telling you that it was Christians who know God, and the Bible of its entirety who fought to abolish slavery and history backs up my statement.
History backs up my statement that the slaveowners were Christians who knew the Bible in
its entirety.
Respect71 wrote:
YOU are like the confederates, trying to apply a very small part of the Bible to justify slavery when Jews and Christians understand the Truth of the Bible where God says to love Him and them to Love others… NOT OWN SLAVES.
The Bible NEVER says not to own slaves and in numerous places say you CAN own slaves. You are simply lying.
Respect71 wrote:
“The god of the OT explicitly says it's okay and even Jesus never says otherwise.” He did… He gave his creation the two greatest commandments. Matthew 22:37-40New International Version (NIV) Jesus replied:“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it:‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Which part of this states,“you may own each other”?
Jesus NEVER spoke out against slavery, despite talking about it.

In fact, Jesus even makes it clear in 1 Timothy 6:1-2 that believers can be slaveowners.
Respect71 wrote:
“Here are some I think are quite valuable though: freedom,” Freedom from what or from who?“compassion,” For what or for who?“reason, understanding, knowledge,” Of what and of who?“safety,” Interesting.“peace.” Of what and from who?“They don't "come" from anywhere; they're natural traits.” I’m sorry what? Natural traits? What happened to your idea that people are boron knowing nothing?
They're general ideas that humans experience over time. A baby has no conscious understanding of freedom or peace.
Respect71 wrote:
If these are natural traits than why do humans war throughout all of human history?
Because people don't promote them.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2772 Jul 24, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“We can use reason and evidence to find the actions that best promote them.” And say words that sound like they mean something but truly are meaningless.
They're very meaningful if you put an ounce of though into them. Do you value safety? Then you can analyze whether a certain action, or law, or public policy improves safety. You do this with reason and evidence.

I'm sorry if this is a complicated concept for someone whose moral system simply involves reading a book and following whatever it says, no matter how absurd.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2773 Jul 24, 2014
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Cake baking is not, and never has been considered a religious practice.
My religion says you can bake gay cakes. It's the Frankie Religion, small in number (just me) but a religion nonetheless! "Verily go onto the land and baketh all manner of cakes, for anyone. And they baketh gay cakes and he saw that and said that it was good," (Jackass 1:23)

And his religion says you cannot bake gay cakes. "Verily I say do not baketh a gay cake. And they didn't baketh gay cakes and he saw that it was good."

You know how religious dogma is, even if interpreted wrong. Don't do this or you're going to hell. If you sincerely believe that, whatcha gonna do?
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2774 Jul 24, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, providing a service to a person who holds differing beliefs in no way infringes upon the religious freedom of the proprietor.
That's for the proprietor to decide. Hey, what happened to free will? You change you mind quicker than the weather changes in New England. Now that's hypocrisy.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2775 Jul 24, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on your “secular values” of the definition, of which you admit come from nowhere.
Definitions aren't based on "secular values". Now you're just spewing word salad in an attempt to be clever.

The definition of abortion is based on a basic science-based principle: pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus. Actions which end pregnancy are considered abortions.
Respect71 wrote:
Secularism has been the most destructive force of human kind, for the reason your state,
Why don't you take a look at secular countries in the world (US, Canada, Western Europe, etc) versus theocratic ones (the Middle East, Israel, Africa) and tell me which you'd rather live in.
Respect71 wrote:
“They don't "come" from anywhere;” so ALL is relative… and history supports my assertion.
You've got it backwards. Secular values are based on principles. Religious values are arbitrary. That's why you worship a god who condoned slavery, rape, and genocide.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2776 Jul 24, 2014
lides wrote:
If the baker, photographer, florist, etc doesn't approve of same sex marriage,
Approval is secondary. It's their religion and their right to free exercise. I think it's great that the supreme court recognizes that.

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
last post wins! (Feb '11) 12 min _FLATLINE-------- 25,937
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 33 min Respect71 23,312
Wells Fargo J walking 17th and Sherman 1 hr dick 3
News Police probe ties between drive-by, stabbing (Sep '07) 8 hr NsL 14 sK 21
Memorial Day 19 hr tbird19482 3
Employment with Rite Of Passage, Inc (ROP) (Jan '11) Mon Student athlete 4
Event Rents {poor guest service/employee morale} Sun Lol 14
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages