Colo. gay discrimination alleged over...

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

There are 38723 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.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2777 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.
I agree that this issue will likely land before SCOTUS at some point in the future, particularly since many people with your views are ignoring key aspects of the recent Hobby Lobby ruling. It does not provide open ended support for the concept of businesses being able to assert religious beliefs as an excuse to ignore or seek exemption from laws. To allow that would enable people to to turn back the clock on decades of effort to eliminate discrimination and protect minorities.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2778 Jul 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Because of the nature of the institution of marriage, it will be found the wedding industry will have the same discretion as churches, because of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The government cannot force any one or any business to support and participate in a institution they do not believe in, therefore wedding industry will have to be exempt from accommodation law.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2779 Jul 25, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The topic is the Bible and slavery. We are focusing onoesn't mean it's expected.
<quoted text>
History backs up my statement that the slaveowners were Christians who knew the Bible in
its entirety.
<quoted text>
The Bible NEVER says not to own slaves and in numerous places say you CAN own slaves. You are simply lying.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
They're general ideas that humans experience over time. A baby has no conscious understanding of freedom or peace.
<quoted text>
Because people don't promote them.
“The topic is the Bible and slavery. We are focusing on one verse which is explicitly pro-slavery. You REFUSE to address this verse.” You refuse the acknowledge the rest of the Bible.

“What document is necessary?” One that supports your claim the Christians and Jews are following secular values.
“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?” All existed... and all had to deal with the immorality, until a time came when Christians were able to change the world practice and abolish slavery. That’s what history shows us.

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.

“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 ...” So therefore what?

“Incorrect. The god of the Bible accepts slavery. This doesn't mean it's expected.” LOL… The extent of which you know the God of the Bible doesn’t go past one verse. You know me better than you know the God of the Bible, and that’s a more than a little sad.

“History backs up my statement that the slaveowners were Christians who knew the Bible in its entirety.” And the ENTIRE world practiced slavery, INCLUDING secular societies.

“The Bible NEVER says not to own slaves and in numerous places say you CAN own slaves. You are simply lying.” You are simply being ignorant.

“Jesus NEVER spoke out against slavery, despite talking about it.” Are you denying the two greatest commandments?

“In fact, Jesus even makes it clear in 1 Timothy 6:1-2 that believers can be slaveowners.” Jesus does?! The fact that you posted this shows more of your blatant ignorance.

“They're general ideas that humans experience over time. A baby has no conscious understanding of freedom or peace.” You once posted,“Secular values are far superior to religious ones, which are wholly arbitrary.” And later posted the “secular values”“They don't "come" from anywhere;” There is nothing more arbitrary that you very statement.

“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.” Then shall we make driving cars illegal because they are too unsafe or are your “Secular values are far [too] superior” to make that kind of judgment.

“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.” I’m not sorry. I can point to who and what forms my moral and ethical values while all you can claim about your values is “They don't "come" from anywhere;”

History shows “secular values” have been far more destructive to humanity than any force on earth.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2780 Jul 25, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
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.
“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.” And a fertilized egg that is prevented from implanting is NOT considered abortion based on your definition, and your “secular value”.

“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.” Why are you trying to distract from the fact that history shows “secular values” have been far more destructive to humanity than any force on earth.

“You've got it backwards. Secular values are based on principles.” Principles from where? Who?
“Religious values are arbitrary. That's why you worship a god who condoned slavery, rape, and genocide.” LOL… That’s why I can point to a God who loves His creation and desires a relationship and for His creation to have meaningful relationships… Far from arbitrary.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#2781 Jul 25, 2014
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that this issue will likely land before SCOTUS at some point in the future, particularly since many people with your views are ignoring key aspects of the recent Hobby Lobby ruling. It does not provide open ended support for the concept of businesses being able to assert religious beliefs as an excuse to ignore or seek exemption from laws. To allow that would enable people to to turn back the clock on decades of effort to eliminate discrimination and protect minorities.
I disagree. It allows for ALL to be free and for those who value tradition family values to nature that while folks like you can nurture your value WITHOUT persecution.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2782 Jul 25, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“The topic is the Bible and slavery. We are focusing on one verse which is explicitly pro-slavery. You REFUSE to address this verse.” You refuse the acknowledge the rest of the Bible.
No, I don't. If you can show how the rest of the Bible changes the meaning of *that verse*, please do so.
Respect71 wrote:
One that supports your claim the Christians and Jews are following secular values.
I gave you numerous examples. Do you deny them?
Respect71 wrote:
All existed... and all had to deal with the immorality, until a time came when Christians were able to change the world practice and abolish slavery. That’s what history shows us.
How smokes you're delusional. They didn't have to "deal" with the immorality; they were the source of the immorality, and it was based on their religion.
Respect71 wrote:
So therefore Christians are integrating modern, secular values into their moral systems. Certainly Christianity cannot be both strongly pro-gay rights AND strongly anti-gay rights.
Respect71 wrote:
“Incorrect. The god of the Bible accepts slavery. This doesn't mean it's expected.” LOL… The extent of which you know the God of the Bible doesn’t go past one verse. You know me better than you know the God of the Bible, and that’s a more than a little sad.
There are many more Bible verses that support the practice of slavery. I am trying to focus on one so you don't attempt to derail the conversation. It isn't going very well because you refuse to address that verse. Why?
Respect71 wrote:
“History backs up my statement that the slaveowners were Christians who knew the Bible in its entirety.” And the ENTIRE world practiced slavery, INCLUDING secular societies.
Can you name some of these secular societies?
Respect71 wrote:
“The Bible NEVER says not to own slaves and in numerous places say you CAN own slaves. You are simply lying.” You are simply being ignorant.
How so? I've given you a verse that specifically says you CAN have slaves.
Respect71 wrote:
“Jesus NEVER spoke out against slavery, despite talking about it.” Are you denying the two greatest commandments?
No, but clearly he didn't apply them to the practice of slavery, or he would have condemned it, rather than telling slaves to be dutiful for their masters and telling masters not to mistreat slaves. He didn't recognize that slavery *itself* is mistreatment.
Respect71 wrote:
“In fact, Jesus even makes it clear in 1 Timothy 6:1-2 that believers can be slaveowners.” Jesus does?! The fact that you posted this shows more of your blatant ignorance.
Apologies, 1 Timothy is written by Paul.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2783 Jul 25, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
“They're general ideas that humans experience over time. A baby has no conscious understanding of freedom or peace.” You once posted,“Secular values are far superior to religious ones, which are wholly arbitrary.” And later posted the “secular values”“They don't "come" from anywhere;” There is nothing more arbitrary that you very statement.
I don't think you even know what arbitrary means.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.” Then shall we make driving cars illegal because they are too unsafe or are your “Secular values are far [too] superior” to make that kind of judgment.
No, we shall not make driving cars illegal because they have an immense amount of utility that offsets the danger of accidents. See? REASON
Respect71 wrote:
“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.” I’m not sorry. I can point to who and what forms my moral and ethical values while all you can claim about your values is “They don't "come" from anywhere;”
No, the concepts of freedom and peace, etc don't "come" from anywhere. Freedom just IS. Peace just IS.

Valuing them is based on reason.

And yes, you can point to who forms your moral and ethical values: primitive human beings who wrote down their opinions in a book. What a great source.
Respect71 wrote:
History shows “secular values” have been far more destructive to humanity than any force on earth.
How so? Tell me, how does valuing peace, compassion, safety, reason, knowledge, or any of the others things I mentioned lead to destruction?
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#2784 Jul 25, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“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.” And a fertilized egg that is prevented from implanting is NOT considered abortion based on your definition, and your “secular value”.
That has nothing to do with any secular values.

Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy. A fertilized egg floating around in the fallopian tubes is not a pregnancy.
Respect71 wrote:
“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.” Why are you trying to distract from the fact that history shows “secular values” have been far more destructive to humanity than any force on earth.
I'm not. Your statement is false.
Respect71 wrote:
“You've got it backwards. Secular values are based on principles.” Principles from where? Who?
Principles established by reason and experience.
Respect71 wrote:
“Religious values are arbitrary. That's why you worship a god who condoned slavery, rape, and genocide.” LOL… That’s why I can point to a God who loves His creation and desires a relationship and for His creation to have meaningful relationships… Far from arbitrary.
The god of the Bible cannot be considered loving by any reasonable definition. If any human behaves as the god of the Bible is said to, they'd be considered a monster. You only disagree because of your indoctrination.

And yes, completely arbitrary. IF the Bible said that wearing green shirts was evil, you would have to believe that wearing green shirts was evil. It's not based on any actual principles; it's simply declared. It's arbitrary.

I'm not sure why it's "LOL" funny that you worship a god who condoned slavery, rape, and genocide. That strikes me as sad.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2785 Jul 25, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
Because of the nature of the institution of marriage, it will be found the wedding industry will have the same discretion as churches, because of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
No, Respect, it won't. Because businesses are not churches and providing a service without discrimination in no way infringes upon free exercise of religion. Antidicrimination laws have routinely been upheld as being constitutional, and thus far, your side has been utterly incapable of articulating a rational argument that providing a service for someone with differing religious views in any way adversely impacts the free exercise of the proprietor. That is in part because claiming that there is such an adverse impact upon the proprietor's rights is patently absurd.
Respect71 wrote:
The government cannot force any one or any business to support and participate in a institution they do not believe in, therefore wedding industry will have to be exempt from accommodation law.
Sorry, kiddo, providing a service is neither an endorsement of, nor is it participation in the institution. They do not have to marry someone of the same sex if they feel that is wrong, but providing a cake, flowers, photography services, etc in no way infringes upon the rights of those business owners. Following your logic bigoted lunch counter owners could turn away black people, anti-Semites could deny service to Jews, and someone could refuse you service on the basis that they don't like your bigotry or find you stupid.

The wedding industry shall receive no such exemption, because there is no need for one.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2786 Jul 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Respect, it won't. Because businesses are not churches and providing a service without discrimination in no way infringes upon free exercise of religion. Antidicrimination laws have routinely been upheld as being constitutional, and thus far, your side has been utterly incapable of articulating a rational argument that providing a service for someone with differing religious views in any way adversely impacts the free exercise of the proprietor. That is in part because claiming that there is such an adverse impact upon the proprietor's rights is patently absurd.
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo, providing a service is neither an endorsement of, nor is it participation in the institution. They do not have to marry someone of the same sex if they feel that is wrong, but providing a cake, flowers, photography services, etc in no way infringes upon the rights of those business owners. Following your logic bigoted lunch counter owners could turn away black people, anti-Semites could deny service to Jews, and someone could refuse you service on the basis that they don't like your bigotry or find you stupid.
The wedding industry shall receive no such exemption, because there is no need for one.
Sorry kiddo, you're a jackass.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2787 Jul 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
Sorry kiddo, you're a jackass.
Says the fool who cannot count to three, and has ceased even so much as attempting to make a rational, thoughtful, or on topic comment.

Well played, half-wit.

“From a distance...”

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

Planet Earth

#2788 Jul 25, 2014
Respect71 wrote:
I disagree. It allows for ALL to be free and for those who value tradition family values to nature that while folks like you can nurture your value WITHOUT persecution.
If business owners need only assert "religious belief" to be exempt from compliance with anti-discrmination laws, then there is no legitimate way to draw the line to apply it only to wedding vendors. Either we have freedom of religion for everyone or we don't. This will enable any business owner refuse to sell goods or services to not only gays, but blacks, women, the disabled or whomever else is the target of one's prejudicial religious beliefs. Because such beliefs have been asserted in the past to justify slavery, segregation, denying women the right to vote, etc. That you personally don't share such religious beliefs and might not make such assertions doesn't change the fact others have in the past.
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2789 Jul 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the fool who cannot count to three, and has ceased even so much as attempting to make a rational, thoughtful, or on topic comment.
Well played, half-wit.
One Two Three. Well there goes your whole argument eh fruit loops?

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#2790 Jul 25, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
One Two Three. Well there goes your whole argument eh fruit loops?
Very good, Frankie.
Now, let's work on the next step. Would you say that the number three, and other numbers higher than three, are greater than, less than, or equal to two?
Frankie Rizzo

Hayward, CA

#2791 Jul 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good, Frankie.
Now, let's work on the next step. Would you say that the number three, and other numbers higher than three, are greater than, less than, or equal to two?
I know mathematics much better than you do. You will be thrown out of court if you tell a judge that he can't count good so therefore we should deny marriage equality.

You sill haven't explained what "greater" protection is Bunky. Because you cannot.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2792 Jul 25, 2014
lides wrote:
Would you say that the number three, and other numbers higher than three, are greater than, less than, or equal to two?
You seem to be stuck on that question. My family is more than two, do I get greater or equal protection? What's it to you? What a f'n idiot you are.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2793 Jul 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the fool who cannot count to three, and has ceased even so much as attempting to make a rational, thoughtful, or on topic comment.
Well played, half-wit.
Says the fool that can't explain why it makes a difference.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#2794 Jul 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Because businesses are not churches and providing a service without discrimination in no way infringes upon free exercise of religion.
Remember you said that. I know, you can't remember anything.
Rules for Radicals

Denver, CO

#2795 Jul 25, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the fool who cannot count to three, and has ceased even so much as attempting to make a rational, thoughtful, or on topic comment.
Well played, half-wit.
Topix toilet is never the time or place for thoughfulness or rationality?! Duh.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#2796 Jul 25, 2014
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Now closely held companies are people with religious rights.
2. I like cake, tell us more about cakes. Do you have a good devil's food cake recipe?
And the decision you cite specifically addresses the issue of your baker and ke still lost.

Man you are losing a lot lately. Must suck

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Denver Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 3 hr Trevet 24,645
(.R ox y Bulk!!) ku*sh !! 12 hr 3dpg 4
Nicole Dubois-Savage 18 hr UIAC 1
News Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) Tue Cyberrjesus 670
News Clinton's Transition Team: A Corporate Presiden... Tue vote for Jill Stein 1
got meds Tue Wheatridge co 4
Denver is one big traffic jam Tue NEMO 1

Denver Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Denver Mortgages